>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Max Eskin wrote:
>
>> Also: Could someone tell me the model number of the original NEC
>> Multisync? NEC's site has nothing about it, and I want to know if that's
>> it at the thrift store. Could someone also confirm that it can do VGA
>> modes?
>
>Depends on what you mean by NEC Multisync. A number of models have been
>mentioned in response to your original request. I believe Dan Burrow's
>summary corresponds to the NEC Multisync II. Not the 2A or other members
>of the "2" series or 3's or higher. Note the Roman numeral. Says
>"Multisync II" right on the front.
I was quoting from the manual for the JC1401P3A for what it is worth. It
also has all the pin outs for both analog and digital along with other
related stuff. My scanner is down right now but I could FAX it if someone
wants.
Dan
>This is the one with the 9-pin D-sub and is the only one I am aware of
>that will sync 15.5KHz analog which is sub VGA video for Atari ST, Amiga
>and Apple IIgs.
>
>The model number is JC 1402 HMA. It will do 640x480 VGA interlaced or
>non-interlaced. It can step to 800x600 but someone mentioned it was
>pretty poor and I believe part of the reason is it is interlace only.
>
>It also, as Dan points out, has TTL capabilities. I haven't made use of
>that aspect. I have used it on built-in Macintosh video and some Nubus
>cards that are theoretically VGA friendly but produce sync on green
>(green screen?) and just otherwise don't work with normal VGA. If it is
>indeed a "II" model, I'd say jump at the opportunity. The dot pitch isn't
>great at .31 but it is sharp enough. The key though is the fact that it
>is the Rosetta stone of monitors and it is worth having in your toolbox.
>
>For monitor reference you might try the following:
>
>http://www.telalink.net/~griffin/mondata.html
>
>which is a straight 120K or so listing of every model.
>
>Or use:
>
>http://www.telalink.net/~griffin/monitor.html
>
>for a search engine.
>
>I believe the above addresses are currently correct. I think any
>reference to nashville.net is an older location. At the current moment, I
>believe nashville will correctly alias to telalink.
>
>The information is sparse. Changes are made from time to time, so I guess
>they are trying to maintain it with limited staff time. The database is
>always worth a look when dealing with an unknown monitor, but no promises.
>
>
>
> -- Stephen Dauphin
>
Received on Wed Nov 11 1998 - 21:35:48 GMT