#monitors
35 messages in this thread
Does anyone know how to get better resolution out of the amiga? The 640 x 400
gives poor quality text compared to a Hercules graphics card. Can a Hercules
card be put in the 2000 WITHOUT buying a bridgecard (a bad deal considering a
bridgecard alone costs more than a clone). I like the multitasking and the
animation but for wordprocessing the resolution hurts the eyes. I intend to
run WordPerfect but I am choosing between an AT clone, A500, A2000, and a PS/2
model 50. Any advice would be appreciated.
Byron Work
Byron,
try looking at WordPerfect on a monochrome monitor connected to the
monochrome jack on the 2000.
Regards, Larry.
oops… forgot to mention… do it in 640*400 if Wordperfect supports it.
Regards, Larry.
Larry — Thanks for the advice. I will try it at the dealer's in the morning.
My only other concern is the cost of a hard disk drive. By the time I buy the
SCSI interface and a drive I've added $1000 to the cost of a basic system which
puts me up in Macintosh-land. Is there an inexpensive way to add a hard drive?
Most of the PC drives are only $250 to $500.
Byron Work
Byron,
There's nothing much cheaper at this time.
Regards, Larry.
I tried running the 2000 mono video out on a Panasonic monitor. The flicker
was even worse than in color. I'm considering getting a second mono monitor,
tho, for strictly text use. Know of an good, cheap (is that mutually
exclusive?), amber, 9 inch monitors?
Steve,
Take a look at Quest Electronics…they usualy have a good stock of 9"
monitors…many with amber crt's in them and the last time I looked, they were
all under $100.
Don
Use care, Steve. Lots of the IBMish monitors can't deal with 15735 horizontal;
if you force them to, the power supply will overheat seriously. I mention this
because most of the good/cheap amber 9 inch monitors are IBMish. A word to the
wise.
Rick
P.S. If you find one which does work, I have a cable that converts Amiga RGB
to IBM monochrome, if you're interested.
Please execuse me for jumping in the middle of this thread, but I am about to
buy an Amiga 500, and would like to know if I need to buy the Analog monitor as
well or will my TTL RGB monitor work. This is a CGA type monitor with both RGB
and composit input. Also does the AMIGA have a built in speaker, or would I
need some sort of an external one.
Abdullah
Abdullah,
A TTL monitor will work with the Amiga (use care as Ricke mentioned about the
power supply). Unfortunately, the performance, colour wise, will disappoint
you. The Amiga is capable of putting out 4096 different colours, and the TTL
monitor can only display 15 of them. You will need some sort of external
amplifier and speaker, and for the monitor, probably a custom made cable.
Regards, Larry.
I don't know IBMs inside out, but if I recall correctly the color monitors run
at 15735, so there should be no problem… it's the monochrome monitors which
use the non-NTSC sweep rates.
Anyone who knows different is invited to correct this statement.
Rick
Rick;
I just ordered an Amiga500 and am intending to use my MAGNAVOX RGB (CGA type)
monitor ,which is now hooked to an IBM clone,with the Amiga.
Are you talking about this type of monitors or just the TTL monochrome ones?
And which power supply will be endangered, the monitor's or the computers?
Abdullah
Abdullah:
The monitor that you are refering to will work with the Amiga IF you
get a special cable to hook up the monitor. The normal IBM cable does not work
with the Amy.
The power supply that would be in danger is the Monitor's. 73, bill
Bill:
Thanks for the reply. Now is this special cable available somewhere? or
should I make it myself? If I have to make it, is there any info about the
cabel connections that I can lookup?
I have not gotton my 500 yet, but I want to be ready when it arrives.
Abdullah
Abdullah:
I think I saw an advertisement in Amazing computing for a cable to
connect an IBM type monitor to the Amy. Don't have the magazine with me now
(at work) but will try to remember to check later (wrote myself a note so all I
have to do is remember to read the note <chuckle>). 73, bill
Bill;
Pardon my interuption here but that rings a bell with my problem. Would
it be safe to assume that the regular IBM par. prnt. cable will not work
directly? The printer supports Epson Emulation but the Amiga keeps telling me
to check my cables.The cable Im using is not really for the AMiga its for IBM's
& compats. Any light u can shed will be greatly appreciated. YES, I know I
broke in on a Monitor thread but Im desperate. Ena
Ena,
Both the Amiga 500 and 2000 use standard IBM parallel printer cables.
Nothing 'fancy' required.
..Bob
Abdullah,
My knowledge is fuzzy on the subject of the color monitors, but I'm fairly sure
they are okay. Here's the scoop:
NTSC color (what Ami and TV uses) uses a horizontal frequency of 15735 Hz and a
vertical frequency of 59.95 Hz, and the internal oscillators of the TV/monitor
sync to that. The IBM monochrome system uses a different set of frequencies.
