1600x1200 CRTs are very common and dirt cheap, and can actually display more than one resolution.

And they also take up a gargantuan amount of space.

I actually find it amusing how the websites have become a vertical stripe while the monitors have stretched horizontally. wtf is wrong with this world?

Exactly. I just don't get it. All monitors are moving to 16:9 but a lot of websites are no wider than about 1000 pixels wide.

Vogons is one site that renders well at 1920x1080 but many do not. I raised the issue to the developers/administrators on another forum
that just did an "upgrade" (it was a massive downgrade!), it got narrower. *sigh*

The claimed reason was to mimize eye and head movement. I don't know about you
but it seems the reason to buy a wide screen monitor is to have a wide screen. Not to waste it like that.

I would rather move my eyes/head than scroll a million times

RacoonRider wrote:

I'm with 1280x1024 since 2006 and I don't know why anyone would need more 😀 I actually find it amusing how the websites have become a vertical stripe while the monitors have stretched horizontally. wtf is wrong with this world? btw, you know the giant ads in the background of some websites? When you go 1280x1024 you hardly see them 😀

Yeah I'm with you on the "vertical stripe and horizontal display" nonsense - phu-yuck indeed. 🤣

On the heat production thing - I'd almost started to forget what it was like to have a big CRT sun-lamp at my desk...thanks for reminding me kithlyn. 😜

I prefer 16:10 monitors, personally.

Such as my Sony CRTs that do 1920 x 1200 nicely. 😎

-

I bought a Jaz 1GB drive bundle, with carrying case, etc, and included SCSI to USB adapter from a local guy for $30. That SCSI to USB adapter goes for $90-130 on eBay alone.

Not sure I'll even use this, but I can't count how many times I've had some relative come to me with an old floppy (even an 8" one once!!!) or zip disk and ask if I can get data off it.

Analogue VGA signal is still ok at 1600 x 1200 but not ideal. You definitely want DVI, you can tell the difference on a modern LCD.

The 4:3 aspect ratio is something of a retro must have feature. The thing is that many aren't aware of this and hence when you look at YouTube you find 95% of DOSBox videos in widescreen because of the way DOSBox captures in 320 x 200 without aspect ratio correction 😀

1280 x 1024 is 5:4 but IMO the difference is not THAT massive. In most games the HUD gets horizontally compressed a little but the effect is quite subtle. You can however still to this day buy brand new 1280 x 1024 monitors with low refresh rates and LED back light for reasonable money.

The ultimate IMO are 1920 x 1200 monitors. I got a Samsung 24" specifically for retro gaming. It wasn't cheap as they only make business models with this resolution. But it runs 1600 x 1200 games well via VGA or DVI with DVI looking absolutely stunning. I'm currently playing Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow on a 7800 GTX at 1600 x 1200 and it's a real treat.

It's funny how modern game consoles and also PC games struggle to run at 1080p60 and in 2005 you had games running 1200p60 no problem 😀

There is one more method of getting 1024 x 768 native resolution: Widescreen monitors and 4:3 aspect ratio compatibility thread

Get a new 18.5" monitor with 1366 x 768 resolution. I got a Philips and it has a 4:3 aspect ratio button. It does all DOS and Windows 4:3 resolutions without a hitch. However this particular monitor has really poor backlight, similar to the cheapest notebooks. The other issue is the size or lack off. It's a tiny screen with 18.5" on a 16:9 form factor. Works ok if you put the screen up close but you're better off playing with a 1:1 pixel 1024 x 768 screen on a nice 24".

Looking at all of the options, I find that going with a new 1280 x 1024 monitor is a very good option. While the aspect ratio is off, it's not that noticeable and many games actually support it properly. The alternative is to just scale 1024 x 768 footage but that resolution is lacking pixels and doesn't look very sharp on a large screen.

But I do have a question for people with huge CRT screens. Many support higher resolutions than 1600 x 1200. But do games support it too?

