[Eriamjh]

A friend of mine still running OS9 had his monitor die this week. He's thinking of upgrading to a flat panel and possibly a huge 42 plasma to use as a monitor since they have VGA in (this is what he says), but I warned him that OS9 might not be able to use the monitor in a pleasing way to him (Either native resolution or some god-awful low res). He's in his 50s and needs a huge monitor to easily see what's going on without straining. He ran his 21" at 800x600, I think.

He's got a G4 Quicksilver 733. Stock as can be. Probably has an ADC and VGA capable video card (whatever came with the machine).

I know he can run OSX, but he has a few classic apps he insists won't work with X (Don't know what they are).

Should he just go for it? Is there a way to tell OS9 the resolutions available for a monitor it has never seen before?

He is also considering just buying an iMac G5 (which I think is best).

Any tips (other than the iMac option)?

[OreoCookie]

First of all, post in the right forum

Yes, any VGA/DVI/ADC monitor is fine as long as he has a proper connector on the graphics card (there is an ADC-DVI adapter). But, a big but, a 42" Plasma lcd is not well-suited for daily tasks, the resolution is far too low compared to the sheer size of the screen. I wouldn't recommend one as a primary screen.

I would suggest a 17" or 19" lcd as a replacement, although none of these will have a native resolution of 800x600 (this resolution btw is far too low for a 21" crt, too!). They usually have a resolution of 1280x1024.

If he really needs OS9, an iMac won't make him happy. But then, I'm pretty sure there are alternatives for pretty much all his applications. (This is an entirely different subject.)

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

First of all, post in the right forum

I figured this was an OS9 question, and not a powermac question.
I will tell him to get a decent LCD and avoid the plasma/LCD TVs.

[analogika]

Note that OS 9 won't work with any resolutions higher than standard 21" LCD (IIRC, the 20" Cinema Display works fine, will the 23" won't).

OS 9's graphics drivers won't handle more than a certain resolution, AFAIK.

[MichiganRich]

A 19" LCD would be the ideal solution. They all pretty much have the same 1280x1024 native resolution that a 17" LCD does, just spread out over a larger surface area, therefore larger fonts and interface elements. I had a 19" Dell LCD that I handed down to my mom to use with my old modded G3, and she loves it because she doesn't have to squint to see everything. The Dells are great values, as long as you get the UltraSharp series (better components, better connection options).

The plasma would be a poor choice, most are widescreen aspect yet have standard 4x3 native resolutions that are quite low in comparison to computer displays (although this is slowly changing).

[tooki]

Originally Posted by analogika

Note that OS 9 won't work with any resolutions higher than standard 21" LCD (IIRC, the 20" Cinema Display works fine, will the 23" won't).

OS 9's graphics drivers won't handle more than a certain resolution, AFAIK.

Nah, not true. It's just whether the driver knows about a specific graphics mode (the ATI drivers for OS 9 don't know about the 23's mode cuz it was a new mode at the time).

tooki

[analogika]

Originally Posted by tooki

Nah, not true. It's just whether the driver knows about a specific graphics mode (the ATI drivers for OS 9 don't know about the 23's mode cuz it was a new mode at the time).

tooki

How is that different from what I just said?

[tooki]

You said that OS 9 has a maximum resolution; that is not true. It's not a greater-than/less-than thing: it is knowing about specific modes.

tooki

[analogika]

I asked HOW that is different from what I said.

Simply repeating that it is different doesn't answer my question.

So higher resolutions don't qualify as "modes"? What makes a "mode" non-identical to a "resolution"? Is it specifically the 16:10 aspect ratio of the 23" display that won't work?

[tooki]

3rd time's the charm, I hope:

I DID elaborate on the explanation, I didn't just restate.

unknown mode ≠ excessive resolution

resolution x bit depth x refresh rate = mode

If the Mac doesn't know about a mode, it can't control the graphics card appropriately. This is regardless of what the resolution of the unknown mode is (there are some "low" resolution modes that are also not supported).

You imply that Mac OS 9 has an architectural limitation preventing resolutions beyond a certain level from working. This is not the case. From the day that Macs left behind the 512x342 display in the original models, the OS has supported arbitrary resolutions with ease, which is why we had things like portrait and pivot displays long before the PC world. The graphics card (together with its drivers) is responsible for creating the signals to create the video signal to the display. If driver development is abandoned (as was the case in OS 9), then the mode in question won't be available.

The point is, the drivers must be aware of a specific mode in order to work. If the drivers don't have that specific mode coded in, it won't be possible. This is regardless of what other modes are available -- lower or higher resolution.

tooki

[tooki]

P.S. I actually do vaguely remember that Mac OS 9 has some limit on maximum desktop resolution (the combination of multiple displays), but it's something far, far larger than any display, on the order of tens of thousands of pixels per edge.