New monitors on old machines

[Dave McGuire]

   You see no merit in learning how to do something?  *THAT* is  
laughable.

               -Dave

On Nov 3, 2006, at 4:32 PM, Julian Wolfe wrote:
> I see no merit in reinventing the wheel in this case.  If you're  
> really that
> cheap, find one on ebay for less.  This whole debate is laughable.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
>> [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chris M
>> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 3:16 PM
>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>> Subject: RE: New monitors on old machines
>>
>> --- Julian Wolfe <fireflyst at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No really, just buy a $100 scanconverter. It's not worth
>> the hassle.
>>> What's your time worth?
>>
>>  There is the merit of learning how to do something.
>> No, I for one can't blow a c-note everyday on whatever I feel
>> like either.
>>
>>>> Well, I wonder what the chances are that an LCD
>>> monitor would
>>>> work with CGA inputs (dropped down to the proper
>>> voltage
>>>> levels).  The question gets back to the sync
>>> issue.  But it
>>>> would not surprise me if some of them might not
>>> actually have
>>>> been designed to accept NTSC TV scan rates.
>>
>>  If some of these things had a seperate "video" input,
>> I can see them accepting 15.75khz. But if we're
>> talking about the 15 pin connection, what would be the
>> reason for constructing the thing to take it there?
>>  And it occurred to me, some of these modern
>> multisyncs, though probably a long shot, might wind up
>> being able to accept 26.4khz. There's nothing saying
>> they'd automatically crap the bed as soon as it sees
>> 31.499999999khz. But like I said, if any did, they'd
>> probably be few and far between. And we are talking
>> about a single that isn't too far off. I'm not privy
>> to the way a thing "decides" if a signal is kosher or
>> not (and of course it's ability to work with certain
>> frequencies has to do with the tolerance of the
>> individual components), but perhaps they could be
>> tweaked to accept something a tad lower, but keep in
>> mind the previous parenthetical info. Push it too hard
>> and you might see a few sparks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ______________________
>> Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates
>> (http://voice.yahoo.com)
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL