There are good LCDs with 1600x1200 (20" diagonal), but these are old models no longer manufactured. I am not aware of any new models.

Look at DELL 2007FP (there are even older models, like 2001FP and 2005FP, but the 2007FP is the latest model they had with these parameters). There are also comparable units from other vendors, like LG L2000CP.

Keep in mind, that 320x200 will look pretty horrendous on a 1600x1200 LCD. There is no inherent smoothing like there is on a CRT; you will see the huge pixels in all their ugliness. 😉

Found at least Eizo S2133-BK but the price is very high. I would like to try one before buying so I won't regret.

The Eizo above is a professional-grade monitor, and as such commands a very high price, which makes no sense for the use cases you described.

You can always check out this: Best LCD for DOS games running on old hardware

The biggest problem is that most monitors in that topic are already discontinued and hard to find. I am myself looking for a currently available cheapish but good Full HD VGA monitor that handles changes between 4:3 and 16:9 plus all the odd DOS game output formats. I gave up on finding a reasonable 4:3 monitor, and 19:10 monitors too seem to be a thing of the past. Many in that topic recommends TN panels as opposed to PLS and IPS, but i dont know if its because the TN panels are simply better or if there are actual problems with the other panel types.

I use a HP LP2065 for my old PCs and it works OK, cost me $20 on eBay. The only real issue is it sometimes flakes out when using very low resolutions, goes black for about half a second then back to normal. Not very often though, maybe only see it a couple of times in an hour, so I havn't investigated further yet.

I went for a 1920 x 1200 monitor, there are just more options.

It might take a while to find one, but the NEC LCD2090UXi is one of the nicest 1600x1200 displays I've ever seen. I own one and the color quality rivals IPS screens. Plus the design and build quality are great.

SiliconClassics wrote:

NEC LCD2090UXi is one of the nicest 1600x1200 displays I've ever seen. I own one and the color quality rivals IPS screens[/img]

It based on ips panel, of course it rivals other ips panel displays. It pretty slow, though

anthony wrote:

It based on ips panel, of course it rivals other ips panel displays. It pretty slow, though

🤣, yeah, good point, I actually forgot that it's IPS. As for response time I've never noticed an issue, but perhaps a Dell 2007FP would offer a better value overall.

A 2007FP you will only find used these days. I think they were manufacturing them all the way into 2010, but even the newest ones you may find will be 5+ years old. Many LCDs are still great at this age, some may develop issues.

My current 2007FP has a somewhat uneven backlight with the right side being more yellowish, but it is mostly only seen on white backgrounds. It is not an issue at all when gaming.

Also, some 2007FPs where PVA instead of IPS. I don't know what's more common. The sure way to know is to consult the unit's serial number. It will either end in S (Samsung S-PVA) or L (LG-Philips S-IPS).

I do agree that getting a 24" 1920x1200 monitor that can force a 4:3 aspect ratio is probably more cost-effective in general. You can still get these new, they are slightly taller than a 20" 4:3 (about as tall as a 21" 4:3 would be), and you have the higher resolution support for running a modern OS. However, for a machine intended purely for old games, it may be overkill, cause you will never use the extra resolution, and it does take extra space.

The HP LP series monitors were built like tanks. I've got an LP1965 and it's awesome.

I use a 2007fp I picked up for $30 on craigslist for my retroboxes. Excellent, versatile display.

I have a Samsung 204B (bought new in 2004 or 2005) . It is a TN display. There was also a Samsung 204T (IPS, I think).
IPS panels at the the time were slower than current ones, but they always had better colour and viewing angles than TN.

Keep in mind that LCD displays of that era used fluorescent backlights with inverters . That combination is not as durable as the LED backlights used in current LCD monitors . Luckily both these components are replaceable, though not always easily .

The point of all this is that if you find a good model but it is dim or flickery , it is most likely repairable as long as the LCD panel itself has not been physically damaged.
Completely dead displays are often a PSU recap or a new PSU (internal or external) away from being functional.

Beware of burn-in. It is, for the most part, permanent.

I picked up a refurb 2007FP from Newegg's eBay account yesterday and a Dell Sound Bar tonight. It will replace a 22 inch Acer 1680x1050 LCD and cheap Altec Lansing speakers. I have a Viewsonic 17 inch CRT but it strains my eyes and takes up to much space. I used to own a 2001FP and had been looking for another one for awhile.

I reckon the Dell U2412M has got to be one of the most Dos compatible monitors around, It does all those weird resolutions like 640x350. It's not perfect for sure and sometimes
it doesn't adjust the resolution properly. In Duke Nukem 2 It was not fitting in the text at the top on occasions, but then at other times it did.

I was just playing around today with my Amiga 500, and have made up a cable to connect to a GBS8200, which works really well, but I thought I would connect it
direct to the monitor and see what happened. It works at 720x288 @ 50hz which is surprising to say the least. It doesn't look too wonderful but would suffice just for games.
The GBS8200 does a better job due to many more adjustments in it's menu. Here's the proof that it works.

How does it handle changes in aspect ratio, ie switching between resolutions in 4:3, 16:9 and 16:10? Can it do it automatically or is it manually?

The U2412M has settings to force aspect ratio to 16:10 (default, matches display dimensions), 4:3 and 5:4. No setting for 16:9 as far as I know. It does not do it automatically, you have to specify it manually.

The thing about it is that, although it is counter-intuitive at first, it is actually good that the display forces you to set it manually. That is because many DOS games resolutions that were played on 4:3 screens are not 4:3 resolutions. The famous 320x200 is one of them. It is a 16:10 resolution, which means that played on a 4:3 screen it will have non-square pixels. Of course, all games from that time compensate for that, because back then all screens were 4:3. So in order to look right, you have to force the display to 4:3 and not to the real aspect of the resolution. That is why the U2412M in this sense is better than, for instance, my U2410, which has an "Aspect" setting that adjusts automatically.

This issue has been discussed thoroughly in the aspect ratio compatibility thread.

Thanks for that. A funny twist on this story.... since i wrote that message this morning and came to work, my boss dropped off a new monitor for me - and its a U2412M ! What are the chances. Anyway, on my work PC it scales automatically, but i suppose its just GPU scaling. The picture is surprisingly sharp with VGA btw.

You cannot select 16:9 and in games it will just stretch vertically to 16:10 in that resolution. In other words, there is no automatic aspect ratio switching.
Of course GPU scaling fixes that in Windows.
Forcing 4:3 is a very handy feature to have. It there is a downside it's that You often have to hit the auto adjust to sort out the image as sometimes it's
shifted a bit up or down. That's a minor gripe though.
Aside from 720x400 at 70hz, just about every other resolution runs at a maximum of 60hz so You will lose the image with "out of range" if higher is attempted.