<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_17_0039243</id>
	<title>Making Old Games Look Good On Modern LCDs?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258484700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>75th Trombone writes <i>"I'm a fan of several old PC games &mdash; the <em>Myst</em> series, <em>StarCraft</em>, <em>Diablo</em>, etc &mdash; with 2D graphics that run at a low, fixed resolution. These games all <a href="http://nfgworld.com/mb/thread/660">look horrible on modern LCDs</a>. If you run them at their original resolution, they're tiny, and if you upscale them they get all sorts of blurry, pixelly smoothing artifacts. My ideal goal is to run these games at exactly double their original resolution &mdash; running 640 x 480 games at 1280 x 960, for example &mdash; so that each original pixel takes up <em>exactly</em> a 2 x 2 block of screen pixels, yielding graphics that are perfectly crisp and decently big. I've tried arcane settings in graphics card drivers (new and old), I've tried forcing the OS to run at a given resolution, and I've tried <a href="http://entechtaiwan.com/util/ps.shtm">PowerStrip</a>, all to no avail. Short of writing <a href="http://www.devklog.net/rivenx/">a new, modern engine for my favorite games</a>, is there a reasonable solution to this problem?"</i>
There have been many community-supported graphical overhauls of classic games &mdash; feel free to share any you know to work well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>75th Trombone writes " I 'm a fan of several old PC games    the Myst series , StarCraft , Diablo , etc    with 2D graphics that run at a low , fixed resolution .
These games all look horrible on modern LCDs .
If you run them at their original resolution , they 're tiny , and if you upscale them they get all sorts of blurry , pixelly smoothing artifacts .
My ideal goal is to run these games at exactly double their original resolution    running 640 x 480 games at 1280 x 960 , for example    so that each original pixel takes up exactly a 2 x 2 block of screen pixels , yielding graphics that are perfectly crisp and decently big .
I 've tried arcane settings in graphics card drivers ( new and old ) , I 've tried forcing the OS to run at a given resolution , and I 've tried PowerStrip , all to no avail .
Short of writing a new , modern engine for my favorite games , is there a reasonable solution to this problem ?
" There have been many community-supported graphical overhauls of classic games    feel free to share any you know to work well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>75th Trombone writes "I'm a fan of several old PC games — the Myst series, StarCraft, Diablo, etc — with 2D graphics that run at a low, fixed resolution.
These games all look horrible on modern LCDs.
If you run them at their original resolution, they're tiny, and if you upscale them they get all sorts of blurry, pixelly smoothing artifacts.
My ideal goal is to run these games at exactly double their original resolution — running 640 x 480 games at 1280 x 960, for example — so that each original pixel takes up exactly a 2 x 2 block of screen pixels, yielding graphics that are perfectly crisp and decently big.
I've tried arcane settings in graphics card drivers (new and old), I've tried forcing the OS to run at a given resolution, and I've tried PowerStrip, all to no avail.
Short of writing a new, modern engine for my favorite games, is there a reasonable solution to this problem?
"
There have been many community-supported graphical overhauls of classic games — feel free to share any you know to work well.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127106</id>
	<title>Blocky scaleup</title>
	<author>sfraggle</author>
	<datestamp>1258453680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm the author of <a href="http://www.chocolate-doom.org/" title="chocolate-doom.org">Chocolate Doom</a> [chocolate-doom.org], which deliberately maintains the low resolution of the original game, but has to run in modern, high resolution screen modes.  One of the problems with Doom is that the graphics are designed for non-square pixel modes (the original game ran in 320x200, stretched to a 4:3 aspect ratio screen), so there's the double problem of having to scale everything up to work in a square pixel screen.</p><p>I developed a <a href="http://www.chocolate-doom.org/wiki/index.php/Screen\_resolution" title="chocolate-doom.org">technique</a> [chocolate-doom.org] that does a blocky scale-up, interpolating the edges of the blocky "pixels" appropriately, so that you end up with a <a href="http://www.chocolate-doom.org/wiki/index.php/Image:800x480.png" title="chocolate-doom.org">fairly decent looking result</a> [chocolate-doom.org].  I don't know if this is useful to the developers of programs like DOSBox, but <a href="https://chocolate-doom.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/chocolate-doom/trunk/chocolate-doom/src/i\_scale.c" title="sourceforge.net">the code's there</a> [sourceforge.net] if anyone wants it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the author of Chocolate Doom [ chocolate-doom.org ] , which deliberately maintains the low resolution of the original game , but has to run in modern , high resolution screen modes .
One of the problems with Doom is that the graphics are designed for non-square pixel modes ( the original game ran in 320x200 , stretched to a 4 : 3 aspect ratio screen ) , so there 's the double problem of having to scale everything up to work in a square pixel screen.I developed a technique [ chocolate-doom.org ] that does a blocky scale-up , interpolating the edges of the blocky " pixels " appropriately , so that you end up with a fairly decent looking result [ chocolate-doom.org ] .
I do n't know if this is useful to the developers of programs like DOSBox , but the code 's there [ sourceforge.net ] if anyone wants it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the author of Chocolate Doom [chocolate-doom.org], which deliberately maintains the low resolution of the original game, but has to run in modern, high resolution screen modes.
One of the problems with Doom is that the graphics are designed for non-square pixel modes (the original game ran in 320x200, stretched to a 4:3 aspect ratio screen), so there's the double problem of having to scale everything up to work in a square pixel screen.I developed a technique [chocolate-doom.org] that does a blocky scale-up, interpolating the edges of the blocky "pixels" appropriately, so that you end up with a fairly decent looking result [chocolate-doom.org].
I don't know if this is useful to the developers of programs like DOSBox, but the code's there [sourceforge.net] if anyone wants it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129322</id>
	<title>Re:Concerning Myst</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1258475460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, just to point this out for anyone who hasn't tried it yet -- RealMyst isn't up to much.  The controls just feel clunky as hell.  There was something about the original game that was balanced (the click-to-move screen-by-screen display) that RealMyst doesn't capture right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , just to point this out for anyone who has n't tried it yet -- RealMyst is n't up to much .
