Reply 20 of 49, by The Serpent Rider
Shponglefan wrote on 2023-02-28, 02:01:
Eh? There are games that natively support 16:10, so not sure what you mean by it won't benefit any games?
If a game in question can support 16:10, then it also can support 16:9, which will give better viewing angle.
Plus the 1920x1200 resolution offers pixel perfect 1600x1200, which in turn scales perfectly into 320x200, 320x240 and 800x600.
Practically irrelevant for XP gaming. Also you can get 16:9 2560x1440 panel with pixel perfect 1920x1440.
IMHO, 1920x1200 is as good a resolution as it gets on an LCD display for running an XP system.
Reread my message. It's not about specific panels. BTW most common 16:10 displays were 1680x1050, which can't fit anything nicely.
Lets also not forget that 16:9 have access to vast amount of high refresh monitors, while 16:10 options are very limited, at best it's just 75Hz (excluding some early 120Hz TN monitors like Samsung 2233RZ).
And 16:10 75Hz comes with caveats:
1) It's an old 1680x1050.
2) It's a semi-modern 1920x1200, but with 6-bit+FRC color.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.