2mg wrote on 2026-09-15, 03:24:

3. I'm asking because I've LG Flatron F900P and Samsung SyncMaster 900IFT (both are CRTs) and they both (in OSD and manual) recommend 1280 x 1024@ 85Hz, which is 16:10, so if I run games in that resolution should I stretch to 4:3 or not?
I'm talking for games that were after Doom that could use multiple resolutions, so if I pick 1280x1024, do I live with black bars, or do I stretch it?

There's no reason you need to strictly adhere to the recommendation on a CRT like you did with an LCD. For an LCD there is only one mode where the picture is sharp, which is the native resolution of the pixel grid. For a CRT monitor, even if the recommended mode is 1280x1024, you can use nearby true 4:3 resolutions like 1280x960, 1152x864 and 1024x768 without any significant reduction in image sharpness.

The side quest of talking about 200/400 line graphics like Doom is pretty much irrelevant to what you are really asking here, which is what the best image mode is to use on your 2 CRT monitors

NeoG_ wrote on 2026-09-15, 04:47:

without any significant reduction in image sharpness.

On the contrary, usually using lower resolution (on CRTs) meant to have sharper images, given various factors, the bandwidth of RGB input/amplifier stages of the monitor and output stages of VGA cards (there Matrox shined), usually the better focusing at lower beam speed, the quality of VGA cables that often was very poor and more evident at higher resolutions and refresh and so on...

NeoG_ wrote on 2026-09-15, 04:47:

There's no reason you need to strictly adhere to the recommendation on a CRT like you did with an LCD. For an LCD there is only one mode where the picture is sharp, which is the native resolution of the pixel grid. For a CRT monitor, even if the recommended mode is 1280x1024, you can use nearby true 4:3 resolutions like 1280x960, 1152x864 and 1024x768 without any significant reduction in image sharpness.

The side quest of talking about 200/400 line graphics like Doom is pretty much irrelevant to what you are really asking here, which is what the best image mode is to use on your 2 CRT monitors

I drew the parallels to Doom because 1280x1024 is 5:4, so I wanted to be sure it's not a "Doom 16:10 on 4:3" situation again, where the manufacturers recommend a 5:4 resolution but you're maybe again meant to stretch it to fit a 4:3 screen.

Otherwise, yeah, I'm fully aware I can throw 999x666 at a CRT and do what I want with it 😀

2mg wrote on 2026-09-15, 10:50:

I drew the parallels to Doom because 1280x1024 is 16:10,

Again 1280 x 1024 IS NOT 16:10 !!! It's 5:4.

If you keep saying so you demonstrate just that you have no idea of what you're talking about (and that you skipped the divisions at the elementary schools)

2mg wrote on 2026-09-15, 03:24:

3. I'm asking because I've LG Flatron F900P and Samsung SyncMaster 900IFT (both are CRTs) and they both (in OSD and manual) recommend 1280 x 1024@ 85Hz, which is 16:10, so if I run games in that resolution should I stretch to 4:3 or not?
I'm talking for games that were after Doom that could use multiple resolutions, so if I pick 1280x1024, do I live with black bars, or do I stretch it?

4. Except for the whole "it fit the video RAM size", why would these two monitors recommend a 16:10 resolution?

Apart from the 5:4 vs 16:10 mixup, it's mainly because 1280 x 1024 is a VESA standard, 1whocanremember x 8?? and 1280 x 960 aren't, go play play around a little with the "AW EDID Editor" by Analog Way (don't worry, you can't screw up anything) or even really just look at this screenshot, if you load your monitors' it will have 1280/85/5:4 in the top right part, and they will likely have that because it's the most MegaPizza's that they can acceptably show (it's pure measurbation and yes, as said, they may well give a better picture one or two "clicks" down)

2mg wrote on 2026-09-15, 03:24:

2. Wasn't this also how SNES worked, you had to strech it to fill your TV screen?

It depends, even then different TVs had different approaches to so-called 240p, not to mention that most consoles of the time actually had different video modes (all with "240p" timings, but with somewhat different visible pixel counts, ie more or less border) - and back then pretty much nobody opened their TV to adjust them (digitally controlled chassis with a neat service mode being, in the main, a slightly later thing) 😀

The Solutor wrote on 2026-09-15, 11:00:

Again 1280 x 1024 IS NOT 16:10 !!! It's 5:4.

If you keep saying so you demonstrate just that you have no idea of what you're talking about (and that you skipped the divisions at the elementary schools)

Fix'd it, my bad, got numbers mixed up, 16:10, 8:5, 5:4, 4:3...

