On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:58:50 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


Yeah,OK. I give in. You are right. I couldn't be more wrong if I tried. 35
years down the pan. Just as an experiment, I wiped goose grease all over my
LCD monitor and guess what? YOU ARE RIGHT !!!!

The problem with goose grease is the high number of geese it
would take to treat all monitors. :-)


( that's for excited
emphasis, I'm not shouting at you ).

Ok, I never did think capitalizing as shouting worked very
well anyway, since the person has to read the text either
way for it to matter.

My picture is now so blurred that it
looks just like the real world when I don't have my specs on. Accuracy or
what ?!!! Have you thought of marketing this idea ? You could put it in tubs
and sell it on the net as "Kony's patent image enhancing compound (blended
with REAL snake oil )"

I'm not the one who wants to end up with less than the
computer was designed to output. Yes the grease idea is
crazy and has no merit but it is the type of degradation
(albeit to a greater extent) causing your more lifelike
image. CRT manufacturers didn't aim for that, it was just
the result of the coating and thick glass. If LCD
manufacturers wanted this, they could put a thick diffuser
sheet on the front.



My next plan is to see if I can drop a couple of bits on the input to the
video card's DAC. That should increase the 'granularity' no end. This is
another idea that could be put forward to monitor manufacturers to help them
in their goal of making the reproduced image anything but lifelike, and
better yet - *less* aesthetically pleasing !!

Boy, you're a lad ! All these wickedly good ideas ! If you don't market them
yourself, *I'm* gonna, and get really rich. Then you'll be sorry ! ;-)

Ok!

On 8/16/2007, James Sweet posted this:

I was a little startled - you answered my post, clipped my (admittedly
silly) remark, and went on to actually answer the previous post.

I've never made a mistake like that (you can be forgiven for not believing
that!).


I clipped the bottom, answered the part I was interested in, then simply
forgot to clip the top as well. So what?

So you answered the wrong post.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate what
would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics
(if I let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

On 8/17/2007, Gene E. Bloch posted this:
On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate what
would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics (if I
let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

Both are in bold + italic here.

Well, to be 100% accurate, the first is in italic + bold :-)

BTW, the reason I had to wait until I could read it in the NG is that
this reader (MesNews) displays bold, italic, and smileys as straight
text in the composition window.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:58:50 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


Yeah,OK. I give in. You are right. I couldn't be more wrong if I tried. 35
years down the pan. Just as an experiment, I wiped goose grease all over
my
LCD monitor and guess what? YOU ARE RIGHT !!!!

The problem with goose grease is the high number of geese it
would take to treat all monitors. :-)


( that's for excited
emphasis, I'm not shouting at you ).

Ok, I never did think capitalizing as shouting worked very
well anyway, since the person has to read the text either
way for it to matter.

My picture is now so blurred that it
looks just like the real world when I don't have my specs on. Accuracy or
what ?!!! Have you thought of marketing this idea ? You could put it in
tubs
and sell it on the net as "Kony's patent image enhancing compound (blended
with REAL snake oil )"

I'm not the one who wants to end up with less than the
computer was designed to output. Yes the grease idea is
crazy and has no merit but it is the type of degradation
(albeit to a greater extent) causing your more lifelike
image. CRT manufacturers didn't aim for that, it was just
the result of the coating and thick glass. If LCD
manufacturers wanted this, they could put a thick diffuser
sheet on the front.



My next plan is to see if I can drop a couple of bits on the input to the
video card's DAC. That should increase the 'granularity' no end. This is
another idea that could be put forward to monitor manufacturers to help
them
in their goal of making the reproduced image anything but lifelike, and
better yet - *less* aesthetically pleasing !!

Boy, you're a lad ! All these wickedly good ideas ! If you don't market
them
yourself, *I'm* gonna, and get really rich. Then you'll be sorry ! ;-)

Ok!

