Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!drz From: drz@utcsri.UUCP (Jerry Zarycky) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga 1084 (Now 2002) Message-ID: <5736@utcsri.UUCP> Date: 18 Dec 87 00:40:43 GMT Article-I.D.: utcsri.5736 Posted: Thu Dec 17 19:40:43 1987 References: <6288@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2135@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> Reply-To: drz@utcsri.UUCP (Jerry Zarycky) Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 32 Summary: In article <2135@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> rsilvers@hawk.cs.ulowell.edu (Amigas Dominate) writes: > > 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. > When I saw the 2002 monitor in a local store, I was not impressed. A friend of mine was already complaining about his 1080's fuzzy picture as compared to his friend's Atari monitor. To me, the 2002 looked to be even MORE fuzzy than the 1080. Looking at the specs, I noticed that the 2002's dot pitch was .42, worse than the 1080's .38 dot pitch. Then they got te 1084 monitor in, and while it has more controls for adjusting the horizontal and vertical picture display (on the back of the monitor -> great idea!), the dot pitch is also the wretched .42 mm. As an aside, I've noticed that the Atari monitor's dot pitch is the same as the 1080's, that is, .38 mm. However, I believe the Atari's monitor is only a 12 inch vs. the Amiga's 13 inch (correct me if I am wrong, please!). Is this why people think the picture looks better? Jerry Zarycky Usenet: {cornell, uw-beaver, linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd} !utcsri!drz CSNET: drz@csri.toronto.edu UUCP: drz@utcsri.uucp EAN: drz@csri.toronto.cdn