I've been using one for a year or so, and I'm very happy with it. Besides allowing me to play games at 1600x1200, I found that my particular monitor is pretty solid at upscaling 800x600 as well. This is nice if you're playing older games which use that as their highest resolution (e.g. Heroes of Might and Magic III, Diablo 2 etc).

There can be some issues with proper aspect ratio scaling on newer Nvidia GPUs under WinXP. Later Nvidia drivers sometimes incorrectly interpret 1600x1200 as a widescreen resolution, and will stretch it out over the entire screen. You can mitigate this through some registry tweaking and such, but it's an extra step. Some 16:10 monitors do allow you to set the proper 4:3 aspect ratio directly from their OSD, which neatly resolves the problem.

If you want more info, this has been discussed recently in threads such as this: Windows XP systems, do you 4:3, 5:4 or 16:10?

I use a 16:10 monitor ( Asus ProArt PA248QV 24") with my Windows XP setup.

Since the Windows XP era is when games started to move to widescreen (from mid-2000's onward), it ideal for games of that era. Even some older games like Civ 2 I have been pleasantly surprised to discover work in native widescreen aspect ratio.

The fact it's a modern monitor also means it doesn't have any of the issues or wear 'n tear of older LCD displays.

It also natively supports 4:3 aspect ratios and will auto-switch between them. This is especially nice for games that use a mix of 4:3 or 16:10. For example some games render FMV sequences or menus in 4:3, but gameplay in 16:10. This monitor has no trouble switching aspect ratios on the fly.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-02-19, 17:41:

There can be some issues with proper aspect ratio scaling on newer Nvidia GPUs under WinXP. Later Nvidia drivers sometimes incorrectly interpret 1600x1200 as a widescreen resolution, and will stretch it out over the entire screen. You can mitigate this through some registry tweaking and such, but it's an extra step. Some 16:10 monitors do allow you to set the proper 4:3 aspect ratio directly from their OSD, which neatly resolves the problem.

I'm using an Asus ProArt PA248QV 24"with a GeForce 980Ti. Can't speak for all monitors, but this particular monitor auto-detects and switches between 4:3 and 16:10 aspect ratios on the fly. No need for using OSD controls, registry tweaks or anything else. It just works.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-02-19, 17:52:

I'm using an Asus ProArt PA248QV 24"with a GeForce 980Ti. Can't speak for all monitors, but this particular monitor auto-detects and switches between 4:3 and 16:10 aspect ratios on the fly. No need for using OSD controls, registry tweaks or anything else. It just works.

Over DVI or VGA?

My Samsung SyncMaster S24B420BW can do it automatically over VGA, but the OSD doesn't allow aspect ratio changes over DVI. Hence the need for registry tweaks in my particular case.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-02-19, 17:58:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-02-19, 17:52:

I'm using an Asus ProArt PA248QV 24"with a GeForce 980Ti. Can't speak for all monitors, but this particular monitor auto-detects and switches between 4:3 and 16:10 aspect ratios on the fly. No need for using OSD controls, registry tweaks or anything else. It just works.

Over DVI or VGA?

My Samsung SyncMaster S24B420BW can do it automatically over VGA, but the OSD doesn't allow aspect ratio changes over DVI. Hence the need for registry tweaks in my particular case.

I'm using a DisplayPort -> HDMI adapter. DisplayPort connected to the GPU with HDMI connected to the monitor.

I admittedly did need this particular configuration to get both aspect ratio and native 75 Hz support to work. But since setting this up, it has worked flawlessly.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-02-19, 18:00:

I'm using a DisplayPort -> HDMI adapter. DisplayPort connected to the GPU with HDMI connected to the monitor.

I admittedly did need this particular configuration to get both aspect ratio and native 75 Hz support to work. But since setting this up, it has worked flawlessly.

That might be what's making the difference. On a related note, I recently found a thread on the Nvidia forums which suggests entering this from the command line to change the aspect ratio to your liking:

1rundll32.exe NvCpl.dll,dtcfg setscaling 1 DA  
2
3Mode settings are as follows: 
40 : Default
51 : Native 
62 : Scaling 
73 : Centered 
85 : Aspect

I have tried this, and it did work on my system, but the settings were not preserved after a reboot.

Currently, my preferred way of dealing with aspect ratio shenanigans is to connect my older 5:4 DVI monitor to my WinXP rig, and set the scaling options to "Use Nvidia scaling with fixed aspect ratio". Then, I can plug my 16:10 monitor, and it will retain those settings forevermore, even though the control panel no longer shows any scaling options.

Interesting info about that Asus ProArt PA248QV 24".
I gave my PA278QV 27" (16:9 QHD) to my parents, since I didn't like its cumbersome input switching. I don't recall now whether it has automatic aspect switch as well, and how reliable it is.

I have an ASUS ProArt PA248QV as well. I can concur that it has a 4:3 scaling mode, which is not at all a "always force input into 4:3" mode, but it is this kind of auto-detection heuristic 4:3 vs 16:10 mode.