The controls just feel clunky as hell .
There was something about the original game that was balanced ( the click-to-move screen-by-screen display ) that RealMyst does n't capture right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, just to point this out for anyone who hasn't tried it yet -- RealMyst isn't up to much.
The controls just feel clunky as hell.
There was something about the original game that was balanced (the click-to-move screen-by-screen display) that RealMyst doesn't capture right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128014</id>
	<title>Re:many (not all) modern LCDs don't scale ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258467780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dell 2005, best monitor ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dell 2005 , best monitor ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dell 2005, best monitor ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131322</id>
	<title>How I make old games look good on LCDs</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1258484040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Get Dosbox<br>2. Adjust the config file for a 2xhq filter plugin, set resolution.<br>3. Run game.</p><p>Anyone that's used emulators can tell you the HUGE difference a good quality filter can make for LCD gaming at low-res. Super 2XSAI or Super Eagle, for example, are well-known and awesome filters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Get Dosbox2 .
Adjust the config file for a 2xhq filter plugin , set resolution.3 .
Run game.Anyone that 's used emulators can tell you the HUGE difference a good quality filter can make for LCD gaming at low-res .
Super 2XSAI or Super Eagle , for example , are well-known and awesome filters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Get Dosbox2.
Adjust the config file for a 2xhq filter plugin, set resolution.3.
Run game.Anyone that's used emulators can tell you the HUGE difference a good quality filter can make for LCD gaming at low-res.
Super 2XSAI or Super Eagle, for example, are well-known and awesome filters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127246</id>
	<title>NSFW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258456380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bit off topic, but the nfgworld.com story was posted by someone whose avatar is a topless anime character, which is most likely not safe for work for the majority of slashdot's readers (whether you agree it should be or not).</p><p>Luckily I'm at home, but a warning would be nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit off topic , but the nfgworld.com story was posted by someone whose avatar is a topless anime character , which is most likely not safe for work for the majority of slashdot 's readers ( whether you agree it should be or not ) .Luckily I 'm at home , but a warning would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit off topic, but the nfgworld.com story was posted by someone whose avatar is a topless anime character, which is most likely not safe for work for the majority of slashdot's readers (whether you agree it should be or not).Luckily I'm at home, but a warning would be nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30133510</id>
	<title>Re:Blocky scaleup</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1258491180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't see any description of your technique, but I'm guessing you do the equivalent of scaling up to say 100x, using nearest-neighbor (no interpolation), then scale back down to the target size using linear interpolation (basically just a moving-average filter). You can do this in Photoshop as described, though a practical implementation would obviously not actually do such wasteful steps.

</p><p>Using the above to scale 0,2,2,0 by 3.5x results in 0,0,0,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,0 rather than the blurry mess straight linear upscaling would yield. This is the approach if you the original material was displayed with crisp rectangular/square pixels (as 320x200 would appear on most graphics card, where the card itself doubled pixels because the CRT couldn't handle such a low resolution natively), but not if it were displayed with typical CRT pixels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't see any description of your technique , but I 'm guessing you do the equivalent of scaling up to say 100x , using nearest-neighbor ( no interpolation ) , then scale back down to the target size using linear interpolation ( basically just a moving-average filter ) .
You can do this in Photoshop as described , though a practical implementation would obviously not actually do such wasteful steps .
Using the above to scale 0,2,2,0 by 3.5x results in 0,0,0,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,0 rather than the blurry mess straight linear upscaling would yield .
This is the approach if you the original material was displayed with crisp rectangular/square pixels ( as 320x200 would appear on most graphics card , where the card itself doubled pixels because the CRT could n't handle such a low resolution natively ) , but not if it were displayed with typical CRT pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't see any description of your technique, but I'm guessing you do the equivalent of scaling up to say 100x, using nearest-neighbor (no interpolation), then scale back down to the target size using linear interpolation (basically just a moving-average filter).
You can do this in Photoshop as described, though a practical implementation would obviously not actually do such wasteful steps.
Using the above to scale 0,2,2,0 by 3.5x results in 0,0,0,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,0 rather than the blurry mess straight linear upscaling would yield.
This is the approach if you the original material was displayed with crisp rectangular/square pixels (as 320x200 would appear on most graphics card, where the card itself doubled pixels because the CRT couldn't handle such a low resolution natively), but not if it were displayed with typical CRT pixels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126590</id>
	<title>RealMYST</title>
	<author>gehrehmee</author>
	<datestamp>1258488900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For Myst anyways, RealMyst impressed me. Actual 3d models of the puzzles, so you walk where you want. Totally playable in my opinion, and they managed to make it not distract much from the puzzles and art of the thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For Myst anyways , RealMyst impressed me .
Actual 3d models of the puzzles , so you walk where you want .
Totally playable in my opinion , and they managed to make it not distract much from the puzzles and art of the thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Myst anyways, RealMyst impressed me.
Actual 3d models of the puzzles, so you walk where you want.
Totally playable in my opinion, and they managed to make it not distract much from the puzzles and art of the thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129374</id>
	<title>Re:software scaling</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1258475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, NVIDIA scaling <i>always</i> makes things blurry.  Even on my old 1280x1024, whenever I used fixed aspect ratios on a 640x480 game it, it would give me a 1280x960 image with tons of blurring.  Fixed aspect ratio on a 1280x960 game (Morrowind) worked perfectly though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>The monitor's own scaling was better, and my current 1920x1080 monitor is even better than that, but there is still smearing with the monitor's own fixed aspect ratio.  And NVIDIA insists on treating <i>this</i> monitor as an HDTV, so I don't even have the option changing/disabling flat panel scaling in the drivers.  Jumping through hoops I can disable it for resolutions of 1024x768 or lower only....</p><p><a href="http://www.brothersoft.com/d3dwindower-238977.html" title="brothersoft.com">Direct 3D Windower</a> [brothersoft.com] was recommended to me, but I couldn't get it to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , NVIDIA scaling always makes things blurry .
