Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

17" 1280×1024

17" 1280×768

19" 1440×900

19" 1280×1024

20" 1600×1200

20" 1680×1050

21" 1920×1080

22" 1680×1050

23″ 1920×1080

24″ 1920×1200

15" and smaller

27" and larger

CRT

TV

[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? )

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.

[torvan]

My G4 Dual with the TI4600 is connected to a LG Curved UltraWide 34" using a DVI to HDMI cable I got years ago.  Sure I am limited to 1600x1200, but it does everything I want it to do!

[Knezzen]

1920x1200 on everything, baby

[V.Yakob]

PM9600, G3MT, G3 B&W have a PCI Radeon 7000 64 Mb with a DVI port, so the Apple Cinema Display 23" (A1082) monitor connects to them and works normally at 1920x1200 resolution. Thanks to the community, there is a driver even for Mac OS 7.6.1 that runs on the PM9600.
G4 QS and G4 MDD connect to the same monitor and work smoothly. But it goes without saying, because the flashed Radeon 9000 128 mb and the original 64 mb support it.
G5 DC with flashed X1900 256 Mb also copes with this without problems, but here is only Sorbet Leopard on SATA-III SSD, which I connected via SAS3041E.
The only machine in my modest Power Mac collection that can't boast of high resolution is the PM8100. Too old. I use an HPV video card here, which connects via an adapter to an old Acer AL1917 monitor.

[meow_mx]

3440x1440 via DVI on a G4 Mini 

(at 30Hz refresh rate--you can't win 'em all)

[ssp3]

3440x1440 via DVI on a G4 Mini 

(at 30Hz refresh rate--you can't win 'em all)

Wow! Which Mini and with what ATI driver?

[IIO]

(at 30Hz refresh rate--you can't win 'em all)

i cant refind the old post, but there was that supersized CRT which allowed some mammoth resolution when runing at incredible 13,1 Hz. (probably useful for nothing but displaying stills in a store window?)

would be interested in your monitor model.

[robespierre]

The IBM T221 runs at 3840x2400 and will use a refresh rate of 13 Hz when a single-link DVI input is used. It's an IPS LCD, not a CRT.
The highest raster CRT resolutions of which I'm aware are 2048x2048 used for certain navigation displays (air traffic control, etc). They use a 60 Hz refresh. A 13 Hz refresh would never work in a CRT because phosphors with such long persistence are not available.
This issue with phosphor persistence is the real reason for video interlacing: a progressive scan at 30 Hz (NTSC) or 25 Hz (PAL) would be intolerable. So the image is interlaced and scanned at twice that rate, which looks fine.

[meow_mx]

3440x1440 via DVI on a G4 Mini 

(at 30Hz refresh rate--you can't win 'em all)

Wow! Which Mini and with what ATI driver?

1.25GHz Mini, basic Mac Mini v9 install CD driver set, on a Dell U3421WE monitor via DVI->HDMI cable.

My Mini fuzzes out trying 1920x1080@60 on the same display, so it's a fantastic spot of luck that it negotiates the native resolution at 30Hz.

My 9250 PCI card is unreliable at both of those settings, forcing me to stick with a Radeon 7000 in my PowerTower running MacOS 7.6.1. :-(

[Jubadub]

This issue with phosphor persistence is the real reason for video interlacing: a progressive scan at 30 Hz (NTSC) or 25 Hz (PAL) would be intolerable. So the image is interlaced and scanned at twice that rate, which looks fine.

Fascinating, this explains a lot. I have long been a huge fan of CRT displays, so I really appreciate this info.