Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!valhalla.esd.sgi.com!bjorn
From: bjorn@valhalla.esd.sgi.com (Bjorn Lindstrom)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 1024x768 interlaced vs non-inter
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.230046.7851@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 24 Apr 91 23:00:46 GMT
References: <7315@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Reply-To: bjorn@valhalla.esd.sgi.com (Bjorn Lindstrom)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 13

Interlaced monitors have a noticable "flickering" effect, particularly at
the higher resolutions (greater than 800x600).  Combine that with greater
detail at those higher resolutions, and you have a situation that is VERY
hard on the eyes.  The term comes from (inter-)"lacing" the scan lines, so
that every other scan line is displayed, taking two passes over the screen
to display them all (taking twice as long, obviously).  

A non-interlaced display, on the other hand, displays all the scan lines in
the same pass, creating none of the "flickering" found on interlaced displays.

Good luck!

Bjorn