Even on my old 1280x1024 , whenever I used fixed aspect ratios on a 640x480 game it , it would give me a 1280x960 image with tons of blurring .
Fixed aspect ratio on a 1280x960 game ( Morrowind ) worked perfectly though : ) The monitor 's own scaling was better , and my current 1920x1080 monitor is even better than that , but there is still smearing with the monitor 's own fixed aspect ratio .
And NVIDIA insists on treating this monitor as an HDTV , so I do n't even have the option changing/disabling flat panel scaling in the drivers .
Jumping through hoops I can disable it for resolutions of 1024x768 or lower only....Direct 3D Windower [ brothersoft.com ] was recommended to me , but I could n't get it to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, NVIDIA scaling always makes things blurry.
Even on my old 1280x1024, whenever I used fixed aspect ratios on a 640x480 game it, it would give me a 1280x960 image with tons of blurring.
Fixed aspect ratio on a 1280x960 game (Morrowind) worked perfectly though :)The monitor's own scaling was better, and my current 1920x1080 monitor is even better than that, but there is still smearing with the monitor's own fixed aspect ratio.
And NVIDIA insists on treating this monitor as an HDTV, so I don't even have the option changing/disabling flat panel scaling in the drivers.
Jumping through hoops I can disable it for resolutions of 1024x768 or lower only....Direct 3D Windower [brothersoft.com] was recommended to me, but I couldn't get it to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127236</id>
	<title>Cheap solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258456260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try squinting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try squinting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try squinting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128566</id>
	<title>double? no! quadruple!</title>
	<author>Mishotaki</author>
	<datestamp>1258471920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to make a 1x1 square become 2x2 you have to quadruple it's resolution... </p><p>Making your 640x480 a whooping 2560x1920</p><p>Much more than what most LCD screens offer...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to make a 1x1 square become 2x2 you have to quadruple it 's resolution... Making your 640x480 a whooping 2560x1920Much more than what most LCD screens offer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to make a 1x1 square become 2x2 you have to quadruple it's resolution... Making your 640x480 a whooping 2560x1920Much more than what most LCD screens offer...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127070</id>
	<title>Install Win 95/98 on Dosbox and use Dosbox scaling</title>
	<author>Scaevus</author>
	<datestamp>1258453140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The games you are asking work well in Windows 98 so you can install Windows 98 on Dosbox just like any other dos application and then install Starcraft, Diablo, etc. on this "virtual Windows" and let Dosbox do the scaling for you. For Dosbox, it's just only another app so I don't expect any problems with the scaling.

I am not sure about the performance but it's worth a try. (You can also try this with windows 95 for better performance.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The games you are asking work well in Windows 98 so you can install Windows 98 on Dosbox just like any other dos application and then install Starcraft , Diablo , etc .
on this " virtual Windows " and let Dosbox do the scaling for you .
For Dosbox , it 's just only another app so I do n't expect any problems with the scaling .
I am not sure about the performance but it 's worth a try .
( You can also try this with windows 95 for better performance .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The games you are asking work well in Windows 98 so you can install Windows 98 on Dosbox just like any other dos application and then install Starcraft, Diablo, etc.
on this "virtual Windows" and let Dosbox do the scaling for you.
For Dosbox, it's just only another app so I don't expect any problems with the scaling.
I am not sure about the performance but it's worth a try.
(You can also try this with windows 95 for better performance.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127016</id>
	<title>Try this</title>
	<author>jlebrech</author>
	<datestamp>1258452120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://scale2x.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">http://scale2x.sourceforge.net/</a> [sourceforge.net]</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel\_art\_scaling\_algorithms" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel\_art\_scaling\_algorithms</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //scale2x.sourceforge.net/ [ sourceforge.net ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel \ _art \ _scaling \ _algorithms [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://scale2x.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel\_art\_scaling\_algorithms [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30134414</id>
	<title>Crisp, yet blocky on DosBox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't know if this has been covered or not, but I find most dos based games can be displayed rather well on your LCD's optimal (desktop) resolution using DosBox. The key is to edit several variables in the dosbox.conf file. Set "fullresolution" to your LCD's optimal resolution, set the "scaler = none" and then set "ouput = openglnb" so the output device is using opengl without bilinear filtering. This way the scaling capabilities of the opengl libraries and your video card are used (which usually amounts to "big large pixels") In this way you can still get the blocky dos look of the games and yet retain the crispness of your LCD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know if this has been covered or not , but I find most dos based games can be displayed rather well on your LCD 's optimal ( desktop ) resolution using DosBox .
The key is to edit several variables in the dosbox.conf file .
Set " fullresolution " to your LCD 's optimal resolution , set the " scaler = none " and then set " ouput = openglnb " so the output device is using opengl without bilinear filtering .
This way the scaling capabilities of the opengl libraries and your video card are used ( which usually amounts to " big large pixels " ) In this way you can still get the blocky dos look of the games and yet retain the crispness of your LCD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know if this has been covered or not, but I find most dos based games can be displayed rather well on your LCD's optimal (desktop) resolution using DosBox.
The key is to edit several variables in the dosbox.conf file.
Set "fullresolution" to your LCD's optimal resolution, set the "scaler = none" and then set "ouput = openglnb" so the output device is using opengl without bilinear filtering.
This way the scaling capabilities of the opengl libraries and your video card are used (which usually amounts to "big large pixels") In this way you can still get the blocky dos look of the games and yet retain the crispness of your LCD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129354</id>
	<title>Re:Try a screen magnifier.</title>
	<author>zoloto</author>
	<datestamp>1258475580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those of you with a Mac, I haven't tried this in OS X yet, but you can scale application window sizes. Run starcraft in windowed mode (cmd + M) after trying this in the terminal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app/<br><br>"defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.78"<br><br>This is global so all new applications launched will be at 78\% of their original size. You can do it per application with this: "defaults write com.apple.iTunes AppleDisplayScaleFactor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.78"<br><br>Find whatever the settings file is (ie: com.blizzard.starcraft) and you can run starcraft in a 640x480 window, but magnified.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you with a Mac , I have n't tried this in OS X yet , but you can scale application window sizes .
