Thanks. So when Peter says "1600x1200 is easily handled by any 17" CRT made in the last five years" what he actually means is it can be handled by a small handful of premium 'pro' series monitors that were released /more/ than five years ago and are no longer produced. Ok. I'll try and avoid Peter's fact needle in future
Could you check your facts and supply some references please?
A quick look at Iiyama's website ( [link] ) showed only 2 17'' monitors and they both have a 'maximum resolution of 1280x1024@65Hz'. If they can be encouraged to get to 1600x1200 the refresh rate would be truly terrible.
The story is very similar over at Viewsonic ( [link] ) where the max a 17'' does is 1280x1024@66Hz. The recommended resolution for 'flicker free' operation of these monitors is 1024x768.
Going up to a 19'' CRT tells a different story however, and this is where you'd really want to know if the A9home can do your monitor justice.
Yes, I take what I said back; 1600x1200 is beyond what most people use simply because most people with newish computers are probably using 15-19" LCDs with resolutions of 1024x768 to 1280x1024. Most people with CRTs probably have ones that are only capable of up to 1280x1024 at reasonable refresh rates as well.
Anyway, 1600x1200@60Hz is perfect for a 20+'' LCD (pity no DVI output unless I missed a spec). My only query remains 1600x1200 on a CRT which at 60Hz wouldn't be acceptable to most people - if the designers are going to say it does something in their FAQ they ought to be completely honest about it and not mislead people who might have CRTs capable of 1600x1200 at high refresh rates.
You said you /thought/ it was 60Hz, and after Stuarts email I rather assumed I was wrong about it being 60Hz. If I was correct, evidently Stuart likes sending people pissy emails for no particular reason :/
There was a 19"er that did it, but typically you find this resolution at 20.1" and higher. No, that's not big. My 21" LCD is only 2" wider than my 17" CRT and 9" less deep. If comparing to another LCD surely the A9 being so small means you now have extra desk space for a larger monitor?
"As I understand it the A9 produces a resolution beyond what is generally used and well within the specs of the chips. Not an issue."
I've heard no claim that it produces beyond 1600x1200, and if you're saying that 1280x1024 (next lower common resolution) is 'beyond what is generally used' you're mixing things up. If 1280x1024 or lower is in common use it is because people are using ancient computers not capable of higher. They aren't willing to pay for a viewfinder or upgrade to an Iyonix, but a cheaper computer finally able to display modern resolutions (that everyone outside the RISC OS community enjoys) would be ideal. This rather breaks down if the new cheap computer doesn't actually do what its designers say it does in an acceptable way (1600x1200 on a CRT over 60Hz), which is what we were confused about.
Why not be helpful and encourage Stuart Tyrrell to reveal the refresh rate at 1600x1200 and then we can all be happy and just look forward to the machine's release.