The way it works (over the DVI-D input.. not sure about the VGA side) is that if the input video pixel resolution size has aspect ratio of 16:10 or wider, then the image is shown as 16:10.

Whereas if the input video resolution has aspect ratio that is narrower than 16:10, then that 4:3 option kicks in, and the video mode is forced into 4:3 mode.

There is no option or method to force an input video with 16:10 or wider aspect ratio to show as 4:3 on this display.

To me, this kind of "adaptive 4:3 mode" seemed like an annoying limitation at first, but after a bit of thinking, at least for CRT Terminator use case, that is quite ok. (and I utilize it to benefit to play The Incredible Machine 1&2 and Axia games in 16:10 modes for nice 1:1 aspect ratio)

Unrelated, the Asus ProArt PA248QV display has a limitation that it will not synchronize to any DVI-D input video resolution where pixel width <= pixel height, but will always state "no signal" on such video modes. This is a bit silly, I wish it was able to sync to such things. (Those occur for example in 320x200 video output from VGA Feature Connector, which is double-scanned to 320x400 by VGA)

This limitation resulted in CRT Terminator authoring a special behavior that it never outputs such an output video signal where width <= height, but it double-clocks all such modes to double the video width, to turn 320x400 -> 640x400.

My memory might not be 100% accurate, but I think Asus ProART PA248QV also has a limitation that it won't sync to DVI-D input video resolutions that are smaller than 640x400. Although don't quote me on that, it's been a while since I tested those.

I <3 16:10 ... the more modern laptops I have with 16:10 screens are my favorite for DOSbox.

Ppl try and convince me to care that some games are a little squished or stretched, I just can't though. I disagree with opinions on how they were "meant" to look, because I know back in the day, that they looked how they looked, according to how much tolerance you had for adjusting your monitor back and forth when the controls were round the back. Inevitably, you settled on a setting that was a happy medium between all the modes you ran, so 16:10 is like that, the happy medium, authentically. Sure, if there's an easy way to have monitor do just the right thing, I'll do that, but not gonna jump through hoops. Makes me laugh when ppl get so riled up about resolution or aspect ratio, then go and sit too far away or at too much of an angle for it to make a difference.

clb wrote on 2024-02-19, 19:29:

My memory might not be 100% accurate, but I think Asus ProART PA248QV also has a limitation that it won't sync to DVI-D input video resolutions that are smaller than 640x400. Although don't quote me on that, it's been a while since I tested those.

Actually now I remember that I did spend a weekend testing the display resolutions of Asus PA248QV on its auto-scaling with an FPGA DVI-D video signal generator. Found the spreadsheet, here is the data that I got:

The horizontal axis is the input video X resolution, and the vertical axis is the input video Y resolution fed to PA248QV DVI-D. The colors show how it decides on the scaling mode based on aspect ratio.

I think that one green 840x368 pixels size outlier is some kind of a clerical error in writing those numbers down.

The benefit of a 1920x1200 display rather than a 1920x1080 display is definitely that via DVI-D, it is possible to upscale input 320x200, 320x240 and 800600 resolutions to pixel perfect 1600x1200 resolution.

Then the output looks really nice and crisp. Here's a recent iPhone camera shot of the Asus PA248QV comparing pixel perfect vs imperfect upscaling on Colonel's Bequest, a 320x200 DOS EGA game:

as seen especially on dithered color patterns.

As you say finding 4:3 or even 5:4 (which never bothered me) is becoming harder to find.
Then last year I used some HP 16:10 and was impressed with the image quality compared to my aging retro screens.

800x600 and above I'll happily use the modern screens, you don't notice the letterboxing after a while. Thats Win9x and up
Below 800x600 it's pretty ugly though as I can't lock the aspect ratio so keep a few 5:4 monitors for earlier PC's

clb wrote on 2024-02-19, 19:41:

The benefit of a 1920x1200 display rather than a 1920x1080 display is definitely that via DVI-D, it is possible to upscale input 320x200, 320x240 and 800600 resolutions to pixel perfect 1600x1200 resolution.

That's funny, because I've always preferred VGA (or DVI-A, which is being part of DVI-I) for two things.

a) VGA input doesn't get a movie filter being applied to.
Probably because TFT monitors based on consumer technology assume that VGA input is a computer inputs.
I had once this experience with a Samsung PC monitor, the blue DE15 VGA port was cleaner than DVI input (pixels were sharp, in native 1920x1080 mode).

b) VGA can use any refresh rate, it's not being "locked". That's great for emulators in general and DOS software.
Old VGA games in 320x200 or 640x400 pels use ~70Hz fresh rate, for example.

