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.            ______                                   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|