Imperious wrote:

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 have similar experiences from my monitor. Only problem is that it's a IPS monitor, which means everything is displayed at 60hz, much DOS stuff is 70hz.

vetz wrote:

Imperious wrote:

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 have similar experiences from my monitor. Only problem is that it's a IPS monitor, which means everything is displayed at 60hz, much DOS stuff is 70hz.

Does that cause any problems like tearing or out of range errors, or is the "only" problem that the frame rate is lower than intended?

s0ren wrote:

vetz wrote:

Imperious wrote:

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 have similar experiences from my monitor. Only problem is that it's a IPS monitor, which means everything is displayed at 60hz, much DOS stuff is 70hz.

Does that cause any problems like tearing or out of range errors, or is the "only" problem that the frame rate is lower than intended?

I have not seen out of range errors. Only problem is the frame rate which in theory could cause tearing, but I've not noticed anything.

Back on topic, 1600*1200 in forced 4:3 does not work like one would hope or expect on the U2412M (unless im doing something very wrong). The picture gets blurry and lacks 1:1 pixel mapping, even though the height is the same as 1920*1200 🙁 I suppose 800x600 will have the same issue.

Substantially reduces the usefulness of this monitor over any standard 16:9 monitor for me.

1600 x 1200 isn't working for you?

Hmm, on my Samsung VGA works out of the box. DVI requires a bit of mucking around because the resolution isn't supported by default, adding a custom resolution fixes this.

I actually never though about the 800 x 600 resolution and how it looks. For sure something I need to test!

I have come to destroy your corneas. http://i.imgur.com/XhUpTt1.jpg

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

1600 x 1200 isn't working for you?

Hmm, well, it works, but it doesnt map the pixels 1:1 which is rather disappointing to say the least. Its no sharper than showing a 4:3 resolution on a 16:9 panel. I tried to mess with the DDC/CI interface using C++ and the windows API, in case i could "massage" some properties to give better mapping but i didnt find anything worth while.

oeuvre wrote:

I have come to destroy your corneas. http://i.imgur.com/XhUpTt1.jpg

Hot dog!

s0ren wrote:

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

1600 x 1200 isn't working for you?

Hmm, well, it works, but it doesnt map the pixels 1:1 which is rather disappointing to say the least. Its no sharper than showing a 4:3 resolution on a 16:9 panel. I tried to mess with the DDC/CI interface using C++ and the windows API, in case i could "massage" some properties to give better mapping but i didnt find anything worth while.

I've only used the Vga input at 1600x1200, and You need to do an auto adjust to line up the pixels properly. I had no complaints about the image quality, it looked very sharp to me.

Imperious wrote:

s0ren wrote:

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

1600 x 1200 isn't working for you?

Hmm, well, it works, but it doesnt map the pixels 1:1 which is rather disappointing to say the least. Its no sharper than showing a 4:3 resolution on a 16:9 panel. I tried to mess with the DDC/CI interface using C++ and the windows API, in case i could "massage" some properties to give better mapping but i didnt find anything worth while.

I've only used the Vga input at 1600x1200, and You need to do an auto adjust to line up the pixels properly. I had no complaints about the image quality, it looked very sharp to me.

I used VGA as well, and also tried auto adjust, but the pixels arent mapped right. You can try draw a 1 pixel black/white zebra stripe pattern in paint to check that there are no grey lines (lines interpolated to half or quater pixels).

Here is a photo of what i mean: http://i.imgur.com/spi12OC.jpg Only every 5th white line is actually white, and the black lines are not completely black.

Could You please upload that pattern You created in Paint?

I tried creating a single pixel vertical line, then white(blank), then black, and so on.
The result looked exactly like 1:1 pixel mapping to me with a magnifying glass.
I have my video card set to 1600x1200, I did have to hit auto adjust twice though to properly centre the screen.

I'd also like to test that pattern. I can't recall any of the issues you're describing on my Dell monitor.

Imperious wrote:

Could You please upload that pattern You created in Paint? […]
Show full quote

Could You please upload that pattern You created in Paint?

I tried creating a single pixel vertical line, then white(blank), then black, and so on.
The result looked exactly like 1:1 pixel mapping to me with a magnifying glass.
I have my video card set to 1600x1200, I did have to hit auto adjust twice though to properly centre the screen.

Weird, this is exactly what i did as well - even tried hitting auto adjust multiple times, tried changing pixel clock, rest monitor settings, etc. If i leave the monitor aspect ratio at 16:10 and let the GPU do the scaling, its perfect of course, but that doesnt help when using an old windows 98 or dos computer.

I uploaded an attachment with the pattern i used.

I've tried that image in VGA 1600x1200, also DVI 1600x1200 and the only time it looks wrong in any way is if I enlarge it.

Out of curiosity I also tried the forced aspect ratio on a U2412M. 1600x1200 at 4:3 looked just as sharp as 1920x1200 at 16:10. Tried both VGA and DisplayPort inputs...

Damn. Either my laptops output is crap or my U2412M is =/ My hope and guess is that its the laptop, i cant try other computers with that monitor

Hey s0ren thanks for the new wallpaper!

You are welcome.

Tried a colleagues U2412M today with his computer and DVI (different make and different graphics card), and it scales to 4:3 just as bad. His monitor is at least 6 months older than mine, so its not just the most recent batch that cant scale properly.

Then I guess all of us who cannot see it are just blind. 😜

Does it look sharp at 1920x1200 at 16:10 but blurry at 1600x1200 4:3?

That test image isn't 1600 x 1200. Am I missing something?