Got these today, unfortunately the SB16 to AWE addon card seems to be damaged but since I got them all for almost nothing it's not a big deal.
Check me out at Transcendental Airwaves on Youtube! Fast-food sucks!
wrote:Got these today, unfortunately the SB16 to AWE addon card seems to be damaged but since I got them all for almost nothing it's not a big deal.
Cool! What are you going to use that Weitek VLB card for? From memory that chipset is super-slow in DOS.
Life? Don't talk to me about life.
No idea. 🤣 I just saw that it was a VGA ISA card and thought I could shove it in a 486 computer I have that only has MGA graphics.
Check me out at Transcendental Airwaves on Youtube! Fast-food sucks!
wrote:wrote:http://i.imgur.com/hfssbTO.jpg […]
No offence intended here, but it just looks like the LCD screen on the right has it's brightness/contrast turned up too high. Normal LCD screens shouldn't be bright like that... just looks like to me it's set wrong.
Additionally, it looks early generation. A later model LCD would have significantly better contrast.
wrote:wrote:I didn't mean SiS chips are bad, I meant integrated/on-board graphics isn't good enough for 3D games, especially 8MB. As you've wrote good PCI card will be fine! For this motherboard I will use MATROX Millenium II 8MB PCI and 2 x 3dfx Voodoo2 Diamond Monster 8MB in SLI mode, one card still need repair 😒
GeForce you said? I remember my first Radeon DDR 32MB I bought and remember how enjoyable was Clive Barker's Undying on it !8MB isn't good enough for 3D games? Depends on the game. I don't see it handicapping anything that will run on a K6-2 that much. Hell, I've run games like NFS III on systems with 2.5/3 MB of VRAM, albeit with 500 MHz PIIIs, and the settings were pretty reasonable as well (640x480, everything turned all the way up IIRC - maybe even 800x600).
As to the screen ranting; large widescreens are very useful for browsing, and indeed gaming. The only time they're a handicap, in my opinion (ignoring the obvious "4:3 optimized applications", which includes physical things), is when editing text documents in portrait format. Widescreen CRTs do exist, my parents had a widescreen CRT TV in the past IIRC. As much as I would love a CRT, they're just too big, too heavy and too power-hungry for the modern world (where are people getting 85W figures from for LCDs? I've never seen a TFT with close to that - 30W is the highest I'm aware of, although I've not had any massive ones. Just because the power supply can supply it, doesn't mean the monitor needs it.). And I agree with other posters; no good trying to show off CRT's superiority when it's blatantly obvious that the Dell TFT isn't even close to being set up correctly. A LCD will actually be pretty cool if there is no built-in power supply (source: my monitor)
Why are they useful for browsing? Most sites are vertical stripes anyway... Considering 19" 5:4 LCDs, they are still widely available. The one I use at work is a year old and the IT department still buys them for every computer here. It's a Flatron E1910, a pretty budget model consuming 19W from the wall socket. LED backlight is a nice feature, same colored pixels look exaclty the same way wherever they are on the screen. My second monitor is Samsung 920N, also a budget model, but much older, so I can see the difference between now and then.
wrote:wrote:wrote:http://i.imgur.com/hfssbTO.jpg […]
No offence intended here, but it just looks like the LCD screen on the right has it's brightness/contrast turned up too high. Normal LCD screens shouldn't be bright like that... just looks like to me it's set wrong.
Additionally, it looks early generation. A later model LCD would have significantly better contrast.
I think the sun(?) light comes from the left side, so the panel reflects it. Hence it seems, brightness / contrast ist too hogh.
Swap the display and you will see a difference.
wrote:wrote:wrote:I didn't mean SiS chips are bad, I meant integrated/on-board graphics isn't good enough for 3D games, especially 8MB. As you've wrote good PCI card will be fine! For this motherboard I will use MATROX Millenium II 8MB PCI and 2 x 3dfx Voodoo2 Diamond Monster 8MB in SLI mode, one card still need repair 😒
GeForce you said? I remember my first Radeon DDR 32MB I bought and remember how enjoyable was Clive Barker's Undying on it !8MB isn't good enough for 3D games? Depends on the game. I don't see it handicapping anything that will run on a K6-2 that much. Hell, I've run games like NFS III on systems with 2.5/3 MB of VRAM, albeit with 500 MHz PIIIs, and the settings were pretty reasonable as well (640x480, everything turned all the way up IIRC - maybe even 800x600).
As to the screen ranting; large widescreens are very useful for browsing, and indeed gaming. The only time they're a handicap, in my opinion (ignoring the obvious "4:3 optimized applications", which includes physical things), is when editing text documents in portrait format. Widescreen CRTs do exist, my parents had a widescreen CRT TV in the past IIRC. As much as I would love a CRT, they're just too big, too heavy and too power-hungry for the modern world (where are people getting 85W figures from for LCDs? I've never seen a TFT with close to that - 30W is the highest I'm aware of, although I've not had any massive ones. Just because the power supply can supply it, doesn't mean the monitor needs it.). And I agree with other posters; no good trying to show off CRT's superiority when it's blatantly obvious that the Dell TFT isn't even close to being set up correctly. A LCD will actually be pretty cool if there is no built-in power supply (source: my monitor)
Why are they useful for browsing? Most sites are vertical stripes anyway... Considering 19" 5:4 LCDs, they are still widely available. The one I use at work is a year old and the IT department still buys them for every computer here. It's a Flatron E1910, a pretty budget model consuming 19W from the wall socket. LED backlight is a nice feature, same colored pixels look exaclty the same way wherever they are on the screen. My second monitor is Samsung 920N, also a budget model, but much older, so I can see the difference between now and then.
Almost every single modern site is now set up to work with widescreen monitors - including this one. You get more text on the screen with a widescreen monitor (at least in theory), with the layout being closer to a book. I've never understood the irrational hatred for widescreens, it just seems like people objecting to change for the sake of objecting to change.
wrote:Almost every single modern site is now set up to work with widescreen monitors - including this one. You get more text on the screen with a widescreen monitor (at least in theory), with the layout being closer to a book. I've never understood the irrational hatred for widescreens, it just seems like people objecting to change for the sake of objecting to change.
Windows snap FTW!
wrote:I've never understood the irrational hatred for widescreens, it just seems like people objecting to change for the sake of objecting to change.
Haters gonna hate!
Fortex, the A3D & XG/OPL3 accelerator (Vortex 2 + YMF744 combo sound card)
AWE64 Legacy
Please have a look at my wishlist (hosted on Amibay)
wrote:Almost every single modern site is now set up to work with widescreen monitors - including this one. You get more text on the screen with a widescreen monitor (at least in theory), with the layout being closer to a book. I've never understood the irrational hatred for widescreens, it just seems like people objecting to change for the sake of objecting to change.
It isn't irrational. I just don't think turning a monitor that would have a resolution of 1280x1024 into one that has a resolution of 1280x800 is a good idea, seems kind of backwards to me. And they are simply horrible to multi-task with. Widescreen is for TVs, 5:4 and 4:3 is for getting shit done.
Also, the theory is wrong, the only results I have yielded from widescreen when browsing are that there are A: Larger borders at the side of the text area and B: I have to scroll more due to a lack of vertical resolution. Also C: They take up too much space and look stupid.
wrote:wrote:Almost every single modern site is now set up to work with widescreen monitors - including this one. You get more text on the screen with a widescreen monitor (at least in theory), with the layout being closer to a book. I've never understood the irrational hatred for widescreens, it just seems like people objecting to change for the sake of objecting to change.
It isn't irrational. I just don't think turning a monitor that would have a resolution of 1280x1024 into one that has a resolution of 1280x800 is a good idea, seems kind of backwards to me. And they are simply horrible to multi-task with. Widescreen is for TVs, 5:4 and 4:3 is for getting shit done.
Also, the theory is wrong, the only results I have yielded from widescreen when browsing are that there are A: Larger borders at the side of the text area and B: I have to scroll more due to a lack of vertical resolution. Also C) They take up more than half my desk and look stupid.
Disagree on pretty much every count. Firstly, please show me the large number of 1280x800 displays; because I'm pretty sure there aren't that many. 1366x768, yes, but that is XGA given some more real estate, which is a good thing. And on that front, the amount of vertical real estate is exactly the same. If that's not enough, just get a proper 1080p monitor, they're hardly expensive or rare. There are very few modern sites that have "large" borders at the side of any text area - and if there are any, then they will either also be present on an older display, or will be the result of lazy website design. Still not the fault of the screen design. Point C is a ridiculous point; trying to argue they "look stupid" is just lame, and if your desk is so small that you can barely fit a widescreen monitor on it, I pity you; even my desk at home, which is far from massive, can fit a 19" TFT and a 21.5" LED IPS monitor on it... and I can think of several locations where a large 4:3 wouldn't have fitted, but a large 16:9 did.
And multi tasking is harder on a 16:9? Exactly what are you doing? It's easier to put two windows side by side on a 16:9 than it is on a 4:3!
