Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!necntc!dandelion!ulowell!hawk.ulowell.edu!rsilvers From: rsilvers@hawk.CS.ULowell.Edu (Amigas Dominate) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga 1084 (Now 2002) Message-ID: <2135@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> Date: 16 Dec 87 02:14:33 GMT References: <6288@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: news@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu Reply-To: rsilvers@hawk.cs.ulowell.edu (Amigas Dominate) Organization: University of Lowell, CS Dept Lines: 24 In article <6288@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> spencer@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Randy Spencer) writes: >..Then the 2000 comes out and Commodore decideds to market a monitor that works >for both the 128, and the Amigas. Only the 128 really doesn't need all that >resolution, so in order not to loose money on the deal they make the 2002, >a really not so hot monitor (course the 2000 had some video problems as well). When I bought my Amiga, they were temperarily out of 1080s. They did not want to give me a 2002 at such a low price because it was so "new." Of course I talked them into it. I use 1080s all the time and can see no difference. Of course I will be very upset if I bought an inferior monitor. Do you have any facts that the 2002 is not as good? Lets see some numbers. I want specs. Until then, all I hear is rumors. Any one from Commodore know the dot-pitch? How about the video bandwith of each? --Rob. |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Robert Silvers. (617) 452-8810 Rm. 210 | |University of Lowell. ______ | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|