My first widescreen display was a 1920x1200 16:10, and they seemed to be much more common back in the later half of XP's life.

I don't feel that it was until everyone moved to flat TVs that 16:9 basically took over.

For the most part, a 1080p display is fine for XP, but if you really want to go 1200p you can get the best of both worlds where you have 1600x1200 4:3 as well as supporting 1080p. Just don't spend a bunch on a monitor, and really a good modern 16:9 monitor will have much better colors than what monitors had back in the days of XP.

SScorpio wrote on 2022-09-05, 19:05:

For the most part, a 1080p display is fine for XP, but if you really want to go 1200p you can get the best of both worlds where you have 1600x1200 4:3 as well as supporting 1080p. Just don't spend a bunch on a monitor, and really a good modern 16:9 monitor will have much better colors than what monitors had back in the days of XP.

I do have a 1600x1200 monitor currently. Mainly I want to be able to support traditional 4:3 resolutions like 1600x1200 and 800x600. The 1600x1200 display is ideal for that.

That's why I was thinking 1920x1200, since it would theoretically support both those traditional 4:3 resolutions, plus 16:10 which was supported back in the earlier days of widescreen before 16:9 became the standard.

Researching 16:10 monitors, I'm currently considering either the Samsung S24E650DW or the Dell Ultrasharp U2412M. Refurbished units seem reasonably available for both models.

The Samsung has a response time of only 4ms, which seems more ideal for gaming than the Dell's 8ms (although neither are terrible all things considered).

Anyone here used these monitors specifically with Windows XP? Any other recommendations?

I like my Dell Ultrasharp U2410F 24" 1920x1200 especially when I got it for free from Dell after my Dell 2407WFPb failed just before the 5yr warranty ended. They actually sent me 2 of the U2410F but I sent the other one back since I'm too honest.

1920x1200 is more suited for PC usage than 1920x1080. I love the extra height

I've never had any lag issues with the U2410F, has tons of ports, OSD menu is good, no issues with the buttons.

These days I use my "Acer XB271HU 27" 2560x1440 in XP more than my U2410F but I do use the U2410F DVI port for older cards that only have a DVI connection and also in XP when I don't want to worry about having to use Refreshlock to limit high refresh rates since the U2410F max is 60hz (Unless you drop to 1280x1024 @ 75hz).

So I used 1920x1200 for gaming from 2007 all the way up to 2016 and didn't have any issues with game compatibility, if a game only supports 1920x1080 and you don't feel like tweaking then use 1920x1080.
More than likely I was running 2003 64bit in 2007 but same diff.

DosFreak wrote on 2022-09-07, 01:40:

I've never had any lag issues with the U2410F, has tons of ports, OSD menu is good, no issues with the buttons.

That good to know, I'll add that one to the list for comparisons. It does look like that model has lower response time (6ms) versus the U2412M (8 ms), so it's a better candidate in that respect.

I also added the ASUS ProArt Display PA248QV to the list for comparison. This one intrigues me since it runs at a higher refresh rate (75 Hz) than most others, and can be bought brand new so less chance to cosmetic issues on a refurb unit.

Shponglefan wrote on 2022-09-07, 17:14:

DosFreak wrote on 2022-09-07, 01:40:

I've never had any lag issues with the U2410F, has tons of ports, OSD menu is good, no issues with the buttons.

That good to know, I'll add that one to the list for comparisons. It does look like that model has lower response time (6ms) versus the U2412M (8 ms), so it's a better candidate in that respect.

I also added the ASUS ProArt Display PA248QV to the list for comparison. This one intrigues me since it runs at a higher refresh rate (75 Hz) than most others, and can be bought brand new so less chance to cosmetic issues on a refurb unit.

The PA248QV is well regarded and could be a good option for XP and widescreen modes. One caveat that only concerns 320x200 4:3 (non square pixel) DOS content is the lack of an explicit 4:3 mode . If your use cases will never include DOS running on bare metal, it should be of no concern. I thought it worthy of mention, just in case . See [1] for details .

[1]
Re: Purchasing a 4:3 LCD for DOS/DOSBOX/MISTER/OSSC games?

darry wrote on 2022-09-07, 18:11:

The PA248QV is well regarded and could be a good option for XP and widescreen modes. One caveat that only concerns 320x200 4:3 (non square pixel) DOS content is the lack of an explicit 4:3 mode . If your use cases will never include DOS running on bare metal, it should be of no concern. I thought it worthy of mention, just in case . See [1] for details .

[1]
Re: Purchasing a 4:3 LCD for DOS/DOSBOX/MISTER/OSSC games?

Thanks for the heads up. I've got dedicated 4:3 monitors (both CRT and LCD) for DOS gaming, so I'm covered there at least.

Ended up pulling the trigger on one, so I'll see how it goes. One thing I am concerned about is compatibility with XP, since there is no dedicated driver for it. Not sure if this could cause issues, but I'll find out in a day or two.

