1680×1050 is actually 16:10 aspect ratio, not 16:9
Monday, February 4, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Windows 98 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by DNA
(549 messages posted)
...the lowest resolution option possible is 1280x768
that is proportional and keeps the 16:9 aspect.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Your monitor's native resolution is 1680×1050, which is a 16:10 aspect ratio. The
"correct" lower resolution would be 1280×800. Even if you had the lower resolution
in the correct aspect ratio, LCD monitors should always be run in their native
resolution! EVERY LCD monitor I've seen from 2002 to date looks blurry when
set in the resolution that's the first step-down from its 'native' resolution.
And this is where Windows 98 drivers falter. Most of the 'latest' video drivers
for Windows 98 date from around 2005, before all of these widescreen LCD monitors
came out. Almost all LCD monitors available at the time were 4:3 aspect ratio, having
resolutions that were also common to older CRT monitors (1024×768, 1280×1024, 1600×1200),
so even older video drivers were not a problem (assuming that the monitor 'plug-and-played'
with the system!).
I would suggest that if you buy a new LCD monitor for a Windows 98 computer, you
should look for a 4:3 monitor. I use a 4:3 19" LCD on my AMD 3000, because it has
Windows 98 on it. My 4000 uses a 16:10 22" LCD, since Windows 98 is on a VMWare 'virtual
machine' there, it runs in a 1024×768 window within the (XP) 1680×1050 screen.
------------------------------------------------------------
Athlon 3000+ 939 - 1GB RAM = 98SE (@768 MB RAM) & XP Pro SP2
Athlon 4000+X2 AM2 - 3GB RAM = 2000 SP4 & XP Pro SP2
IBM ThinkPad PIII 933 - 512 MB RAM = 98SE & XP Pro SP2
Windows 2000 Server in the basement
- Written in response to:
- Widescreen Monitor Help (Auggie: Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 9:35 am)
Responses to this message:
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | 1680×1050 is actually 16:10 aspect ratio, not 16:9 (DNA: Mon, Feb 4, 2008, 3:43 pm) |
|
