Chuck(G)
25k Member
Not taking any issues with the post, but I wonder if a later EGA card might give the same display (some EGAs could do 800x600). That would also be all-digital, right?
Not taking any issues with the post, but I wonder if a later EGA card might give the same display (some EGAs could do 800x600). That would also be all-digital, right?
Well, I for one am not using my 15" LCD for 320x240 with my 1000SX as it has an Oak VGA and the video is outstanding. The whole purpose of the upgrade was to get rid of MDA/CGA etc which as you stated "sucks".LCDs tend to suck when not used at native resolutions or when scaling is not linear. 320x240 on a widescreen kind of sucks. I still have a bunch of CRTs around for Amiga, DOS, Apple, C64/C128 etc. because of this.
I will say LCD is much better for modern machines at higher resolution with regards to text and eye strain.
I'd be curious if the video cards in ISA-based lunchbox PCs (like the old Dolch packet analyzers) would have done something similar, or if there was an intermediate analog step between their output and the internal LCD.
Do you maybe mean "when scaling is not integer"? (i.e. an integer multiple of the input resolution?) I find that linear (as in bilinear) scaling from very small resolutions up to large resolutions (320x200 -> 1600x1200) is too soft to look good. Point sampling from small resolution up to a large resolution does look better, although not perfect if the scaling is not an integer multiple.LCDs tend to suck when not used at native resolutions or when scaling is not linear. 320x240 on a widescreen kind of sucks.
Not sure what you compare to by "same" here, though yeah, if an EGA card did 800x600, then that would allow a nice passthrough conversion to DVI-D, or e.g. 2x integer upscaling to 1600x1200.Not taking any issues with the post, but I wonder if a later EGA card might give the same display (some EGAs could do 800x600). That would also be all-digital, right?