Yeah, OK! Just messin' with ya! Really, I don't have a problem with my LCD
monitors. Both of them look just fine. But subjectively, a CRT picture just
has something that makes it a little more 'human' to my perception. I would
guess that it's the same as CD versus vinyl, where the vinyl has a 'warmer'
sound (oddly, Steve Wright was discussing exactly this on his BBC radio
programme today, and it was his opinion that CD sounded 'cold' compared to
vinyl). Another example might be programme material shot on video tape,
versus that shot on film stock. Outdoor scenes in particular always have a
flat, cold, unrealistic look to them, when shot on video, but I'm sure that
you would probably be able to apply your 'more accurate not lifelike'
analysis to these examples as well. Anyway, all of this is causing me to
lose the will to live now, and I'm done with it. I think we better just
settle on agreeing to differ ... Later

Arfa

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Gene E. Bloch posted this:
On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate what
would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics (if
I let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

Both are in bold + italic here.

Well, to be 100% accurate, the first is in italic + bold :-)

BTW, the reason I had to wait until I could read it in the NG is that this
reader (MesNews) displays bold, italic, and smileys as straight text in
the composition window.


So I guess that's why the common convention is to use slashes and asterisks.
I never knew that some newsreaders actually interpreted these as such. Learn
something new every day ! So that does leave capitalization free for
'shouting' ... d;~}

Arfa

Doc writes:

I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

That's hard to believe. A problem common with CRTs is trying to achieve
convergence of all three colors everywhere on the screen. Lack of
convergence leads to loss of sharpness. Convergence is not an issue on
flat panels.

wrote in message
...
Doc writes:

I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

That's hard to believe. A problem common with CRTs is trying to achieve
convergence of all three colors everywhere on the screen. Lack of
convergence leads to loss of sharpness. Convergence is not an issue on
flat panels.


I don't really think that cvonvergence has been much of an issue since
slotmasks became the norm many years ago, as these are inherently self
converging. Whilst very cheap-end CRT monitors and TV sets might still have
some slight convergence issues at the screen extremities, I can't honestly
say that I have seen anything in this respect worth commenting on, for some
years now. Perhaps I'm just lucky, or just selectively seeing what I want
( or don't ! ) want to ... d;~}

Arfa

Arfa Daily writes:

Doc wrote:

I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

That's hard to believe. A problem common with CRTs is trying to achieve
convergence of all three colors everywhere on the screen. Lack of
convergence leads to loss of sharpness. Convergence is not an issue on
flat panels.

I don't really think that cvonvergence has been much of an issue since
slotmasks became the norm many years ago, as these are inherently self
converging.

How so?

Whilst very cheap-end CRT monitors and TV sets might still have
some slight convergence issues at the screen extremities, I can't honestly
say that I have seen anything in this respect worth commenting on, for some
years now.

I have.

Perhaps I'm just lucky, or just selectively seeing what I want
( or don't ! ) want to ... d;~}

There's also the issue of focus. I've seen CRTs go "soft" as they age.
Focus is not an issue on flat panels.

Then there's magnetic effects. Aside from degaussing, which modern CRTs
are designed to do automatically, you have to worry about external fields,
such as from nearby loudspeakers. I had a modern CRT image start to
"shimmy" when an outdoor security light came on every evening. Flat
panels are immune to external magnetic fields and don't need degaussing.

wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily writes:

Doc wrote:

I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

That's hard to believe. A problem common with CRTs is trying to achieve
convergence of all three colors everywhere on the screen. Lack of
convergence leads to loss of sharpness. Convergence is not an issue on
flat panels.

I don't really think that cvonvergence has been much of an issue since
slotmasks became the norm many years ago, as these are inherently self
converging.

How so?


***********
It is largely a function of the precision wound deflection yoke that is
carefully matched to the CRT at the factory. This yoke requires only basic
static convergence to be adjusted, and this is accomplished usually with a
combination of 4 and 6 pole annular magnets at the rear of the yoke. See
second para from bottom

http://www.answers.com/topic/televis...cat=technology

***********


Whilst very cheap-end CRT monitors and TV sets might still have
some slight convergence issues at the screen extremities, I can't
honestly
say that I have seen anything in this respect worth commenting on, for
some
years now.

