MagefromAntares wrote on 2026-07-06, 17:04:

Actually you are spot on with the size, the largest commercially produced CRT was 43 Inch viewable: https://crtdatabase.com/crts […]
Show full quote

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-06, 14:27:

i see your points , and they are good points. […]
Show full quote

MagefromAntares wrote on 2026-07-06, 10:04:

Hi,

While various flat panels (LCDs, OLEDs) replaced CRTs for everyday usage for me, I still find the capabilities of CRTs to be unmatched in many ways and not only in regards of lag, for example contrast is still better than most flat panels. And some old games art actually took the curvature of the screen into account and looks better on a non flat-screen CRT.

Also don't let DVI stand in the way of using a CRT, most early DVI cards came with the full 29-pin DVI connector, that can be converted to VGA with a passive adapter, in-fact the adapter is so simple that it can be DIY soldered if it cannot be found(https://allpinouts.org/pinouts/connectors/com … uter_video/dvi/). The DVI connectors that came without analogue parts are a lot harder to convert as it needs a Digital to Analogue conversion, for low resolution and refresh rates it can be still done with DIY methods though, for those Video Cards that doesn't have the analogue part and high resolution and refresh rates are preferred, a commercially built converter is needed unless you are really good with FPGAs and DACs, then it can be still custom built, so I think the useful life of CRTs will outlast that of currently produced flat panels, in fact a CRT tube itself is very hard to damage electronically in comparison of a TFT LCD, for monochromatic tubes that is even more apparent, without a shadow mask or aperture grille and with only a single electron gun even a close lightning strike can be survived by a monochromatic CRT.

i see your points , and they are good points.

think the main issues (90% of the issue) with CRT is the size. it is very hard to replace the speed of electrons beaming over on a screen... no monitor or tv can do that even now , but the size.... wow... huge monsters.

and I also think that there never were crt s bigger than 40 or 50 inches... don t think they work , dunno why , they implode or something... but it has a big limitation on the diagonal of the monitor/tv.

looking at my pc desk now... there is no way in hell that i would be able to fit a CRT monitor on it... just does not exist... need doble the depth of the table..

Actually you are spot on with the size, the largest commercially produced CRT was 43 Inch viewable: https://crtdatabase.com/crts/sony/sony-pvm-4300

Unfortunately only a single known example remains, kinda understandable though, it is not something that you can place on a desk, you have to place it on the floor or on a dedicated stand, so I can imagine people didn't standing in line to get one when the places they were installed got decommissioned.

For me I like CRTs to 17 and 19 inches in size, the 21 inches are on the threshold of what I consider truly useable, anything larger than 21 inch and it starts to get cumbersome to place and to store. So most CRTs in my collection are <=19 Inch.

The largest CRT TV ever commercially produced is the Sony PVM-4300 (also marketed as the KX-45ED1). Released in 1989, this 200 kg (440 lb) behemoth featured a 45-inch picture tube with a 43-inch visible diagonal screen. It cost an astonishing $40,000 upon release.

So at 43 inch diagonal u looking at 200KG... where a 43 inch LED tv is around 10kg... that is 20 times heavier.

MagefromAntares wrote on 2026-07-06, 17:04:

Actually you are spot on with the size, the largest commercially produced CRT was 43 Inch viewable: https://crtdatabase.com/crts […]
Show full quote

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-06, 14:27:

i see your points , and they are good points. […]
Show full quote

MagefromAntares wrote on 2026-07-06, 10:04:

Hi,

While various flat panels (LCDs, OLEDs) replaced CRTs for everyday usage for me, I still find the capabilities of CRTs to be unmatched in many ways and not only in regards of lag, for example contrast is still better than most flat panels. And some old games art actually took the curvature of the screen into account and looks better on a non flat-screen CRT.

Also don't let DVI stand in the way of using a CRT, most early DVI cards came with the full 29-pin DVI connector, that can be converted to VGA with a passive adapter, in-fact the adapter is so simple that it can be DIY soldered if it cannot be found(https://allpinouts.org/pinouts/connectors/com … uter_video/dvi/). The DVI connectors that came without analogue parts are a lot harder to convert as it needs a Digital to Analogue conversion, for low resolution and refresh rates it can be still done with DIY methods though, for those Video Cards that doesn't have the analogue part and high resolution and refresh rates are preferred, a commercially built converter is needed unless you are really good with FPGAs and DACs, then it can be still custom built, so I think the useful life of CRTs will outlast that of currently produced flat panels, in fact a CRT tube itself is very hard to damage electronically in comparison of a TFT LCD, for monochromatic tubes that is even more apparent, without a shadow mask or aperture grille and with only a single electron gun even a close lightning strike can be survived by a monochromatic CRT.

