The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-05-05, 10:15:

They should be able to work with 70Hz without frame skip.

I have no doubt that that a monitor advertised as able to do 70Hz will be able to do it in a modern version ofWindows .

What is less certain is

a) if it will do 70 Hz over VGA (if it even has VGA input)
b) if an older card can be convinced to send out 70Hz to it over DVI in DOS (not sure what the EDID looks like on those over 60Hz capable monitors)
c) if Windows 9x or XP drivers for older cards will allow setting 70Hz over DVI .
d) for points b and c, if older cards are even capable of 70Hz over DVI

Im thinging about some Dell 30 inch 16:10 2500x1600 throw away from time to time by company for reasonable price, but i dunno if it would have good 4:3 mode, yeah i know its only 60 Hz.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/4070/dell-u301 … 0-inch-flagship
It still has VGA, 5 digital ports and even composite, so it would be nice at least for some old consoles.

I used to want such a DELL for my own usage, but they were always ridiculously expensive. You can get larger, newer, nicer screens with higher resolutions (e.g, 3840x2160) for half the price. However, these will typically not have old analog ports.

I dont want to bigger resolution, is nice that it can do 1280x800 without pixel interpolation.. i hope that 1280x720 with some borders too. Pay full price for them is nonsense, but from 2nd hand they could be nice. And if you doign some corporate porn, they are often willing bundle it to some server or disc array just like present..

I have been using a Chromamaxx 15CBY-W that I got years ago. For an old LCD it looks really good and has a good refresh rate.

I use an EDID emulator to have my Geforce FX5900 send 1600x1200 to my Acer VW257 (1920x1200) over DVI/HDMI . The Acer is set to preserve aspect ratio, so I get a nice 4x3 image . The monitor was really inexpensive too.
I use an Extron RGB-DVI 300 to feed my Voodoo 3 VGA signal into the monitor, though (using an HDMI switch) . The reason for this is the VW257 's insistence on stretching 720x400 and 320x200 received over its VGA input, even when set to preserve aspect ratio (other 4x3 resolution stay 4x3 over VGA, stangely enough).

ruthan wrote on 2020-05-05, 01:45:

Real and available 4:3 monitors are small, is there some 24+ LCD with which can force 4:3 mode for everything and simply dont run as wide screen in any case? Or is there some magic box like DVI emulator to make such thing happen?

There are some gaming monitors that do just that. I have a AOC G2590PX that can take any VGA signal and box it into 17" 4:3 or 19" 4:3. Since it's a 144 Hz monitor it has no problem with 70 Hz.

I had an idea: I modified an EDID from a 1600x1200 60Hz monitor to 1600x1200 70Hz (with reduced blanking to fit under single link DVI's bandwidth) and flashed into my EDID emulator .

I then plugged the EDID emulator between my Geforce FX 5900's output and my Acer VW257 75Hz monitor (with VESA adaptive sync enabled in menu) .

The result: 1600x1200 in 4x3 at 70Hz over DVI /HDMI under pure DOS and without apparent frameskip !!!! I realised I actually do notice frameskip when paying attention.

This did not work with the monitor's native EDID (got 1920x1200 stretched at 60Hz).

Ironically, Windows 98SE still outputs 1600x1200 60Hz (the Nvidia driver probably does not handle the reduced blanking, I even tried forcing 70Hz, but to no avail). Windows dos boxes run at 70Hz in fullscreen mode, but exiting to DOS mode switches to 60Hz until reboot .

I might try Powerstrip .

EDIT: The monitor has a preserve aspect ratio option which I enabled to get 4x3 aspect ratio when outputing 1600x1200 .

Found my 11-year old Powerstrip license (lucky for me, they do not sell it anymore) and was able to get Windows 98 SE at 70Hz over DVI too . Exiting Windows to pure DOS still toggles back to 60Hz , but I can get back to 70Hz by rebooting .

EDIT: PixperAn is silky smooth at 70Hz

darry wrote on 2020-05-27, 19:55:

The result: 1600x1200 in 4x3 at 70Hz over DVI /HDMI under pure DOS and without apparent frameskip !!!! I realised I actually do notice frameskip when paying attention.

That's really awesome! It reminds my of the BIOS hack I did for the 9600 Pro to force 70 Hz for 1280x1024, but your solution seems cleaner. Could you kindly share the brand/model of your EDID emulator? I found this one https://www.startech.com/fr/AV/Convertisseurs … d-hdmi~VSEDIDHD but it's pretty expensive.

cde wrote on 2020-05-29, 10:56:

darry wrote on 2020-05-27, 19:55:

The result: 1600x1200 in 4x3 at 70Hz over DVI /HDMI under pure DOS and without apparent frameskip !!!! I realised I actually do notice frameskip when paying attention.

That's really awesome! It reminds my of the BIOS hack I did for the 9600 Pro to force 70 Hz for 1280x1024, but your solution seems cleaner. Could you kindly share the brand/model of your EDID emulator? I found this one https://www.startech.com/fr/AV/Convertisseurs … d-hdmi~VSEDIDHD but it's pretty expensive.

I am using a Siig CE-H24Z11-S1 , but it is not ideal (see below) . Any DVI/HDMI EDID emulator should work, but the problem with most of them, including mine, is programming in a custom EDID as most of these devices are only able to learn EDID from an existing monitor. I had to flash a spare monitor with a modded EDID in order to have my Siig unit learn from it .

