Next Generation Emulation banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
401 - 420 of 1121 Posts

·
PC game modder
Joined
·
12,998 Posts

·
Professional OC'er
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
Discussion Starter · #402 · (Edited)
That's nice, but what's Sinead O'Connor even got to do with ANYTHING these days.... that's from like the 80's already..

...C'mon.....

Edit:

Idunno, I'm using the 32" Trinitron this morning and it look clear enough for me to do my work, if oyou can call this "work".....

I think the point I originally intended is valid...

I'm sorry, but you'd almost have to be here to see it, and then go with me to CBIT to compare it to that 42" Vision Quest HDTV I say and compare them to see what it is that I'm talking about here....

My friend in the city here was dead set against it and so was my Dad, but when they saw it they SAW THE LIGHT......

I know it's unique.....but I like size.....when I'm surfing....

And yes, once again I like big icons.....and other ****...
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
I know you like a big display, but at the cost of using 640x480!? Most websites don't even display properly that low. Alot of sites may work at 800x600, but you really need 1024x768 for the internet to fully look right. 1024x768 and 1280x1024 are the standards right now, so 1024x768 is what sites are designed to fit in.

You already have a large television display that does fine for you, so here's what I'd do. Keep the television as a secondary display dedicated to emulation and such. Use the new display, which would be a dedicated monitor, as an actual monitor. This way, you get the best of both, so to speak.

This has been dragged out long enough. Just give a price range, and others will recommend the best 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 monitors that fall within it.

Edit:
Ever saw this crap Gameman? It's a 17" CRT.


Your 42" TV would be able to display almost the same amount of information as that piece of s**t.
You want to pay a bunch of cash for something that displays the same resolution as a craptastic monitor? Go ahead I'm sure people won't laugh at you.
Actually, I have a 17" CRT in my closet (Gateway VX700), and it's a pretty decent monitor. It's from 1998, but it was high(er) end at the time, and goes up to 1600x1200. That's infinitely more than his 640x480 interlaced and blurry display is giving him.
 

·
Elven-Dragon Mage
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
im using an older crt 19" inch here myself and its fine but taking up the whole top of my corner desk and annoying to move cause its big and bulky. so i need to find a decent 19" or higher widescreen monitor so i can get rid of this thing. and ive got an older hp monitor sitting around here as well its a 17" and its annoying small resolution at max 1024x768. as for my tv its an older crt from bestbuy with the same limitations of the 17" and its 20" itself
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
No kidding about the weight of these things. The one I'm using now, and the older 17" one, are both aperture grille types, and they weigh a whole lot more than the more common, I want to say "standard", shadow mask types. The 17" one had to weigh at least twice that of an older 19" Dell one (shadow mask, so it was lighter) I had at one point.

The size isn't so much a factor for me, since I don't need the room on my desk for much besides the monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers, but I did have to remove the top shelf of my desk when I went from the older one to this one (the shelf weight limit was obviously less than just having the monitor on the main desk part). In fact, if weight wasn't a factor, I'd put a second one up next to it.
 

·
Professional OC'er
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
Discussion Starter · #407 ·
This has been dragged out long enough. Just give a price range, and others will recommend the best 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 monitors that fall within it.

Edit:Actually, I have a 17" CRT in my closet (Gateway VX700), and it's a pretty decent monitor. It's from 1998, but it was high(er) end at the time, and goes up to 1600x1200. That's infinitely more than his 640x480 interlaced and blurry display is giving him.
Christ!!! I TOLD you guys many times it's 800 by 600 (Now) and actually capable of 1024 by 768 (Trinitron) - but at that point it starts to look like crap...

I don't know where this 600 by 400 bull-**** is coming from.... That's just what I get when I attempt to play PCSX2...


By the way folks it's Sunday, so as usual I'm at my parents having Sunday dinner... This is being typed on my Mom's old Pentium 4... However it DOES have a 22" HDMI LCD display... And I will admit It's very nice and high definition, but it's too close for comfort and wAY WAY to small...

I know it''s a ****ty display tube compared to THIS 22" Monster, but honestly the only way I would use anything this Damn small is as A SECONDARY monitor ot for checking emails in Dual Monitor......

Hardly big enough to fill up my whole field of VISION like the Trinitron Does and the 42" Vision Quest I saw at CBIT.....from 3-4 feet away that is...


No, even being on one of the 22" socalled monsters I'm still not convinced...

