VOGONS


First post, by hwh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I am considering buying a monitor...and one of the major issues I am having is a height adjustment. I want one. But it seems only high end monitors have that. Every monitor pivots, but that sucks; I don't want to look down at the monitor.

So there are a few of these high end $350 monitors with height adjustments, and of course 0 of them are 1366x768. ...
An old high end monitor would be fine, as long as it's decent and has the height adjustment. Right now I have a Dell 1800FP, 1280x1024 (5:4). I didn't buy it; it was free from a shop cleaning out after a fire. Not in perfect condition, but it has an articulating center piece as a height adjustment. Not a cheap monitor when it was new *checks* in 2003.

Also, this old Dell, besides being slightly damaged and a somewhat lame resolution has a 30ms response time. Like, wtf. I'm used to it, but I know it's garbage.

So please point me to that 2010 monitor with the height adjustment at 1366x768. I'll probably end up checking review sites anyway. Newegg has 0. Save me from monitor purgatory.

EDIT
Came across this random one misclassified by Newegg as having no height adjustment.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?I … #scrollFullInfo

Bizarrely expensive and might go dead in a year. Hm, a starting point. Maybe a finish line too. 😖

Last edited by hwh on 2017-08-15, 13:29. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 1 of 11, by konc

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Don't have any suggestion for a monitor, but recently I was given a new monitor at work which is apparently made for dwarfs and no height adjustment. I ended up getting a minimal monitor stand (used books initially to determine the exact height I wanted) and now I prefer this solution since I can get advantage of the space below it as well. Just an alternative to consider...

The attachment deepcool_monitor_stand.jpg is no longer available

Reply 2 of 11, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I bought a bunch of 1440x900 monitors with really nice telescoping vertical adjustment. They were cheap too, like $65 each? HP LA1905wg was the model. I don't know if they made one in 1366x768 though. But maybe this info can give you a path to search down.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 3 of 11, by hwh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I just checked Tom's hardware...their monitor reviews are not...there aren't many comparisons and they kind of went from 1440x900 (is that 16:10) to 1920x1080 monitors since they didn't do many monitor reviews for a few years. You can have whatever you want as long as it's black and in 1920x1080.

Maybe I found the only one ever made. No choice, but I only need one, 🤣! And it helps that it comes from Samsung and not some random Chinese off brand that is meant for industrial use or some crazy thing like that.

The stand...an adjustable stand might work, but I have to say in terms of design that it's really bothersome to go buy the "best" monitor and then have to add some other clutter to repair its handicapped features. Don't know, I might cross that bridge. Right now I have my keyboard propped on the monitor base. That's just how cool the 1800FP's design was; it's square so it's not wobbly.

Weirdly, ViewSonic makes a 5:4 monitor with a height adjustment (Amazon price, $169) which I find actually slightly attractive, but I'm trying to resolve the shortscreen issue, not expand my monitor collection. Because most 1024x768 games will distort (stretch) in 1280x1024. A few smart ones go to 1280x960.

Reply 4 of 11, by Imperious

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Any monitor from 2010 that is limited to a resolution of 1366x768 is going to be a low end model, so likely You can forget about height adjustment.

The Dell u2412m will do a very nice job of 4:3 resolutions including 1024*768, and I know some 24inch Samsung models that support up to 1920*1200 are good.

Atari 2600, TI994a, Vic20, c64, ZX Spectrum 128, Amstrad CPC464, Atari 65XE, Commodore Plus/4, Amiga 500
PC's from XT 8088, 486, Pentium MMX, K6, Athlon, P3, P4, 775, to current Ryzen 5600x.

Reply 5 of 11, by oeuvre

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Why on earth would anyone ever want 1366x768?

HP Z420 Workstation Intel Xeon E5-1620, 32GB, RADEON HD7850 2GB, SSD + HD, XP/7
ws90Ts2.gif

Reply 6 of 11, by Rawrl

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Presumably for pillarboxed 1024x768 with 1:1 pixel mapping.

OP, as others have mentioned 1366x768 monitors tend to be bottom of the barrel budget crap. Response times and image quality probably won't be too far off your 1800FP. If you're dead set on that resolution, your best bet is finding one that has VESA mounting points and getting an aftermarket stand.

My recommendation for a retro monitor would be a Dell 2007FP. It's a 20" 4:3 1600x1200 monitor that came with an IPS or PVA panel. The scaler is halfway decent, and being 1600x1200 means it runs great with a pixel-doubled 800x600 image. Along with the standard VGA and DVI connections, it also accepts Composite and S-Video inputs. The official spec sheet says that it accepts refresh rates from 56Hz to 76Hz, and this thread suggests that it will also take 15khz analog RGB input (Amiga, Atari, various game consoles). Plus, they're recent enough that you can find them without too much trouble.

Reply 7 of 11, by oeuvre

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Yeah, I can vouch for the 2007fp/fpb... got one on my retro computer. They're excellent.

HP Z420 Workstation Intel Xeon E5-1620, 32GB, RADEON HD7850 2GB, SSD + HD, XP/7
ws90Ts2.gif

Reply 8 of 11, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I've got an HP LP1965, and based on it's performance I can recommend the LP2065 (20", IPS, 1600x1200).

