Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:46:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Wes Peters <softweyr@xmission.com> To: Mark Mayo <mark@quickweb.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: My monitor's got the Shakes... Message-ID: <199709250546.XAA14853@obie.softweyr.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <19970923123058.64579@vinyl.quickweb.com> References: <19970922020524.01866@vinyl.quickweb.com> <2148.874908597@time.cdrom.com> <199709221634.KAA01113@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199709230359.VAA12322@obie.softweyr.ml.org> <19970923123058.64579@vinyl.quickweb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Mayo writes:
> I was looking for possible recomendations as to what the problem
> could be, which turns out is likely bad capacitors or an arcing
> transistor -- purely a hardware issue which is why it was on the
> -hardware list. After several people mentioned that they were
> having the same problems with their MAG monitors, I indeed asked for
> recomendations..
I have a MAG DX17T at home (Trinitron model) and a DX 1795 at work.
They're both doing pretty well, but I'm not sold on MAG. The 1795 takes
*far* too long to sync to a new frequency when switching resolutions, or
from text to graphics, and has an annoying relay-sounding click while
doing so.
The 17T at home is working fine, but is also *very* slow to come up from
sleep mode, or to change sync. I wouldn't buy another MAG for any
reason. In comparison, my CTX 1765 GM on *my* machine at home switches
resolutions much faster, wakes up in about 1/5 the time, has .5" larger
viewing area, and slightly more washed out color. All in all, I'll take
it over the MAG every day.
> Naturally, looking at them is the best way to pick one -- the problem
> is that looking at a monitor in the store doesn't give you any idea
> about the reliability or long term performance. Since my MAG looked
> fantastic when I first bought it, and now looks like a piece of crap
> only 3 years later, I don't want to make the same purchasing mistake!
>
> I don't think that this thread has anything to do with "my monitor
> is better than your monitor"....
Your original post didn't, but it seemed to be heading off in that
direction. The message here on -chat lost too much of your original
context, I guess. Sorry!
> Anyways, I'm looking for a 17" middle of the road to high-end type
> monitor. I do have a budget of course, but I'm not interested in the
> crappy 17's... Right now I've heard lots of good stuff about the
> Sony 200SF 17 - and the entire SF line actually. Sony seems to have
> dropped their prices quite a bit, to the point that the competitors
> just can't seem to match.
>
> The monitor I'm using right now is atacched to a Sun Sparc1, is 9 years
> old, and still works like a charm. No jitter or ghosting, the test is
> still crisp. In short, I think SOny knows how to make a decent monitor
> that will last and I'll probably end up buiyying one. The only wild card
> at this point is the 19" Hitachi models. The price is comparable, but
> I suspect the quality isn't nearly as good as the Sony.
If you can find one in your area, I've had good experience with ADI.
They have a new line out, with somewhat reduced prices, that might be
within your budget as well. I'm trying to talk my boss into a 21" for
work, and if I like it as much as I have in "borrowing" my friends, I'll
probably buy one myself with my next bonus check. ;^)
> None of the stores in my area have the 19" Hitachis on display, but some
> people here are in the process of getting one, so I'm looking forward
> to hearing their reports!
I've heard good things about the new Hitachis, but remember their 20S
with loathing. Big monitors are still really a crap shoot, but the 17"
market is settling nicely. ;^)
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709250546.XAA14853>