Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:361 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:2215 comp.windows.ms:5840
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!vsi1!hsv3!jls
From: jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: NEC 3D OK in interlaced 1024 x 768 ??
Message-ID: <5061@hsv3.UUCP>
Date: 1 Oct 90 16:40:36 GMT
References: <1618@mitisft.Convergent.COM> <1990Sep28.235629.15785@rick.cs.ubc.ca>
Reply-To: jls@headland.UUCP (James Seidman)
Organization: Video Seven / Headland Technology
Lines: 27

I'll add in my $0.02 on this one as well...

In article <1990Sep28.235629.15785@rick.cs.ubc.ca> e4666881@rick.cs.ubc.ca (richard louie) writes:
>     The NEC 3D should not be ran too long in 1024 x 768 mode
>because of the feature referred to as interlaced.

This almost sounds as if you're implying that this can damage your monitor
or something in some way.  Of course this isn't true.  The 3D is rated to
handle interlace speeds just fine, for hours (days) on end.

>     To get rid of this flicker effect, you can upgrade to the
>NEC 4D or get the SEIKO CM-1450 or the Sony 1304.

This is the part which I've heard far too often and is really misleading.
(I've even seen ads from monitor manufacturers which seem to try to
perpetuate this myth, and even ones that imply that you can get "ergonomic"
refresh rates just by using their monitors!)  Many graphics cards out there
*ONLY* support interlaced 1024x768 modes, for the reason that you don't
have to run the card as fast to do it (meaning a less-expensive design).
If you hook one of these up to a 4D, CM-1450, 1304, or any other monitor,
you will *still* get an interlaced display.  It's the card, not the monitor,
which controls screen timings, and make sure your card can do 1024x768
non-interlaced before you plop down the big bucks for an expensive monitor.
-- 
Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer.
UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls
ARPA: jls%headland.UUCP@ames.nasa.arc.gov