I have.

Perhaps I'm just lucky, or just selectively seeing what I want
( or don't ! ) want to ... d;~}

There's also the issue of focus. I've seen CRTs go "soft" as they age.
Focus is not an issue on flat panels.


*************
It is fairly rare for CRTs to age this way these days. Often, something else
in the circuitry fails, to render the monitor not worth repairing, before
the CRT is showing serious signs of aging, although I do accept that this is
a potential age-related failure mode of a CRT display. Whilst I agree that
focus per se is not an issue that can be directly related to LCD display
technology, many cheap end displays never-the-less do not look as sharp as a
*good* CRT display, and also suffer from serious motion blur, both as a
result of switching lag in the LCD cells, and display drive circuitry. There
are other issues with LCD monitors, which some consider to be a bigger
problem than the minor defects with CRT display technology. These include
poor contrast ratio, poor eveness of the back illumination, fairly rapid
wearing of the CCFLs providing that illumination, very poor results with a
drive source resolution of anything other than the panel's native figure,
and motion blur as already discussed.

Focus of modern CRTs is well taken care of. Very well performing dynamic
focus circuits have been in common usage for some years now, and the CRTs
electron lenses are carefully designed to maximise the beneficial effects of
this. Again, some cheap end monitors / TV sets are not terribly good in this
respect, but that is more of a cost than technology issue. On a decent
quality CRT display, you would be fairly hard pressed to find focus errors
worth complaining about.

*************


Then there's magnetic effects. Aside from degaussing, which modern CRTs
are designed to do automatically, you have to worry about external fields,
such as from nearby loudspeakers. I had a modern CRT image start to
"shimmy" when an outdoor security light came on every evening. Flat
panels are immune to external magnetic fields and don't need degaussing.


*************
Magnetic effects should not be an issue with modern CRTs, unless a powerful
field is brought close to the face of the CRT. The construction of the
device includes a magnetic shield, and before they did, they were surrounded
by a mu-metal shield, which blocked all but the strongest interfering
fields. It is not the CRT which degauses itself automatically. Rather, it is
a piece of circuitry which at switch on, applies an initially large,
progressively decaying, AC current to the degausing coils surrounding the
CRT. In the case of a TV set, that's it, but with a computer monitor, as
well as this automatic degausing at switch on, a manual switch or menu
option is often provided as well, to allow for a 'hot' demagnetisation. I've
never really understood why manufacturers thought this necessary. Maybe
because monitors are mounted on a tilt and swivel base, which could result
in purity errors due to the realignment of the earth's magnetic field if you
do spin the monitor round, but it would have gone back right anyway, when
you turned it back. Still, it looks pretty, if you're bored with what you're
doing ...

As far as your monitor shimmering when the outside light came on, I would
suggest that this was nothing to do with magnetic fields or CRT technology.
Far more likely to be mains-borne mutual interference between the monitor's
switch mode power supply, and something like triac switching in the outside
light. Did you ever pin down what you thought was actually causing the
problem ?

Arfa

wrote in message
...
Doc writes:

I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

That's hard to believe. A problem common with CRTs is trying to achieve
convergence of all three colors everywhere on the screen. Lack of
convergence leads to loss of sharpness. Convergence is not an issue on
flat panels.

Agreed. I believe that if money and maintenance are not issues, you can
still get the best visual quality with CRTs.

On 8/17/2007, Arfa Daily posted this:
"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Gene E. Bloch posted this:
On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate what
would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics (if I
let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

Both are in bold + italic here.

Well, to be 100% accurate, the first is in italic + bold :-)

BTW, the reason I had to wait until I could read it in the NG is that this
reader (MesNews) displays bold, italic, and smileys as straight text in the
composition window.