A better choice would be an EDID emulator that allows programming over USB, like the Gefen HDMI Detective Plus (got one on order) or an Aten unit like the VC060 or VC080 .

Also note that not all VGA cards react will in this kind of setup . I tried a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 with unsatisfactory results .

See this thread for Geforce 4 Ti 4200 tests and other future ones.
70Hz in pure DOS at 1600x1200 (or other) over DVI on an old card (FX5900) with modern monitor is possible

I know they are NOT 4:3 but 17 and 19 inch LCD monitors are extremely cheap - sometimes you can even get them for free! They have a native resolution of 1280*1024 which is 5:4 but still extremely close to 4:3 and the image will be displayed without black bars. For most video cards up to geforce 8000 series and ATi 2000 series 1280*1024 is practically the maximum resolution at which you can still play at max in game details most if not all games up to 2004.
I have 2 Samsung 940BF monitors that I bought back in 2006 and 2007 and the response time is very good - I could not noticed any ghosting even in NFSU2. I have 2 more 19 inch LCD that I got for free.
Recently I purchased for a very low price an EIZO S2100 with a 21.3 display and 1600*1200 resolution - the colors are amazing and look virtually identical to an CRT. 21.3 is the largest LCD display with and 4:3 aspect ratio. The problem is that now a video card from 2007 or later is required in order to still play at max details - a geforce 8800 GTX is necessary for games such as FEAR.

Got got a nice NEC/Packard Bell White/Beige LCD 4:3 monitor this week. Model T100 from 2003 produced in the Netherlands. Looks good and works perfectly.

Just to mention in case someone stumbles upon this thread that the OSSC + a monitor with a 4:3 option & accepting 70 Hz without frame dropping (here the AOC G2590PX) has completely solved my issues. For more details see Re: Widescreen monitors and 4:3 aspect ratio compatibility thread

koverhbarc wrote on 2017-06-30, 12:21:

I must only say to not get a 5:4 LCD as a solution - on those _every_ 4:3 mode is stretched, and you can't do anything about it (and the only 5:4 mode is 1280x1024 itself).

Is this statement absolutely true or are a few 5:4 displays out there which do not stretch 4:3 resolutions?

Not to my knowledge, but if your intent is Windows gaming, you can get a pixel perfect doubled 640x480 by using an nVIDIA card and selecting the option that preserves the ratio (hence 1280x1024 is sent to the monitor, but really 1280x960 is shown with black bars above and below).

Its not that easy, even some ATI cards drivers support that, but lots too old or too new Nvidia drivers for example for XP removed this feature, im not sure if Nvidia 9x drivers have this feature.. 4:3 monitor is less hassle, fail proof or maybe someone can make some even box cheap pass through box which will emulate monitor + provide only 4:3 modes..
You can probably make same thing with these overcomplicated and expensive boxes like OSSC, which even have not proper case.. and others.. but by 1 for every machine or fiddling with cables is not fun.

Maybe some monitor producer will finally start to make retro display.. If they can make these 3:2 Surface monitors and other abominations with very strange resolutions, problem is not technical, problem is in some manager or product lines designer and their failing to see that lots of people would buy such stuff, even 16:10 is now dead.

16:10 is almost dead. The Philips 252B9 is one of the last ones still available new with both 70Hz support without frameskipping and an explicit 4:3 mode . It is not cheap (prices have gone up since I bought one) and requires an OSSC for the best possible results .

villeneuve wrote on 2021-06-11, 11:18:

koverhbarc wrote on 2017-06-30, 12:21:

I must only say to not get a 5:4 LCD as a solution - on those _every_ 4:3 mode is stretched, and you can't do anything about it (and the only 5:4 mode is 1280x1024 itself).

Is this statement absolutely true or are a few 5:4 displays out there which do not stretch 4:3 resolutions?

I haven't found any 5:4 displays (1280x1024) that allow for correct aspect display of 4:3 content (1024x768, 800x600, 640x480, etc). If you are considering a particular monitor, look for the instruction manual and see if there is any mention of a 1:1 or 'aspect' setting. I have a couple of Dell Ultrasharp monitors, a 2007FP (1600x1200) and a 2408WFP (1920x1200). Both of these monitors allow me to display say, 800x600 content doubled to fill all 1200 vertical pixels without distortion or significant blurring. Oddly enough it appears that the Dell Ultrasharp 1907FP/1908FP (1280x1024) lacks the same feature.

In my opinion if you buy a 1280x1024 monitor you should be prepared to use it at exactly 1280x1024 most of the time. So that would probably be Windows 9x or XP, with a graphics card that's powerful enough for you to play your games at an acceptable framerate at 1280x1024. If you give the monitor 800x600 or 1024x768, you're going to get lousy scaling (because neither are integer multiples of 1280x1024, plus you'll get mild aspect ratio distortion). Even if you found a monitor that offered 1:1 (no stretching) the resulting image would be quite small... and you'd might as well buy a 1024x768 LCD monitor.

Personally I have solved the problem through the acquisition of a 17" CRT screen. It handles all use cases (DOS, early Windows games) perfectly. Nonetheless darry's suggestion is excellent for those who don't have enough room or can't find a CRT.