i see your points , and they are good points.

think the main issues (90% of the issue) with CRT is the size. it is very hard to replace the speed of electrons beaming over on a screen... no monitor or tv can do that even now , but the size.... wow... huge monsters.

and I also think that there never were crt s bigger than 40 or 50 inches... don t think they work , dunno why , they implode or something... but it has a big limitation on the diagonal of the monitor/tv.

looking at my pc desk now... there is no way in hell that i would be able to fit a CRT monitor on it... just does not exist... need doble the depth of the table..

Actually you are spot on with the size, the largest commercially produced CRT was 43 Inch viewable: https://crtdatabase.com/crts/sony/sony-pvm-4300

Unfortunately only a single known example remains, kinda understandable though, it is not something that you can place on a desk, you have to place it on the floor or on a dedicated stand, so I can imagine people didn't standing in line to get one when the places they were installed got decommissioned.

For me I like CRTs to 17 and 19 inches in size, the 21 inches are on the threshold of what I consider truly useable, anything larger than 21 inch and it starts to get cumbersome to place and to store. So most CRTs in my collection are <=19 Inch.

What a monster!

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-06, 17:25:

dunno if it s exponential , but for sure it s not economical. […]
Show full quote

H3nrik V! wrote on 2026-07-06, 16:07:

My desk too, my desk too :lol: […]
Show full quote

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-06, 14:27:

i see your points , and they are good points. […]
Show full quote

i see your points , and they are good points.

think the main issues (90% of the issue) with CRT is the size. it is very hard to replace the speed of electrons beaming over on a screen... no monitor or tv can do that even now , but the size.... wow... huge monsters.

and I also think that there never were crt s bigger than 40 or 50 inches... don t think they work , dunno why , they implode or something... but it has a big limitation on the diagonal of the monitor/tv.

looking at my pc desk now... there is no way in hell that i would be able to fit a CRT monitor on it... just does not exist... need doble the depth of the table..

My desk too, my desk too 🤣

But yeah, after reaching a certain size (guess I've never seen bigger than 32 inch widescreen CRTs) it became back protection TVs.

I guess your theory about implosions is right, it would require hugely thick glass to go bigger. I'm guessing that it's an exponential thing? 🤷‍♂️

dunno if it s exponential , but for sure it s not economical.

the glass would have to be so thick would not make sense to build monsters like that.

CRT perfect size for me it s 19 inch. 17 too small , 21 to big.

I used to work with a Trinitron 24 or 27 inch widescreen for PCB layout, back in like 2008 or something. Back then I didn't appreciate it over a 19" tft, so I did nothing to save it when it started to show its age by losing focus.

You need a PCI GPU for games that will have problems with newer drivers for GeForce 6800 GT. Probably an ATI one so that you can have drivers installed for both of them concurrently.

I prefer 19" CRT. Not too large and has 1600x1200. Some 17" also have that but the screen is tiny. 17" is good for 386/486.

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-06-28, 12:26:

A little bit of an update... […]
Show full quote

A little bit of an update...

NEW GPU!!! Probably most high end gpu from nvidia for win 9x.... The 6800 gt 256 gddr3... A 2 slot card that will demolish anything windows 9x...

I have also installed a few games... My monitor is 1600x1200 and the games still work just fine...

I am still waiting for a few games in the post....

The beauty of this system is that it can also run windows xp if needed... But for that I have a different system... One that I have already posted but I taken the 6800gt out of, and that one will get a new gpu shortly... I will update on that topic....

Love it!!

I have the little brother Leadtek 6800 A400 version, it only came with 128MB RAM, but I remember you could unlock extra pipelines and pixel shaders using rivatuner for a performance boost 😀

There is a bigger brother version of the Leadtek 6800, being the Ultra but it is rare as anything.

I used to own an AGP Gainward 6800 ultra and it was amazing. I cry every time i think how i sold it on ebay for £16 20 years ago 🙁

AlexZ wrote on 2026-07-29, 18:23:

You need a PCI GPU for games that will have problems with newer drivers for GeForce 6800 GT. Probably an ATI one so that you can have drivers installed for both of them concurrently.

I prefer 19" CRT. Not too large and has 1600x1200. Some 17" also have that but the screen is tiny. 17" is good for 386/486.

