Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!ucbvax!UMass.BITNET!MCOHAN
From: MCOHAN@UMass.BITNET (Michael Cohan, U of Mass/Amherst)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari16
Subject: crummy Atari monitors.
Message-ID: <861019173034.000001A0.ANLH.MA@UMass>
Date: Sun, 19-Oct-86 17:30:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: UMass.861019173034.000001A0.ANLH.MA
Posted: Sun Oct 19 17:30:34 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Oct-86 22:04:38 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 18

Well, folks, I just picked up a brand-new SC1224 color monitor, to supplement
my trusty monochrome.  Now, one thing we all know is that the quality of
Atari's color monitor is excellent, right?  Wrong-o.  The quality of Atari's
color monitor WAS excellent.  The old, Panasonic-supplied monitor had
fantastic quality.  The new, Goldstar-supplied monitor is, to put it quite
bluntly, the pits.  The video quality is a disaster.  In medium-res, it
doesn't even look like the monitor is CAPABLE of handling the resolution.
Individual pixels are blurred, and the medium resolution display, in general,
looks like low-res looks on a TV set.  It looks even worse than an Amiga in
80-column mode, if such a thing is possible.

I've always thought that one of the Atari ST's chief advantages over other
computers was the great video it produces.  No more.  This monitor is
barely capable of handling 320x200, let alone 640.  Atari has made a major,
major mistake in switching suppliers.  They are being penny wise and pound
foolish, because this WILL hurt sales.  The computer looks a lot worse on
the Goldstar monitor.  If I were shopping for a new computer, I sure would
not buy one with such lousy video quality.  Thank heavens for my SM124.