Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!masscomp!peora!tarpit!bilver!jwt!john
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Non-interlaced v. Interlaced SVGA monitors
Message-ID: <1991Jan16.021200.21185@jwt.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jan 91 02:12:00 GMT
References: <1991Jan11.174941.44244@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Lines: 16

In article <1991Jan11.174941.44244@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Jhinuk Chowdhury) writes:
>2.  Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical at higher  
>    resolutions (1024 x 768, 800 x 760, etc) and less critical at lower
>    resolutions (640 x 480, etc.)?

From what I've seen, non-interlaced looks worse at lower resolutions
rather than high.  1024x768 interlaced seems to have much less
flicker than 800x600 or 512x512 interlaced, on the systems I've
looked at.  But non-interlaced looks better.  If you're going to be
using 800x600 or lower resolution, you probably want non-interlaced.
Personally, I think 1024x768 is not too useful on a 14" monitor --
especially if you've got eye problems, as you say you do.  You end up
with *very* tiny icons/fonts/etc.  And the step up to a 16" monitor
is going to be about $500 more.
-- 
John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)