Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watmum!smvorkoetter
From: smvorkoetter@watmum.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: IBM PC as a terminal (was Re: when using termcap, get it right!)
Message-ID: <1004@watmum.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jun-87 09:45:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmum.1004
Posted: Mon Jun  8 09:45:39 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jun-87 06:38:50 EDT
References: <1149@carthage.swatsun.UUCP> <8601@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: smvorkoetter@watmum.UUCP (Stefan M. Vorkoetter)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 22

In article <497@tahoe.UUCP> malc@tahoe.UUCP (Malcolm L. Carlock) writes:
>In article <931@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes:
>>at it for eight hours a day.  The monochrome adapter does deliver nicely
>>formed characters at a reasonable resolution, but the IBM monochrome
>>green screen has such a long persistence that when the display scrolls,
>>it smears like Tammy Bakker's mascara.
>
>The IBM monitors are indeed trash.  Not only do they smear and have generally
>poor resolution, but the the lower half of the screen flickers quite
>conspicuously and annoyingly during scrolling.  This makes watching the thing
>scroll a very unpleasant experience.
>
>Admittedly, the serif'ed font that IBM uses on its monitors is a nice idea,
>but who needs it?  Why should I go blind trying to read a monitor that can't
>properly resolve those "nice" characters?  Even the better clone monitors
>aren't as easy to read as most simple "dumb" terminal screens.  Unless monitors
>become widely available that use considerably finer text resolution, forget
>the fancy screen fonts.

You had better get your monochrome monitor fixed.  Every IBM Monochrome monitor
I've ever used at crystal clear needle sharp characters.  I have seen a few that
went out of adjustment and became fuzzy.