Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:340 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:2052 comp.windows.ms:5670
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!voder!pyramid!ctnews!mitisft!burton
From: burton@mitisft.Convergent.COM (Philip Burton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: NEC 3D OK in interlaced 1024 x 768 ??
Keywords: NEC 3D  choice of VGA card
Message-ID: <1618@mitisft.Convergent.COM>
Date: 26 Sep 90 20:24:03 GMT
Organization: Convergent Technologies, San Jose, CA
Lines: 15

At a local computer store, I just got a demo of Windows 3 running on a NEC
3D (interlaced only) running at 1024 x 768 x 256 colors.  Or so the salesman
claimed.  It looked beautiful.  Of course, I'd have to buy a certain VGA
card to get that performance.

The lighting in the general area was incandescent, rather than fluorescent.
The salesman claimed that was an important difference.

My question to the net:  Why do you (not) run 1024 x 768 interlaced on a
NEC 3D or similar monitor?  Lighting?

By the way, the VGA card was an Orchid Prodesigner II, which can take up
to 1 MB of video RAM.  It's $300 for 512 KB, almost $100 more than an ATI card.

--Phil Burton--