Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!zib-berlin.de!news.tu-chemnitz.de!irz401!uriah.heep!not-for-mail From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Advice for low cost 17" monitor.. Date: 24 Jun 1995 13:31:54 +0200 Organization: Private FreeBSD site, Dresden. Lines: 34 Message-ID: <3sgt3b$7ca@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <3sg4me$fb1@blackice.winternet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: uriah.heep.sax.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jess Kodadek <kody@eclipse.winternet.com> wrote: >Any advice for decent 17" monitors that won't break the bank? Or am I >better off just getting a good quality 15" monitor for X? Whatever monitor >I get will be paired with either a Diamond Stealth 64 2MB or a ATI Graphics >Pro 64 2MB. Thanks. Have a look at the Sony 15sf. If it would have been available at the time when i've got my 17" monitor, i had prefered it. It's cheaper and can do almost the same like 17" monitors, i.e., 1024x768. -- Don't trust anybody promising you 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor, he's promising you a picture with the finest lines finer than the dot pitch. Take your pocket calculator, the screen width and the dot pitch, then you know the highest horizontal pixel count. (What they're promising is that they can catch up with the line frequency, but that's only one piece of the puzzle.) Example: my (17") monitor has a usable screen width of 315 mm and a dot pitch of 0.26 mm. The guaranteed usable screen width is only 288 mm however: j@uriah 94% bc scale = 3 315/0.26 1211.538 288/0.26 1107.692 Makes for guaranteed 1100 pixels and a theoretical maximum of 1200 pixels. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)