kolderman wrote on 2020-05-02, 11:56:

Hmm so I just fired up Heretic on the same DOS machine...and when I move the mouse left/right quickly, I can see tearing that looks exactly like modern games without vsync enabled. I guess this means the graphics card is running at a higher frequency than the display. I will have to test this with one of the 19" monitors and see what happens...

Some DOS games did not sync to refresh (vsync) . It was the programmer's choice and usually not a selectable option . Heretic was apparently one such game without vsync .

Doom vs Heretic VGA performance difference

screen tearing is dependent on framrate and how the software/graphics card renders rather than the signal refresh rate, if your monitor wasn't able to sync with your signal output it would either go out of range or go all wonky.

Oetker wrote on 2020-05-01, 22:44:

Old vga games are often 320x200, which makes scaling to 1600x1200 perfect. It's why I use a 2007fp. 800x600 is also perfect, of course. Don't know if it does 70hz but everything seems smooth enough. Also, can't you set your 19" monitor to scale with black bars on the top and bottom?

I'd be interested to know if 320x200 -> 720x400 -> 1600x1200 has artifacts of the same kind (uneven pattern of pixels) as described here: Re: Widescreen monitors and 4:3 aspect ratio compatibility thread

Do you think you could take a close-up picture of your 2007fp connected as VGA while having a 320x200 game that features text (such as the beginning of Lands of Lore in the post above)? Alternatively you can also draw a moire pattern in eg. Deluxe Paint 2.

kolderman wrote on 2020-05-01, 23:34:

darry wrote on 2020-05-01, 22:26:

2007fp actually has decent scaling, IMHO . If your GPU allows, you can use it to scale instead, if you prefer . Also, consider the fact that with a higher resolution monitor, you can scale with more precision (to visualize that, imagine a theoretical monitor with infinite resolution: its scaling could be perfect).

Wrong aspect ratio would kill it for me .

So what do you use? And I am not so sure scaling is that simple, as the more pixels, the more interpolation. I would say only matching native resolution would be perfect.

It's actually that simple, though you might be misunderstanding him. More pixels = more precise scaling. That doesn't mean more pixels = sharper.

I'd choose some CRT monitor 🤣

If you already have a real retro hardware, go all the way with the experience and get a decent CRT monitor - 17" for DOS and 19/21" for Windows.

Mewtwo err, me too. In the 90s my father used to have a 20" tube monitor, which I often was allowed to play on.
When he got a new PC, I was allowed to keep that old 20" monitor. Which I did for many years to come.
It was great for all these low-res games (< 640x480). Well, at least in comparison to LCD/TFT displays.

cde wrote on 2020-05-02, 15:58:

Oetker wrote on 2020-05-01, 22:44:

Old vga games are often 320x200, which makes scaling to 1600x1200 perfect. It's why I use a 2007fp. 800x600 is also perfect, of course. Don't know if it does 70hz but everything seems smooth enough. Also, can't you set your 19" monitor to scale with black bars on the top and bottom?

I'd be interested to know if 320x200 -> 720x400 -> 1600x1200 has artifacts of the same kind (uneven pattern of pixels) as described here: Re: Widescreen monitors and 4:3 aspect ratio compatibility thread

Do you think you could take a close-up picture of your 2007fp connected as VGA while having a 320x200 game that features text (such as the beginning of Lands of Lore in the post above)? Alternatively you can also draw a moire pattern in eg. Deluxe Paint 2.

I will attempt this.

darry wrote on 2020-05-02, 13:19:

kolderman wrote on 2020-05-02, 11:56:

Hmm so I just fired up Heretic on the same DOS machine...and when I move the mouse left/right quickly, I can see tearing that looks exactly like modern games without vsync enabled. I guess this means the graphics card is running at a higher frequency than the display. I will have to test this with one of the 19" monitors and see what happens...

Some DOS games did not sync to refresh (vsync) . It was the programmer's choice and usually not a selectable option . Heretic was apparently one such game without vsync .

Doom vs Heretic VGA performance difference

Oh OK well I guess that's one thing I can't blame on the monitor 😁

kixs wrote on 2020-05-02, 17:35:

I'd choose some CRT monitor 🤣

If you already have a real retro hardware, go all the way with the experience and get a decent CRT monitor - 17" for DOS and 19/21" for Windows.

