LCDs often have a few scaling options, such as "aspect ratio stretch", "fill", and "no stretch". Assuming you found a 1280x1024 LCD with aspect ratio stretch it should do 4:3 fine. But the scaling quality is the next most important aspect and that varies a lot.

I'd stick to 1920x1200 / 1600x1200 LCDs personally. The quality models there do rather excellent scaling. I have a Dell 2405FPW that has me considering dumping my CRT.

Thanks, 1600x1200 definitely seems the way to go now. I hadn't even considered scaling quality until you mentioned it. With a 1600x1200 display the only res I have to worry about it futzing is 1280x1024, but as long as the monitor has a 1:1 map or no-stretch mode I should be pleased as punch.

Thanks again for the recommendation. 😀

Great avatar! One of my favourite adventure games...

The only other option I can think off are 15" 1024 x 768 LCD screens. These are also 4:3. The good thing is the are dirt cheap. The LCDs are quite slow though and old as well. I have a Philips 15" LCD and it's great for testing and things like that.

Thanks! HoC was my first PC adventure game, and my 2nd PC game I ever played after Wolf3D. Having known nothing but Nintendo up to that point my 8-year old mind was completely blown. 😁

I definitely considered a 1024x768 screen for the task and it is an excellent suggestion. I just really wanted to have 1280x1024 available for that one game, but nonetheless I'll probably pick one up someday in the future when money isn't as tight. I'm actually on a 1366x768 screen right now which could be repurposed for the task if need be.

if I were you, I'd say 1600x1200 is the way to go. Integer scaling to 3:4 of common resolutions like 320x200 (5x6-pixel blocks), 320x240 (5x5) as well as 800x600 (2x2).
When it comes to flat panels - especially if you're using DVI - it's important to remember that scaling options are a function of video drivers too; they don't depend only on the monitor. In my experience, NVidia drivers are better and more flexible, but I could be wrong.

Don't really care for widescreen monitors myself - the only reason they've gotten so popular is that manufactures have figured out an easy way to dupe consumers, and now it's become a standard. Screen sizes are always quoted by the diagonal, but it's simple math - the wider the aspect ratio, the less screen area you get for the same diagonal measure. Therefore, the proper term should be "short screen" (vertically) rather than "wide screen" (horizontally). 😏

You might want to check out this thread... quoting valnar: "The HP LP2065 (IPS version) is the God among 4:3 LCD's".
At any rate, whatever you get, make sure the technology is IPS and NOT cheap-ass TN....

From my googling it looks the the LP2065 is a bit of a lottery as to whether you actually get an IPS panel in the thing or not. Rather than deal with that potential headache I'll probably look into other IPS monitors with that res, even though the pickings look somewhat slim.

This list seems reasonably well maintained. My but those IPS panels are pricey. Someday, my pretties, someday.

If we are talking DOBox, then just get a 1920 x 1200 screen.

I'd love to see some images of a 1920 x 1200 screen hooked up to a real vintage VGA signal...

I've been running my 2405FPW off of VGA for my goofy GeForce FX testing because the DVI is connected to my main PC. I'm really quite surprised at how well it does with the usual 4:3 resolutions. 1024x768 isn't a great fit for the native rez but it looks great anyway.

CRTs probably still look better because they don't have a fixed number of pixels and they have much higher refresh rates available at low resolutions, but it's hard to beat the superior contrast and brightness of a decent modern LCD.

What about DOS games, POST screen and all of that?

Could you take a photo perhaps?

Yeah I can try taking a photo of it sometime.

I picked up a pair of Dell Ultrasharp 2007FP LCDs a couple weeks ago to go on either side of my Dell U2410. Native resolution is 1600x1200 and they are absolute beauties with their IPS panels.

Got them off ebay listed as "new other", They arrived perfect in their original boxes but had been opened. I figured they were used a day or two at a convention then packed back up. Mine arrived in perfect shape with all the fixin's inside. Manufactured in March 2011. They still sell these at Dell for $400 a pop, I grabbed 2 for $310 shipped, I'm super pleased.

