From: Paul Khoury (pkhoury_at_loop.com)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2000 - 03:29:10 EST
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:37:53 -0800, Randal Whittle wrote:
>At 07:28 PM 03/01/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>>I think what you noticed with regard to the fuzzyness was the difference
>>between an anlog interface (Apple display) and a digital interface
>>(Thinkpad). Try to get a panel with a digital interface, but they typically
>>don't also have an analog interface such that you could hook your Thinkpad
> There have been a number of responses (thank you, all!), but most
>have centered around the difference between analog vs. digital.
> Is it really that much of a difference? I mean...my desktop's
>analog monitor looks just great--sharp text, etc. I had thought this might
>be more of an issue of dot pitch (I remember cheap, cheesy old 14"
>monitors--made by IBM no less--with an *awful* dot pitch of something like
>.36--they were *horribly* fuzzy).
Well, natively, the LCDs are already digital, so you'd have to go that extra step in conversion.
CRTs are natively analog (except for the infamous Hercules TTL monitors from way back), which
is why you have analog video cards.
As for fuzzy monitors, I haven't been very impressed by Samsung either.
I'd say hands down that Sony makes some of the best monitors - I have one for both my PowerMac
and my Sun at home, and both are crisp and sharp (but I still like my ThinkPad better).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:52 EST