OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Fri Nov 16 20:34:41 2001

I know what you mean. However, when MY newly purchased "14-inch" monitor didn't
display an image from covering the entire visible area of the tube, I simply
took it back and got a different sort of monitor. I'm looking at a low-cost 17"
monitor, my smallest, right now, and there's no unused glass on the crt showing.
Not everyone is as fussy as I, I guess, but I do look forward to when we'll all
be able to afford 20" flat panel displays. I say that having acquired a number
of large CRT displays once-upon-a-time, when they certainly cost more than
equivalent flat panels cost today.

I've nursed a couple of the 19- or 20-inchers for a decade and a half, giving
some of them away when they became sufficiently low in contrast or sufficiently
nonlinear to annoy me. Of course, I tried a number of fixed-frequency types
because they appeared to be cheap enough, but they turned out otherwise once one
factored in the cost of a display adapter with firmware dedicated to the
specific sync pattern required for that particular monitor.

When did the practice of limiting the size designation of a given monitor to
something smaller than what the tube presented? It seems as though a tube with
a diagonal of 14.001" is a 15-inch monitor, as is one with 14.75" on the
diagonal. When they rate the "viewable" area, what they often mean is the part
of the glass you can see, not the part that you can use for your display. If
often requires tampering with the internals of the monitor to get a decent
utilization of the front face of the tube.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ford" <mikeford_at_socal.rr.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?


> >>I do believe
> >>the typical PC of the time had a larger (14") monitor
>
> Marketed as 14" but with the same viewable image area as the Apple 13".
> Apple was about the last company to switch to the inflated imaginary
> monitor size instead of what the actual display screen size was.
>
> A pleasant surprise to me was learning that LCD screens are marketed with
> actual display size, so a 17" LCD is the same as a 19" tube, and that makes
> prices more attractive.
>
>
>
Received on Fri Nov 16 2001 - 20:34:41 GMT