Looks like the seller still has more.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem … e=STRK:MEWNX:IT

Played with the aspect ratios on the Dell 2007FP for a quick minute. Forced Win98 desktop to 1280x1024 with 1:1 mode and worked like a charm, nice and crisp. Quake in DOS in 1:1 mode worked flawlessly too, just tiny. 🤣 Also I tried Quake at 320x200 in "Aspect " mode and filled the screen but with the proper black bars on top and bottom, perfect! And of course "Stretch" mode will force fill 320x200 to the entire screen.

If your crazy about resolutions and aspect ratios, I figure this is the perfect DOS and early Windows LCD monitor. Or grab 3 for today's system. 😁

Yeah that sounds like a deal. 😀 My 2405FPW is from 2005 and has been a wonderful screen but I paid $800 for it and that was with a super sale at the time!

Here are some quick photos of it -

Cybermage is at 640x480. KOTOR at 800x600 and 1600x1200, Oblivion at 1600x1200.

I'm not sure that these photos are particularly useful other than showing the BIOS is crisp. The colors and contrast are a bit out of whack otherwise. Oh and yea the LCD has no curvature, that's the lens's barrel distortion. 😉

bushwack wrote:

Also I tried Quake at 320x200 in "Aspect " mode and filled the screen but with the proper black bars on top and bottom

Hmmm

Shouldn't there be no black bars? I mean that screen is 4:3 right?

swaaye wrote:

Here are some quick photos of it

Awesome! Looks like a winner.

Wondering how current models handle these 4:3 resolutions. Reviewers simply don't test this stuff anymore these days...

What I will do if I even buy a widescreen for DOS, is just grab my netbook with DOS+games on USB and simply try it out in the shops 🤣

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

bushwack wrote:

Also I tried Quake at 320x200 in "Aspect " mode and filled the screen but with the proper black bars on top and bottom

Hmmm

Shouldn't there be no black bars? I mean that screen is 4:3 right?

320x240 is 4:3

[quote="Mau1wurf1977"

swaaye wrote:

Wondering how current models handle these 4:3 resolutions. Reviewers simply don't test this stuff anymore these days...

What I will do if I even buy a widescreen for DOS, is just grab my netbook with DOS+games on USB and simply try it out in the shops 🤣

I bought a Dell 24" U2410 1920x1200 widescreen last year and unfortunately everything under 640x480 gets stretched to widescreen, no matter what setting I use. 🙁

bushwack wrote:

320x240 is 4:3

Hmm

I think I'm confused now. Isn't this why DOSBox has the "correct aspect ratio" option?

On CRTs 320 x 200 (THE Dos game resolution 🤣) was "blown up" to fit the whole screen, giving you non-square pixels. But LCDs have square pixels.

So if you see black bars at 320 x 200 resolution on a 4:3 LCD, then you have the wrong aspect ratio.

The stretch mode is indeed the one to use and your screen should do a perfect job at that. Because 320 x 5 = 1600 and 200 x 6 = 1200. So in stretch mode you should have a pixel perfect 320 x 200 image!

Does this make sense?

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Hmm […]
Show full quote

bushwack wrote:

320x240 is 4:3

Hmm

I think I'm confused now. Isn't this why DOSBox has the "correct aspect ratio" option?

On CRTs 320 x 200 (THE Dos game resolution 🤣) was "blown up" to fit the whole screen, giving you non-square pixels. But LCDs have square pixels.

So if you see black bars at 320 x 200 resolution on a 4:3 LCD, then you have the wrong aspect ratio.

The stretch mode is indeed the one to use and your screen should do a perfect job at that. Because 320 x 5 = 1600 and 200 x 6 = 1200. So in stretch mode you should have a pixel perfect 320 x 200 image!

Does this make sense?

Yes, the stretch setting will make any resolution fill the entire screen.

yep... both 320x200 and 320x240 were for 4:3 screens - it's just that 320x200 used non-square pixels.

All PC monitors were 4:3 back when these resolutions were standard, and most 320x200 games were designed with that aspect ratio in mind, so if you play them on a square-pixel LCD without aspect correction they all look a bit squashed...