So what I'm asking is do games offer higher 4:3 resolutions when you use a monitor than can do more than 1200p?

philscomputerlab wrote:

Analogue VGA signal is still ok at 1600 x 1200 but not ideal. You definitely want DVI, you can tell the difference on a modern LCD.

Agreed. A lot of people say they can't tell the difference between VGA and DVI. Personally I find VGA hard to live with >1280x1024 after seeing the sharpness of DVI.

1280 x 1024 is 5:4 but IMO the difference is not THAT massive. In most games the HUD gets horizontally compressed a little but the effect is quite subtle. You can however still to this day buy brand new 1280 x 1024 monitors with low refresh rates and LED back light for reasonable money.

1280x1024 looks pretty decent at 4:3. The stretching is negligible.

The ultimate IMO are 1920 x 1200 monitors. I got a Samsung 24" specifically for retro gaming. It wasn't cheap as they only make business models with this resolution. But it runs 1600 x 1200 games well via VGA or DVI with DVI looking absolutely stunning. I'm currently playing Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow on a 7800 GTX at 1600 x 1200 and it's a real treat.

Wouldn't stretching 1600 to 1920 result in fairly significant horizontal distortion?

It's funny how modern game consoles and also PC games struggle to run at 1080p60 and in 2005 you had games running 1200p60 no problem 😀

Games have gotten much heavier. The framerate is harder to achieve the but visuals have gotten a lot better.

Looking at all of the options, I find that going with a new 1280 x 1024 monitor is a very good option. While the aspect ratio is off, it's not that noticeable and many games actually support it properly. The alternative is to just scale 1024 x 768 footage but that resolution is lacking pixels and doesn't look very sharp on a large screen.

I use a 1280x1024 monitor on my 486 even so I primarily run 1024x768 in Windows (1280x1024 is kinda blurry on the ViRGE)
It seems 1024x768 looks particularly good with no noticeable scaler artifacts (other than very minor stretching). The designers probably
built it specifically to look good at 1024x768 because of the commonality of the resolution at the time.

philscomputerlab wrote:

But I do have a question for people with huge CRT screens. Many support higher resolutions than 1600 x 1200. But do games support it too?

So what I'm asking is do games offer higher 4:3 resolutions when you use a monitor than can do more than 1200p?

Modern games and computers support it no problem. Actual retro computers? Probably not, but at least the lower resolutions still look good. 😎

Yes I mean older games. Is 1600 x 1200 as high as they go or do they support even higher resolutions if you have a capable CRT monitor?

philscomputerlab wrote:

Yes I mean older games. Is 1600 x 1200 as high as they go or do they support even higher resolutions if you have a capable CRT monitor?

Depends on the game - there's an older thread where folks posted the highest they achieved in various games. From personal experience I know that Total Annihlation will do 2560x1600 (maybe higher but that's where my monitors stop 😊), and a lot of 3D games like Morrowind, Sims 2, etc may only "officially" support up to 1600x1200, but a quick ini/conf change and they'll usually step up to higher resolutions (but they MAY NOT support widescreen correctly, so consider the "step up" may be more like 2048x1536, not 1920x1200). Others, like Red Alert 2, will actually support any resolution you like (and correct adjust for AR) but only display a few options in their configuration (for whatever reason) - again, a few adjustments in the ini/conf files and you're off. 😀

As far as DVI vs VGA - it really depends on the monitor and the graphics card IME. My FX 5800 Ultra via VGA into my WS Samsung (which does 2K - 2048x1152) looks super sharp at full resolution sitting in Windows, but OTOH my GF2 Ultra (and the two PCI cards its looped through) didn't look pristine at 1280x1024 on some CRTs (no idea on the LCD - haven't had time to hook it up yet). I think it's really all over the place as a result - later cards with 400 MHz RAMDACs and consistent quality output filtering (starts like Parhelia/GeForce FX/WildcatVP/Radeon 8 era) shouldn't likely have problems going over 1280x1024 via VGA, but earlier cards may not be so capable (depending on how old you go they may not even be able to set higher than 1280x1024).