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 9 of 11, by hwh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Appreciate the 1600x1200 suggestion, however I wager the scaler isn't better than a 1:1 image. So consider the time spent at a non native resolution. And yeah, quality is paramount.

Then the time spent at 1600x1200 which is sort of all right (I wouldn't even run the desktop at that resolution becuase I can't see anything) but makes 3D rendering expensive, and let's not talk about video recording and how I'm going to wrestle with going to a lower, worse looking and non 1:1 resolution to control file sizes.

Actually a great 2048x1536 would be an option, but those are rare, expensive and it's not really what I'm trying to accomplish. Put it this way. If there were some excellent 1024x768 panel at 1ms with great scaling and the height adjustment, I would love that. But there's no such thing. And like it or hate it, 16:9 media is all that is produced now, so it becomes more of a benefit to have a screen adapted for it.

As for 800x600, a pretty rare resolution for me, most of the stuff I want to run is capped either at 640x480 or 1024x768. Very nice in those unusual cases you're running at 800x600, but that's just not my priority.

I'm actually not sure if I will do the better monitor with stand or cleaner one without. As you can see I tend to draw out my purchase decisions 🤣

Reply 10 of 11, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

what kind of graphics card are you going to use? on my 19" 1440x900 LCD with DVI and a Radeon it's easy to set it to center the image, not scale, so 1152x864 works really well for 4:3 games, 1024x768 wastes a decent amount more of screen space, still, not a terrible solution for a perfect picture, also even the scaling, depending on the situation is not terrible, the monitor itself offers a button "4:3 to wide" which is nice when using a card with no scaling options, and tbh the quality of the scaling the monitor provides with that is extremely similar to the one the VGA offers with "keep aspect ration", actually I can't say for sure which one is better.

as for 1366x768, can't really say much, I think it's more common for laptops, really small screens (seen plenty of PC ones but it's just 15.6", so smaller than a proper 4:3 15" LCD) and some TVs, but they are normally the cheapest, would it even be better than some 15" LCD with 1204x768 native from around 2006?
but I think you will only find 1366x768 "monitors" with easy adjustments for aspect ration in form of a TV, they also normally had a VGA connector, but with TVs it's often bad as a monitor with input lag and to much "processing"

ideal solution would be a good 1920x1200 monitor, great for current use and also for 1600x1200 4:3

Reply 11 of 11, by hwh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I've learned some things recently. First, I discovered why there are no monitors with height adjustments. I finally looked into "monitor stands" and discovered the world of articulated monitor mounts and the VESA mounting standard (which is confusing since it reminds me of the VESA bus..lol). So it's not...the monitor manufacturers have lost interest in designing mounts and this whole third party thing rules the market. So I can figure that part out, I think. Pretty cheap these days, too. I even thought something like this would be nice; I just never knew about it.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N1ZSPKO/ref=twis … ding=UTF8&psc=1

I likely will get this.

SPBHM wrote:
what kind of graphics card are you going to use? on my 19" 1440x900 LCD with DVI and a Radeon it's easy to set it to center the […]
Show full quote

what kind of graphics card are you going to use? on my 19" 1440x900 LCD with DVI and a Radeon it's easy to set it to center the image, not scale, so 1152x864 works really well for 4:3 games, 1024x768 wastes a decent amount more of screen space, still, not a terrible solution for a perfect picture, also even the scaling, depending on the situation is not terrible, the monitor itself offers a button "4:3 to wide" which is nice when using a card with no scaling options, and tbh the quality of the scaling the monitor provides with that is extremely similar to the one the VGA offers with "keep aspect ration", actually I can't say for sure which one is better.

as for 1366x768, can't really say much, I think it's more common for laptops, really small screens (seen plenty of PC ones but it's just 15.6", so smaller than a proper 4:3 15" LCD) and some TVs, but they are normally the cheapest, would it even be better than some 15" LCD with 1204x768 native from around 2006?
but I think you will only find 1366x768 "monitors" with easy adjustments for aspect ration in form of a TV, they also normally had a VGA connector, but with TVs it's often bad as a monitor with input lag and to much "processing"

ideal solution would be a good 1920x1200 monitor, great for current use and also for 1600x1200 4:3

So, I discovered something tonight which I unbelievably didn't know (or was hidden/disabled/god knows what - I recently went to a DVI cable, maybe that changed it). I have an nVidia card, but there is in fact a scaling control. I was looking at monitors with scaling controls earlier tonight when I stumbled on this suggestion elsewhere. I can scale, I can scale with a fixed aspect ratio, I can leave it to the monitor, or disable scaling. So here's where the trouble starts.

With a CRT, resolution and screen area are two totally separate things. On an LCD, the screen area is fixed to the native resolution. For instance, all 1366x768 screens are 18.5". So I tried out a 1024x768 program on this screen, a 1280x1024. Not pretty! Oh sure, the image quality went up, but the screen area is equivalent to what you get on a 15" CRT. So I am second guessing the 1366x768 idea - I want the quality, but I don't want a tiny screen.

So I don't know...maybe just pick the screen with the best scaling? What is that? :S