every new computer interface SUCKS, sticking with winME

[Destro]

I have a real monitor with that res.  The other resolution I like is 1600x1200 which I also got.  I think maybe NEC still makes monitors with those Resolutions could be wrong about that.

 

http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/ea245wmi-bk

http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/p212-bk

Edited December 24, 2017 by Destro

[jaclaz]

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

EIZO S2133 (21" 1600x1200) US$ 934.05

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

 

 

[Tripredacus]

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...

[Cawsign]

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 December 27, 2017 by Cawsign

[Mcinwwl]

On 24.12.2017 at 3:16 PM, jaclaz said:

Pickyness challenge?

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.

[dencorso]

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

[rloew]

9 hours ago, dencorso said:

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

That is irrational so it is impossible. Too bad.

[dencorso]

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

[jaclaz]

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) .

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  , as it is not enough to be called "common", but more than enough to be called "not-so-unpopular .

jaclaz

[Destro]

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 December 28, 2017 by Destro

[rloew]

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.

[Jody Thornton]

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.

 

[jaclaz]

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?

jaclaz

[Jody Thornton]

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?

 

[jaclaz]

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