There are some notes on this page about running a Voodoo5 in widescreen resolutions like 1440x900 and 1680x1050 on Windows 95, which seems to require manually programming them into the registry. I don't really know much about how this works, but it may be possible to find the timings needed for other cards to run in custom resolutions. (I would assume the given ones on the page only work with the Voodoo5, but it's at least something to start off of)

http://toastytech.com/guis/miscb.html

edit: Found another page linked a little later that has VESA timings for various resolutions-- they may be usable: http://tinyvga.com/vga-timing

Dunno about the Virge specifically, but on a lot of video cards, it was possible to add custom resolutions in the registry, or to a section of the driver INF file (and then reinstall the driver with the modded INF).

Maybe you need to install drivers for the monitor. Even generic ones.

I WANT THAT MONITOR!

You might try Powerstrip and add a custom resolution.

bushwack wrote:

I WANT THAT MONITOR!

You might try Powerstrip and add a custom resolution.

I'd rather have this one

Intergraph 28hd96. 28 inch widescreen 1920x1080 CRT.

F2bnp wrote:

Maybe you need to install drivers for the monitor. Even generic ones.

I did, unfortunately the Sony FW900 official drivers didn't work.

Decided to put this on the back burner for now until I get Ethernet working. 😀

sliderider wrote:

Intergraph 28hd96. 28 inch widescreen 1920x1080 CRT.

Is that really a monitor, and not a TV? It looks spectacular. Ran a search for it but it seems to be extremely rare. Which isn't surprising.

dada wrote:

I did, unfortunately the Sony FW900 official drivers didn't work. […]
Show full quote

F2bnp wrote:

Maybe you need to install drivers for the monitor. Even generic ones.

I did, unfortunately the Sony FW900 official drivers didn't work.

Decided to put this on the back burner for now until I get Ethernet working. 😀

sliderider wrote:

Intergraph 28hd96. 28 inch widescreen 1920x1080 CRT.

Is that really a monitor, and not a TV? It looks spectacular. Ran a search for it but it seems to be extremely rare. Which isn't surprising.

Yes, it's for real. I almost bought one once but unfortunately you can only ship them by freight and freight carriers will only deliver someplace that has a loading a dock otherwise you have to pick it up at the nearest freight terminal and I don't have one nearby.

No, it's not a TV. They were actually made before 1080P televisions were even around. They date back to around 1999, maybe a little earlier.

Widescreen CRT...never knew those existed 🤣. Must've been quite a task to engineer

bushwack wrote:

I WANT THAT MONITOR!

This x1000000.

I'd rather have this one
{snip}
Intergraph 28hd96. 28 inch widescreen 1920x1080 CRT.

Meh. 16:9, 1920x1080@85hz max, and looks like a shadow-mask screen. Compare that to the Sony, which is 16:10, 2304x1440@80hz max, and is a Trinitron.

I'd snap up an FW900 in a heartbeat if I ever found one for sale, but TBQH I'd hesitate to take that Intergraph monitor even if it were given to me.

Hmm, I wouldn't say no to both.... but that Sony looks particularly nice. How much would one of these weigh? You'd have to have some pretty beefy furniture to stand up to those.

16:9 is quite useless in computing... there's no enough vertical resolution to get any productivity out of it... 16:9 is a marketing ploy, not any sort of practicality

16:10 is the way to go, but it is also going the way of the dinosaur, otherwise 4:3 is way more useful

TheMAN wrote:

16:9 is quite useless in computing... there's no enough vertical resolution to get any productivity out of it... 16:9 is a marketing ploy, not any sort of practicality

16:10 is the way to go, but it is also going the way of the dinosaur, otherwise 4:3 is way more useful

How do you figure that? 1920 x 1080 is far more useful than say 1680 x 1050 or 1600 x 1200. And the Intergraph was a high end professional monitor so obviously someone was being productive with them. 1920 x 1080 is the same as 1080p, so even if you're crating Blu Ray quality videos or 1080p television programs you don't need more resolution that. Under what circumstance is 1920 x 1080 useless?

sliderider wrote:

TheMAN wrote:

16:9 is quite useless in computing... there's no enough vertical resolution to get any productivity out of it... 16:9 is a marketing ploy, not any sort of practicality

16:10 is the way to go, but it is also going the way of the dinosaur, otherwise 4:3 is way more useful

How do you figure that? 1920 x 1080 is far more useful than say 1680 x 1050 or 1600 x 1200. And the Intergraph was a high end professional monitor so obviously someone was being productive with them. 1920 x 1080 is the same as 1080p, so even if you're crating Blu Ray quality videos or 1080p television programs you don't need more resolution that. Under what circumstance is 1920 x 1080 useless?

That monitor that everyone is going wowsers over can run 1920x1200 @ 85hz, that's the point he's trying to make. I too would prefer the extra vertical resolution of the Sony.

TheMAN wrote:

16:9 is quite useless in computing... there's no enough vertical resolution to get any productivity out of it... 16:9 is a marketing ploy, not any sort of practicalityl

🤣

Oh dear, funniest thing I've heard today!

Works perfectly for Asians, after all, we see in ultra-widescreen.

Pippy P. Poopypants wrote:

Works perfectly for Asians, after all, we see in ultra-widescreen.

I thought you saw in letterbox. 😳

Incidentally, how do you set custom screen resolutions in the registry and can you set the color depth, too?