Now performance is another question entirely - FX 5800 Ultra likely won't be running any games from the early 2000s at 2048x1152 - it could probably run Quake 1 or something at that resolution (or 2048x1536), but it struggles with Halo at 1600x1024 or 1280x960. So keep performance in mind in terms of setting really high resolutions. Another consideration is if the menus/HUD/etc will properly scale up - some games all of that stuff is fixed size, and at really high resolutions it becomes teeny-tiny (Total Annihlation is an example).

smeezekitty wrote:

Wouldn't stretching 1600 to 1920 result in fairly significant horizontal distortion?
.

Yes, it's awful. I don't suggest it. 😵

Lukeno94 wrote:

There's also the issue of space; not everyone can fit a leviathan CRT on their desk/wherever they keep their retro systems, and some desks aren't even strong enough to properly hold bigger/heavier CRTs.

Okay, this I can relate to. My ikea desk is not exactly level anymore.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Yes I mean older games. Is 1600 x 1200 as high as they go or do they support even higher resolutions if you have a capable CRT monitor?

Yes, in most games I can select up to 2800x2100. Games usually retrieve a list of supported resolutions from the graphics drivers, I think hard-coded resolutions are rare nowadays.

kithylin wrote:

jwt27 wrote:

And what's the deal with 1280x1024? Why would anyone ever want to use that?

Actually several dos games that use SVGA only go up to 1280x1024, or 1024x768, so these monitors would be perfect for that.

But as we all know, there are no PCs actually capable of running Build games in 1280x1024 😉

I have a trusty new-ish BenQ XL2420T (120Hz model), and I can manually set it to 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9, besides a non stretching mode that outputs pixels 1:1, and also a "keep aspect ratio" setting. For me, that seems fine for retrocomputing (keep aspect ratio for lower-res Windows stuff, 4:3 for VGA modes with non-square pixels, 1:1 for high-res Windows games). Also, it looks fine at 1080p using VGA.

The whole VGA vs DVI thing, IMHO, also depends on the vídeo card and the monitor itself. I've seen the same computer's vídeo output look fine at 1080p in one LCD monitor, and look horrible at 1280x1024 in another (older) one.

smeezekitty wrote:

Wouldn't stretching 1600 to 1920 result in fairly significant horizontal distortion?

Of course! But you can letterbox the image to 1600 x 1200 through the monitor or driver:

smeezekitty wrote:

It seems 1024x768 looks particularly good with no noticeable scaler artifacts (other than very minor stretching). The designers probably
built it specifically to look good at 1024x768 because of the commonality of the resolution at the time.

1024 x 768 seems to be THE PC resolution. Every scaler, monitor, TV, capture device supports it and very well at that. In most cases you can't go wrong with this resolution. I agree that most LCDs scale this resolution quite well but when you have seen 1600 x 1200 native via DVI on a 1920 x 1200 panel you just can't go back 😀

alexanrs wrote:

I have a trusty new-ish BenQ XL2420T (120Hz model), and I can manually set it to 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9, besides a non stretching mode that outputs pixels 1:1, and also a "keep aspect ratio" setting. For me, that seems fine for retrocomputing (keep aspect ratio for lower-res Windows stuff, 4:3 for VGA modes with non-square pixels, 1:1 for high-res Windows games). Also, it looks fine at 1080p using VGA.

Very nice! But that's a 1080p panel not 1200p.

obobskivich wrote:

Depends on the game - there's an older thread where folks posted the highest they achieved in various games. From personal experience I know that Total Annihlation will do 2560x1600 (maybe higher but that's where my monitors stop 😊), and a lot of 3D games like Morrowind, Sims 2, etc may only "officially" support up to 1600x1200, but a quick ini/conf change and they'll usually step up to higher resolutions (but they MAY NOT support widescreen correctly, so consider the "step up" may be more like 2048x1536, not 1920x1200). Others, like Red Alert 2, will actually support any resolution you like (and correct adjust for AR) but only display a few options in their configuration (for whatever reason) - again, a few adjustments in the ini/conf files and you're off. 😀

Very cool. So unless I connect such a monitor I won't know. But yes performance is a concern. Period correct hardware usually has no chance of running such resolutions. Many games also don't scale the HUD resulting in tiny font.

