From: tpang@fraser.sfu.ca (Tsui Ting Debbie Pang)
Subject: Re: Monitor for an A3000
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:38:45 GMT

ghazi@wizofhoz.uucp (Ozzie) writes:
>	I was under the impression that you can use an RGB monitor on the
>3000 because it had both a VGA and a RGB out. Now that lets you choose a
>monitor that's a lot less in cost than a multi-sync and works just great.
>If you plan on doing things that require the interlaced modes, like CAD/Cam
>applications then a multi-sync will give you a stable laced image, but it
>is not required to use the 3000. I think that an RGB mintor is about 1/3
>less in cost on average, at least in this area.

In North America (rather than in Europe and other areas), a plain non
name brand VGA monitor is about the price range of a 1084 series monitor only 
without speakers. I think one of my reason of moving up to a 3000 is it's 
display enhancement (flicker fixing) feature. Also 1084 and other 15kHz
monitors have bigger dot pitch size.

>	As far as monitors go, there are many VGA monitors capable of
>scanning at 31.4 hz(thats the out frequency of the Flicker Fixer output),
>the RGB output is at 15.7 khz. A multi-sync can scan in multiple
>frequencies, for the Amiga you need one that can do 15.7 to 31.4 khz(that
>may be hz,but I'm not sure so I'll use khz). Commodore makes a multi-sync
>for the Amiga, the 1950/1960 series which will do nicely, I do believe they
>are 13 or 14 inches monitors, which I am using here.

Your are right, except it's close to 31.5, (because its 2x 15.745kHz)

>	I choose this one because, most VGA Monitors I looked at had one
>fault, the image always had a black boarder around it that couldn't be
>removed or they didn't have controls for setting up the image area. Those

It's true, but I also found some monitors which do overscan nicely, my
MAG MX14S, is microprocessor control, and can be set to memorize the
screen size, switching from PAL to/from NTSC, and covers whole screen with
no border at all.

>that did were as expensive as the C= 1950, so there was no real reason to
>choose them over the 1950, which can also be used as a VGA monitor on a PC.
>	The monitor I have is an old C= series (a 1950A) and has given no
>problems, so I would recommend it over most others. You can of course get
>better monitors that are bigger or have better image ability, but at a cost
>which will gag you. I would suggest you do as I did, look at the 1950/1960
>then look at any VGA monitor that can scan at the same frequecy and compare
>price with ability, you may or may not agree with me, but you will get the
>unit which most pleases you and your pocket.

It is simply not true. Just that you have no problems with Commodore's
monitors does not mean it is reliable. Here on Usenet, we have heard
way enough complaints about the 1950/1960 quality since they came out!
Also it is not the price issue: a better name brand monitor is not
much more expensive than the 1950/1960, and other brands are certainly
cheaper. I paid less than what the local dealer sells the 1960 for
on my MAG monitor which I think is on the par with Sony 1304 + NEC 4FGx.


>--

>            RETURN ADDRESS IS: cs.uwindsor.ca!jabba!wizofhoz!ghazi

>                                        ///
>                                       ///AMIGA! POWER FOR THE DREAMER 
>Ghazi Hage  uucp:jabba!wizofhoz!ghazi ///
>                                  \\\///    WINDSOR, ONTARIO,CANADA
>                                   \XX/
Along with the general consensus on this group, the Commodore monitors
are not usually recommanded (unless they are bundled with computers, which
Commodore had done before).

David Tse

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware