That's a pretty small monitor for such a high res and why the hell is it so expensive?

I just bought a 22" for my brother for $169.

This is all US dollars not pounds.

I don't know why it is expensive.

It isn't a widescreen. Perhaps as it's a 4:3 screen, and these are not in demand these days, it pushes the price up?

Why do you want a non widescreen LCD?

Because I would like to run games with an aspect ratio of 4:3, such as a resolution of 640x480 or 800x600. These resolutions are from the old DOS days of computer games.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, and that perhaps I could go for a widescreen monitor after all - but I'm worried that this will cause compatibility problems with running old DOS games.

I personally use a BenQ FP241VW (24", 1920x1200). It has 3 modes: fit to screen (which stretches the image to fill the panel), keep aspect ratio (which will keep the aspect ratio, so if you use it with resolution like 640x480 it will 'touch' the frame at the top and bottom and you will have black bars on the right and left side), 1:1 mapping (which will display the image in the centre - good for high, non native resolutions like 1400x1050).

Playing at 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 using a Radeon 9800 Pro connected through DVI works without problems. On some odd resolutions (like 512x384, 640x400) the Radeon will send to the monitor image at 1920x1200 with the image in the center. 320x200, 320x240, 400x300 - the ATI squeezes the image and sends it to the monitor at 1920x1200, in the middle surrounded by black borders. (I believe it's the Radeon which converts it to 1920x1200, because using the aspect ration controls have no effect). 640x350 works nice with widescreen (at least in GLQuake).

Through D-Sub (analogue) 320x200 and 320x240 work without problems, 400x300 is stretched verticaly, 512x384 looks messy. 640x350, 640x400 (which didn't work well through DVI), 640x480 work OK (scaled keeping aspect ratio).

Haven't tested text modes (but you can see my BIOS screenshots from a 386 box with Oak ISA VGA here: ), but most LCD's I've seen mess them up, especially through the D-Sub cable.

Also modern VGAs have aspect ratio controls for DVI. My Thinkpad T61p has a 1920x1200 widescreen display which normally will stretch everything to fill the screen, but nVidia Quadro allows me to select between: fill screen, keep aspect ratio, (no 1:1 mapping as far as I know, but if connected to an external EIZO monitor I can also select this option). I tested 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 on it and they work well. (except the image is blurry, but this effect will be on every LCD if you use it with a non native resolution).

As you can see it's best to do some testing not only with the choosen LCD but also VGA and different cables. Or at least ask people who already have the LCD you want to buy on some hardware forums. But I'm pretty sure 640x480 and higher resolutions will work ok with most panels.

Thanks for your post.

I've found this calculator quite handy:

http://axofiber.org.ru/inside/pixel.size.en.htm

I'm currently using a 19" LCD monitor with a resolution of 1280x1024 pixels. That translates to a pixel size of 0.294 mm. A relatively big pixel size.

I hate small pixels. They make reading text a painful experience! And fiddling with Windows' DPI settings to try to alleviate the problem just makes programs look hideous!

I'd love to buy the Samsung XL20. It has received very good reviews:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/dis … onitors_11.html

But unfortunately I'm not rich, so I cannot afford it 🙁

If you're rich, I would really suggest that monitor. It's one of the best.

retro : Definitely go for a Widescreen monitor - much better value for money, especially those of the 22" 1680x1050 variety. If you plan on playing your DOS games via DOSBox then aspect ratio can be set and controlled via DOSBox itself, otherwise for native DOS game support, as GL1zdA pointed out, look for 1:1 pixel mapping as a key feature. Even some of the cheaper brands such as Chi Mei have this feature.

I think I'm going to buy this one:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_lp2275w.htm

It uses the Samsung LTM220M3 panel. It's one of the very few 22" PVA panels in existence!

Regards.

Thanks guys.

Yes, 1:1 looks like a great function to look out for! 😀

Also, if you get the Samsung LTM220M3, let us know what you think!

Wanted to post here for sometime now. Just got the time to do this. I've posted some pictures from my LCD TV. I admit they're not very clear but I leave the pictures "to paint the words" for you.

All the images are not altered using any method. It's displayed and adjusted automatically according to the signal input.

All these images are output directly via my S3 Trio 64V+ card which is actually passed through my Voodoo2, using a normal VGA connection.

My main point here is that the pictures don't look distorted in a wide screen configuration when playing a classic DOS game. If some of you noticed the thin black space at the extreme left of the screen, it's because I didn't set the auto-sync before taking the pictures. Once sync-ed, it'll remain in memory for a particular resolution.

I would definitely recommend a widescreen display.

Whoa!! 😁 Stunning! 😎

And what a great choice of games too!! 😁

Malik, please can you tell me, are those games running on DOSBox/Vista?

EDIT: I think I've made a mistake - as you are using vintage hardware, you almost certainly won't be using DOSBox.

I need to revise my LCD purchase plan! I must check out the BenQ widescreen LCDs...!

retro games 100 wrote:

Malik, please can you tell me, are those games running on DOSBox/Vista?

EDIT: I think I've made a mistake - as you are using vintage hardware, you almost certainly won't be using DOSBox.

Yes, I'm using my retro hardware. The output is as I have mentioned. But even in DOSBox, there's no difference when you set the proper renderer and the aspect ratios.