This Xerox monitor still seems most practical (aspect ratio-wise) to me for internet and office use. Man, it's got A4 aspect ratio, the same as the actual paper.
What bugs me most is how "well" wide screens are combined with Office 2007+ interface. Window header and the multi-function stripe eat up vertical space that the monitor lacks and taskbar+window footer make the situation worse. The interface is 229 pixels high and on a 1440x900 19" screen is 25% of used vertical space. The horizontal space, however, is completely wasted.
wrote:I'm really annoyed by the fact that "widescreen" sizes have taken over everywhere. I don't understand the appeal, at all. They […]
I'm really annoyed by the fact that "widescreen" sizes have taken over everywhere. I don't understand the appeal, at all. They're just annoyingly overwide and too short vertically. In an era where many people run multiple monitors side-by-side, this makes the dimensions even more ridiculous. It's a silly trend that I wish would end, but I'm sure the manufacturers like the convenience of being able to use the same parts they use for TV production, so they won't have any interest in encouraging anything other than 16:9 for everybody and everything. Even 16:10 is becoming a rarity nowadays.
I can't figure out why movies are so important that computer screen dimensions are dictated by it, and real movie theaters don't use 16:9 anyway. More like 2.35:1 or something like that. Will that be the next trend? I hope not.
I'm using a group of 5:4 LCDs right now, but none of them are in great condition. When they die, I loathe that I'll probably end up having to buy a silly 16:9. Which will take up so much desk space that I won't even be able to put other monitors next to it anymore, but it will save plenty of space in the open air floating above it. Good deal.
A long time ago, I had a 1600x1200@85Hz capable CRT. I wish I had it now. It was getting fuzzy and hard on my eyes though.
They still make 5:4 LCDs - I bought one last summer from NEC (model is either AS172 or 174; I forget the last # 😊 ). It uses under 15W (LED backlit), runs at room temperature, does a good job with a variety of 1280*whatever (different AR) resolutions, and even supports HDCP via DVI input. I'm happy with it. 😀
wrote:This Xerox monitor still seems most practical (aspect ratio-wise) to me for internet and office use. Man, it's got A4 aspect ratio, the same as the actual paper.
I actually have a 16:9 monitor setup like that ("9:16") at my main workstation for viewing text documents and similar tasks. It's "split" into a pair of "9:8" subdivisions in software as well, so when I'm not viewing text I can treat it as two smaller, nearly square displays. It's very convenient. It is not, however, very useful for watching movies/TV, and I haven't been brave enough to try gaming on it. 😊 It's a secondary monitor though, so none of those "problems" are really problems for me - I just use my normal, horizontally oriented, monitors for movies and games. 😀
wrote:Disagree on pretty much every count. Firstly, please show me the large number of 1280x800 displays; because I'm pretty sure there aren't that many.
All but a single widescreen I have seen are limited to this resolution. I've seen more 1024x600 ones though so maybe you're right.
1366x768, yes, but that is XGA given some more real estate, which is a good thing.
Rubbish. My CRT from 1999 (I bought it as a last-in-line in 2001) goes to 1600x1200. I want an upgrade, not a downgrade.
And on that front, the amount of vertical real estate is exactly the same. If that's not enough, just get a proper 1080p monitor, they're hardly expensive or rare.
No, but that's TV resolution. I'm trying to use a computer on it and don't like the idea of having to lose hundreds of pixels.
There are very few modern sites that have "large" borders at the side of any text area - and if there are any, then they will either also be present on an older display, or will be the result of lazy website design.
Sure, it's there on my full screen display, but is less pronounced. What am I supposed to do about lazy web design? I didn't design the website. I got the impression most were designed for tall narrow displays as used on tablet computers to be honest.
Still not the fault of the screen design. Point C is a ridiculous point; trying to argue they "look stupid" is just lame, and if your desk is so small that you can barely fit a widescreen monitor on it, I pity you; even my desk at home, which is far from massive, can fit a 19" TFT and a 21.5" LED IPS monitor on it... and I can think of several locations where a large 4:3 wouldn't have fitted, but a large 16:9 did.
Well bully for you for having a bigger house than me where you can afford a big desk and find a place to put it. I see this as a slight judgement of me and my home which was not necessary, you didn't need to agree with me but dragging it down to this level is unacceptable.
