3 ms·
I had one of them, it was a great monitor except for 3 things, 1: it's interlaced mode was literally painful, and it was all I could ever get at higher than 108
by NikkiA 3y ago
I had one of them, it was a great monitor except for 3 things, 1: it's interlaced mode was literally painful, and it was all I could ever get at higher than 1080p, 2: it weighed 50kg, and partially related to 2, 3: it was so deep a tube that the only place it would go on my desk was on a corner section where it made the whole thing sag badly.
Oh, and thinking about it, I just had a horrible flashback to the intersection of two horrible aspects of that time of my life, a day when I needed to use the interlaced mode and the neighbouring resort had one of their weekly reggae concerts with 120+ dB sound, my headache was epic.
- jeffbee 3y agoWas this 1080 mode a limitation of your graphics card? I drove mine with a Matrox G400 Max (360MHz RAMDAC) and it was good for 1440p.
- NikkiA 3y agoMost certainly yes. I can't recall which card I had the experience with, but around that time I upgraded from a G200 to a Geforce 2 Ti of some type, whichever it was, it was almost certainly not beefy enough a RAMDAC for it, and resulted in a ~43Hz interlaced mode. It was a rare enough occasion that I needed to run with a Y resolution of > 1280 that it wasn't a huge deal, but it physically hurt when I did. The viewsonic that I'd used previously to the FW900 had a more palatable interlaced mode.