Run starcraft in windowed mode ( cmd + M ) after trying this in the terminal /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app/ " defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor .78 " This is global so all new applications launched will be at 78 \ % of their original size .
You can do it per application with this : " defaults write com.apple.iTunes AppleDisplayScaleFactor .78 " Find whatever the settings file is ( ie : com.blizzard.starcraft ) and you can run starcraft in a 640x480 window , but magnified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you with a Mac, I haven't tried this in OS X yet, but you can scale application window sizes.
Run starcraft in windowed mode (cmd + M) after trying this in the terminal /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app/"defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor .78"This is global so all new applications launched will be at 78\% of their original size.
You can do it per application with this: "defaults write com.apple.iTunes AppleDisplayScaleFactor .78"Find whatever the settings file is (ie: com.blizzard.starcraft) and you can run starcraft in a 640x480 window, but magnified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128180</id>
	<title>Re:My comments on the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258469280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Heh, this story could almost have written by me.  It's the reason I held out so long on getting an LCD instead, and why I have my beloved Samsung CRT sitting still in the loft.</p><p>I was actually quite surprised that ZSNES at 640x480 fullscreen mode, whilst there is a small noticeable interpolation effect, looked quite good.  Perfectly playable once you have the graphics being displayed... I almost forget I'm not on a CRT.</p><p>What has been a problem, though, is fast movement.  This seems to be a problem inherent to LCDs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(  Try emulating Sonic 1 (MegaDrive/Genesis) on a CRT vs an LCD.  On the CRT, no problems.  On the LCD, the rings in particular look fainter, and darker... well, everything seems to look a bit darker as you're running.  I guess this is a small form of ghosting, and I don't think there's any way to get round it on an LCD.  Any tips would be appreciated.  But, I'd say that if you wanna play Sonic or the like, use a CRT.</p><p>By the way, I'm using an NEC MultiSync EA191M.</p></div><p>NEC MultiSync EA191M is a relatively older lcd monitor, the contrast ratio on that is 1500:1 which is a little low. But your ghosting is from the 25ms response time on the monitor.</p><p>I am running an LG 19inch that has a 20,000:1 contrast ratio and a 2ms response time.  ( the new one they just came out with has a 50,000:1 )</p><p>I have vivid colors, bright whites, and dark blacks. I can watch movies and play games with no ghosting or artifacting.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , this story could almost have written by me .
It 's the reason I held out so long on getting an LCD instead , and why I have my beloved Samsung CRT sitting still in the loft.I was actually quite surprised that ZSNES at 640x480 fullscreen mode , whilst there is a small noticeable interpolation effect , looked quite good .
Perfectly playable once you have the graphics being displayed... I almost forget I 'm not on a CRT.What has been a problem , though , is fast movement .
This seems to be a problem inherent to LCDs .
: - ( Try emulating Sonic 1 ( MegaDrive/Genesis ) on a CRT vs an LCD .
On the CRT , no problems .
On the LCD , the rings in particular look fainter , and darker... well , everything seems to look a bit darker as you 're running .
I guess this is a small form of ghosting , and I do n't think there 's any way to get round it on an LCD .
Any tips would be appreciated .
But , I 'd say that if you wan na play Sonic or the like , use a CRT.By the way , I 'm using an NEC MultiSync EA191M.NEC MultiSync EA191M is a relatively older lcd monitor , the contrast ratio on that is 1500 : 1 which is a little low .
But your ghosting is from the 25ms response time on the monitor.I am running an LG 19inch that has a 20,000 : 1 contrast ratio and a 2ms response time .
( the new one they just came out with has a 50,000 : 1 ) I have vivid colors , bright whites , and dark blacks .
I can watch movies and play games with no ghosting or artifacting .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, this story could almost have written by me.
It's the reason I held out so long on getting an LCD instead, and why I have my beloved Samsung CRT sitting still in the loft.I was actually quite surprised that ZSNES at 640x480 fullscreen mode, whilst there is a small noticeable interpolation effect, looked quite good.
Perfectly playable once you have the graphics being displayed... I almost forget I'm not on a CRT.What has been a problem, though, is fast movement.
This seems to be a problem inherent to LCDs.
:-(  Try emulating Sonic 1 (MegaDrive/Genesis) on a CRT vs an LCD.
On the CRT, no problems.
On the LCD, the rings in particular look fainter, and darker... well, everything seems to look a bit darker as you're running.
I guess this is a small form of ghosting, and I don't think there's any way to get round it on an LCD.
Any tips would be appreciated.
But, I'd say that if you wanna play Sonic or the like, use a CRT.By the way, I'm using an NEC MultiSync EA191M.NEC MultiSync EA191M is a relatively older lcd monitor, the contrast ratio on that is 1500:1 which is a little low.
But your ghosting is from the 25ms response time on the monitor.I am running an LG 19inch that has a 20,000:1 contrast ratio and a 2ms response time.
( the new one they just came out with has a 50,000:1 )I have vivid colors, bright whites, and dark blacks.
I can watch movies and play games with no ghosting or artifacting.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131972</id>
	<title>Re:many (not all) modern LCDs don't scale ...</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258486020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It looks as though LCDs have become like "winmodem"s or super cheap ink-jet printers, which rely on the host system to do anything useful with an image, in order to cut the price to a minimum.</i></p><p>Isn't that what they're supposed to do?  Monitors have always been dumb devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks as though LCDs have become like " winmodem " s or super cheap ink-jet printers , which rely on the host system to do anything useful with an image , in order to cut the price to a minimum.Is n't that what they 're supposed to do ?
