Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!unmvax!uokmax!d.cs.okstate.edu!ong
From: ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Tip to users of interlaced monitors
Message-ID: <1991Mar4.171830.7250@d.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 91 17:18:30 GMT
References: <1991Mar4.023353.13762@berlioz.nsc.com>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Lines: 21

From article 62@berlioz.nsc.com>, by my@falcon.nsc.com (Michael Yip):
> 
>> I am considering interlace/noninterlace monitor at this time, the
>> noninterlaced is about $300 more.  Are you saying that noninterlaced
>> is not that a big deal over interlaced? 
> 
> I have used both interlace and no-interlace super VGA for MS Window.
> And I think that the non-interlace one is better for the eyes.  I think
> the the Sony 1304, which is a non-interlace 14" monitor, and it goes
> for ~$600 in the bay area.
> 
> The health of my eyes is certainly more important that $300.

Well, I don't use window that much (maybe an hour a week), but I do
use the 1024x768 (I borrowed a friend's interlaced for a few days) to 
preview on WordPerfect before sending the document to the laser printer.
I noticed the top few lines of the 1024x768 interlaced is "funny", but
considering there are 768 lines, a few at the top does not mean much.
What I like to know is that is it *clearer* or *more detailed* on the
noninterlaced?  Also, what is the effect of interlaced after looking at
it for a few hours?  Do you get headache or dizziness?