I don't have any problems with my Widescreen Samsung T240 in Win98SE (fonts are small in FullHD, but everything is readable).

What drivers are you using ?
Did you tried switching between DVI/VGA plugs (or change cable) ?

agent_x007 wrote:

I don't have any problems with my Widescreen Samsung T240 in Win98SE (fonts are small in FullHD, but everything is readable).

What drivers are you using ?
Did you tried switching between DVI/VGA plugs (or change cable) ?

I'm forced to use VGA, but the machine dual boots to Win 2k and on 2k it looks perfect. I'm using the 81.98 9x drivers

Sounds like the refresh rate might be incorrect.

Did you try installing the monitor drivers? (I assume there's a monitor driver.) Also, if your VGA cable is too long, your video card might not be reading the EDID data correctly.

HP doesn't have drivers for 98 for my screen

install Revolutions pack 9 for windows 98 and select the clear type option and also adjust the dpi scaling to make the text bigger.

candle_86 wrote:

HP doesn't have drivers for 98 for my screen

Are you running 98SE? The WDM drivers for a later OS might be worth a shot.

There's a blurb at http://toastytech.com/guis/miscb.html about getting Windows 95 with a Voodoo5 to go up to 1680x1050, but I'm not sure if it applies.

I've had 1920x1080x32 on a V3 through VGA on 98SE and 2k. Couldn't pull this off on Rage128 though. The hard to read text at a res that high is to be expected on VGA anyhow

If you really want a custom res you could either edit the video driver's inf yourself and add one, or grab PowerStrip to make one 😀

leileilol wrote:

I've had 1920x1080x32 on a V3 through VGA on 98SE and 2k. Couldn't pull this off on Rage128 though. The hard to read text at a res that high is to be expected on VGA anyhow

If you really want a custom res you could either edit the video driver's inf yourself and add one, or grab PowerStrip to make one 😀

yes but its not an issue on any other machine or even this one on windows 2k. Every machine is connected via VGA to this monitor, my 4 port KVM is a VGA/USB/PS2 KVM switch. My GTX 480/Win10 has no readability problems with VGA @ 1080p, 7900GTX SLI/XP no issues, FX5900/2k no issue, just FX5900/98SE

leileilol wrote:

I've had 1920x1080x32 on a V3 through VGA on 98SE and 2k. Couldn't pull this off on Rage128 though. The hard to read text at a res that high is to be expected on VGA anyhow

If you really want a custom res you could either edit the video driver's inf yourself and add one, or grab PowerStrip to make one 😀

Hard to read ? i output FullHD on VGA Port, you need a high quality cable with good shielding.
Everything is fine and readable.

Using a cheap cable its unreadable 😳

leileilol wrote:

I've had 1920x1080x32 on a V3 through VGA on 98SE and 2k. Couldn't pull this off on Rage128 though. The hard to read text at a res that high is to be expected on VGA anyhow

If you really want a custom res you could either edit the video driver's inf yourself and add one, or grab PowerStrip to make one 😀

I know, I'm probably going to annoy you, but my Macintosh G3 B/W has a Rage128 installed, as well and it is running on my 1920x1080 monitor just fine (in native res.).
It has either 16MB ot 32MB installed, I think (daughter board is installed).The OS is currently MacOS 9.2.1 and OS X 10.4.2 "Tiger".

This is my model:
http://lowendmac.com/1999/ati-rage-128-mac-edition/

Hmm I guess i need to figure it out then if no one else has issues with 1080p but my 9x does something is wrong 🤣

candle_86 wrote:

Hmm I guess i need to figure it out then if no one else has issues with 1080p but my 9x does something is wrong 🤣

Are you sure it isn't an ID-10t error? 🤣 Just kidding!

FFXIhealer wrote:

candle_86 wrote:

Hmm I guess i need to figure it out then if no one else has issues with 1080p but my 9x does something is wrong 🤣

Are you sure it isn't an ID-10t error? 🤣 Just kidding!

Positive.

the only thing that really confuses me is that it works great on windows 2k the exact same system, with the exact same cables just booting to 2k instead of 98. Only diffrence is 98 uses the 81.98 and 2k is using 93.71 drivers.

candle_86 wrote:

FFXIhealer wrote:

candle_86 wrote:

Hmm I guess i need to figure it out then if no one else has issues with 1080p but my 9x does something is wrong 🤣

Are you sure it isn't an ID-10t error? 🤣 Just kidding!

Positive.

the only thing that really confuses me is that it works great on windows 2k the exact same system, with the exact same cables just booting to 2k instead of 98. Only diffrence is 98 uses the 81.98 and 2k is using 93.71 drivers.

So it's CLEARLY a driver or a settings issue. Windows 2000 is newer than Windows 98 and is built off the NT kernel, so the drivers are different for the kernel change and the way the system deals with underlying hardware may be slightly different. I would expect either the Display settings Control Panel app to have some difference or at least some Registry differences between the two OSs. I would look around in Windows 98 for a DPI setting. I know in Windows XP and since it's been very easy to set the scale to 125% or 150% so that text and windows appear larger on the same screen resolution, keeping them crisp looking and not all tiny (100% scale) or bugged out (change the display resolution to be smaller). If there is NOT a DPI setting in the Display Properties or Display Adapter Properties, then we'd want to look to see if you can set this via a registry entry.

Read up:
http://www.bltt.org/accessibility/winxp/disp_bg_screens.htm
http://www.bltt.org/accessibility/win98/win98 … _appearance.htm

I've noticed that about 9x/ME as well. It's as if that line of operating systems can't read EDID properly. They just don't seem to support many wide (especially 16:10 AR) video modes out of the box. XP, 2000, and even NT4 have no problem detecting that a monitor's native resolution is, say, 1440x900. But 9x? Nope!

IIRC, 1920x1080, 1280x720 and 852x480 were the only WS resolutions 9x/ME listed without any tweaks, and that's probably because those were HDTV modes that were available in the 90s and early 2000s. I wonder if Windows is assuming that you're trying to drive some 1990s style HDTV and is therefore outputting 1080i instead of 1080p? That would explain the hard to read text.

To be clear: your monitor's on-screen diagnostics should have a setting somewhere that provides information about the current resolution and refresh rate.

You can thus establish if the refresh rate is the real problem by consulting the OSD when you're running Windows 2000 and Windows 98. And then hopefully you can tweak the refresh rate in Windows 98 accordingly.

Trust me I get this all the time, try this program--->http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/131040-revolutions-pack-97/ Scroll down a little and get the latest version and also use the latest unofficial service pack it contains a better generic display driver---->https://www.techtalk.cc/viewtopic.php?t=65

Windows 98 needs a lot of updating to work good especially if your going 1080p that was just unheard of back then.

Edit*** Do the unofficial service pack first because it contains the GDI+ update to work with RP9 and also install IE6 SP1.