Look here:

Widescreen monitors and 4:3 aspect ratio compatibility thread

Page 3 is my Samsung monitor. Not cheap, it's a Business model but one of the few I could find. And Samsung does well with aspect ratio for DOS and Windows stuff.

I use a Samsung SyncMaster 2693HM. Its 1920*1200 5ms 26"(TN) It was cheap, perhaps $400-$500 new back then.
Its perhaps 6 years old and got decent reviews, if you find a cheap used one I can recommend it. For such a cheap panel the picture is great.

I got mine this year and it cost 399 Australian dollars.

Thanks for suggestions but I live in the UK and those monitors are discontinued and I don't trust second hand as my brothers monitor died just out of warranty recently.

Soupdragon wrote:

Thanks for suggestions but I live in the UK and those monitors are discontinued and I don't trust second hand as my brothers monitor died just out of warranty recently.

Well looks like you're out of luck. We can only give suggestions...

dell u2412
dell u2413

It looks you want easy and well-known brand one.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_p_n_feature … rnid=6570737011

Amazon search.

I think what I want isn't for sale anymore, all 16:10 screens are IPS now so have poor response time. Thanks for help guys.

My 26" 1920x1200 16:10 Asus VW266H does well, but it does stretch anything at 320x200 which kinda sucks. Although I don't know of any large monitors that keep the correct aspect for this resolution. I've seen these go for between $180-$220 from time to time:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?It … N82E16824236047

Samsung. Tried lots of models and they all correct the aspect ratio at 320 x 200. The biggest one I have is a 27" Full HD.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Samsung. Tried lots of models and they all correct the aspect ratio at 320 x 200. The biggest one I have is a 27" Full HD.

Ahh yes, missed that in your previously posted thread.

I think "panel type" gets hyped up (and over-generalized based on 15 years ago stereotypes) too much recently - I have a ~10 year old IPS (Samsung SyncMaster 204B) and it's still fast/good enough for whatever you like, but doesn't boast .000000000000001ns response times or hextuple-infinity:1 contrast. It's a far cry from the Y2K era CTX I used to have, which had ho-hum response and PQ, especially compared to CRTs from its era. Generally I just ignore any specifications beyond size, resolution, and refresh rate - they're all made up anyways. Anything better than 10ms is generally good enough for gaming (it will be responding faster than the frames can redraw at 60Hz), and <5ms is exceptional (and not all that uncommon).

As far as a new monitor for gaming - I'd probably pass on 16:10 and here's why:

- It's relatively uncommon these days, so your options are limited.
- Any Hor+ game will have a larger viewable area on 16:9, and any Vert- game will have minimal advantages on 16:10 (and we're assuming you're going to pillar-box fixed 4:3 or 5:4 titles so that's a non-issue).
- There's tons of 16:9 options available from mainstream manufacturers, and all of them are generally good enough - ViewSonic, Asus, NEC, Samsung, Dell, etc all make very good monitors.

If you're primarily going to play 4:3/5:4 or Vert- games, however, I'd honestly suggest you scrap the entire WS concept - get a modern 5:4 display (I like my NEC AS172). You'll have less hassle with scaling/AR conversion, and have a larger viewable area for the Vert- games than any WS can produce.

GDM-FW900 or A7217A would be best for your needs.

Artex wrote:

My 26" 1920x1200 16:10 Asus VW266H does well, but it does stretch anything at 320x200 which kinda sucks. Although I don't know of any large monitors that keep the correct aspect for this resolution. I've seen these go for between $180-$220 from time to time:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?It … N82E16824236047

I use this monitor and I can recommend it for DOSBox. You can use its full-screen 1920x1200 resolution to stretch 320x200 graphics (with output=openglnb) to full-screen without any scaling artifacts. Alternatively, you can use a 1600x1200 resolution with bars on the side (with output-direct3d, custom builds only) to get an aspect ratio correct (for most games) screen.

Soupdragon wrote:

I think what I want isn't for sale anymore, all 16:10 screens are IPS now so have poor response time. Thanks for help guys.

not true, response times on ips are fine, if what you want is available in ips i wouldnt be put off

It's hard for me to tell as I don't have any first hand experience of ips panels and the reviews often state a slow response time and image blurring. I am worried to buy one and not be able to return it should I find it a problem.

consider this, when lcd monitors first came out the wisdom was you need a response time of 25ms to avoid ghosting. ips panels now do 5ms (ok so some different panels can do 1ms)
its a bit like saying 90fps is slow because some other card can do 110fps.

i bet if you find out the response of your current lcd its worse than that of a new ips

Unless you have them side by side you aren't going to notice / care much. Not put a CRT next to your LCD and use it on clone mode...

Well actually don't because then your world might come crashing down 🤣

Do any modern Samsung Monitors come with buttons for controls instead of the touchpad crap?
The last Samsung monitor I owned was like this, and I sold it because it was useless to me as it can be turned off and on and controlled remotely even, at the normal frequencys Ham-Radio operators use for many of their digital modes.
Its quite hard on a monitor being turned on and off rapidly in morse code.....

Samsung is obviously to cheap to shield their stuff, but that monitor was quite good otherwise.