Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!cmcl2!beta!hc!ames!amdahl!kim
From: kim@amdahl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Monitor numbers
Message-ID: <15524@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Date: Fri, 2-Oct-87 21:52:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.15524
Posted: Fri Oct  2 21:52:30 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Oct-87 01:09:47 EDT
References: <15023@amdahl.amdahl.com> <79@oresoft.UUCP> <2425@cbmvax.UUCP>
Organization: Amdahl Corporation,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Lines: 29
Keywords: 2000 Bridgr blinking cusor GAK
Summary: a step backwards ?

In article <2425@cbmvax.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes:
> In article <79@oresoft.UUCP> rick@oresoft.UUCP (Rick Lahrson) writes:
> > 
> > I asked Lauren Brown (of Commodore) that question on the phone the other
> > day, and she said they're the same as the 1080 ...
> 
> Well, close...
> 
> The 1080 is similar to a 1902, but with analog RGB and a .39 dotpitch tube
> The 2002 is similar to a 1902, but with analog RGB and a .42 dotpitch tube
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gee, I'm glad I have a 1080 then!

Seems like all the high-resolution monitors are going to *smaller* dot
pitches, which improve the "crispness" of the image.  I think .31 is
pretty common these days, and I've seen specs for some that are about .28

So why in the world are you going to a larger dot pitch (can't be that much
difference in $$$'s, can it)?

/kim


-- 
UUCP:  kim@amdahl.amdahl.com
  or:  {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,uunet,oliveb,cbosgd,ames}!amdahl!kim
DDD:   408-746-8462
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 249,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
CIS:   76535,25