nxn Posted March 18, 2002 Originally posted by Crendowing Isn't that a car? Heh. yes it is. 0 Share this post Link to post
Amanichen Posted March 18, 2002 Viewsonic E90-2. 19" with like a .23 or a .25 dot pitch. The thing is super sharp to begin with, but I did a little clipping and soldering and disabled the low pass filter on my video card so now it looks better than most TFT displays =) King REol...you wouldn't happen to be the dude who made REol Tough! ?? I remember playing that WAD a few years back when AOL still had a Doom WAD file center =) 0 Share this post Link to post
Lüt Posted March 18, 2002 Originally posted by Amanichen King REol...you wouldn't happen to be the dude who made REol Tough! ??Yep, check his sig ;) He's still on AOL anyway :P 0 Share this post Link to post
maga Posted March 18, 2002 update: I've upgraded to Sony 102" ..and, btw, if you tinker with doom2, you can actually get the 80x60 resolution ! ciao 0 Share this post Link to post
Amanichen Posted March 18, 2002 Originally posted by Lüt Yep, check his sig ;) He's still on AOL anyway :P Cool. I think I've got a copy of it on an old HD at home so I might just go play it again for the nostalgia. Brings backs memories of my childhood. ::sniff, sniff:: And my two favorite mottos about AOL: "AOL can go to hell" "Introducing new AOL Sucks Point O" Hehe...man it's been a while since I used AOL. 0 Share this post Link to post
King REoL Posted March 18, 2002 I used to have a 15" Packard Bell monitor a few months ago, but it fried somewhat, only working with 640x480, 800x600, and the flickering 1024x768. Anything else was a distorted version of those 3 rezes, way of center, stretched, what have not, then I ditched it for this flat panel (17"). Yes, I am King REoL of REoL TOUGH fame, Amanichan, and still going at it, once I get my All-Flash site up and running (or a decent portion of it). You'll have to rely on 3dgames FTP site for the old stuff at the moment. :) 0 Share this post Link to post
nxn Posted March 18, 2002 Originally posted by King REoL I used to have a 15" Packard Bell monitor a few months ago, but it fried somewhat, only working with 640x480, 800x600, and the flickering 1024x768. Anything else was a distorted version of those 3 rezes, way of center, stretched, what have not, then I ditched it for this flat panel (17"). I hate packard Bell! I only came across 2 people in my life with their monitors, a dumb friend and now REoL... both their monitors fried. Coincidents? I THINK NOT!! 0 Share this post Link to post
pritch Posted March 18, 2002 Originally posted by Crendowing Isn't that a car? Heh. heh, so is Mitsubishi, in fact Daewoo and Mitsubishi make almost everything, and Toyota make sewing machines. 0 Share this post Link to post
Crendowing Posted March 18, 2002 Originally posted by Amanichen And my two favorite mottos about AOL: "AOL can go to hell" "Introducing new AOL Sucks Point O"News flash: I'll be on broadband soon :) And just be glad you haven't been on AOL in awhile....6.0 is bad enough, 7.0 is worse. Thank GOD my mom has finally wised up! 0 Share this post Link to post
stphrz Posted March 19, 2002 To top it off, you can see the images being projected onto the BACK side of the display as well as the front. So if I open an IE window and load a black page, I can see the white outlines of the window "inside" the webpage. I bought an AOC 17" flatscreen (crt) monitor for $179.00 Canadian that exhibits that behavior somewhat (although it's not blatantly obvious, you can only see it if you look at the screen at more than 70 degrees off axis). That is the only flaw I've discovered with it over 3 months of use. I still marvel at the image clarity of it. It's easily the best monitor I've ever owned. 1600x1200 at 85 Hz! Woo! :) 0 Share this post Link to post
Hellbent Posted March 19, 2002 I DOOM on a 22 inch Iiyama Vision Master Pro 510 =) 0 Share this post Link to post
nxn Posted March 19, 2002 this thread makes me want to get a new monitor... I need money. 0 Share this post Link to post
Hellbent Posted March 19, 2002 1600x1200 at 85 Hz! Woo! :) You have a 17 inch monitor that does 85hz at 1600x1200??????????? I've never seen such a marvel. That a 17 inch monitor does 1600x1200 is pretty impressive. $179CN? That's also damn cheap for that kinda quality. That'd be like $139US Sheesh. How'd you manage such a steal? Most 17 inch monitors do 1280x1024@60Hz - and few do 1600x1200 at all. I've never heard of a 17 incher doing 85hz@1600x1200 - truly unheard of. 0 Share this post Link to post
Hellbent Posted March 19, 2002 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Crendowing Isn't that a car? Heh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- heh, so is Mitsubishi, in fact Daewoo and Mitsubishi make almost everything, and Toyota make sewing machines LOL! I wouldn't have guessed in a million years. About Packard Bell - I think about 2% of their computers last 3 years without becoming unusable. That's not an exaggeration. Packard Bell is unbearably terrible. 0 Share this post Link to post
