I got a HP T520 with 8GB SSD. I'm planning to add the wifi card from my old Lenovo laptop and turn it into a streaming client with probably LibreElec.

Shagittarius wrote on 2022-08-18, 14:53:

Standard Def Steve wrote on 2022-08-16, 02:12:

I finally bought a Samsung Odyssey Neo G7 32" monitor and stepped into the wonderful world of variable refresh rate displays. This bad boy has it all--at least, for an LCD display. It's based on one of the new super-fast VA panels that have absolutely no issue with dark color transitions. It can paint beautiful 10-bit, 3840x2160 images at a blistering 165 Hz, something I didn't think the current version of DisplayPort could even handle until I plugged it in and, well, it just worked! Oh, and it has an absolutely bonkers (again, for an LCD) 4200:1 native contrast ratio that's made even better by an 1196-zone FALD backlight. I adore this thing.

The thing is, I'm not sure I'm using right, at least in 2D apps. In 3D, everything's great. Variable refresh kicks in automatically, and everything looks "I-can't-believe-this-isn't-CRT" smooth. However, in regular 2D apps, the refresh rate appears to be locked at the maximum 165Hz. And 95% of the time, that's OK because browser scrolling, window dragging, and UI animation all look ridiculously smooth at 165 Hz. However, when I watch 60p video on YouTube, I notice some very slight frame hitching, which I didn't get with my previous 120Hz (fixed refresh) display. And sure enough, when I drop the refresh rate of the Neo G7 down to 120Hz, 60p video looks completely smooth.

I always thought that VRR displays could sync up with 2D apps as well. Was I wrong? I have VRR enabled in Windows settings and G-sync enabled in the nVidia control panel. If 2D VRR simply isn't a thing yet, that's OK I guess. After all, I don't even notice the hitching in 60p video unless I'm actively looking for it. I guess I just expected absolute perfection. But hey, I can live with 95%!

Wonderful monitor! 2000nits peak? wow! A beauty! People don't understand until they sit in front of such a beast.

Even though It says 2000 nits peak on the box, I don't think it's actually hitting that level of light output, even for short bursts. My retinas haven't been fried to a crisp yet, which I'm sure they would be if this monitor could actually sustain 2000 nits. 😜
It's probably closer to 1000, but even that looks positively spectacular. I'm still getting used to how bright highlights in HDR-enabled games can get on this thing!

robertmo wrote on 2022-08-18, 12:01:

have you considered a 65" 8K TV? That would be rather incomparable picture quality.
It's like choosing 320x240 monitor vs 640x480 one.

I was toying with the idea of putting a 42" G2 OLED on my desk, but ultimately decided that even that would be too big. And since the G2 is a TV, it doesn't have an adjustable stand. A 65" 8K TV would be far too unwieldly to use as a monitor, limited to 60Hz at native res, and probably would murder my graphics card.

I'm pretty happy with my 4K, 32" peasant display. 😀

Bought a board and display to fix up the A2179 MB Air 2020 Intel. I got the board, installed it along with the touch ID, and it works. The display is in another state still and the repair is coming along rather nicely.

I also bought a ThinkPad T480, erased the entire drive, and installed Monterey on it, which is working out rather nicely, except the secondary battery is long gone and it has <4 months of warranty left, which is nice.

The OS keyboard layout is Alt for Cmd, Win key for option, Ctrl for control instead of the usual Win key for cmd, alt for alt, and ctrl for ctrl if you use an external keyboard or some other setup (config.plist).

I've picked up a GTX Titan Black.

Meatball wrote on 2022-08-28, 21:02:

I've picked up a GTX Titan Black.

That is one sexy looking card sir.

liqmat wrote on 2022-08-28, 21:23:

Meatball wrote on 2022-08-28, 21:02:

I've picked up a GTX Titan Black.

That is one sexy looking card sir.

Yes, the Titan series cards are mighty nice (and heavy!)

Meatball wrote on 2022-08-28, 23:19:

liqmat wrote on 2022-08-28, 21:23:

Meatball wrote on 2022-08-28, 21:02:

I've picked up a GTX Titan Black.

That is one sexy looking card sir.

Yes, the Titan series cards are mighty nice (and heavy!)

And pointless..

appiah4 wrote on 2022-09-01, 09:44:

Meatball wrote on 2022-08-28, 23:19:

liqmat wrote on 2022-08-28, 21:23:

That is one sexy looking card sir.

Yes, the Titan series cards are mighty nice (and heavy!)

And pointless..

You just described retro collecting.

Except a Titan is not retro..

appiah4 wrote on 2022-09-01, 12:05:

Except a Titan is not retro..

What is pointless is carrying on this discussion. Muted.

Titan Black has WinXP dirvers
WinXP is from 2001 and can run 16-bit apps 😀
there were no 8-bit pc apps
so you cannot be more retro than that 😀

Well...you could make the argument that early pc's ran cp/m (or actually cp/m-86) which ran on many 8 bit computers. Cp/m seemed a logical choice, if only a stop gap, as there were many many apps for it already in existence. So therefore maybe you could say there were in actuality 8 bit apps for the pc. But not dos/windows. You could say it if you wanted to.