So I guess that's why the common convention is to use slashes and asterisks.
I never knew that some newsreaders actually interpreted these as such. Learn
something new every day ! So that does leave capitalization free for
'shouting' ... d;~}

Arfa

:-)

You could always put in metacommands, like below:
SHOUT
....
/SHOUT

I noticed in configuring something on the Mac a couple of days ago (I
forget what, sorry) that stars can bracket bold words and underscores
can bracket italics in that app. I think this newsreader displays
_word_ as an underscored word, but I won't know until I read it as an
incoming article, as before.

I knew about stars for emphasis, but I didn't know about displaying it
as bold type until I started using MesNews a couple of years ago.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Arfa Daily posted this:
"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Gene E. Bloch posted this:
On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate what
would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics
(if I let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

Both are in bold + italic here.

Well, to be 100% accurate, the first is in italic + bold :-)

BTW, the reason I had to wait until I could read it in the NG is that
this reader (MesNews) displays bold, italic, and smileys as straight
text in the composition window.


So I guess that's why the common convention is to use slashes and
asterisks. I never knew that some newsreaders actually interpreted these
as such. Learn something new every day ! So that does leave
capitalization free for 'shouting' ... d;~}

Arfa

:-)

You could always put in metacommands, like below:
SHOUT
...
/SHOUT

I noticed in configuring something on the Mac a couple of days ago (I
forget what, sorry) that stars can bracket bold words and underscores can
bracket italics in that app. I think this newsreader displays _word_ as an
underscored word, but I won't know until I read it as an incoming article,
as before.

I knew about stars for emphasis, but I didn't know about displaying it as
bold type until I started using MesNews a couple of years ago.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")



Just goes to show how many years you can use something for, and still not
know all about it. The underlining thing is yet another one to add to my
knowledgebase. So I wonder if you can both bracket and slash either side to
ensure that it will get read as italics in either variety of reader. And
then again, can you add stars as well for bold and italics ?

Arfa

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Arfa Daily posted this:
"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Gene E. Bloch posted this:
On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate
what would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics
(if I let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

Both are in bold + italic here.

Well, to be 100% accurate, the first is in italic + bold :-)

BTW, the reason I had to wait until I could read it in the NG is that
this reader (MesNews) displays bold, italic, and smileys as straight
text in the composition window.


So I guess that's why the common convention is to use slashes and
asterisks. I never knew that some newsreaders actually interpreted these
as such. Learn something new every day ! So that does leave
capitalization free for 'shouting' ... d;~}

Arfa

:-)

You could always put in metacommands, like below:
SHOUT
...
/SHOUT

I noticed in configuring something on the Mac a couple of days ago (I
forget what, sorry) that stars can bracket bold words and underscores can
bracket italics in that app. I think this newsreader displays _word_ as
an underscored word, but I won't know until I read it as an incoming
article, as before.

I knew about stars for emphasis, but I didn't know about displaying it as
bold type until I started using MesNews a couple of years ago.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")



Just goes to show how many years you can use something for, and still not
know all about it. The underlining thing is yet another one to add to my
knowledgebase. So I wonder if you can both bracket and slash either side
to ensure that it will get read as italics in either variety of reader.
And then again, can you add stars as well for bold and italics ?

Arfa


Senior moment. That should of course, have read "underscore and slash". I
hate getting old ...

Arfa

On 8/21/2007, Arfa Daily posted this:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Arfa Daily posted this:
"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Gene E. Bloch posted this:
On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate what
would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics
(if I let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

Both are in bold + italic here.

Well, to be 100% accurate, the first is in italic + bold :-)

BTW, the reason I had to wait until I could read it in the NG is that
this reader (MesNews) displays bold, italic, and smileys as straight
text in the composition window.


So I guess that's why the common convention is to use slashes and
asterisks. I never knew that some newsreaders actually interpreted these
as such. Learn something new every day ! So that does leave
capitalization free for 'shouting' ... d;~}

Arfa

:-)

You could always put in metacommands, like below:
SHOUT
...
/SHOUT

I noticed in configuring something on the Mac a couple of days ago (I
forget what, sorry) that stars can bracket bold words and underscores can
bracket italics in that app. I think this newsreader displays _word_ as an
underscored word, but I won't know until I read it as an incoming article,
as before.