Monitors have always been dumb devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks as though LCDs have become like "winmodem"s or super cheap ink-jet printers, which rely on the host system to do anything useful with an image, in order to cut the price to a minimum.Isn't that what they're supposed to do?
Monitors have always been dumb devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129144</id>
	<title>Best quality, Best reputation , Best services,look</title>
	<author>coolforsale136</author>
	<datestamp>1258474740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]    Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God.Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Best quality , Best reputation , Best services Our commitment , customer is God.Quality is our Dignity ; Service is our Lift.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]    Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God.Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996</id>
	<title>many (not all) modern LCDs don't scale ...</title>
	<author>dltaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1258451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Samsung 191T that I bought for my wife many years ago.  One of my test criteria was that it should display well at other-than-native (1280x1024) resolution.  Star Craft looks quite good on it.  I recently returned a 1920x1200 LCD because it couldn't even handle 800x600 (literally complaining in a big box, center screen, that the signal was out of range while displaying the image).</p><p>It looks as though LCDs have become like "winmodem"s or super cheap ink-jet printers, which rely on the host system to do anything useful with an image, in order to cut the price to a minimum.</p><p>Anyone know of an LCD (particularly 24" 1920x{1080,1200} that isn't junk at other than native resolution?</p><p>I've seen that some GPUs have scaling drivers; maybe that would work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Samsung 191T that I bought for my wife many years ago .
One of my test criteria was that it should display well at other-than-native ( 1280x1024 ) resolution .
Star Craft looks quite good on it .
I recently returned a 1920x1200 LCD because it could n't even handle 800x600 ( literally complaining in a big box , center screen , that the signal was out of range while displaying the image ) .It looks as though LCDs have become like " winmodem " s or super cheap ink-jet printers , which rely on the host system to do anything useful with an image , in order to cut the price to a minimum.Anyone know of an LCD ( particularly 24 " 1920x { 1080,1200 } that is n't junk at other than native resolution ? I 've seen that some GPUs have scaling drivers ; maybe that would work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Samsung 191T that I bought for my wife many years ago.
One of my test criteria was that it should display well at other-than-native (1280x1024) resolution.
Star Craft looks quite good on it.
I recently returned a 1920x1200 LCD because it couldn't even handle 800x600 (literally complaining in a big box, center screen, that the signal was out of range while displaying the image).It looks as though LCDs have become like "winmodem"s or super cheap ink-jet printers, which rely on the host system to do anything useful with an image, in order to cut the price to a minimum.Anyone know of an LCD (particularly 24" 1920x{1080,1200} that isn't junk at other than native resolution?I've seen that some GPUs have scaling drivers; maybe that would work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127164</id>
	<title>My comments on the issue...</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1258454760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, this story could almost have written by me.  It's the reason I held out so long on getting an LCD instead, and why I have my beloved Samsung CRT sitting still in the loft.</p><p>I was actually quite surprised that ZSNES at 640x480 fullscreen mode, whilst there is a small noticeable interpolation effect, looked quite good.  Perfectly playable once you have the graphics being displayed... I almost forget I'm not on a CRT.</p><p>What has been a problem, though, is fast movement.  This seems to be a problem inherent to LCDs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(  Try emulating Sonic 1 (MegaDrive/Genesis) on a CRT vs an LCD.  On the CRT, no problems.  On the LCD, the rings in particular look fainter, and darker... well, everything seems to look a bit darker as you're running.  I guess this is a small form of ghosting, and I don't think there's any way to get round it on an LCD.  Any tips would be appreciated.  But, I'd say that if you wanna play Sonic or the like, use a CRT.</p><p>By the way, I'm using an NEC MultiSync EA191M.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , this story could almost have written by me .
It 's the reason I held out so long on getting an LCD instead , and why I have my beloved Samsung CRT sitting still in the loft.I was actually quite surprised that ZSNES at 640x480 fullscreen mode , whilst there is a small noticeable interpolation effect , looked quite good .
Perfectly playable once you have the graphics being displayed... I almost forget I 'm not on a CRT.What has been a problem , though , is fast movement .
This seems to be a problem inherent to LCDs .
: - ( Try emulating Sonic 1 ( MegaDrive/Genesis ) on a CRT vs an LCD .
On the CRT , no problems .
On the LCD , the rings in particular look fainter , and darker... well , everything seems to look a bit darker as you 're running .
I guess this is a small form of ghosting , and I do n't think there 's any way to get round it on an LCD .
Any tips would be appreciated .
But , I 'd say that if you wan na play Sonic or the like , use a CRT.By the way , I 'm using an NEC MultiSync EA191M .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, this story could almost have written by me.
It's the reason I held out so long on getting an LCD instead, and why I have my beloved Samsung CRT sitting still in the loft.I was actually quite surprised that ZSNES at 640x480 fullscreen mode, whilst there is a small noticeable interpolation effect, looked quite good.
Perfectly playable once you have the graphics being displayed... I almost forget I'm not on a CRT.What has been a problem, though, is fast movement.
This seems to be a problem inherent to LCDs.
:-(  Try emulating Sonic 1 (MegaDrive/Genesis) on a CRT vs an LCD.
On the CRT, no problems.
On the LCD, the rings in particular look fainter, and darker... well, everything seems to look a bit darker as you're running.
I guess this is a small form of ghosting, and I don't think there's any way to get round it on an LCD.
Any tips would be appreciated.