I guess I'm just different..

Fortunately you all have helped me when it comes to good brans versus bad brands, so lets's stick to that instead...

I'm referring to the LG 720p versus the Vision Quest 720p...

Both 42", but one is less likely to crap out on me in a year or two yers....

Besides, I'll probably replace it in tWO years anyway, so what's the big differerence.....maybe I could just opt fot the two year warrantee...That way my ass is covered for two years and if it ****s up I'll just be inconvieneienced vor a day or two while they either repair it or replace it...

I don't want this whole thread and my last two weeks to turn out to be for naught.....


So lets narrow it down here....

My specs:

42" - 50" Maximum - 40" minimum (must be 20" high minimum and 26" Width minimum)

900.00 Canadian Maximum

1920 X 1080 Hopefully

1300 X700 Minimum

720p Minimum


Located within a reasonable distance, unless shipping is free - cause I ain't running down to cowpoke Texas or dogbowl Vermont to pick this up...

Know what I mean/?????
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
7,022 Posts
Christ!!! I TOLD you guys many times it's 800 by 600 (Now) and actually capable of 1024 by 768 (Trinitron) - but at that point it starts to look like crap...
That's because NTSC televisions have a resolution of roughly 640x480. When you set your desktop resolution to 800x600 or 1024x768, your graphics card just squeezes your desktop into the ~640x480 size. It's like viewing a picture in your browser that is too big for your screen. Normally you can see the picture and several imperfections because it's been shrunk. When you maximize it you can see all of the details, but have to use the scroll bars to pan around the image.

Having your desktop set to 800x600 is just a farce since its native resolution is around 640x480.

I keep seeing you making references to 1366x768 native res screens. Screens with this resolution are also know as WXGA and are the cheap piece of s**t screens that often come for free with many discount computers. You can think of WXGA as the wide screen version of 1024x768. (XGA) XGA isn't even considered hi-res these days. Maybe if you had a time machine and went back to 1995 or earlier...
 

·
Professional OC'er
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
Discussion Starter · #410 ·

·
Professional OC'er
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
Discussion Starter · #412 ·
im the proud owner of a 320 by 240 /.k4`screen :p
I think I saw that on the big display for the Chicken Restaurant (KFC)) on my way back here.... or maybe it was the Hotel.....

Anyways here is why I believe it's 800 by 600 - BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE CONTROL PANEL....that's all...

if it's really 600 by 400 somethiung, well honestly, that really WOULD suck.....hence my need to upgrade...

 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
7,022 Posts
Vista normally limits you from going below 800x600... :rolleyes:

NTSC is a standard. There is no way that the native res of that screen is above ~640x480. If you were to set the screen resolution to 640x480, I bet the picture will become a lot sharper and clearer to read, but with the downside being that now your desktop will be tiny. This is also the same reason as to why 1024x768 looks so bad on your TV. The picture had to be truncated so much that you lose too much quality and the picture looks bad. This is common on all CRT TVs when you output on an analog cable. (besides RGB)
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Every time you've posted a screenshot of your desktop, it's been a 640x480 image, so either it's scaling it down and you're really getting 800x600 shown in 640x480 (which would be the reason it's so blurry, so drop it back to 640x480 and it'll likely get clearer), or you have changed it higher since you posted your last desktop image.

Either way, 800x600 is still very small. It really only still exists in Windows as a legacy option for older monitors that can't go much, if any, higher (though I think it should have been dropped with Windows Vista, just like Windows XP dropped 640x480).
 

·
Professional OC'er
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
Discussion Starter · #417 ·
I was on a 22" HDMI by Hewlett Packkard .....and it was clear, ut for SIZE it sucked..... I can't take a display that small, not after being on the Trinitron with 800 by 600 lol these many months.....

I have obviously considered sliding the button all the way to the right, but the clarity sucks at that supposed resolution.. 800 by 600 is the best I can get on this old TV...
 

·
Site Owner
Joined
·
18,081 Posts
Gameman, im telling you strait up.....get yourself a nice 24". My Samsung 22" will blow your TV out of the water, eben if i have less resolution. Call it quality. Get an LG if you have too..
 

·
Professional OC'er
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
Discussion Starter · #419 ·
....get yourself a nice 24". My Samsung 22" will blow your TV out of the water, eben if i have less resolution.
what do you mean "even if I have less resoluiton"....
 
401 - 420 of 1121 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top