LorD BaZTArD Posted March 19, 2002 Heh, Mine is a 19" Viewsonic PF790, damn good monitor, I know it can run at 1600*1200 but that res is just too high for me. It runs at a solid 1024*768 at 80 hertz, so I'm happy. 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted March 19, 2002 Originally posted by LorD BaZTArD Heh, Mine is a 19" Viewsonic PF790, damn good monitor, I know it can run at 1600*1200 but that res is just too high for me. It runs at a solid 1024*768 at 80 hertz, so I'm happy. only 80 hertz in 1024*1024 ?? 0 Share this post Link to post
stphrz Posted March 19, 2002 Originally posted by Hellbent You have a 17 inch monitor that does 85hz at 1600x1200??????????? I've never seen such a marvel. That a 17 inch monitor does 1600x1200 is pretty impressive. $179CN? That's also damn cheap for that kinda quality. That'd be like $139US Sheesh. How'd you manage such a steal? Most 17 inch monitors do 1280x1024@60Hz - and few do 1600x1200 at all. I've never heard of a 17 incher doing 85hz@1600x1200 - truly unheard of. Yep it sure does. I was amazed at this myself. The performance of the monitor is rock solid aside from that slight ghosting problem I mentioned. 85 Hz, however is it's max at all resolutions though. Even at 640x480. Running it at 1600x1200 isn't really useful though. As you can imagine, text starts to get pretty hard to read at that rez due to the limited view area. 0 Share this post Link to post
deep Posted March 20, 2002 I have a 12" I run at 2048x1536, refresh 180 (too bad I can't actually read anything). All in the spirit of some of these amazing resolutions for puny monitors:))) 0 Share this post Link to post
Darkstalker Posted March 20, 2002 I have a 17" monitor running at 1024x768. Flat-screen kicks-ass! 0 Share this post Link to post
stphrz Posted March 20, 2002 http://www.aocmonitor.com/products/7klr.aspThis is the monitor I'm talking about. I've seen some places on the net selling them for like $120.00 US. deep: Die :P 0 Share this post Link to post
Lüt Posted March 20, 2002 Originally posted by Hellbent You have a 17 inch monitor that does 85hz at 1600x1200??????????? I've never seen such a marvel. That a 17 inch monitor does 1600x1200 is pretty impressive.I doubt it. 1152x768 on a 19" is annoying enough that it hurts after an hour or so, and I don't dare go higher than 1024x768 on a 17". 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted March 20, 2002 Originally posted by Lüt I doubt it. 1152x768 on a 19" is annoying enough that it hurts after an hour or so, and I don't dare go higher than 1024x768 on a 17". huh? what's wrong with your eyes??? you _should_ use 1600*1280 on a 19" 0 Share this post Link to post
stphrz Posted March 20, 2002 Go to http://www.pricewatch.com Type: "aoc monitors 7klr" in the search box I already said 1600x1200 isn't useful on it 'cause the text is to @#$% small to read. But it does that resolution at a very high refresh rate too. :P 0 Share this post Link to post
Lüt Posted March 20, 2002 Originally posted by Maonth you _should_ use 1600*1280 on a 19" If it were usable I would. I do switch to 1280x1024 for certain apps with huge work screens (like an audio mixing program) but for standard use, 1024x768, especially anything with text. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fredrik Posted March 20, 2002 Heh, I use 1600x1200 on my 19", and usually I find the resolution too damn low... I'd use 2048x1536 if the monitor just supported it :\ 0 Share this post Link to post
King REoL Posted March 21, 2002 Orion Sayeth:I hate packard Bell! I only came across 2 people in my life with their monitors, a dumb friend and now REoL... both their monitors fried. Coincidents? I THINK NOT!! Actually, PB doesn't make them, on the other hand, my 1'st 2 PC's were PB's, my old 486sx/20, which ran likie crap (crash-a-holic), then my P60 which was only half original after the CD-ROM died, the power supply crapped out, and the keyboard was awful (player would do weird things if 4 keys were used), and the mouse crapped out in 3 months (a spare from the 486 lasted the remainder of it's use). As for my current Compaq P2/450, the only thing that went wrong with it is the spring on the left side of the space bar broke off, so to make the thing work, I can't hit it on the left side. :) Anyhoo, back to the monitor thing. Some Jap company makes them, and a 17" one at my former employer quits if you made the image larger than 10" wide, and would shrivel up like a prune as it ran, and might quit anyhow. The second monitor of it's kind WAS a PB, and the horizontal linarity was shot to hell, where text on a 320x200 display was not readable. Talk about variation. I figured seeing 2 of the same monitors failing meant mine wasn't far behind, and I was right. :) 0 Share this post Link to post