Old systems look glorious on new monitors. I've got Mac OS 7.6 on a 1440p curved display. Unfortunately I can't set it to 144Hz, looks like the emulator isn't that good on the graphical side. Next ones I gotta try are Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98. Imagine DOS games at 1440p.
Sounds lovely 😍 Regarding 1440p/144Hz issue, perhaps this version of macOS or graphics driver simply can't handle such resolution? For example, I have GTX 970 running Windows XP and it would only run 2560x1440 60hz using DisplayPort (1.2) and 3440x1440 (native res of my monitor) but at 30hz using HDMI (2.0). Only after I switched from DP 1.2 to DP 1.1 using hidden monitor menu it actually allowed me to use 3440x1440 at 60hz. I also saw some people modify their display drivers to bypass such limitations and get their old system running high-res and refresh rate on a modern monitor.
@@Samael_00001 My monitor is actually 165 Hz but HDMI only gets me 144 Hz. And my crap motherboard has no display port so I'd have to get a dedicated GPU. Modern displays and GPUs are such a mess, it was more PnP than this on Windows XP. It's not a Mac OS issue, old CRTs went up to 200 something Hz at low resolutions. I think the problem is that the emulator doesn't have direct access to the GPU so everything is rendered in software. I know the same situation occurs in VMware. I got NT 4.0 running in VMware, though "running" is an overstatement. It's such a terrible OS, it's barely stable on real, well supported hardware, much less so in a virtual machine. But at least it's 1440p. Can't do anything with it cause it's broken but at least it looks glorious.
@3r not really, I use Linux (Mint, Kali, ArchCraft) on a daily basis and UI elements look absolutely tiny on a 4K 27" or even 1440p monitor. If I use fractional scaling some UI elements get larger but some stay the same. So I might get a large button with tiny text in the middle or a tiny button with large text. As the result, I'm forced to either use native resolution without any scaling or get used to a weird UI. In terms of scaling I'd say macOS does a much better job, so in my opinion: macOS > Windows 10 > Windows 7 > average Linux distro > Windows XP
yeah, makes me feel a bit nostalgic. I've installed a couple of games I used to play back then (Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Neighbours from Hell, Need for Speed Underground 1&2) 😎
What a beauty
it definitely is, I feel so nostalgic using it
Old systems look glorious on new monitors. I've got Mac OS 7.6 on a 1440p curved display. Unfortunately I can't set it to 144Hz, looks like the emulator isn't that good on the graphical side.
Next ones I gotta try are Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98. Imagine DOS games at 1440p.
Sounds lovely 😍 Regarding 1440p/144Hz issue, perhaps this version of macOS or graphics driver simply can't handle such resolution? For example, I have GTX 970 running Windows XP and it would only run 2560x1440 60hz using DisplayPort (1.2) and 3440x1440 (native res of my monitor) but at 30hz using HDMI (2.0). Only after I switched from DP 1.2 to DP 1.1 using hidden monitor menu it actually allowed me to use 3440x1440 at 60hz. I also saw some people modify their display drivers to bypass such limitations and get their old system running high-res and refresh rate on a modern monitor.
@@Samael_00001 My monitor is actually 165 Hz but HDMI only gets me 144 Hz. And my crap motherboard has no display port so I'd have to get a dedicated GPU.
Modern displays and GPUs are such a mess, it was more PnP than this on Windows XP.
It's not a Mac OS issue, old CRTs went up to 200 something Hz at low resolutions. I think the problem is that the emulator doesn't have direct access to the GPU so everything is rendered in software. I know the same situation occurs in VMware.
I got NT 4.0 running in VMware, though "running" is an overstatement. It's such a terrible OS, it's barely stable on real, well supported hardware, much less so in a virtual machine. But at least it's 1440p. Can't do anything with it cause it's broken but at least it looks glorious.
Finally I can enjoy the hill
I feel you ❤
Unfortunately the Bliss background is only 800x600. It looks terrible even on my 1280x1024 monitor.
@@masterkamen371 ai upscale
@@masterkamen371 I agree, although AI upscaling can improve it 😎
Would be great if scaling wasn't so awful
I agree, XP doesn't handle that well anything above 1080p. When Windows XP came out, 1280x1024 monitors were probably the mainstream
Yeah it is awsome now if Windows XP had better support for anything above 1080p? Do do like its UI.
Yeah, I do like it's UI. It's quite nostalgic 🙂
@@Samael_00001 Yes better than Windows 11.
@@wartortlerulestheworld definitely
although XP doesn't handle 1440p resolution that well, it's probably as bad as an average modern Linux distro in that regard =)
yeah, you are very stereotypical about linux as well.
@3r not really, I use Linux (Mint, Kali, ArchCraft) on a daily basis and UI elements look absolutely tiny on a 4K 27" or even 1440p monitor. If I use fractional scaling some UI elements get larger but some stay the same. So I might get a large button with tiny text in the middle or a tiny button with large text. As the result, I'm forced to either use native resolution without any scaling or get used to a weird UI. In terms of scaling I'd say macOS does a much better job, so in my opinion:
macOS > Windows 10 > Windows 7 > average Linux distro > Windows XP
@@Samael_00001 i have a 1080p monitor though so idc about scaling
@@randomgamingin144p I bet Windows XP/7 on 1080p monitor looks just right. I used to have 23" LG W2353V monitor and it looked perfect
@@Samael_00001 go set your DPI properly
It's cool and funny xD
yeah, makes me feel a bit nostalgic. I've installed a couple of games I used to play back then (Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Neighbours from Hell, Need for Speed Underground 1&2) 😎