Looks like VOGONS have enough PA248QV users to form up a fan club (myself included). 😆

Being the cheapest (below US$200) 16:10 monitor with VGA port and factory color calibration, it sure is a bang for the buck.

dormcat wrote on 2024-02-20, 08:47:

Looks like VOGONS have enough PA248QV users to form up a fan club (myself included). 😆

Damnit. Between DELL 2007FP, 2007WFP, 2209WA, U2410, UP3017, AOC i2353 and ASUS PA278QV (all in working order), I absolutely don't need another monitor, and have nowhere to put it. Don't make me go out and buy one! 🤣

Jo22 wrote on 2024-02-20, 08:24:

clb wrote on 2024-02-19, 19:41:

The benefit of a 1920x1200 display rather than a 1920x1080 display is definitely that via DVI-D, it is possible to upscale input 320x200, 320x240 and 800600 resolutions to pixel perfect 1600x1200 resolution.

That's funny, because I've always preferred VGA (or DVI-A, which is being part of DVI-I) for two things.

Oh, I was not at all implying that DVI-D would be preferable over DVI-A. I agree that is a subjective call.

What I meant was in the context of 1200p vs 1080p: one upside of using 1920x1200 over 1920x1080 is the possibility of this kind of pixel perfect upscaling, but only if one is using a DVI-D input, and not quite possible (to my knowledge) with DVI-A/VGA input.

Or to put it conversely, if one is using DVI-A/VGA, then there would not be that much difference of choosing 1920x1200 over 1920x1080.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-02-20, 08:24:

b) VGA can use any refresh rate, it's not being "locked". That's great for emulators in general and DOS software.
Old VGA games in 320x200 or 640x400 pels use ~70Hz fresh rate, for example.

Yeah, DVI-D does have a limitation that the receiving display must lock on/synchronize to the video signal, so when switching video modes, DVI-D displays typically suffer from slow sync issues. (and the screen going blank for a couple of hundred milliseconds and all that)

Though DVI-D itself does not have a limitation of refresh rates being locked or quantized, although some DVI-D displays (especially older ones) do lack support of not being able to natively display 70Hz, and they frame skip to 60 Hz. (like that Dell 2007FP has)

Also some older displays have limitations on the specific timings, but fortunately most of the newer ones, e.g. the ASUS ProArt PA248QV will happily display any refresh rate you throw at it, down to the thousandth of a Hz, as long as it is >= 50Hz and <= 75 Hz. CRT Terminator uses this to a benefit for example to synchronize Pinball Fantasies to render without any frameskip:

The VGA adapter produces a rather arbitrary 368x362 @ 70.400 Hz video mode, which is upscaled by CRT Terminator and fed to Asus ProArt PA248QV as 1600x1050 @ 70.400 Hz output signal. Even though these video timings and resolutions are completely nonstandard, a decent display like the PA248QV will have no problems displaying the mode. No frame skips, and pixel perfect upscaling in this case.

clb wrote on 2024-02-20, 11:26:

Jo22 wrote on 2024-02-20, 08:24:

clb wrote on 2024-02-19, 19:41:

The benefit of a 1920x1200 display rather than a 1920x1080 display is definitely that via DVI-D, it is possible to upscale input 320x200, 320x240 and 800600 resolutions to pixel perfect 1600x1200 resolution.

That's funny, because I've always preferred VGA (or DVI-A, which is being part of DVI-I) for two things.

Oh, I was not at all implying that DVI-D would be preferable over DVI-A. I agree that is a subjective call.

Hi, thanks for your understanding. I didn't meant to critize you, also.
Sorry if it maybe did sound that way. I was typing on a smartphone and being a bit lazy at wording sentences. 😅

Wow, lot of positivity here and some useful information. Def gonna be looking at one once I need a replacement. Also a good point I'd not considdered, my XP machine would benefit as games can do a including 4:3, 16:10, and 16:9 depending on the game.

I personally like my pixels they way they ought to look. Some laptops with high res lets you shrink the picture, is this a feature of some 16x10s or would it need hardware support?

I also prefer a square picture generally but I have no problems with black borders. (Screens used to be tiny anyway.)

I really like 1920x1200. I used these resolutions for over a decade, starting with a Dell 2408WFP and eventually adding two Dell 2410 (for a 5760x1200 Eyefinity setup).

The 1920x1200 monitors with OSD that allow for 4:3 aspect ratio scaling are very versatile. You get:

• Pixel perfect scaling of 1600x1200 (4:3) monitor with pillarboxing. That was the "4k" of the Win98 era...
• Excellent scaling of 800x600 content (and sometimes 320x200; 320x240). Even if the display applies some blurring, the fact that 1200 is a multiple of 600 usually yields better results than on a 1080p display

Generally I found that there were more higher end 24" 1920x1200 monitors being produced more recently, compared to say 20" 1600x1200 monitors. So in terms of response time, viewing angles, color accuracy, reliability, etc.... it may be easier to find a nice 1920x1200 monitor than it is to find a nice 1600x1200 monitor. For this reason I suggest that a good 1920x1200 monitor may even be superior to 1600x1200 with the main disadvantage being desk space and the pillarboxing when running it 4:3.

Bonus - you can watch a 1920x1080 video with room above/below for UI (titlebar, play/pause buttons, etc) that don't obscure the video