But, I'd say that if you wanna play Sonic or the like, use a CRT.By the way, I'm using an NEC MultiSync EA191M.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30135224</id>
	<title>Re:double? no! quadruple!</title>
	<author>shinobiX</author>
	<datestamp>1258453680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>going from 1x1 to 2x2 is indeed quadruple the resolution,  its still only 2x2, not 4x4, 1280x960 is quadruple the resolution of 640x480 and available on most lcd monitors, he just wants to double the width and hight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>going from 1x1 to 2x2 is indeed quadruple the resolution , its still only 2x2 , not 4x4 , 1280x960 is quadruple the resolution of 640x480 and available on most lcd monitors , he just wants to double the width and hight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>going from 1x1 to 2x2 is indeed quadruple the resolution,  its still only 2x2, not 4x4, 1280x960 is quadruple the resolution of 640x480 and available on most lcd monitors, he just wants to double the width and hight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129048</id>
	<title>Re:double? no! quadruple!</title>
	<author>gauauu</author>
	<datestamp>1258474200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>to make a 1x1 square become 2x2 you have to quadruple it's resolution...</i></p><p><i>Making your 640x480 a whooping 2560x1920</i></p><p>Um, no.  Check your math.  To go from 1x1 to 2x2 you are doubling in each dimension, making 4 times as many pixels.</p><p>Going from 640x480 to 2560x1920, you are quadrupling in each dimension, making 16 times as many pixels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to make a 1x1 square become 2x2 you have to quadruple it 's resolution...Making your 640x480 a whooping 2560x1920Um , no .
Check your math .
To go from 1x1 to 2x2 you are doubling in each dimension , making 4 times as many pixels.Going from 640x480 to 2560x1920 , you are quadrupling in each dimension , making 16 times as many pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to make a 1x1 square become 2x2 you have to quadruple it's resolution...Making your 640x480 a whooping 2560x1920Um, no.
Check your math.
To go from 1x1 to 2x2 you are doubling in each dimension, making 4 times as many pixels.Going from 640x480 to 2560x1920, you are quadrupling in each dimension, making 16 times as many pixels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127462</id>
	<title>XScreenSaver has this</title>
	<author>spydir31</author>
	<datestamp>1258459440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called xanalogtv, it's also used by the Pong and Apple2 hacks</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called xanalogtv , it 's also used by the Pong and Apple2 hacks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called xanalogtv, it's also used by the Pong and Apple2 hacks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127870</id>
	<title>Re:2xSal or hqx in a gpu driver?</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1258466400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory, you should be able to modify the open source drivers to implement any scaling algorithm that can be implemented as a pixel shader, though it'd probably be a pain to do. (The normal scaling is implemented in fixed function hardware, and is also therefore rather faster.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , you should be able to modify the open source drivers to implement any scaling algorithm that can be implemented as a pixel shader , though it 'd probably be a pain to do .
( The normal scaling is implemented in fixed function hardware , and is also therefore rather faster .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, you should be able to modify the open source drivers to implement any scaling algorithm that can be implemented as a pixel shader, though it'd probably be a pain to do.
(The normal scaling is implemented in fixed function hardware, and is also therefore rather faster.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129668</id>
	<title>Use battle.net</title>
	<author>Danyel</author>
	<datestamp>1258476780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For Starcraft and Diablo 2 you can register your keys at us.battle.net to get access to the latest versions of those titles available for download for Mac and PC for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For Starcraft and Diablo 2 you can register your keys at us.battle.net to get access to the latest versions of those titles available for download for Mac and PC for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Starcraft and Diablo 2 you can register your keys at us.battle.net to get access to the latest versions of those titles available for download for Mac and PC for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130374</id>
	<title>CRTs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258479780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also the smearing effect created by the old analog glass tube monitors/TVs which have NEVER been "well" replicated on modern LCDs(any type).  Many OLD games for OLD systems relied on that effect to create a "better" (maybe color effects, etc.) overall image.  I'd also hazard that with video it also provided a free smoothing filter. (I never really looked at this, so I'm pulling this one out of my --- but it seems likely.)</p><p>Another problem with LCDs is that sometimes the response time of the monitor's "pixels" still aren't quite up to every task -&gt; ghosting, of course that MAY be useful for video... but not games...</p><p>The problem that I have with dosbox and it scalers &amp; filters is that half the time that they don't seem to work(at all -- usually with a message about falling back to one of the normalQWRx methods), and coupled with that, that dosbox is just poorly documented or at least in the small amount of time that I spent looking up info on games/settings/etc.  I usually turn up more forum hits than anything, and the few FAQs/dox are mostly useless.</p><p>OTOH I still have a nice 19" CRT Trinitron monitor, but have been lately thinking how nice it would be to replace it with a 19" or so LCD and get all that space back.  (No interest in running multiple monitors even if I really had the room for them.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also the smearing effect created by the old analog glass tube monitors/TVs which have NEVER been " well " replicated on modern LCDs ( any type ) .
Many OLD games for OLD systems relied on that effect to create a " better " ( maybe color effects , etc .
) overall image .
I 'd also hazard that with video it also provided a free smoothing filter .
( I never really looked at this , so I 'm pulling this one out of my --- but it seems likely .
) Another problem with LCDs is that sometimes the response time of the monitor 's " pixels " still are n't quite up to every task - &gt; ghosting , of course that MAY be useful for video... but not games...The problem that I have with dosbox and it scalers &amp; filters is that half the time that they do n't seem to work ( at all -- usually with a message about falling back to one of the normalQWRx methods ) , and coupled with that , that dosbox is just poorly documented or at least in the small amount of time that I spent looking up info on games/settings/etc .
I usually turn up more forum hits than anything , and the few FAQs/dox are mostly useless.OTOH I still have a nice 19 " CRT Trinitron monitor , but have been lately thinking how nice it would be to replace it with a 19 " or so LCD and get all that space back .
( No interest in running multiple monitors even if I really had the room for them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also the smearing effect created by the old analog glass tube monitors/TVs which have NEVER been "well" replicated on modern LCDs(any type).
Many OLD games for OLD systems relied on that effect to create a "better" (maybe color effects, etc.
) overall image.
I'd also hazard that with video it also provided a free smoothing filter.
(I never really looked at this, so I'm pulling this one out of my --- but it seems likely.