I knew about stars for emphasis, but I didn't know about displaying it as
bold type until I started using MesNews a couple of years ago.

-- Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")



Just goes to show how many years you can use something for, and still not
know all about it. The underlining thing is yet another one to add to my
knowledgebase. So I wonder if you can both bracket and slash either side to
ensure that it will get read as italics in either variety of reader. And
then again, can you add stars as well for bold and italics ?

Arfa


Senior moment. That should of course, have read "underscore and slash". I
hate getting old ...

Arfa

Just to make you feel younger:

*/_test phrase_/*

For some reason, I felt I had to do LIFO on the markers :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/21/2007, Arfa Daily posted this:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Arfa Daily posted this:
"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Gene E. Bloch posted this:
On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate
what would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics
(if I let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

Both are in bold + italic here.

Well, to be 100% accurate, the first is in italic + bold :-)

BTW, the reason I had to wait until I could read it in the NG is that
this reader (MesNews) displays bold, italic, and smileys as straight
text in the composition window.


So I guess that's why the common convention is to use slashes and
asterisks. I never knew that some newsreaders actually interpreted
these as such. Learn something new every day ! So that does leave
capitalization free for 'shouting' ... d;~}

Arfa

:-)

You could always put in metacommands, like below:
SHOUT
...
/SHOUT

I noticed in configuring something on the Mac a couple of days ago (I
forget what, sorry) that stars can bracket bold words and underscores
can bracket italics in that app. I think this newsreader displays
_word_ as an underscored word, but I won't know until I read it as an
incoming article, as before.

I knew about stars for emphasis, but I didn't know about displaying it
as bold type until I started using MesNews a couple of years ago.

-- Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")



Just goes to show how many years you can use something for, and still
not know all about it. The underlining thing is yet another one to add
to my knowledgebase. So I wonder if you can both bracket and slash
either side to ensure that it will get read as italics in either variety
of reader. And then again, can you add stars as well for bold and
italics ?

Arfa


Senior moment. That should of course, have read "underscore and slash". I
hate getting old ...

Arfa

Just to make you feel younger:

*/_test phrase_/*

For some reason, I felt I had to do LIFO on the markers :-)


LOL ! Thanks. Feeling better now ...

Arfa

On Aug 13, 4:07 am, Arno Wagner wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc Doc wrote:
enough to get me through short hit outages with both machines running.

And with the el-cheapo battery in there, that figure will be down to
1 minute in no time. And you would be well advised to test the
claim. Software can be made to lie to you, you know.

If i may ask a related question: ups comes with small batteries so as
to make it portable. Once I've put it in a permanent location, can I
connect a bigger battery by using cables (say replacing the 12 Ah with
30 Ah battery?) or the charger will be exhausted bringing the bigger
battery up to capacity?

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:02:08 -0000, Dan wrote:

If i may ask a related question: ups comes with small batteries so as
to make it portable. Once I've put it in a permanent location, can I
connect a bigger battery by using cables (say replacing the 12 Ah with
30 Ah battery?) or the charger will be exhausted bringing the bigger
battery up to capacity?

The UPS can get too hot.

I don't really think that cvonvergence has been much of an
issue since slotmasks became the norm many years ago,
as these are inherently self converging.

LOL! I am holding a service manual for a Sony slot-mask
Trinitron monitor featuring 3 pages of instructions on how to
accomplish what you call "self-convergence".

Whilst very cheap-end CRT monitors and TV sets might still have
some slight convergence issues at the screen extremities, I can't
honestly say that I have seen anything in this respect worth
commenting on, for some years now.

Perhaps I'm just lucky, or just selectively seeing what I want
( or don't ! ) want to ... d;~}

That explains it.

I don't really think that convergence has been much of an
issue since slotmasks became the norm many years ago,
as these are inherently self converging.

LOL! I am holding a service manual for a Sony slot-mask
Trinitron monitor featuring 3 pages of instructions on how
to accomplish what you call "self-convergence".