I picked up one of those Disney Sound Source's that were for sale on ebay. There's no better time than now if someone has uncovered a stash of them. I missed out on those Yamaha daughter boards that were for sale a while back because I hesitated too long, I wasn't going to miss picking up one of these.

I also managed to get a Powermac 9500 motherboard with a G3 upgrade and 12 64mb RAM sticks for a stupidly cheap price. 768mb of RAM is enough to smooth out some of OS X 10.4's rough edges. I'm going to see if I can fit it into my Powermac 8600 case. The 9500 and 9600 motherboards look very much alike, so it might be doable to turn my 8600 into a 9600. If not, the G3 and RAM can go into my 9500 although I don't relish the idea of opening up that case.

kixs wrote:

compgeke wrote:

I must wonder, is there anyone who hasn't had a Gravis Gamepad at one point? I've never known someone who hasn't.

I never had one. But got it when I bought an Amiga 1200. It has Atari joystick connector.

I never had one. Actually I never had a gamepad ever. My first related item was a Quickshot 5 joystick (1994, when I first start playing X-Wing) and then a Microsoft Sidewinder (which I still use).

From personal experience I know that Total Annihlation will do 2560x1600 (maybe higher but that's where my monitors stop 😊), and a lot of 3D games like Morrowind, Sims 2, etc may only "officially" support up to 1600x1200, but a quick ini/conf change and they'll usually step up to higher resolutions (but they MAY NOT support widescreen correctly, so consider the "step up" may be more like 2048x1536, not 1920x1200).

The Sims 2 definitely supports 1920x1080 but not through the official options. Looks great in widescreen.

later cards with 400 MHz RAMDACs and consistent quality output filtering (starts like Parhelia/GeForce FX/WildcatVP/Radeon 8 era) shouldn't likely have problems going over 1280x1024 via VGA, but earlier cards may not be so capable (depending on how old you go they may not even be able to set higher than 1280x1024).

My card has a 400MHz RAMDAC and VGA still looks noticeably inferior on 1280x1024, 1440x900 and 1920x1080

The VGA output of my Dell Optiplex GX270 seems to be quite dithered at any resolution. I use a 21.5" LG Flatron IPS224V 1080p 16:9 screen for my main desktop, which is fantastic in all areas bar the stand (which sucks); I have an old 19" Dell SE198WFP 900p 16:9 screen attached to my older systems, which is decent, but has no real resolution support below 512x384 (simply won't display the image) and has some thunderbugs stuck inside it... (and has for years)

A LOT of games can be modified to work at 1920 x 1080. WSGF website is the best resource.

But many games stretch the HUD. Games from around 2006 or so started to support different aspect ratios correctly.

philscomputerlab wrote:

A LOT of games can be modified to work at 1920 x 1080. WSGF website is the best resource.

But many games stretch the HUD. Games from around 2006 or so started to support different aspect ratios correctly.

RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 works very well in 1920x1080. Colin McRae Rally 04 doesn't stretch properly. Colin McRae Rally 2.0 supports 1920x1080 by default, but it makes everything hilariously stretched.

smeezekitty wrote:

The Sims 2 definitely supports 1920x1080 but not through the official options. Looks great in widescreen.

My card has a 400MHz RAMDAC and VGA still looks noticeably inferior on 1280x1024, 1440x900 and 1920x1080

I did not say the Sims 2 does not support higher resolutions, I said it requires conf adjustments beyond in-game settings (in-game default caps to 1600x1200). You can edit the configurations to give you more options, force it to a single resolution, enable multi-monitor, etc. It is vert- without additional modification, and the cutscenes are fixed, but otherwise it can work well at above 1600x1200 depending on the monitor. See here for more: http://www.wsgf.org/dr/sims-2

On the VGA connection - as previously posted, it can depend on the monitor as well (cabling can also be a factor at very high resolutions).