Image Map Image Map
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: 1050p monitors

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Principality of Xeon W-2140B the Great State of Central New Jerky
    Posts
    2,285

    Default 1050p monitors

    Are they any good?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Western North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    1050p? Do you mean 1680x1050 (16:10 aspect ratio)? I have one; it works fine. That used to be a common resolution. The 16:9 usable area is 1680x945. The next step up in 16:10 is 1920x1200; I have a pair of Dell 24" 1920x1200 monitors on my desk at work connected to my (CentOS) laptop; add the 17" laptop 16:9 1080p screen and it makes a nice triple-screen setup.

    My 1680x1050 monitor is an older Gateway, with HDMI, DVI, VGA, and component inputs, with great specs.
    --
    Thus spake Tandy Xenix System III version 3.2: "Bughlt: Sckmud Shut her down Scotty, she's sucking mud again!"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Ohio/USA
    Posts
    8,095
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    1680x1050? I have a few laptops with that resolution and a standalone LCD. Looks ok.
    What I collect: 68K/Early PPC Mac, DOS/Win 3.1 era machines, Amiga/ST, C64/128
    Nubus/ISA/VLB/MCA/EISA cards of all types
    Boxed apps and games for the above systems
    Analog video capture cards/software and complete systems

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Principality of Xeon W-2140B the Great State of Central New Jerky
    Posts
    2,285

    Default

    My question had to do with that resolution being supported natively in Windows and such. Maybe it's common to older versions of Windows? Maybe it's common to newer versions. Don't know off tje top of my head.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tipc View Post
    My question had to do with that resolution being supported natively in Windows and such. Maybe it's common to older versions of Windows? Maybe it's common to newer versions. Don't know off tje top of my head.
    I think it would be all about the video drivers, regardless of OS version. Any GeForce card available with DVI probably supports it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Outer Mongolia
    Posts
    2,935

    Default

    Any operating system newer than the early 2000's should understand VESA DDC and use it to grok your monitor, so it should work fine. All bets are off if you're running BeOS, Microsoft Xenix, or Windows 1.x.
    My Retro-computing YouTube Channel (updates... eventually?): Paleozoic PCs

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Western North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    If the video driver supports full EDID capability it should work with Windows. Windows will actually support totally arbitrary resolutions with driver support; VMware and other virtualization platforms can use this capability, for instance, and I have personally run at some weird resolutions. I regularly use remote desktop from CentOS (the rdesktop package) and my default resolution for the RDP session is 1680x1050 (it's a good comfortable fit on a 1920x1200 screen with normal window manager controls).

    If you use HDMI you should have no problem at all with it. DVI should work just fine, as it's within the 1920x1200 DVI single link limit. VGA, on the other hand, in my experience is not nearly as reliable for any widescreen resolutions. It is also very driver dependent; the wikipedia article on EDID, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exte...ification_Data, has good information.

    I have had monitors work at native resolutions with Display port but not HDMI (my Acer 2560x1440 27"), and work fine with DP, HDMI, and DVI at native resolution but refuse to go over 1280x1024 on VGA, using the same video card and same drivers.
    --
    Thus spake Tandy Xenix System III version 3.2: "Bughlt: Sckmud Shut her down Scotty, she's sucking mud again!"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    2,172

    Default

    1680x1050 monitors are mostly fine, but some games have problems not supporting that resolution.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Ohio/USA
    Posts
    8,095
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    For older games made before widescreen became a thing 1600x1200 would be a better resolution.
    What I collect: 68K/Early PPC Mac, DOS/Win 3.1 era machines, Amiga/ST, C64/128
    Nubus/ISA/VLB/MCA/EISA cards of all types
    Boxed apps and games for the above systems
    Analog video capture cards/software and complete systems

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    2,172

    Default

    There was a rare 1400x1050 resolution referred to as SXGA used by some of the last square screen laptops in the early to mid 2000s that games worked well with.

    I had a Latitude D610 with the SXGA screen and an ATI Mobility x300 for a time, it was a really good Windows XP laptop. It unfortunately died because it was one of the first laptops to also use the garbage ROHS solders rushed to production for the EU ban on hazardous substances in electronics. The GPU BGA joints cracked and the screen garbage came, followed by no video at all.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •