Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Street Walker who wrote (1926)	8/12/1998 10:45:00 PM
From: Spots	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

Model preferences: I use a Nec XP21 which is great within its range but could use faster refresh capabilities. I think newer models have better specs, but it's the only one I have. Actually I hope you answer this question for me in the next few months <G>. I run at 1280 x 1024 and would up it to 1600 x 1200 if I could get away with it. Unfortunately some apps I depend on (Microsoft apps, naturally) ignore the font preference settings. My eyes are good, but not quite that good. Anyhow, 1280x1024 is easily readable on a decent 21" monitor, 1024 x 768 works on a 17" for most people. I couldn't stand to be cramped into 600 x 800 again for very long (my laptop runs that). I'm sitting at the screen 12 hours+ a day doing mostly software development, but I never met a trading app that couldn't use more real estate either. As for refresh, I happen to be very sensitive to flicker. This is an extremely personal thing. I go bananas at under 70 hz vertical, prefer 75 plus, and can settle just barely for 72. I've known people who can stare at 45 hz all day, but I have a blinding headache in 20 seconds under 70. I can't answer about the Matrox Mystique, but I believe it will drive a monitor to my minimum specs (72 @ 1280x1024). 4mb will give enough color depth. I wouldn't be worried about the warrantee myself <g>. See earlier posts on economics of warrantees. I have no personal experience with Viewsonics, but they get good press and are definitely on my short list the next time I go looking seriously. The 29" job is probably an interlaced TV monitor capable of at most 800x600, possibly 640x480. If so, avoid like the plague. If not, why doesn't it cost $5000? That's what a real monitor that size runs (or more), even refurbed. All just my own opinions, no scientific basis. Spots

To: Street Walker who wrote (1926)	8/13/1998 12:52:00 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 14778

What about the 29" for $600?<< I should have read the entire thread before responding:( Spots is right, forget the Viewsonic 29. I could not find info at the Viewsonic site. Pricewatch gives a clue. The resolution of the 29 is too low. Zeuspaul