Munir Nassar wrote: > > ill take one or two... as long as they are 15, can do > 1024x768 and say 16bit color (preferably 24bit) Just FYI: Computer monitors (except for a very small subset) are analog, so they don't make a distinction in bit depths. A monitor that can do 8bpp will also be able to run at 16bpp, 24bpp, or anything else. I should point out that he mentioned that the monitors only do 1024x768 _interlaced_. I wouldn't recommend using the monitor at that resolution. Then again, maybe you don't mind if the horizontal lines on your screen jump around.. BTW, since we're talking about monitors, I just thought I'd mention my recent purchase: I picked up a decent FD (flat-fronted) Trinitron display at Best Buy for $250 just over a week ago. It's 17" (16" viewable), and the image you get at 1600x1200 at 65Hz from it is pretty crisp. It does have a few problems -- occasionally you can see some extremely faint ghosting, and it doesn't have all of the controls that you would expect in a high-end monitor (but heck, what do expect for a $250 Trinitron?). Anyway, it's labeled as a `micronpc.com' monitor. -- _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Youth. It's a wonder / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ that anyone ever \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) outgrows it. [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088 at tc.umn.edu ]