Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!boulder!seri!wind55!marshall From: marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: Need info on SVGA monitors & cards Message-ID: Date: 19 Oct 90 21:47:31 GMT References: <7959@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Sender: news@seri.gov (news) Distribution: na Organization: Solar Energy Research Institute Lines: 60 ted@helios.ucsc.edu (Ted Cantrall) writes: >I am planning to up-grade from a CGA system to a SVGA, but there are A very wise decision. CGA should be banished from the face of the earth. >so many claims made, it's very confusing. >I know I want 1024 x 728 (or whatever the 700 number is) and that >I should get a monitor with a .28 dot pitch ( or .25, I guess), but >is there any real advantage to a multi-sync monitor? And someome told >me there are even multi-sync cards, too! Arrggghhhhh! As far as I know, ALL 1024x768 cards and monitors are multi-sync. DOS (if that's what you will be using) doesn't run in 1024x768. It will run in the standard 640x480. What software will you be using? Does it support anything above 640x480? Windows and some other programs will if you have a driver for your board and software. It's a short list. I have a Dell GPD-16C monitor and it's only .31 dot pitch. I think it has a rather nice picture (but I've never actually seen a .28 dot pitch monitor). I've never heard of a .25 monitor. Sounds very expensive. Mine cost over $1000. If you're going to 1024x768, I think you should look for a non-interlaced monitor and card combo. It will reduce flicker. You have to go with long persistence phosphor (like IBM 8514) to avoid flicker on an interlaced monitor. 1024x768x16 colors will require a 512K card. I think 1024x768x256 needs 1MB of video RAM. Don't forget, you will need special drivers for this stuff! I'm using a VGA Wizard from Ahead Systems right now. I also own a dead VRAM VGA w/ 512K. Random Access sold me a used (and previously failed) VRAM VGA card which died after about a month. Assholes! I'm waiting for a replacement. The VRAM VGA is MUCH faster than the VGA Wizard - especially at 1024x768. The Wizard is PAINFULLY slow at that resolution. The VRAM VGA also has a much clearer picture at the high resolution. I would recommend the Video Seven VRAM VGA despite the problems. Haven't tried any others at 1024x768. They do have a 7 year warranty. It did cost almost twice as much as the Wizard though, but I think it's worth it. > Has there been any recent magazine articles that covered this >stuff? I've been following the NET for some time and haven't seen this >thread. The 9/25/90 issue of PC Mag has a survey of service and reliability that includes SVGA cards and monitors. Check it out. You can probably find it at your local library. Good luck, and be careful! -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future