There is nothing inherently "self-converging" about slot-mask CRTs.

The original "delta" gun pattern required a fairly elaborate convergence
process. In the early '60s, GE introduced an "in-line" gun arrangement (the
first of its kind, AFAIK) that had less lateral misconvergence than the
delta design, and thus a simpler setup.

Sometime in the '70s, I think (CMIIW), the precision in-line (PIL) system
was introduced. The deflection yokes were deliberately miswound (using a
plastic former with ribbing that precisely positioned the wires) to distort
the deflection and thus produce correct convergence with minimal
adjustments.

I'm typing this missive at ViewSonic PerfectFlat A95f monitor that has
perfect (and I mean perfect) purity and convergence right to the very
corners. The tube is a Diamondtron, Mitsubishi's version of a Trinitron.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'm typing this missive at ViewSonic PerfectFlat A95f monitor that has
perfect (and I mean perfect) purity and convergence right to the very
corners. The tube is a Diamondtron, Mitsubishi's version of a Trinitron.

If you keep the monitor for a few years, you'll need to readjust it in
order to keep it that way.

Life's like that. Entropy happens, and so you need to do preventative
maintenance.

People today forget about doing maintenance, and then they complain when
stuff stops working right.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'm typing this missive at ViewSonic PerfectFlat A95f monitor that has
perfect (and I mean perfect) purity and convergence right to the very
corners. The tube is a Diamondtron, Mitsubishi's version of a Trinitron.

If you keep the monitor for a few years, you'll need to readjust it in
order to keep it that way.

The monitor is almost 6 years old, and is holding up well. It has not
deteriorated in any way I'm aware of.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'm typing this missive at ViewSonic PerfectFlat A95f monitor that
has
perfect (and I mean perfect) purity and convergence right to the
very
corners. The tube is a Diamondtron, Mitsubishi's version of a
Trinitron.

If you keep the monitor for a few years, you'll need to readjust it
in
order to keep it that way.

The monitor is almost 6 years old, and is holding up well. It has not
deteriorated in any way I'm aware of.

Of course it is possible that our eyesight is deteriorating at
approx. the same rate and degree as the monitor. :-)

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'm typing this missive at ViewSonic PerfectFlat A95f monitor that has
perfect (and I mean perfect) purity and convergence right to the very
corners. The tube is a Diamondtron, Mitsubishi's version of a
Trinitron.

If you keep the monitor for a few years, you'll need to readjust it in
order to keep it that way.

The monitor is almost 6 years old, and is holding up well. It has not
deteriorated in any way I'm aware of.

Of course it is possible that our eyesight is deteriorating at
approx. the same rate and degree as the monitor. :-)

Of course it is far more likely that the deterioration is accomodated by our
perception over time and is not noticed. Every phosphor based display
deteriorates from the day it it put into use. If the user compared that 6
year old monitor to a new one he would likely be surprised at the
difference. The phosphors and the guns have deteriorated over that time,
though convergence and geometry are little effected, intensity and to some
degree focus certainly are.

Leonard

But these days, by the time six years is up, folks are buying
a new display anyway...

This ViewSonic is the best I've ever owned, beating even the Sonys. I don't
have the money for a new monitor at the moment. I'll purchase an LCD when I
get a new computer in a year or two.

On Aug 14, 7:54 pm, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

I'd have to disagree on this, if there is anything that is a
clear win for LCD, it is image sharpness... it doesn't get
any sharper than having individual pixel representation.
This can be offset in perception if the particular LCD has
poor contrast but it is still just as "sharp", though not as
vibrant.

I wonder if Doc is running his LCD at a non-native resolution...


Don't have one, just going by what I've seen on display at various
places. I have a 17" CRT monitor that I really like.

Doc wrote:

Don't have one, just going by what I've seen on display at various
places. I have a 17" CRT monitor that I really like.

Don't go by what you see in the stores. The store demos of video monitors
are as poorly set-up as the store demos of microphones and TV sets.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."