I also have a windows 9x early pc , with a geforce 4 ti 4200 that will be compatible with anything. So no need to change anything on this pc as I have another one.

I also have a geforce 3 ti 200 , a MX 440 that will work with any dos game ever.

VIA chipset better selection for DOS compatibility, because is better comparing to nforce chipsets.
KT880 is the best for me for your Barton needs.

Athlon 3200+ was my main CPU from 2003 to 2010! Yes I went to multi core CPU in 2010 with Phemon II!
I had 3850 AGP installed. Fastest AGP GPU back then. But I had the GA-7N400PRo2 and I remember that I had issues with Audigy and it's DOS driver and I couldn't play DOS games. I had 6600GT from 2005 to 2007 and 6800 Ultra until 2009. But both Nvidia's died.

On 2020 I recreated my build by selecting the ASUS A7V880 with KT880 chipset. Audigy with DOS drivers worked without issues!

JSO wrote on Today, 08:06:

VIA chipset better selection for DOS compatibility, because is better comparing to nforce chipsets. KT880 is the best for me for […]
Show full quote

VIA chipset better selection for DOS compatibility, because is better comparing to nforce chipsets.
KT880 is the best for me for your Barton needs.

Athlon 3200+ was my main CPU from 2003 to 2010! Yes I went to multi core CPU in 2010 with Phemon II!
I had 3850 AGP installed. Fastest AGP GPU back then. But I had the GA-7N400PRo2 and I remember that I had issues with Audigy and it's DOS driver and I couldn't play DOS games. I had 6600GT from 2005 to 2007 and 6800 Ultra until 2009. But both Nvidia's died.

On 2020 I recreated my build by selecting the ASUS A7V880 with KT880 chipset. Audigy with DOS drivers worked without issues!

Like I said above , I have ANOTHER pc , specially for early win9x and DOS.

My retro build, win 98 machine

It is a VIA chipset that allows ddma has an ESS solo 1 , a 4200 ti... i can play any dos game ever.

The computer in this topic , the athlon 3200 with the nforce is ONLY for late win 9x stuff , up to 2004 - 2006... It will never play dos games , etc. It s not built for that.

What games are you targeting, and/or issues you're trying to solve? 2004-2006 was the era of games "supporting" 9x, but they weren't 9x games. Vista RTM'd at the end of 2006, you are looking solidly in the XP era.

Your other 9x build is pretty solid, but held back with the CPU. Late era DOS and 9x games (pre-DX9) could excel on an Athlon 3200. There just isn't really a niche where a high clock P3 meets a need that a underclocked Cool n' Quiet Athlon 64 doesn't. The build is already limited to PCI sound cards.

2004-2006 games on a ultimate XP machine would run far better than the machine you're trying to build. The Athlons were fine for the start of the XP era, but started struggled towards the tail end which you are targeting, and the GPU will also don't be running things at max settings and resolution. DX9 and XP were well supported on a wide range of hardware, it's when GPU and driver design settled down. The biggest compatibility problems are around multi cores which some games have issues with. Adding startup parameters to lock to one or two cores resolve them.

IMO, ultimate 9x is running the late SVGA games at 1600x1200 without breaking a sweat. While also letting EAX2 and A3D2.0 show off. Those were things unique to 9x that became dodgy in XP. A 4200ti or FX5500 tears through 9x era games while providing support for the GPU features that were disabled on newer cards. Games that don't use those features and struggle on those cards almost always run just fine under XP.

Athlon XP 3200+ is good up to 2004, which is mid Windows XP era (2002-2006). It may play some games from 2005 with reduced details but in 2006 it's over. Despite the limitations, it's probably a good idea to have both OSes for stability reasons.

Pentium III covers Dos and Windows 98 era. There is a lot of overlap between what Pentium III does and Athlon XP. I chose Pentium III over Athlon XP because I never had a Pentium III. As long as topic author has enough space and time for them, why not have both.

2006 needs a PCIe GPU, a really fast single core or better dual core. s754, s939, AM2(+), lga 775 are much better, the last ones are the best.

Try running the following game benchmarks on Athlon XP 3200+:
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (2005)
Serious Sam 2 (2005)
Quake 4 (2005)
Far Cry (2004)

all with maximum details in 1600x1200 or 1920x1080.

SScorpio wrote on Today, 14:20:

What games are you targeting, and/or issues you're trying to solve? 2004-2006 was the era of games "supporting" 9x, but they wer […]
Show full quote

What games are you targeting, and/or issues you're trying to solve? 2004-2006 was the era of games "supporting" 9x, but they weren't 9x games. Vista RTM'd at the end of 2006, you are looking solidly in the XP era.

Your other 9x build is pretty solid, but held back with the CPU. Late era DOS and 9x games (pre-DX9) could excel on an Athlon 3200. There just isn't really a niche where a high clock P3 meets a need that a underclocked Cool n' Quiet Athlon 64 doesn't. The build is already limited to PCI sound cards.

2004-2006 games on a ultimate XP machine would run far better than the machine you're trying to build. The Athlons were fine for the start of the XP era, but started struggled towards the tail end which you are targeting, and the GPU will also don't be running things at max settings and resolution. DX9 and XP were well supported on a wide range of hardware, it's when GPU and driver design settled down. The biggest compatibility problems are around multi cores which some games have issues with. Adding startup parameters to lock to one or two cores resolve them.

IMO, ultimate 9x is running the late SVGA games at 1600x1200 without breaking a sweat. While also letting EAX2 and A3D2.0 show off. Those were things unique to 9x that became dodgy in XP. A 4200ti or FX5500 tears through 9x era games while providing support for the GPU features that were disabled on newer cards. Games that don't use those features and struggle on those cards almost always run just fine under XP.

Think you got it wrong. I am not trying to solve anything. Think it s all sorted to be honest. I have 4 retro pc's. I have covered everything. 2 pc's for using 9x and 2 for xp.

My first pc , with the athlon 1700+ and the geforce 4 ti 4200 will play any dos games and win 9x games up to 2000/2001. My second pc , the one with the athlon xp 3200+ and radeon hd 3850 will play anything up to 2004 or so.

I also have 2 xp machines , a early high end one with agp and a late one on pci express. I already have the aureal vortex , etc... And a 1600x1200 monitor. So I can cover pretty much any game from 1990 to 2008 easily.

I ALSO have components to build a full spec P3 machine at 833 mhz with an abit mobo , ram , etc... I just don t need it as my athlon 1700+ is already covering that era.. The p3 components i have listed for sale...

AlexZ wrote on Today, 15:44:

Athlon XP 3200+ is good up to 2004, which is mid Windows XP era (2002-2006). It may play some games from 2005 with reduced detai […]
Show full quote

Athlon XP 3200+ is good up to 2004, which is mid Windows XP era (2002-2006). It may play some games from 2005 with reduced details but in 2006 it's over. Despite the limitations, it's probably a good idea to have both OSes for stability reasons.

Pentium III covers Dos and Windows 98 era. There is a lot of overlap between what Pentium III does and Athlon XP. I chose Pentium III over Athlon XP because I never had a Pentium III. As long as topic author has enough space and time for them, why not have both.

2006 needs a PCIe GPU, a really fast single core or better dual core. s754, s939, AM2(+), lga 775 are much better, the last ones are the best.

Try running the following game benchmarks on Athlon XP 3200+:
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (2005)
Serious Sam 2 (2005)
Quake 4 (2005)
Far Cry (2004)

all with maximum details in 1600x1200 or 1920x1080.

I don t need to do that. I aso have a p4 3.2ghz with a 3850 hd and I also have a quad core q9559 with a gtx 680 , both running win xp 32 bit.

So whatever I cannot play on my barton 3200+ , i can play on my other machines.

Did I say I have a future retro machine from 2012 , with a intele core i7 3770k , 32 gb ddr3 ram , and a gtx 980 / rtx 2060 super. This is currently a win 10 machine , but can easily be done as a XP 32 bit.

I also have about 10 spare sound cards and 10 spare graphics cards. Mobos and cpus and rams , etc... So I am sure I can cover any era games...

FYI: you have missed nothing about the P3's... They were good , don t get me wrong , but the early athlon xp is cheaper , runs cooler , is faster than any p3. So there is no need for a p3.

See , the way I think , I would use the p3 machine for a windows 95 exclusive build only. or a win 95/dos only build.

Athlon XP hardware can be expensive too, not just Pentium III + 440BX.

I sold (without postage):

GeForce 7600 GT GDDR3 for 100€
GeForce 7600 GT DDR2 for 68€
EPOX 8RDA3+ for 100€
GIGABYTE GA-7N400 Pro2 for 50€

I sold all my Athlon XP boards, suitable AGP GPUs and top CPUs. I kept Pentium III and classic Athlon (1200) as they have ISA.