When you force a IBM type monochrome monitor to sync to the NTSC horizontal
frequency, the deflection yoke and HV supply (which are tuned circuits) are
being operated far off their resonant frequency. This causes a drastic change
in their impedance, which in turn requires more power to drive them. The end
result is more heat dissipated in the deflection circuitry and a heavy load on
the power supply. Depending on the monitor, any one of several things could
happen: you might not even be able to sync it, you could sync it but not have
enough deflection in one or both directions, you could sync it and everthing
looks okay until the horizontal output circuitry or power supply fails, or you
could sync it and everything would work fine for all time. Which will actually
happen is anyone's guess.
Now if the color monitors use near NTSC sweep frequencies — and I believe they
do — you have nothing to worry about… although you will have to obtain a
special cable, as has been pointed out. And, in any case, your Amiga power
supply is in no danger.
Hope this helps!
Rick
Thanks, for the detailed reply, and yes it does help. Now if someone could tell
me what is the best available monitor for the Amiga 500. Also what is the
difference between the 1080 and the 2002.
Abdullah
Byron,
Without overscan…640×400 is it. The difference between the Amiga
video and CGA, EGA, PGA, etc. is that the Amiga is NTSC standard video while
the others are not. As stated by Larry, use of a monochrome monitor certainly
improves the image.
As for using the Amiga for text…I can only relate my own experiences.
I spend 8 hours a day at work alternating between an AT&T 610 Amber monochrome
monitor for my UNIX machine and an AT&T 6300 and a color monitor (CGA). I then
come home and spend several hours reading/writing text on the Amiga (like now)
and find little difference between the 3. If I had to order them, I'd put the
Amiga in the middle…definately above the amber monochrome but a very close
2nd to the 6300.
Don
Thanks, Don. I will keep that in mind. I plan to try a monochrome monitor
today.
Byron
I use a Herc mono card on a Samsung monitor during the day at one of my
contract locations, then come home and use Ami's 640×400 in the evening. IMHO,
Ami's text quality is not "poor quality… compared to a herc…". Set your
colors properly, use a good monitor, select a decent font, and THEN make your
desision. Or, put both machines on the same footing by using a B/W monitor on
the 2000. But, don't assume that your first look tells the whole story, because
it certainly doesn't.
Rick
Rick — thanks for the input. I was looking at a CBM 2002 monitor with
WordPerfect running. Is there a better monitor I should be looking at? Also,
what is the difference between a 1080 and a 2002 ( besides $50 )?
Byron
I will humbly defer on that one to the people who know monitors better than I,
but my understanding is that there are lots better monitors than a 2002.
Rick
The C2002 is a Commodore monitor that was designed to be used with ALL
commodore computers. The only difference is between the cables. (IE the 64 gets
1 cable the 128 gets the rgb & composite & the Amiga gets the 23pin I would
guess that because of this (its being a jack of all trades) its a master of
none. Hence while its probably a good monitor for someone with a 64 or 128 (had
it been around instead of the 1902A I would have liked it more) as an Amiga
monitor I was not impressed! (Neither the video nor the audio) The 1080 is
discontinued (So Ive been told & in some places sells for a few bucks less). I
only wish I would have been on CIS prior to my purchase so I could have known
1)the power supply is good for game players & if I wanted a "real" amiga to do
"real" things I should have bought a 2000. AND that there are surely better
monitors than the only one commodore sells! Ena
Ena,
Don't sweat it. Think of the A2000 as just an A500 with slots and a
detachable keyboard. You can't expand your 500 as easily as I can
expand my 2000, but otherwise we're functionally equal. And equal means
better than anything else on the market under $7k.
As for monitors, the 2002 is a pretty decent one. Its main drawback
is its low bandwidth (around 10MHz)–its picture isn't as "snappy" as
those of the MultiSync/MultiScan/etc. I've had a 1080 for 1 1/2 years,
and I find it quite acceptable. Some day I'll upgrade, but I'm in no
hurry.
Dave
Dave;
Any comments/thoughts on the _subsystem_ by Pacific Periphs? (they have
an ad on page 83 of Dec 1987 Amiga World) Among their claims
1)Use Cards designed for the 2000 with your 500
2)Give you 2 xpansion slots for the 2000
3)space for an optional floppy
It fits under the 500,only 1.5 inches tall. It states that a UL/CSA
approved power supply is included that _guarantees_ additional cards will not
overtax the a500 (I was under the impression that merely a beefed up power
supply couldn't accomplish this)
If you are unaware of the product do you know anything about the
company? (either thru their harddrives, infinity, whatever) Thanks for your
time. Ena
Ena,
I think the SubSystem is a step in the right direction, tho I'm not
sure that putting it _under_ the A500 is a great idea. I personally
like the keyboard to be as low as possible, but I know folks who like it
higher…I'd say, try before you buy.
