Only thing that age you cannot fix is LCD panels going yellowing, just not good quality. CCFL tubes just age and go red.

My 3 years old but cheap, LG is used daily at work is LED IPS but is going reddish in color balance, I'll have to re-adjust that to correct that. Unlike my two Samsung LED backlight units, one is TV and other one is monitor are both wide and didn't need to be adjusted once set and they are both over 12 years old now. Both are I consider second generation because I bought both right after first generation LCD era ended. I had a first generation Samsung 19" LCD that had pink chaser (trailing) that appears every time I scroll up and down on white background, just nature of the early LCD panel.

Buying high quality LCD monitor or TV does matter.

Cheers,

2001FP is an ok-ish monitor. It has a CCFL screen, so it will grow dimmer in time. There are definitely better 4:3 LCD monitors out there, such as: Dell 2007FP, EIZO S2100 / S2133, NEC 2090uxi and P212, HP LP2065, Philips 200P4.

There are also 16x12 medical monitors available, which are highly interesting: Radiforce MX215/216, Barco Eonis MDRC-2221 / MDRC-2321 / MDNC-2221. Usually such monitors have much higher brightness compared to general purpose models.

My only suggestion is to get some spares: either the same model or other 1600x1200 monitors, while second hand supplies still exist. I am using a Dell 2007FPb as a daily driver (with more than 60K hours).

The other option is to use a programmable scaler with a newer monitor.

TV One made one but, last I looked, it tended to be pricey.
I was as lucky to pick up a couple a while back for cheap-ish.

Old PVA are mostly horrible, due to insufferable black smearing and noticeable colorshift, including some Dell revisions of FP panels.

EIZO S2100 / S2133, NEC 2090UXi/2190UXi and previous NEC 2080 models are certainly better, because these are professional IPS monitors with ATW polarizer (early revisions) and much better firmware. With hardware knowledge, you can mod all typical CCFL based LCDs to pure LED. Won't fix strict 60Hz limit though, which is not suitable for pure DOS.

Thanks for the alternative monitor suggestions guys! I will keep those in mind. I honestly didn't realize that there were so many 4:3 options for LCD monitors. It always drove me crazy that the vast vast majority were 5:4 resolution... though that doesn't bother me as much as the fact that 1280x1024 (5:4) is more commonly available than 1280x960 (4:3), even if all of the rest of the resolutions listed are 4:3. 😐

cyclone3d wrote on 2023-02-22, 19:09:

The other option is to use a programmable scaler with a newer monitor.

TV One made one but, last I looked, it tended to be pricey.
I was as lucky to pick up a couple a while back for cheap-ish.

Yep, I got one of those 4-5 years ago too! I haven't actually needed it yet, but I'm glad I have it available just in case. I'm sure some day it will be necessary to pipe a proper signal into a newer monitor. Perhaps once 240Hz variable refresh + strobed OLED\MicroLED 4k monitors are the standard I can use some crazy high resolution + high refresh VGA to DP converter with one of these scalers to get retro PCs working on something that finally looks better than a CRT.

... I'll probably still keep CRTs around though. 😁

My HP 2065 has a _very_ annoying firmware bug where standard DOS text modes are copped, top and bottom. It’s a great panel, but this really limits its use to non-DOS equipment that doesn’t use 80x24 text mode.

I’ve wanted to fix that issue since I got the monitor, but there’s no obvious way. I’ve had it since it was brand new, as well!

- Alex

ajacocks wrote on 2023-02-23, 01:13:

My HP 2065 has a _very_ annoying firmware bug where standard DOS text modes are copped, top and bottom. It’s a great panel, but this really limits its use to non-DOS equipment that doesn’t use 80x24 text mode.

I’ve wanted to fix that issue since I got the monitor, but there’s no obvious way. I’ve had it since it was brand new, as well!

- Alex

Wow, good to know. Are all HP LP2065s affected by this?

I looked up ALL of the monitors that mihai said were better than the 2001FP and the HP LP2065 is the only one that is remotely affordable and available. Don't get me wrong... they all look like nice monitors, but most of them are completely unavailable in the USA or don't even have VGA.

Also, it seems like the 2007FP should have a better panel but aside from that it's very similar. I did find a post over at atariage that says that the S-video input seems to be useless on the 2007FP because it looks worse than composite, where as the 2001FP doesn't have this issue. I haven't read anything else that confirmed this though. Not a big deal because I doubt I will be using S-video any time soon, but part of what I like about this monitor is knowing that I can hook up other types of computers or consoles to it if necessary. Most other monitors of this type don't even have composite or S-Video.

There are also some posts in this thread saying that the 2007FP has more issues under DOS than the 2001FP, which is more relevant to my use case.

If I want the best picture quality and flexibility available in a 4:3 display, I'll use my HP P1230 (Mitsubishi DiamondPro 2070SB rebadge... up to 2048x1536@85hz) ... but to not have to wear out a CRT or deal with the heat and bulk on my test bench, I'm still not seeing any alternatives that are better than the 2001FP and actually attainable in the US. If I'd known about these years ago I'd have grabbed some to keep as backups.

You can also use a modern-ish 24" 1920x1200 widescreen (16:10) monitor for PC retro gaming. Phil showcases one in this video.

That way, Win9x games can be played at the 1600x1200 resolution (needs beefy hardware) while DOS games have a fairly clean 6x scale on each axis. Also, 800x600 games looks pretty nice as well due to a clean 2x scale. I recently started using a Samsung SyncMaster S24B420BW and I'm pretty happy with it.

I have a pair of Dell 2007FPb Ultrasharp LCD panels, I really want to convert them to LED backlight but not really sure how difficult that would be but both are still bright and work perfectly so there is no rush.

Anyone have any suggestions on guides to convert CCFL to LED ?

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-02-23, 06:40:

That way, Win9x games can be played at the 1600x1200 resolution (needs beefy hardware) while DOS games have a fairly clean 6x scale on each axis. Also, 800x600 games looks pretty nice as well due to a clean 2x scale. I recently started using a

Actually, you need 2560x1440 resolution monitor for really clean scaling of 320x200(240) into 4:3 format on both axis. Same goes for most common SVGA resolution in late DOS/early Windows games - 640x480. 1600x1200 panel can scale 320x200 relatively well, simply by sheer number of pixel density and one axis being integer scaled, but not so much when it comes to 640x480.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-02-23, 08:05:

Actually, you need 2560x1440 resolution monitor for really clean scaling of 320x200(240) into 4:3 format on both axis.

I meant when using the monitor's native resolution, which is 1920x1200. If you multiply 320x200 by six, you get that.

Afterwards, set the aspect ratio to 4:3 using the monitor's OSD controls and you're good to go.

Well, no. 1920x1200 panel cannot display horizontal 320 pixels as an integer in 4:3 format.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-02-23, 08:51:

Well, no. 1920x1200 panel cannot display horizontal 320 pixels as an integer in 4:3 format.

I think I see what you mean. You get a 5x scale on the horizontal axis and a 6x scale on the vertical axis, when using a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Still looks pretty good to my eyes, but you're right.

Actually, scratch that. Each pixel is 5x6 cluster, which is fine for anamorphic nature of 320x200. But yeah, 640x480 scaling is sub-optimal with 2.5x factor. While 1440p panel can do both via DOSBOX.

The strategy we use and recommend with CRT Terminator for pixel perfect DOS 320x200 upscaling is to utilize a 1920x1200 display, but with a 1600x1200 output format, which is 5*320 x 6*200 upscaled, and then set the display in a 4:3 output mode.

This way the display will fit the input 320x200 mode pixel perfect to a 4:3 1600x1200 window of the 1920x1200 display area, leaving black pillarboxes on left and right.

However this scheme only works on CRT Terminator, since it is able to crop the (variable-length) VGA border away from the input image. That is, an input 320x200 VGA video image is not actually 320x200, but it is actually 328x414 pixels in size, where there are 4 pixels of border left and right (practically 8 for VGA since it does not see a pixel clock to distinguish between a 328 vs 656 pixels horizontal resolution), and 7 pixels of border top and bottom. This is why VGA displays do not provide a pixel perfect upscaling of this mode, unless they were specifically developed to account for this 320x200 border (I haven't seen one that would - some do account for 640x480 border though, which is uniform 8 pixels on all sides).

For 320x240 Mode X video mode, which is actually 320x480 scandoubled + borders, CRT Terminator first removes the border, and then scanhalves the image to 320x240. After that it multiplies the image by 5x in both dimensions to produce a 320*5 x 240*5 = 1600x1200 perfect integer-upscaled image.

The best monitor we have found for this use is ASUS ProArt PA248QV, which works beautifully with CRT Terminator under this manner. It also has a native VGA input for direct feed-in, although unfortunately its 4:3 mode does not actually scale VGA 320x200 or 720x400 in 4:3, but leaves it in 16:10.

The close second best monitor I have found so far is Philips Brilliance 252B9/00, which also supports up to 75hz 1920x1200, although I don't like its OSD menus and button ergonomy. Though its 4:3 mode is an actual 4:3 forced mode, and not a hybrid "4:3 or 16:10" mode like on the ASUS. Although I haven't tested this monitor with the VGA input, so I don't recall how it behaves there.

But maybe those monitors might work well for native VGA as well (since, well, CRT Terminator is not yet available). If there are some tests you'd like me to run on those displays from their VGA inputs, I'd be happy to try them out if that would help. I do also have a Dell 2007FPB in the lab for comparisons (and some dozen other monitors).

Philips Brilliance 252B9/00 was recommended here a few times. Not so sure about ProArt though, because it's an overpriced 6-bit FRC panel.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2023-02-23, 06:26:

I looked up ALL of the monitors that mihai said were better than the 2001FP and the HP LP2065 is the only one that is remotely affordable and available. Don't get me wrong... they all look like nice monitors, but most of them are completely unavailable in the USA or don't even have VGA.

In case of 2007FP, look for the FPb model. These are always S-IPS and newer revisions - in my experience.

I would not pay more than 50 - 70 USD for such monitor. I bought in 2022 3 such monitors: 2007FPb / Philips 200P4 / Eizo 2100 and I paid ~ 40 USD for each. Resellers of surplus hardware are best places to look into.

I also really like the 252B9 monitor from Philips, I am almost ready to pull the trigger on getting one.

Keep in mind that Philips is also 6-bit FRC panel, unlike old IPS office/professional panels. That was a major no-no for me. But pricing is decent.

mihai wrote on 2023-02-23, 11:00:

In case of 2007FP, look for the FPb model. These are always S-IPS and newer revisions - in my experience.

On this subject - have you ever seen a 2007FP that wasn't a 2007FPb? I got the impression that the last character in DELL monitors model names (always a small letter) is some internal identifier and is always the same on a given model. But, maybe I'm wrong.

The common knowledge at the time was that the only sure way to distinguish S-PVA from S-IPS units (short of turning it on) is by the last character of the serial number (L = LG-Philips S-IPS panel, S = Samsung S-PVA panel).