I considered that a few years ago, but decided that all CRTs will fade/die soon so might as well just accept LCDs. They take up a lot less room too 😁. I am not terribly unhappy with 19" ones, I think I even got used to the vertical stretching as I find it hard to look at a normal 4:3 monitor now 😒

yeah, that happened to me twice too ^^ when I got my first LCD I got so used to stretched resolutions on 5:4... and same thing happened again when I was playing consoles on my 22" 16:10 monitor that didn't do correct scaling either, so 16:9 was always stretched a bit... took some time to get used to correct scaling again.

cde wrote on 2020-05-02, 15:58:

Oetker wrote on 2020-05-01, 22:44:

Old vga games are often 320x200, which makes scaling to 1600x1200 perfect. It's why I use a 2007fp. 800x600 is also perfect, of course. Don't know if it does 70hz but everything seems smooth enough. Also, can't you set your 19" monitor to scale with black bars on the top and bottom?

I'd be interested to know if 320x200 -> 720x400 -> 1600x1200 has artifacts of the same kind (uneven pattern of pixels) as described here: Re: Widescreen monitors and 4:3 aspect ratio compatibility thread

Do you think you could take a close-up picture of your 2007fp connected as VGA while having a 320x200 game that features text (such as the beginning of Lands of Lore in the post above)? Alternatively you can also draw a moire pattern in eg. Deluxe Paint 2.

This is Lands of Lore. I did not have text during the Intro, just speech, so I took this photo of the character screen which has some text. The aspect seems fine to me, which is not surprising as 320x200 is a 4:3 display resolution.

kolderman wrote on 2020-05-02, 20:46:

kixs wrote on 2020-05-02, 17:35:

I'd choose some CRT monitor 🤣

If you already have a real retro hardware, go all the way with the experience and get a decent CRT monitor - 17" for DOS and 19/21" for Windows.

I considered that a few years ago, but decided that all CRTs will fade/die soon so might as well just accept LCDs. They take up a lot less room too 😁. I am not terribly unhappy with 19" ones, I think I even got used to the vertical stretching as I find it hard to look at a normal 4:3 monitor now 😒

I hear you... I use 22" LCD that has an option for aspect correction (4:3 and 16:10). But it's mainly for testing hardware... for a closed setup I'll use a proper CRT.

I have more problems with 10-15 years old LCDs then 25-30 years old CRTs.

So I went back to the 19" 1280x1024. The 20" was not terrible - but I didn't like the following qualities:

- newer games, like Far Cry, at 1600x1200, seemed "too new", almost like modern games in level of details. Not as I remembered it.
- I never really had a problem with the 4:3 to 5:4 scaling of older games and DOS games.
- the overall 20" size just seemed too big for some DOS games, like old platformers.

All in all the 19" works pretty well, at 1280x1024 games seem "retro" enough in terms of how I remember them, and the scaling of older games does not result in noticeable distortion. I might use the 20" in a different rig one day, but not for now.

kixs wrote on 2020-05-02, 21:54:

I have more problems with 10-15 years old LCDs then 25-30 years old CRTs.

I second that. In most case, it's the CCFL background light that fails..
Years ago (2000s ?), if memory serves, two or three LCD/TFT monitors that I had died after two years of use each.

LED LCDs might be more durable here. I mean, LCDs/TFTs with LED backround light, of course.
Real LED or OLED monitors (self glowing) are almost not existant, or so I heard. 🙁

cause many 19" or 20" screens do actually have 75Hz native panels

No, they don't. 1600x1200 20 inch panels will skip frames after 60 Hz. You'll have to thoroughly look for one without frame skip.

Jo22 wrote on 2020-05-03, 10:20:

I second that. In most case, it's the CCFL background light that fails..
Years ago (2000s ?), if memory serves, two or three LCD/TFT monitors that I had died after two years of use each.

It's usually the capacitors dying in the power supply feeding the CCFL's inverter. The main symptom before complete failure is the screen is dim when first powered on but "warms up" after a while.

yep, the CCFLs usually just get dimmer over time or lose color accuracy, but it's usually just the power supply that fails.

there are LED backlight upgrade kits though if you feel like it.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-05-03, 11:08:

cause many 19" or 20" screens do actually have 75Hz native panels

No, they don't. 1600x1200 20 inch panels will skip frames after 60 Hz. You'll have to thoroughly look for one without frame skip.

I will check with mine, but why would manufactures recommend 75Hz native resolutions if that is not the native panel refresh rate.
it'd be easier if I had a DOS tool to check with.
granted I do not have any 20" LCDs, only a 21" LCD monitor that goes to 85Hz, but that one states in the manual that 60Hz is recommended.

I have lots of old LCDs, they mostly still just works, far more reliably than any CRT I ever had after a few years, and far less degraded.

My choice:

Dell 1908FPb (5:4)

HP vs19c (5:4)

granted I do not have any 20" LCDs, only a 21" LCD monitor that goes to 85Hz

Doesn't matter. Both 20 and 21 inch 1600x1200 are generally not capable to produce 70Hz without frame skipping. It's even worse if 85Hz is officially listed for lowres modes and preferred by software/drivers, because frame skip in such mode is just horrendous.