Shponglefan wrote on 2022-09-07, 18:25:

darry wrote on 2022-09-07, 18:11:

The PA248QV is well regarded and could be a good option for XP and widescreen modes. One caveat that only concerns 320x200 4:3 (non square pixel) DOS content is the lack of an explicit 4:3 mode . If your use cases will never include DOS running on bare metal, it should be of no concern. I thought it worthy of mention, just in case . See [1] for details .

[1]
Re: Purchasing a 4:3 LCD for DOS/DOSBOX/MISTER/OSSC games?

Thanks for the heads up. I've got dedicated 4:3 monitors (both CRT and LCD) for DOS gaming, so I'm covered there at least.

Ended up pulling the trigger on one, so I'll see how it goes. One thing I am concerned about is compatibility with XP, since there is no dedicated driver for it. Not sure if this could cause issues, but I'll find out in a day or two.

The main potential issue I see is if the monitor's EDID expose resolution/refresh rate combos (especially the native one) that require more than 165MHz of bandwidth and the video card being used (vBIOS and/or drivers) tops off at 165MHz over its DVI/HDMI out . This could cause a black screen. If it happens, interposing an EDID emulator with a custom crafted EDID between graphics card and monitor will resolve the issue .

Got a PA249Q and a PA248QV. Both are 1920x1200, with the former capable of 99% Adobe RGB as well as capable of 4:3 ratio when connected with VGA with my DOS machine (using S3 Savage4). I use DVI on both Win98SE and WinXP build, with 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 resolutions, respectively.

"Aspect Control" option is available on PA248QV but I've never tested it as it has always been connected only to my Win10 system.

DosFreak wrote on 2022-09-07, 01:40:

1920x1200 is more suited for PC usage than 1920x1080. I love the extra height

Seconded. As a photographer I'd say 1920x1200 (8:5 or 1.6:1) the best compromise between DSLR photo (3:2 or 1.5:1) and video (16:9 or 1.78:1), not to mention it's closest to the golden ratio (1.618:1)

Similar models have been mentioned but wanted to add my support for the Dell U2410 (1920x1200) as well. I own two of them. DisplayPort, HDMI, 2x DVI, VGA, component, composite, USB 2.0 hub, SD card reader, audio out, speaker power out. I added the matching speaker bar to mine, and while it doesn't sound amazing, it makes this the ultimate support monitor for me as I can connect almost anything to it and get a good image and sound. The black and gray boxy aesthetic also looks nice, IMO.

I used it as my main retro monitor until I got more period correct LCDs as it supports various scaling options. 1:1 is a bit too small for 800x600 or 1024x768, but native 1200p was perfect for Win XP, 7, and even 10.

darry wrote on 2022-09-07, 18:44:

The main potential issue I see is if the monitor's EDID expose resolution/refresh rate combos (especially the native one) that require more than 165MHz of bandwidth and the video card being used (vBIOS and/or drivers) tops off at 165MHz over its DVI/HDMI out . This could cause a black screen. If it happens, interposing an EDID emulator with a custom crafted EDID between graphics card and monitor will resolve the issue .

I am using a GeForce GTX 980 Ti with the latest version of nVidia drivers supported under Windows XP. Hopefully that will be enough to not cause any issues, but I'll know shortly. 😁

SScorpio wrote on 2022-09-05, 19:05:

My first widescreen display was a 1920x1200 16:10, and they seemed to be much more common back in the later half of XP's life.

I don't feel that it was until everyone moved to flat TVs that 16:9 basically took over.

For the most part, a 1080p display is fine for XP, but if you really want to go 1200p you can get the best of both worlds where you have 1600x1200 4:3 as well as supporting 1080p. Just don't spend a bunch on a monitor, and really a good modern 16:9 monitor will have much better colors than what monitors had back in the days of XP.

Yes, WUXGA. I used that resolution for years and really missed those extra lines when I switched to 1920x1080.

I received the Asus ProArt PA248QV today. Ultimately the prospect of a brand new monitor that could run @ 75 Hz instead of only 60 was the deciding point.

It was a bit finnicky to get setup and running the way I intended.

I initially tried it with an HDMI cable, but could only get 60Hz using the Plug 'n Play monitor driver in XP. Switching to a DisplayPort cable, I was able to get 75 Hz, but for some reason could not change the aspect ratio on the monitor for 4:3 content.

Finally, using a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter and connecting the DisplayPort end to the GPU and the HDMI end to the monitor, I was able to get both 75 Hz and have it correctly switch to 4:3 aspect ratio when using those resolutions.

Visually, it's leaps and bounds better than the NEC 2170NX I had been using. And the extra horizontal screen real estate will be nice for games that can take advantage of it.

I'm getting 120hz for 1280x1024 via display port on my benq ex3210r.
1600x1200 only at 60hz using customise on Nvidia 352 drivers in xp.

got 1920x1200 to run @ 100hz using cvt-reduced blank