Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!iuvax!maytag!watstat!dmurdoch
From: dmurdoch@watstat.uwaterloo.ca (Duncan Murdoch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Hi-Res VGA boards & Monitors
Message-ID: <1990Aug1.130405.25625@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Date: 1 Aug 90 13:04:05 GMT
References: <1990Jul27.052426.27554@nmt.edu> <1990Jul31.082455.9624@hawkmoon.MN.ORG>
Sender: daemon@maytag.waterloo.edu (Admin)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 17

In article <1990Jul31.082455.9624@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) writes:
>
>I would recommend choosing a monitor that supports a particular resolution when
>NOT interlaced.  I believe, for example, that the nec 3d is interlaced.

Strictly speaking, it's the video card that decides whether the image will be
interlaced or not.  However, there's a certain upper limit to the resolution
achievable on a given monitor in non-interlaced mode, and usually a higher limit
if interlacing is allowed.  The NEC 3D is perfectly capable of 800x600 
non-interlaced, and has a maximum rating of 960x720 (I think) non-interlaced.
It handles 1024x768 fine in interlaced mode, and is reportedly able to
handle it non-interlaced too:  I don't know, because my ATI VGA Wonder card
only provides the interlaced mode.

Has anyone else tried non-interlaced 1024x768 on a 3D?

Duncan Murdoch