repositories for specs of old equipment
Jack Campin - bogus address
nobody sells any more. (In this case a Flatron L1710S monitor,
but I've had the same problem with all sorts of kit, as most
of what I use is third-hand junk). Sites that promise "reviews"
or "expert reviews" or "FAQs" or "detailed specs" usually have
nothing of the kind and lead you on a pointless chase through
mazes before you discover that.
What sites do people here turn to when they plug in a grey box
from a charity shop or car boot sale and want to find its pixel
count, power rating or saturated fat content?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> What sites do people here turn to when they plug in a grey box
> from a charity shop or car boot sale and want to find its pixel
> count, power rating or saturated fat content?
My stash of old Mac specs, archived on my discs after being downloaded
from Apple over the last 15 years.
Sorry, is that not helpful?
;-)
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Jon B
> It's a bugger trying to find the spec of a piece of hardware
> nobody sells any more. (In this case a Flatron L1710S monitor,
> but I've had the same problem with all sorts of kit, as most
> of what I use is third-hand junk). Sites that promise "reviews"
> or "expert reviews" or "FAQs" or "detailed specs" usually have
> nothing of the kind and lead you on a pointless chase through
> mazes before you discover that.
>
> What sites do people here turn to when they plug in a grey box
> from a charity shop or car boot sale and want to find its pixel
> count, power rating or saturated fat content?
>
Well first port of call is the manufacturers site, L1710 is a relatively
recent piece of kit, so the drivers and manual are still on the LG site
<http://www.lge.com/uk/support/product/support-product-profile.jsp?custo
merModelCode=L1710S&initialTab=documents&targetPage=support-product-prof
ile>
though unfortunately it requires DjVu reader which requires IE.
What tech spec were you needing? I did find
<http://tech.vault9.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t13375.html>
with this feature list
:: 16ms response time
:: 1280 x 1024 @ 75hz
:: 500:1 contrast ratio
:: 3 year warranty
:: integrated power block
:: wall mountable
:: Full 17inches viewable
--
Jon B
Above email address IS valid.
<http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs.
T i m
wrote:
>
><http://www.lge.com/uk/support/product/support-product-profile.jsp?custo
>merModelCode=L1710S&initialTab=documents&targetPage=support-product-prof
>ile>
>
>though unfortunately it requires DjVu reader which requires IE.
Another example of locking out a whole bunch of people (in 2009)? ;-(
T i m
Jack Campin - bogus address
> Well first port of call is the manufacturers site, L1710 is a relatively
> recent piece of kit, so the drivers and manual are still on the LG site
> <http://www.lge.com/uk/support/product/support-product-profile.jsp?custo
> merModelCode=L1710S&initialTab=documents&targetPage=support-product-prof
> ile>
>
> though unfortunately it requires DjVu reader which requires IE.
>
> What tech spec were you needing? I did find
> <http://tech.vault9.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t13375.html>
> :: 1280 x 1024 @ 75hz
I was trying to work out what screen resolution might work best. By
trial and error I ended up getting the smoothest fonts with 1152x870
at 75Hz.
Where do such weird numbers come from? Why would you want your
screen height pixel count to be a multiple of 29?
T i m
<colin...@x.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:14:15 +0000, T i m wrote
>(in article <a2ghi51mdfrcunjv0...@4ax.com>):
>Just for the record and to avoid any doubt, DjVu plugin is available as a Max
>OS X universal binary, and there's a version for Classic too I think. The
>DjVu plugin works just fine. I'm using Safari with it.
Genuinely glad to hear it.
>
>I'm not commenting on the really badly broken use of JavaScript
>isIE=document.all; as a browser detection mechanism.
K
T i m
Chris Ridd
> I was trying to work out what screen resolution might work best. By
> trial and error I ended up getting the smoothest fonts with 1152x870
> at 75Hz.
>
> Where do such weird numbers come from? Why would you want your
> screen height pixel count to be a multiple of 29?
Most graphics chips lay out displays in memory as sequential rows of
pixels. The first thing you try to do is make each row as efficient as
possible - both in terms of getting from row to row, and in terms of
using all the bits in each row and not having any wasted memory.
So if you look at your horizontal resolution first - 1152. That turns
out to be 1024 + 128 which are both powers of 2, ie in binary it is
10010000000. That's efficient, because to access columns in the row you
just modify the bottom (7) zero bits, and to get from row to row you
modify the bits the bottom 7 bits. Bit twiddling like that is easier
than arbitrary addition and subtraction.