2mg wrote on 2026-09-16, 17:19:

Fix'd it, my bad, got numbers mixed up, 16:10, 8:5, 5:4, 4:3...

Ok, BTW 8:5 and 16:10 is the same thing.

Ryccardo wrote on 2026-09-16, 16:53:

(don't worry, you can't screw up anything)

Well if one has no idea of what to do wid EDUD editors, and the monitor is old and unprotected, the chances to obtain some magic smoke are > than 0

it's mainly because 1280 x 1024 is a VESA standard

I have no idea. in the specific case, if the egg came before the chicken or viceversa

But often organizations like VESA just pick what's already a de-facto standard and turn it in a formalized one, maybe defining it better here and there

1280x1024 pels was not seldomly used by Unix workstations.
Breadbox Ensemble (GeoWorks Ensemble, PC GEOS) tops out at 1280x1024 pixel resolution, too.
The resolution/aspect ratio is a bit better for software development, more space for IDEs.

That being said, an 1600x1200 pels (4:3) LCD/TFT monitor can display 800x600 very well.
800x600 was Super VGA (also VBE 0.9 VBE draft VS890401, mode 6Ah and 102h) and used since mid-80s on Enhanced EGA cards.
DOS productivity software and sophisticated games/sims used 800x600x4 (mainstream SVGA games used 640x480x8, fewer used 640x400x8).
It also was the standard resolution of the 90s web, Macs used 832x624 pixels instead.

IBM, however, prefered 640x480 and 1024x786 pels resultion with IBM 8514/A standard.

Edited.

As as sidenote, seem also that 1360x768 (rather than 1366x768) resolution exist for similar reasons as 1280x1024.

1360x768 8bpp fits in 1MB while 1366 does not.

If you want to have some fun with uncommon resolutions supported by old Video Cards, take a look at at this list

https://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/rbinter/it/10/0.html

I guessed that 1280x961 was a typo, but then I spotted 1188x387. and I'm not so sure anymore 😁

The Solutor wrote on 2026-09-16, 17:58:

Ryccardo wrote on 2026-09-16, 16:53:

(don't worry, you can't screw up anything)

Well if one has no idea of what to do wid EDUD editors, and the monitor is old and unprotected, the chances to obtain some magic smoke are > than 0

Oh, it doesn't save directly to the monitor, you have to figure out that step yourself (or build an extension cable that splits the I2C lines to a separate chip), in fact it doesn't even read directly from the monitor, rather picking up a copy from the registry if you use that option!

Ryccardo wrote on 2026-09-16, 20:49:

Oh, it doesn't save directly to the monitor, you have to figure out that step yourself (or build an extension cable that splits the I2C lines to a separate chip), in fact it doesn't even read directly from the monitor, rather picking up a copy from the registry if you use that option!

It doesn't have to to break a cheap/old monitor.

It has just to convince the PC to output a frequency that the monitor isn't capable to manage correctly.

Even protected monitors may be fooled if the line frequency is close enough to not trigger the "unsupported resolution" message or the power off signal, but at the same time high enough to make the line transformer to work outside the calculated values, and its driving transistor/mosfet/scr/whatever to overheat or to have to deal with pulses at higher voltages.

Likely such kind of monitors are mostly already dead today, but you can't safely say you can't destroy a monitor using only SW.

The Solutor wrote on 2026-09-16, 21:11:

It has just to convince the PC to output a frequency that the monitor isn't capable to manage correctly. [...]

Good points but it doesn't do that either, you would still have to do something more with the output of that program to actually make it matter (flash it to a monitor/separate eeprom, or convince the driver to use the file you saved instead... at which point you can probably just manually set timings 😀 )

Ryccardo wrote on 2026-09-17, 08:45:

Good points but it doesn't do that either, you would still have to do something more with the output of that program to actually make it matter (flash it to a monitor/separate eeprom, or convince the driver to use the file you saved instead...

No, absolutely no.

If you can't change the frequencies, resolutions, timings with EDID editors what's supposed to be their function?

EDID is there for a reason, it tells windows/linux/whatever what the monitor can do. If you manage to convince windows or linux to read such data from a place different than what the monitor provides (which is exactly what such kind of programs do), the Graphic card follows those new info.

In linux is even easier, using a kernel boot parameter and a binary file containing a custom EDID (see point 4)
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Kernel_mode_setting

Then if your monitor has a wrong/broken EDID you can manage to flash your custom one permanently. But that's just convenience, from the PC POV nothing changes.