Mac OS 9 Discussion > Video Cards, Monitors & Displays

OS9 and display size

(1/3) > >>

ssp3:
This question intrigued me all the time, so I decided to run a poll. Spill the beans, guys  :)

Bolkonskij:
Interesting poll!

Pretty sure I'm at the low-end (any Clamshell users out there? :D)

Running OS 9 on my Mini at 1024x768 on my Samsung SyncMaster. I find no use in using broader displays with OS 9, as my workflows usually including scrolling top-down (e.g. a word document, a website) rather than left-right, so the old SyncMaster still gets the job done. I'd need more height, rather than more width :-)

ssp3:
There's nothing wrong with using smaller displays. I personally, despite having several modern 24", find myself more comfortable using 17"-er with my Mini.
Unlike in the old days, where 17" Apple's Trinitron was my main display and PM9600 or G4 DA were my main drivers and I had icons on the desktop in two layers on top of each other, I simply do not have enough stuff to put on a 24" real estate anymore.
Sure, some audio editors/sequencers will profit from larger screens, but even then I find that old Cubase looks a bit odd on a big screen.

On the negative side, when using older displays, one might encounter:
1. Fading CCFL backlight that also changes in color.
2. Not so optimal viewing angles of TN panels.
3. Slow response times

IIO:
unfortunately the guy with the 30" can´t take part here. :)

oh, he can.

joevt:
My OS 9 machines (B&W G3 with G4 and PM 8600) are connected to a 5K display using a Gefen Dual Link DVI to DisplayPort adapter but they don't have GPUs that support more than 1920x1200 or 1600x1200. I do have a 7800 GT from a Quad G5 which can do 1440p60 or 4K30 but I haven't tried it in a PCI slot yet and it wouldn't have 2D or 3D acceleration in OS 9 if it could work. It would be for OS X Tiger or Leopard.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page