)Another problem with LCDs is that sometimes the response time of the monitor's "pixels" still aren't quite up to every task -&gt; ghosting, of course that MAY be useful for video... but not games...The problem that I have with dosbox and it scalers &amp; filters is that half the time that they don't seem to work(at all -- usually with a message about falling back to one of the normalQWRx methods), and coupled with that, that dosbox is just poorly documented or at least in the small amount of time that I spent looking up info on games/settings/etc.
I usually turn up more forum hits than anything, and the few FAQs/dox are mostly useless.OTOH I still have a nice 19" CRT Trinitron monitor, but have been lately thinking how nice it would be to replace it with a 19" or so LCD and get all that space back.
(No interest in running multiple monitors even if I really had the room for them.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30140644</id>
	<title>DosBox...</title>
	<author>p77gin</author>
	<datestamp>1257105960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>try this: <a href="http://www.dosbox.com/" title="dosbox.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dosbox.com/</a> [dosbox.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>try this : http : //www.dosbox.com/ [ dosbox.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try this: http://www.dosbox.com/ [dosbox.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30146376</id>
	<title>it's all in hardware upscale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello,</p><p>Best advice I could give is run the video games in fullscreen in their native resolution, say 640x480.<br>The trick comes in the LCD monitor itself, get a LCD monitor that is known to upscale well, the genius has been spent not in software but firmware and hardware upscaling. You can typically set the monitor to keep the aspect ratio as well to avoid widening it.</p><p>And while I am thinking about it just set up an old pc with an old lcd monitor I have a 15 inch philips lcd at 1024x768 works wonders for old games<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) makes quake 3 look awesome, textures don't look blurry.</p><p>There is also a physical box upscaler you could buy, basically a black box, plug in vga output to hdmi or whatnot, flip it on when needed to turn 640x480 to 1280x960 or whatnot.</p><p>fun research<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_scaler</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello,Best advice I could give is run the video games in fullscreen in their native resolution , say 640x480.The trick comes in the LCD monitor itself , get a LCD monitor that is known to upscale well , the genius has been spent not in software but firmware and hardware upscaling .
You can typically set the monitor to keep the aspect ratio as well to avoid widening it.And while I am thinking about it just set up an old pc with an old lcd monitor I have a 15 inch philips lcd at 1024x768 works wonders for old games : ) makes quake 3 look awesome , textures do n't look blurry.There is also a physical box upscaler you could buy , basically a black box , plug in vga output to hdmi or whatnot , flip it on when needed to turn 640x480 to 1280x960 or whatnot.fun research : ) http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video \ _scaler</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello,Best advice I could give is run the video games in fullscreen in their native resolution, say 640x480.The trick comes in the LCD monitor itself, get a LCD monitor that is known to upscale well, the genius has been spent not in software but firmware and hardware upscaling.
You can typically set the monitor to keep the aspect ratio as well to avoid widening it.And while I am thinking about it just set up an old pc with an old lcd monitor I have a 15 inch philips lcd at 1024x768 works wonders for old games :) makes quake 3 look awesome, textures don't look blurry.There is also a physical box upscaler you could buy, basically a black box, plug in vga output to hdmi or whatnot, flip it on when needed to turn 640x480 to 1280x960 or whatnot.fun research :)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_scaler</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129008</id>
	<title>Reminds me of another world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258473900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another World doesn't have these problems, because all of the art is vector based. It's too bad more things aren't future proofed by design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another World does n't have these problems , because all of the art is vector based .
It 's too bad more things are n't future proofed by design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another World doesn't have these problems, because all of the art is vector based.
It's too bad more things aren't future proofed by design.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130350</id>
	<title>Re:RealMYST</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1258479660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely loved the demo of RealMYST.  Unfortunately, they took it off the market too soon.  Now you are lucky to find a used copy for under $50.  You don't want to see the blown up graphics from the original MYST anyway - 256-color renders!  At least get MYST Masterpiece Edition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely loved the demo of RealMYST .
Unfortunately , they took it off the market too soon .
Now you are lucky to find a used copy for under $ 50 .
You do n't want to see the blown up graphics from the original MYST anyway - 256-color renders !
At least get MYST Masterpiece Edition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely loved the demo of RealMYST.
Unfortunately, they took it off the market too soon.
Now you are lucky to find a used copy for under $50.
You don't want to see the blown up graphics from the original MYST anyway - 256-color renders!
At least get MYST Masterpiece Edition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129680</id>
	<title>The best thing I've found....</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258476840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best I've found is either...
a) windowed mode  or b) set your video card (maybe in the bios) to disable scaling, so that you play it at the original resolution. It's small, but crisp...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best I 've found is either.. . a ) windowed mode or b ) set your video card ( maybe in the bios ) to disable scaling , so that you play it at the original resolution .
It 's small , but crisp.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best I've found is either...
a) windowed mode  or b) set your video card (maybe in the bios) to disable scaling, so that you play it at the original resolution.
It's small, but crisp...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128980</id>
	<title>Re:many (not all) modern LCDs don't scale ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258473780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My hp w2408 offers the option to stretch (fill whole screen), scale (fill vertically, but maintain aspect ratio), or display at 1:1 pixel, centered.  It does a respectable job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My hp w2408 offers the option to stretch ( fill whole screen ) , scale ( fill vertically , but maintain aspect ratio ) , or display at 1 : 1 pixel , centered .
It does a respectable job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hp w2408 offers the option to stretch (fill whole screen), scale (fill vertically, but maintain aspect ratio), or display at 1:1 pixel, centered.
It does a respectable job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126832</id>
	<title>Also, Heroes 3</title>
	<author>ZeRu</author>
	<datestamp>1258449120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would also add Heroes of Might &amp; Magic 3 to the list, one of my favorite games which runs at fixed 800x600 and that looks blurry on my Lenovo L220x. However there is no widescreen solution for that game that I'm aware of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would also add Heroes of Might &amp; Magic 3 to the list , one of my favorite games which runs at fixed 800x600 and that looks blurry on my Lenovo L220x .
