Xref: utzoo comp.os.os2.misc:127 comp.os.msdos.misc:145 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:975 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:1031 comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware:72
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!think!linus!philabs!ttidca!terence
From: terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware
Subject: 1024x768 monitors:  14" vs. 16+"
Message-ID: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 21 Aug 90 00:51:38 GMT
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica
Lines: 25


This morning I read some articles about the Sony CDP 1304 1024x768
non-interlaced 14" monitor.  I have decided to go the route of 1024x768
and need to choose a monitor.  My video board, a NEC Graphics Engine, will
do 1024x768 NI so I want a non-interlaced monitor.  That eliminated the
NEC 3D (which I don't like anyway).  But then there's the NEC 4D 16" and Sony
1304 14".  The NEC is ~$1150 mail order (~$1400 non-mail order) while the
Sony is ~$698 from stores around me.  If the resolution is the same, but
the area is different, shouldn't the same amount of information be displayable
on each screen (albeit the Sony would be in a smaller area)?  I'm young, so
my eyes can still read the smaller print.  In a recent review (April 10, 1990)
PC Magazine LOVED the colors/resolution/spherical shape of the Sony but loved
the 4D for it's digital memory.  My use will be purely on the higher resolution
so it will never need to remember anything.  Any comments/help would be
appreciated.  I don't really want to spend twice as much money on a monitor
who's only benefit is a "memory" which I won't use.

Send responses to terence@ttidca.tti.com or the net.

P.S.  If anyone's used the NEC Graphic Engine (any monitor) with OS/2 PM I'd
      love to hear your comments.

Thanks,

Terry