--- Julian Wolfe <fireflyst at earthlink.net> wrote: 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. 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)

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.

Again, I try to limit my input to discussions that may result in an answer not previously obtainable. In most cases, the technical discussions on this list are of this ilk. In this particular case, there is a simple, easy solution, and there's ample documentation on how it's done. It got entirely ignored until I pointed it out more bluntly. This start-all-over-and-hack-something mentality is as silly as shutting off a light switch so you can stumble around in the dark on purpose.

And thusly were the wise words spake by Geoff Reed Lindsay's Technical Books comes to mind.. :) Cheers, Bryan

And thusly were the wise words spake by Chris M O! I am sorry... To everyone... You didn't see anything.. (moving hands in circles) Cheers, !Bryan

I've noticed a number of messages here recently where people are getting (IMHO) unfair criitism doing something in a particular way. For most (if not all) of us here, classic computers are a hobby. We work on them because we enjoy it. And nobody has the (moral) right to tell me what I should or should not enjoy. Period. All that's important in that respect is that my hobby does not adversely affect others. If somebody wants to spend many weeks designign and building something that thaey couuld buy ready-made for $100, that's their busienss. For some of us, $100 _is_ a considerable amount of money, not something we can spend without thinking about it. And yet we have plenty of time to tinker with such things. And of course the experience and education gained by designing and building something is often worth a lot. I can assure you that if I had a T2000 (I wish...) and didn't have the original monitor, I would not buy some undocuemtned [1] module to attempt to link up a more modern monitor. After all, that module was presumably not intneded to work at T2000 scan rates anyway, so it might not work correctly. No, I'd either design my oown scan converter, or modify a monitor to work at T2000 rates. [1] I have yet to see a 'scan doubler' that came with proper documentation. I'm not just moaning about a lack of schematics (as usual), but I've not even seen one that comes with proper specifications of the inputs and outputs. It's about as stupid as always having somebody else do the work and not learning anything about the problem or its solution. No thanks! -tony

Sure, My point is not that you _must_ make your own scan converter (or modify a monitor, or...), rather that there's nothing wrong with so doing if you want to. It's not stupid to want to do it yourself, nor is it stupid to buy the unit if you don't like hardware hacking. -tony

Heh. Someone tried to tell me that, I'd ask them where I could get a USB-capable machine with a Windows - or whatever OS the software they're talking about demands - license for under $50. (I've got exactly one machine with USB hardware, and there ain't no way any closed-source software - OS or USB dongle interface - is going anywhere near it.) Well, except I don't do video capture, but, mutatis mutandis.... /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Rumor has it that Julian Wolfe may have mentioned these words: I do that every night. I'm the "night owl" of the family, and the light switch is on one end of the hallway (top of stairs; other switch is at bottom of stairs), my bedroom on the other. The hallway itself is unlit. Now, I *could* walk down to the bedroom, turn on a light, walk back, turn off the hallway light, then walk back to the bedroom again, but a) that takes a lot of time, and b) that would wake my wife, which has dire consequences for her sleep. If I don't want to get woken up at 6:00 am (not to mention - ahem - other benefits :-O ), I tend not to wake her up at 2:00 am... So I stumble around in the dark on purpose. I guess I'm just silly. If everyone took your point of view, I wouldn't have either of the recently made direct-connect VGA *or* SVideo adapters for my Tandy CoCo 3 -- which cost me $50 each. Why spend $100 for one, when I spent $100 for two, didn't have to hack a special cable, and supported those who are keeping the hobby alive in the process???? But again, I guess I'm just silly. Ungh. Plonk. Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers zmerch at 30below.com Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!

Fred Cisin wrote: 5) Sleep on the sofa :) 6) Night light

Chuck Guzis wrote: Ah, now we had an office with those. Great until it gets dark while you're sitting fairly still coding away. Gordon.

Gordon JC Pearce wrote: I've worked in buildings where they had motion sensor light controls in the men's bathrooms. No big deal if you're at the stand-ups, but if you're sitting in a stall the sensors can't "see" you. One office manager told me "there's a reason we did that." :-) Doc

--- Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: Umm didn't like jumping jacks go out with Jack La Lanne LOL?? Are there any findings to suggest that there are any REAL health benefits associated with the activity?? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Loan for $1399/mo. Calcuate new payment. www.LowerMyBills.com/lre

I will agree with both of those comments. The Maplin catalogue (Maplin is a high-street electronics shop in the UK) lists a PAL decoder that takes in UK TV PAL video (if you see what I mean) and outputs analogue RGB and sync on a DE15 connector. The catalogue description claims that most LCD panels and projectors will sync to that. Not having got such a display I can't comment further. I recently used an video projector. It had a RCA video input (which could take PAL, NTSC, SECAM (I think), etc). A S-video socket. And a DE15. The last was both for VGA inputs _and_ for aanlogue RGB at TV (15.x kHxx horizontal) rates. It wouldn't suprise me if other devices were similar in this respect/ With a CRT monitor, where the horizontal deflection system is resonated at some harmonic of the expected hroizotnal scan frequency, then driving it at the wrong rate will cause damage. But I don;t think that applies to an LCD or plasma panel. Most likely, if it can't make sense of what it's getting it'll display the 'no video' or 'sync lost' or ... message and that'll be all. -tony