From: v923137@vms.ucc.okstate.edu
Subject: Re: Viewsonic 6FS vs. NEC 3FGx
Organization: Oklahoma State University Computer Center
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:24:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.022526.13790@sfu.ca>, mtichy@fraser.sfu.ca (Martin Tichy) writes:
>> Ahum. My NEC 4FG, which has almost the same tube as the 3FG (I've
>> checked in the store) has a viewable area of 13.8". This is typical
>> for all 15" displays. I don't expect the Viewsonic to do any
>> better. But the 3FG
>  
> I noticed that in the in the fine print of NEC's adds.  My 
> question is why do they call them 15" monitors then?  I 
> thought the monitor I bought was a 14" monitor.  I measured 
> the screen diagonally and it turns out it is more like 13.25 
> inches.  This measurement was total glass, if I don't count 
> the border it goes down to 12.25 inches.

With the Viewsonic, you can adjust the display to extent to the edges of the
glass, eliminating any borders.
>  
> I haven't seen many monitors but I did see the NEC 3fg and was 
> totally stunned by it's clarity!  It was hooked up to an ATI 
> Ultra Pro.  I have also seen the Viewsonic 5e and hooked up to 
> a Tseng ET-4000 and it looked horrible.  Even on equal terms I 

I beg to differ.  The Viewsonic 5e is a superb monitor (running on a Diamond
Stealth).  I can't imagine that the ET-4000 card would degrade the quality of
the image, assuming you were comparing the same resolutions.  I also like the
xFG series monitors, but for the money, the Viewsonic's get my vote (even if
you disregard the money, I think the Viewsonic is a superior monitor).

> can't imagine any monitor can look as good as one of the NEC 
> xFG series.  I know the Viewsonic would have looked better on 
> the Ultra Pro but I still can't imagine it looking as good as 
> an NEC.

I disagree.

>  
> Anyways, I'm planning to buy the NEC 5fg.  I believe it can do 
> 1280x1024 at 74Hz NI.  Is this true?  It costs about $1800 

According to the Jan. issue of Computer Shopper, in the USA Flex ad on
page 977, the NEC 5FG can do 1280x1024 NI @ 60Hz, not 74Hz.  The horiz. scan
rate is 135KHz, which should -theoretically- provide adequate bandwidth to
do that mode at 74Hz or even more, but they don't advertise it that way.
USA Flex sells the monitor for $1,249, and I'm sure someone has a better price
than that (probably $25-50 less if you looked hard).

> bucks Canadian locally, the Viewsonic 7 costs about $300 to 
> $400 dollars less.  Should I even consider another monitor?  

Dee One Systems sells the Viewsonic 7 for $1,036.  I would have a hard time
paying the extra money for the NEC, especially after seeing the Viewsonic 7 in
action.  It is a very good monitor (so is the NEC, just not worth more money).

> Magazines tell me that the only thing close to an NEC are the 
> Mitsubishi Diamond Scan series.

There are several good monitors around.  NEC, Viewsonic, MAG ...
Many of the mail-order companies that are configuring "windows-workstations"
seem to be using the MAG monitors.  They are microprocessor based, and perhaps
have some advantage over normal monitors (that I am not aware of).  The MAG
17", 1280x1024 NI @ 60Hz sells for $1,099 from USA Flex.

>  
> All recommendations are welcomed.  How about some specs too?
> 
> Merry X-mas all!

Same to you.

-Jason Worley

Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware