Found the manual: http://www2.produktinfo.conrad.com/datenblaet … Monitor_78E.pdf

It is new and flat, but I at least like that it's a shadow mask type. 17" isn't too big for 1995-1997. Early 90's, I guess it's not quite perfect without a large dot pitch.

ElectroMan wrote:

2. What happens with refresh rate in DOS? (when you of course can easily change it in Windows)

I believe the default refresh rate (60 Hz or 70 Hz, I'm not sure) of standard VGA resolutions cannot be changed.

But I remember I had a TSR of some kind that was able to force higher refresh rates in games that use VESA graphics modes.

Azarien wrote:

ElectroMan wrote:

2. What happens with refresh rate in DOS? (when you of course can easily change it in Windows)

I believe the default refresh rate (60 Hz or 70 Hz, I'm not sure) of standard VGA resolutions cannot be changed.

But I remember I had a TSR of some kind that was able to force higher refresh rates in games that use VESA graphics modes.

Some graphics card drivers allow changing the refresh rate in DOS.

I had a ~14" IBM fixed-frequency monitor all the way though the 90s. My dad had a 20" CRT monitor since ~'92, though.
It was no VGA monitor at all, since it had BNC connectors for each RGBHV signal. ^^

‎‎‎

Jo22 wrote:

I had a ~14" IBM fixed-frequency monitor all the way though the 90s. My dad had a 20" CRT monitor since ~'92, though.
It was no VGA monitor at all, since it had BNC connectors for each RGBHV signal. ^^

My dad had a 20" Mitsubishi DiamondScan 20 that used the RGBHV BNC Breakout connectors, and when I hooked up the monitor, I always got confused on which one was H or V for the connection.

I had a Compaq 7500 monitor that supported 1280x1024, but it had the burn-in image since a screensaver never ran on that display.

I have a 15" IBM CRT from 1995 that needs minor repairs (turns pink, but still displays the picture) and a Medion 19" CRT that I got for $20 at a thrift store (looks like from the late 90's or early 2000's). I also have 2 CRT TV sets: Toshiba TV/VCR Combo and a Sony PVM-9L1 for games and stuff. I wish I had a PVM that has RGB support (both PC and gaming systems), however, they're expensive, but, I looked up the old Silverdome pictures and I did see some monitors (either BVM or PVM - 1 big color monitor and 6 small ones in 1 unit).

Most games were 1024x768 in that era or lower (800x600) so it will do the job. Late 90's and early 2000's would do 1280x1024 but that monitor tops out at 65hz at 1280x1024 so its not that usable.

I used a Sony 17fs in the mid 90's (17" still have it and it works nice) and graduated to a 19" Sony 420GS in the very late 90's (dead and junked).

Early 90's would be a good 15" monitor.

Unknown_K wrote:

Late 90's and early 2000's would do 1280x1024 but that monitor tops out at 65hz at 1280x1024 so its not that usable.

Playing in 5:4 resolution on 4:3 monitor is not a good idea. Better 1280x960 (on 17") or 1152x864 (on 15", if available).

Non-square pixels are fine with CRT's. 1280x1024 was a little more standard instead of 1280x960. Anyway, those resolutions were a later concern.

I'd pounce on the monitor. Don't often see this stuff in clean condition anymore.

I had a 14" all the way until 1998, when I directly upgraded to a 17" which was a fairly large monitor at the time. I remember my upstairs neighbor had a 20" CRT and it looked almost as big as a moderately sized TV of the era to me. 15" was the mainstream norm for 97-98. 17" was enthusiast. 19"+ was for the filthy rich.

‎‎‎

firage wrote:

Non-square pixels are fine with CRT's.

They are not fine because the picture is distorted (unless you calibrate the monitor properly for pillarboxing, but why would one do that when 1280x960 is fine and well-supported).

I never had a reason to use 1280x1024 on a CRT.

As you say, you can box a 5:4 image, some amount of which is probably a common default. Beyond that pixel geometry is a software issue. TFT's didn't outsell 4:3 CRT's until about 2003. Sometimes you can only make guesses at which aspect ratio is applied in turn of the millennium contexts.

For raster graphics targeting square pixels, yes, at full screen size it's less than ideal with the 6% distortion at the 1:1 level. A common standard nonetheless, which 1280x960 for whatever reason never was.

Picture quality on non-standard resolutions can suffer from their lack of factory calibration.

That Samsung CRT pictured looks exactly like a 19" and 17" I used. They're simply terrible. The left side has geometry issues. I once saw another 17" again one day and it had the same issue when I drew a circle in MS Paint on the left side. That's 3 for 3, on two sizes, just saying.

Late 90s gaming I remember these:
viewsonic
Sony
sun

‎‎‎

The large majority of monitors from that time are 14 or 15". I don't see why that should bother you, though. I'd rather have a flat screen, which was unavailable until around 2000. Dot pitch is one of those things you like to worry about, but it isn't really something you can. It's more important to concern yourself with image quality and geometry. Oh and about 75% of models are just gone now and you'll never find that random one with the especially high dot pitch.

Also, CRTs don't have native resolutions, so...these things will be determined by the game you run.

Finally, DOS will do its best to force you to 60hz at all times. That's hard to get away from, and it sucks.

hwh wrote:

The large majority of monitors from that time are 14 or 15"..

I think that's dependent on region. The US had it better

I used a 15" from 1994 onward which had a nice dot pitch and did 1024x768@60hz at best. It didn't last long though (fried in 2000) and i've had several friends with nice 17"s I was so jealous of (they weren't viewsonics)

I recently had got into an argument with someone who claimed monitors in 1997 were all small, blurry and "never had scanlines" and how all the CRT shaders were wrong for it, as if all computer monitors were all held back to 1990 until LCD monitors came and invented HD 🙄

leileilol wrote:

I recently had got into an argument with someone who claimed monitors in 1997 were all small, blurry and "never had scanlines" and how all the CRT shaders were wrong for it, as if all computer monitors were all held back to 1990 until LCD monitors came and invented HD 🙄

Makes me think of how some people didn't believe you when you point out that HD digital TV resolutions (not 4K) were possible on computer screens long before HD television was ever introduced...

"No, 1280x720 pixels is the highest resolution ever possible and you must be wrong about having a computer monitor that could do 1600x1200 back in 20xx!"

over here 95-97 was almost entirely 14 or 15" and mostly those with optimal 800x600 resolution (with 1024x768 60Hz being possible but with to much flickering)
a little later around 2000 15" and 17" 1024x768 75-85Hz was also very common, but that's more for lower end or mainstream let's say, there were certainly a few people running much nicer monitors,
I kept my Samsung 17" until 2005, I used 1280x1024 in a few games, but yes, that's the wrong aspect ration unless you adjust to have a narrower image, also it was a little flickery, so I was mostly running 1024x768