Vertical resolution's a bit trickier. I *think* you can work out the
vertical resolution for working out what bandwidth you've got to the
display (or how much video memory you've got) and dividing that into
your horizontal rows. Maximizing that gives you your maximum vertical
resolution. That's how I'd do it anyway :-)
--
Chris
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> :: 1280 x 1024 @ 75hz
>
>I was trying to work out what screen resolution might work best. By
>trial and error I ended up getting the smoothest fonts with 1152x870
>at 75Hz.
Which is bizzarre, when the physical dots on the screen are 1280x1024.
Did you try that resolution?
If the fonts look smoother at the lower resolution, then what you're
seeing as smoothness is interpolation by the monitor electronics,
smooshing your 1152x870 up to the real 1280x1024 res.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
panic("Foooooooood fight!");
-- /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aha1542.c
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What sites do people here turn to when they plug in a grey box
>from a charity shop or car boot sale and want to find its pixel
>count, power rating or saturated fat content?
Google, then the maker's website, then Google harder if nothing comes
out.
In the case of the Flatron, it was only moments -
http://reviews.cnet.com/LG_Flatron_L1710S/4505-3174_7-30524052.html
was first hit fot "Flatron L1710S", and has a "specifications" button.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Beer has food value, but food has no beer value.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> I was trying to work out what screen resolution might work best. By
>> trial and error I ended up getting the smoothest fonts with 1152x870
>> at 75Hz.
> Which is bizzarre, when the physical dots on the screen are 1280x1024.
> Did you try that resolution?
Yes - it gave an odd effect where (using a fixed width font
like Courier) letters in some columns were darker than others.
I guessed this was some sort of aliasing artifact.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> from a charity shop or car boot sale and want to find its pixel
>> count, power rating or saturated fat content?
> Google, then the maker's website, then Google harder if nothing comes
> out.
> In the case of the Flatron, it was only moments -
> http://reviews.cnet.com/LG_Flatron_L1710S/4505-3174_7-30524052.html
> was first hit fot "Flatron L1710S", and has a "specifications" button.
I tried that - no reviews, no relevant content at all. Complete
waste of space.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> :: 1280 x 1024 @ 75hz
>>> I was trying to work out what screen resolution might work best. By
>>> trial and error I ended up getting the smoothest fonts with 1152x870
>>> at 75Hz.
>> Which is bizzarre, when the physical dots on the screen are 1280x1024.
>> Did you try that resolution?
>
>Yes - it gave an odd effect where (using a fixed width font
>like Courier) letters in some columns were darker than others.
>I guessed this was some sort of aliasing artifact.
It does. Sounds like the monitor isn't correctly locking onto the VGA
signal - it's an analogue connection, so you get sync issues. Go back
to 1280x1024@75Hz and put something full-screen that has clear edges -
if this is the trouble, some edges (probably right and lower) won't be
in the correct place, most likely off the screen entirely.
If the monitor has any pixel clock or phase settings in its menu, or
an autoadjust, try fiddling with them.
You should try 1280x1024@60Hz as well. That's a more normal refresh
rate for signals to TFTs, so it might lock onto that better.
... I've *never* understood why old/cheap LCD screens came with VGA
sockets. Surely the analogue->digital converters cost more than
putting a pure digital DVI socket in place.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex."
-- Marvin the Martian
Dr Geoff Hone
>> In the case of the Flatron, it was only moments -
>> http://reviews.cnet.com/LG_Flatron_L1710S/4505-3174_7-30524052.html
>> was first hit fot "Flatron L1710S", and has a "specifications" button.
>
>I tried that - no reviews, no relevant content at all. Complete
>waste of space.
Funny, it worked for me. I have an interest in this thread because of
two Flatrons.
L1710B which works on both PC and G4 (under OS9 and OS X - dual boot
setup)
W2234S which works on both PC and G4 (under OS X only)
In accordance with Murpy's Law, it is easy to hook the G4 up to the
large monitor (currently attached to my Windoze machine) and very hard
to connect up the L1710B (cuirrently hooked to my wife's PC).
Pity that the *office* does not allow three desktops to be permanently
set up (but the G4 and the TiBook can connect wirelessly).
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> What sites do people here turn to when they plug in a grey box
>>> from a charity shop or car boot sale and want to find its pixel
>>> count, power rating or saturated fat content?
>> Google, then the maker's website, then Google harder if nothing comes
>> out.
>> In the case of the Flatron, it was only moments -
>> http://reviews.cnet.com/LG_Flatron_L1710S/4505-3174_7-30524052.html
>> was first hit fot "Flatron L1710S", and has a "specifications" button.
>
>I tried that - no reviews, no relevant content at all. Complete
>waste of space.
You asked for specs, it's got specs. You ask for reviews, you look for
reviews. Since you already own the thing, why would you? Just write
your own!
Ccheers -
--
"How do you like your blue-eyed boy now, Mr Death?" - e e cummings/Tom Baker