When was the last time you saw a 15-17 inch display capable of the resolution I want? They don't exist for the most part. The only one I found was from NEC a few years back and cost over $2000 so it was not happening, it had a response time of 35ms too so it would have been useless, I think there were passive displays faster than that. If you can find me a 15-17" display in 4:3 (or 5:4) aspect capable of 1600x1200 of higher with <3ms response time for less than £70 I'll get one, but you'll never do it. This was achievable 15 years ago. My desk is at it's limit with a 15" and a 17" display, I tried replacing the 15" with a spare LCD for a while when it wasn't working but it would not fit on the desk, the widescreen one was out of the question. I have nowhere to put a larger desk nor can I afford one. I am also having to move to a smaller house later in the year as the council have deemed this one unfit for human dwelling due to the steel frame rotting out.
And multi tasking is harder on a 16:9? Exactly what are you doing? It's easier to put two windows side by side on a 16:9 than it is on a 4:3!
Reasons explained above. Video editing is much more arduous on a 16:10 display and by the time I fit it all on, the resolution is so low I can hardly see any of the preview data or frame numbers, I also have to close several panels in Vegas. It also grates on me how I constantly have an area above and below the screen in focus because the visible area of the human eye does not match the 16:10 aspect ratio very well at all, when you focus on a single point your field of view is actually similar to a rounder triangle, the area most in focus at such close range is actually rather narrow. I end up getting headaches.
Still, if you like monitors that cannot even reach the same resolution as a low-cost one from 1997 be my guest.
1920x1200 (16:10) displays are my "weapon of choice". Why? Because they can also work at 1920x1080 (16:9) and 1600x1200 (4:3) without any quality loss. I don't mind black bars.
11 1 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 111 1 1 1 1 111
🤣 Widescreen monitors. I'm perfectly happy with a 4:3 CRT that goes to 1280x1024. (Although I should adjust the focus since it is a bit fuzzy but to be honest I kind of like it like that. 🤣 )
Check me out at Transcendental Airwaves on Youtube! Fast-food sucks!
You ladies need to get on my level. http://m.ebay.com/itm/221057230823
ive used mine for almost 2 years now. I did have to replace the "brick-on-a-rope" power supply just last week.
Only downside is, if you want to play the latest games at 2560x1600, you better have a new crossfire or sli setup. I have a pair of 7970's (280x) and this monitor will still beat them like red-headed stepchildren.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
RacoonRider, plenty of decent 16:9 monitors can be rotated. My 24" can, but I could never find a reason to, I experimented with it when I bought it and, while in landscape the entire monitor stays in viewing range (all I have to move are my eyes), in portrait mode I had to move my head. It felt alien, and it felt counter-productive. But it is 24", a smaller 19" or 17" monitor might fare better.
HighTreason, I bet that 1600x1200 CRT of yours was pretty high end when it came out. Both 17" CRTs I have owned (and a lot I have seen at the university/my dad's job/etc.) can only go up to 1280x1024, but I only dared set it at 1152x864 max (I could use 75Hz in that resolution), but I could still notice a difference between that and 1024x768 (85Hz), the later being even easier on the eyes and my resolution of choice for gaming. My Samsung Syncmaster was annoyingly blurry (by today's standard), but my LG flatron is pretty sharp (I have it stored, and still used it on one of my main PCs up to a couple of years ago), but I couldn't be happier when I swapped it for a 21" 1080p monitor. My desk also was more problematic when it comes to depht than horizontal space (the CRT used to touch the wall and still not be as far back as I'd like), so it was a win-win for me. As far as a monitor for you... you'll probably have to wait a little more then. That CRT of yours is above average and with your requirements and constraints, you'll have to wait untill higher density displays become more affordable (and widely available in smaller sizes).
Also, remember that PCs are also a gaming platform, and current gaming is optimized for 16:9, so that aspect ratio is far from useless.
wrote:You ladies need to get on my level. http://m.ebay.com/itm/221057230823
ive used mine for almost 2 years now. I did have to replace the "brick-on-a-rope" power supply just last week.
Only downside is, if you want to play the latest games at 2560x1600, you better have a new crossfire or sli setup. I have a pair of 7970's (280x) and this monitor will still beat them like red-headed stepchildren.
Whoa, if it supported 120Hz+ it would be my dream come true... Too bad only TN is the only tech that provides that (and the only reason my current main monitor is TN)....
And one would probably need three-way SLI to mantain 120+FPS at that resolution... but a guy can dream.
That component inputs seem tasty for retro console gaming though.
wrote:You ladies need to get on my level. http://m.ebay.com/itm/221057230823
Neat!
Does that one support proper VGA (720x400/640x350/640x400 [not just the VESA modes], 4:3 aspect, 70Hz) on the 15-pin sub-D input? This is difficult to test, but maybe you already know...