Pacific is correct in saying that the boards in the SubSystem's two
slots will not overtax the 500. Powering boards from a card-cage type
device like the SubSystem is a lot different than powering a board (like
Spirit's expansion RAM board) stuck _inside_ the 500. Spirit's board
violates the 500's design parameters…it just ain't kosher. The
SubSystem looks perfectly kosher to me.
I hope more companies follow Pacific's lead and produce expansion
boxes for the 500 that accept boards designed for the 2000. That would
eliminate most of the 500/2000 expansion incompatibility problem. It
would also make the 500 a more viable machine in the long-term.
Having said that, I'm afraid I don't know anything about either
Pacific Peripherals or the SubSystem other than what I've seen in the
ads. What I said above about the SubSystem assumes that it is a
properly designed and constructed product. Maybe someone with first-
hand experience will speak up?
Dave
Rick–
Could you be more specific about setting colors properly and selecting a
decent font? I am using my Amy in the default colors and fonts, since I
understood that white on blue has been selected for readability (the COMAL cart
for the 64 comes that way, for one) and I assumed that TOPAZ is decent. I
tried PEARL and found it too amateurish–the a looks like an o, etc. Which
one(s) are you using? What are your colors?
Anyone wanna start a thread? I would like to try these ideas. Thanks. Also,
I agree about giving it time. When I first started using the Amy after the 64
I did not like the text. It seemed awfully small for one thing, and I am
sitting much closer to the monitor than I had been. I am indeed more used to it
now, though, as I say, I am interested in how to improve the text.
A few years ago there was an article in BYTE showing how text can be put on a
monitor with true serifs, etc. Apparently, we are locked into these ridiculous
matrices because of economies and habit. Someone should produce a
wordprocessing machine using the fonts they showed-they would do well, I am
certain.
// Jim
<Shrug> This is another very personal subject. I'll tell you what I use, but a
lot of people won't agree.
I run full interlaced with black text on a dull greenboard-green background;
this effectively eliminates flicker. It also makes the characters look a bit
thinner and sharper, since it takes the electronics in the 1080 longer to turn
off than on. White on black letters look thick; black on white letters look
thin.
As to the font, I've pretty much settled on CleanFont, which came with one of
the music packages I reviewed in the past. It's a simple non-serifed font
which is, true to its name, very "clean" looking.
Sure, let's start a thread on the subject. Try 'em all, until you find what
you like.
Rick
Rick–
Was that a French shrug or an American one. I don't have CleanFont, though in
general I like serifs, as I believe they give the brain more information for
making discriminations. But I was very interested in what you said about using
what makes for thinner and thicker fonts, since my one problem with topaz is
that it is indeed a bit thick looking. Thanks.
// Jim
I dunno… does it look French or American to you? <Shrug> 8)
Serifs are a matter of taste and application. I am, among other things, a
calligrapher, and I happen to thoroughly enjoy the little critters; BlackLetter
Gothic and Chancery Italic are loaded with 'em. At the same time, I appreciate
a good sans-serif font for many applications. Univers Bold and Microgamma
Extended are two of my favorite typestyles, and they're completely without
serifs. For whatever reason, the crisp, clean font sits better with me for
hours at the tube. <Shrug> I said when this started that fonts and color
choices are a very personal thing… I wasn't far off, eh? 8)
Rick
P.S. Try doing dark-on-light and see if it helps the apparent character
thickness… and let me know what you find.
Rick–
The thickness is incredibly affected by dark on light. The only problem now
is that there does not seem to be a white that I am fully comfortable with.
Too much blue or green and it gets kinda sickening.
I can see why you would pick green itself, but I find that depressing. (eh
bien.)
I am not a calligraphier, but I do have a sort of Italic Cursive handwriting
after a year or so practice. I find fonts and such very interesting.
If you ever hear of software to print music in a first rate way, let us know.
// Jim
Note that, with a different monitor, the changes in thickness might not be so
striking. This is an indication of "non-conformity" in the monitor, nothing
more.
How about a dark, soft brown, or a tan, if you don't like green? I was never
fond of amber screens, but you might try that too.
I'm a calligraphy hack, actually, more than a calligrapher. Although I have
done a few larger works, including an 11×14 proclamation for a gentleman who
turned 100 last month. That was my most extensive work yet: gothic and italic
in three sizes, gilded, silvered, and rubricated border. If I keep stretching,
I might actually be *good* at it one day. 8)
Rick
Ever get into Zen Calligraphy? Great stuff.
// Jim
Are you referring to generic oriental calligraphy, or something more specific?
I'm very fond of Chinese script, and have picked up a little bit of the
language — I went to a new Chinese restaurant last week and surprised myself
by reading "Beijing" from the two characters on the door before reading "Peking
Restaurant" on the English sign — but I don't have brush skills yet.
Talk to me about Zen Calligraphy, if you will… and perhaps we should move
this to another section or 'plex.
Rick