What's interesting below describes as if 16-bit cpu pcs could not run 8-bit apps. Ddual cpu (8-bit +16-bit) was required for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M#16-bit_versions wrote:

These 16-bit versions of CP/M required application programs to be re-compiled for the new CPUs. Some programs written in assembly language could be automatically translated for a new processor. One tool for this was Digital Research's XLT86, which translated .ASM source code for the Intel 8080 processor into .A86 source code for the Intel 8086. The translator would also optimize the output for code size and take care of calling conventions, so that CP/M-80 and MP/M-80 programs could be ported to the CP/M-86 and MP/M-86 platforms automatically. XLT86 itself was written in PL/I-80 and was available for CP/M-80 platforms as well as for VAX/VMS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_100 wrote:

The Rainbow 100 was a microcomputer introduced by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) in 1982. This desktop unit had a monitor similar to the VT220 in a dual-CPU box with both 4 MHz Zilog Z80 and 4.81 MHz Intel 8088 CPUs. The Rainbow 100 was a triple-use machine: VT100 mode (industry standard terminal for interacting with DEC's own VAX), 8-bit CP/M mode (using the Z80), and CP/M-86 or MS-DOS mode using the 8088.

I've added the Titan V to the parts list; included with this MSI build.
Other parts of note:

i7-8086K
32BM Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 RAM
1TB Samsung EVO SSD
8TB Toshiba HDD
MSI X390-A PRO Motherboard
650W Corsair Power Supply

robertmo wrote on 2022-09-04, 05:42:

What's interesting below describes as if 16-bit cpu pcs could not run 8-bit apps. Ddual cpu (8-bit +16-bit) was required for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M#16-bit_versions wrote:

These 16-bit versions of CP/M required application programs to be re-compiled for the new CPUs. Some programs written in assembly language could be automatically translated for a new processor. One tool for this was Digital Research's XLT86, which translated .ASM source code for the Intel 8080 processor into .A86 source code for the Intel 8086. The translator would also optimize the output for code size and take care of calling conventions, so that CP/M-80 and MP/M-80 programs could be ported to the CP/M-86 and MP/M-86 platforms automatically. XLT86 itself was written in PL/I-80 and was available for CP/M-80 platforms as well as for VAX/VMS.

The conversion is required here because the 8080 and 8088/8086 are not register compatible.

Yes, it can run Doom.

Meatball wrote on 2022-09-07, 00:30:

Yes, it can run Doom.

Great looking card, please don't drop it on you're toes!

Doom yes, but Doom95???😁

Got an Asus ProArt PA248QV 24" monitor today. I wanted a 1920x1200 monitor for my XP setup for widescreen, but that could also do 4:3 (e.g. 1600x1200) as needed. This one seemed to fit the bill.

Was finnicky to get working right, as I had to use an HDMI cable with a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter in order to get both 75 Hz refresh rate, plus have it properly switch to 4:3 mode when fed those resolutions. But this did the trick and now it's working how I need it to.

Shponglefan wrote on 2022-09-08, 22:36:

Got an Asus ProArt PA248QV 24" monitor today. I wanted a 1920x1200 monitor for my XP setup for widescreen, but that could also do 4:3 (e.g. 1600x1200) as needed. This one seemed to fit the bill.

Was finnicky to get working right, as I had to use an HDMI cable with a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter in order to get both 75 Hz refresh rate, plus have it properly switch to 4:3 mode when fed those resolutions. But this did the trick and now it's working how I need it to.

Hmmm... I've been in the market for a new monitor that will switch between 4:3 and HD modes. I see it has a VGA port as well. Does the menu system have a way to force 4:3 aspect ratio? Reason I ask is my Acer LCD I have currently will auto switch between the different aspect ratios in Windows, but in MS-DOS it defaults to stretch and there is no way to adjust it which completely sucks.

Edit: I see it says in the manual "4:3 is only available when input source is in 4:3 format. OverScan is only available for the HDMI input source.". So how does that translate with MS-DOS via the VGA port?

liqmat wrote on 2022-09-08, 23:18:

Hmmm... I've been in the market for a new monitor that will switch between 4:3 and HD modes. I see it has a VGA port as well. Does the menu system have a way to force 4:3 aspect ratio? Reason I ask is my Acer LCD I have currently will auto switch between the different aspect ratios in Windows, but in MS-DOS it defaults to stretch and there is no way to adjust it which completely sucks.

Edit: I see it says in the manual "4:3 is only available when input source is in 4:3 format. OverScan is only available for the HDMI input source.". So how does that translate with MS-DOS via the VGA port?

It doesn't force 4:3. As you noted, it needs to have a 4:3 signal.

I haven't tried it in DOS or with a VGA cable yet. From what I've read, it won't do 4:3 in modes like 320x200 since that is technically not a 4:3 aspect ratio.