Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:4642 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:11752
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake
From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Non-interlaced v. Interlaced SVGA monitors
Message-ID: <205@raysnec.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jan 91 15:14:58 GMT
References: <1991Jan11.174941.44244@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> <1991Jan11.175216.44245@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Organization: IRS/CI - Technical Solutions Branch
Lines: 10

ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Jhinuk Chowdhury) writes:

>To my dismay, I found out that non-interlaced monitors are about $300-
>$400 more expensive than interlaced SVGA monitors.  In fact, I could only
>locate two brands - a SONY and a Seiko.

	The price differential is not necessarily that great. Best street
price for Seiko's 1440 interlaced is ~$500, while the non-interlaced 1450
runs about ~$650-675. Sony's 1304 is also in the latter range, but I believe
the Seiko has the better warranty.