Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



ZortMcGort11

every new computer interface SUCKS, sticking with winME

Recommended Posts


On 24/12/2017 at 11:08 PM, Destro said:

 I think maybe NEC still makes monitors with those Resolutions could be wrong about that.

Not only NEC, there are still quite a few 4:3 monitors available, particularly in the high-end/professional sector, examples:

http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/s2133/index.html

Now, current prices for these are not exactly "cheap":

NEC EA245WMi (24" 1920x1200) US$ 379

NEC P212-BK (21" 1600x1200) US$ 899 :w00t:

EIZO S2133 (21" 1600x1200) US$ 934.05 :ph34r:

There are also still a very few other "affordable" makes/models, besides the "no-name" ones from China, you can still find some "new" Samsung SyncMaster 204B, but I believe they are "unsold warehouse" items.

This is a good rant summing up the situation:

http://www.inetdaemon.com/q-and-a/why-cant-i-buy-1600x1200-monitor/

jaclaz

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There even exist 4:3 LCD monitors with HDMI inputs, but I usually find these on websites that sell embedded/industrial systems. Prices are typically put as "ask for a quote today!" :\

I will get one some day...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

NEC EA245WMi (24" 1920x1200) US$ 379

That res I'm pretty sure is 16:10 ratio. There are some 'affordable' Hanns G panels in the 27"-28" range offering it. We had an early "square faced" model where the capacitors gradually died. Later "smiley faced power light" models seem reliable enough. If I see one for cheap enough I might get one or two again. 16:10 dual monitor setup would be pretty sweet...

Replying to the original post, I really don't get what OP is complaining about. I know windows 10 sucks, but I'm on Devuan w/LXDE... I miss having some games and a working copy of Paint.NET, but those two things aside I'm not at a loss at all. If anything whatever you get that's based on debian tends to be rock solid. That said, I'm using old hardware and so I'm not trying "vulcan" or "freesync" or anything.

Edited by Cawsign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.12.2017 at 3:16 PM, jaclaz said:

Pickyness challenge? :dubbio:

You lose.

Not a challenge. Rather a mention, that out of all formats that were common at the time you didn't mention this particular one.

On 24.12.2017 at 3:16 PM, jaclaz said:

I never said that 5:4 weren't available, as a matter of fact they are available even today,

I have never said that you had said they weren't available. they were just worth mentioning, when speaking about popular display formats for Desktop PC monitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dencorso said:

The best ratio is [1+sqrt(5)]/2, of course!   :angel

That is irrational so it is impossible. Too bad.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be aproximated, though:  (a+b)/a = a/b...  try 2584:1597, for instance... :)

225px-SimilarGoldenRectangles.svg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rloew said:

That is irrational so it is impossible. Too bad.

Not impossible, only very, very improbable.

@Mcinwwl

The divergence is only in the intended meaning of "common" or "popular" (and - conversely - of "not-so-unpopular")

The 5:4 has never been IMHO "common", as it equates in practice to only  1280x1024.

Remember we are talking of LCD's native resolution, not resolutions available on video cards.

On CRT's, curiously (I presume due to the non-square form factor of the "pixel") the 1280x1024 worked just fine (often even better than the the actual correct resolution for 4:3 that is/was 1280x960) and it is entirely possible that the amount of such resolution we see is partially due to its use on CRT's (besides laptops/notebooks of the time, that AFAIK were very popular at 1280x1024) :dubbio:.

This might be interesting :) (though it doesn't have much pre-2007 data):

http://www.teoalida.com/database/screenresolution/

The Author divided some of the sheets in the nice spreasheet:

http://www.teoalida.com/database/Screen-Resolution-Statistics.xls

into columns 4:3, 16:10, 16:9, Less common resolutions, Weird resolutions, BUT put the 1280x1024 among the 4:3 ones (even if he perfectly knows it is 5:4).

Anyway the registered "peaks" at around 17-18% allow us to be both right at the same time :yes: , as it is not enough to be called "common", but more than enough to be called "not-so-unpopular :thumbup.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the most common resolution I used to see and use back in the CRT days was 1152x864.  That was a really good res on CRTs back then.  Again its 4x3 now no one uses that.

Edited by Destro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Not impossible, only very, very improbable.

jaclaz

In this case it is provably impossible. There is no integer ratio that can equal the golden ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have a Samsung 213T LCD Monitor, which I believe is 21.5" and is the largest 4:3 monitor I've ever used.  Is it actually 5:4?  I'm not sure.

I like a large conventional screen because it allows more vertical real estate (better for scrolling web pages).  Not as many sites use the full width, so it works out better for me.  I'm set to a 1600x1200 (I think that's UXGA).  I like it though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JodyT said:

So I have a Samsung 213T LCD Monitor, which I believe is 21.5" and is the largest 4:3 monitor I've ever used.  Is it actually 5:4?  I'm not sure.

I like a large conventional screen because it allows more vertical real estate (better for scrolling web pages).  Not as many sites use the full width, so it works out better for me.  I'm set to a 1600x1200 (I think that's UXGA).  I like it though.

 

Well, I am sure that it is 4:3.

It is native 1600x1200:

https://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-syncmaster-213t/specs/

1600/4=400

400*3=1200

 

@Rloew

Quantum pixels? :dubbio:

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked it up Jaclaz.  I don't thinks so (regarding Quantum Pixels)

If I am using the Generic PnP Monitor (in the absence of a devote driver), am I really missing anything?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JodyT said:

If I am using the Generic PnP Monitor (in the absence of a devote driver), am I really missing anything?

Naah.

Sometimes the trouble is if the monitor EDID does not provide the correct native resolution (or the windows doesn't understand it correctly) and if the native resolution is unknown or *somehow* forced to a different one, see, as an example of a "queer" case:

but your monitor is native 1600x1200 and you run it a the correct native resolution, so nothing to worry about.

jaclaz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×