However there is no widescreen solution for that game that I 'm aware of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would also add Heroes of Might &amp; Magic 3 to the list, one of my favorite games which runs at fixed 800x600 and that looks blurry on my Lenovo L220x.
However there is no widescreen solution for that game that I'm aware of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127354</id>
	<title>Re:See "Atari Emulation of CRT Effects On LCDs"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258457700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, the "CRT simulation" the Georgia IT folks came up with is complete guesswork. There are good and proper <a href="http://www.fly.net/~ant/libs/ntsc.html" title="fly.net" rel="nofollow">NTSC signal simulation</a> [fly.net] routines by Blargg and I think the latest version of the C64 emulator VICE (2.1) has really good PAL simulation routines. So please stop giving the Georgia IT snakeoil any more publicity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , the " CRT simulation " the Georgia IT folks came up with is complete guesswork .
There are good and proper NTSC signal simulation [ fly.net ] routines by Blargg and I think the latest version of the C64 emulator VICE ( 2.1 ) has really good PAL simulation routines .
So please stop giving the Georgia IT snakeoil any more publicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, the "CRT simulation" the Georgia IT folks came up with is complete guesswork.
There are good and proper NTSC signal simulation [fly.net] routines by Blargg and I think the latest version of the C64 emulator VICE (2.1) has really good PAL simulation routines.
So please stop giving the Georgia IT snakeoil any more publicity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30136940</id>
	<title>I hate LCDs for this reason.....</title>
	<author>ZosX</author>
	<datestamp>1258460280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My laptop is 1280x800, at 14" WXGA is pretty much perfect for my eyes. I think a 1080 display would seem too small at this screensize. That aside, the 9100M drivers I have from nvidia won't scale for some reason. So 640x480 is pretty much letterboxed and tiny. Of course just about every windows game under the sun at least does 1024x768, so that isn't an issue, but games (KOTOR) that use video at a fixed resolution display tiny little youtube like videos. Bummer. The older 178 drivers worked better overall, but were a lot slower. The newer 185 series is great performance wise but scaling is now broken. It just uses the built-in scaler on the screen, which doesn't scale in windows as well. nforce has given me lots of trouble under windows 7, especially with the desktop I use at work. Anything hard drive intensive seems to slow the system to a grinding halt, but it works after a few minutes of disk thrashing. (The drive keeps checking out ok too, so imminent failure seems ruled out) Bad firmware on the drive? Copying a file to a usb HDD immediately results in a BSOD, but flash works ok. Anyone else out there with nforce720 based boards with headaches and windows 7??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My laptop is 1280x800 , at 14 " WXGA is pretty much perfect for my eyes .
I think a 1080 display would seem too small at this screensize .
That aside , the 9100M drivers I have from nvidia wo n't scale for some reason .
So 640x480 is pretty much letterboxed and tiny .
Of course just about every windows game under the sun at least does 1024x768 , so that is n't an issue , but games ( KOTOR ) that use video at a fixed resolution display tiny little youtube like videos .
Bummer. The older 178 drivers worked better overall , but were a lot slower .
The newer 185 series is great performance wise but scaling is now broken .
It just uses the built-in scaler on the screen , which does n't scale in windows as well .
nforce has given me lots of trouble under windows 7 , especially with the desktop I use at work .
Anything hard drive intensive seems to slow the system to a grinding halt , but it works after a few minutes of disk thrashing .
( The drive keeps checking out ok too , so imminent failure seems ruled out ) Bad firmware on the drive ?
Copying a file to a usb HDD immediately results in a BSOD , but flash works ok. Anyone else out there with nforce720 based boards with headaches and windows 7 ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My laptop is 1280x800, at 14" WXGA is pretty much perfect for my eyes.
I think a 1080 display would seem too small at this screensize.
That aside, the 9100M drivers I have from nvidia won't scale for some reason.
So 640x480 is pretty much letterboxed and tiny.
Of course just about every windows game under the sun at least does 1024x768, so that isn't an issue, but games (KOTOR) that use video at a fixed resolution display tiny little youtube like videos.
Bummer. The older 178 drivers worked better overall, but were a lot slower.
The newer 185 series is great performance wise but scaling is now broken.
It just uses the built-in scaler on the screen, which doesn't scale in windows as well.
nforce has given me lots of trouble under windows 7, especially with the desktop I use at work.
Anything hard drive intensive seems to slow the system to a grinding halt, but it works after a few minutes of disk thrashing.
(The drive keeps checking out ok too, so imminent failure seems ruled out) Bad firmware on the drive?
Copying a file to a usb HDD immediately results in a BSOD, but flash works ok. Anyone else out there with nforce720 based boards with headaches and windows 7?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30132210</id>
	<title>A pixel is not a little square</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258486860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Repeat after me: <a href="http://www.alvyray.com/memos/6\_pixel.pdf" title="alvyray.com">A pixel is not a little square</a> [alvyray.com]. CRT monitors reconstruct an image using something closer to a <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ra1lcAwgvq4C&amp;pg=RA1-PA45" title="google.com">gaussian distribution, rather than a crisp rectangular one</a> [google.com] as you'd get if you simply doubled pixels. The graphics of games made when CRTs were common were made on CRTs and thus take advantage of this. The video game console emulation crowd has faced a similar issue, only there it's more than just a CRT; there's also the distortions introduced by the various composite video encoding schemes (color bleed, fringing, artifacts). You might think that removing these distortions would improve the image, but you have to realize that the artists viewed things on the same systems, and thus tailored the art to look good in those circumstances. It's sort of like a web page designer getting a page to look just right in a buggy browser, even though it looks all wrong in one with proper rendering; here you want the buggy browser, at least if you want to see the page as it was intended.

</p><p>The thing that gets me is that a high-resolution LCD could horizontally display exactly what a Trinitron CRT did, as the vertical stripe phosphor pattern matches that on most LCDs. The scaling algorithm would need to simulate the blurred-edge electron beam and mixing between pixels. There would be some sub-pixel action too, as on a CRT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Repeat after me : A pixel is not a little square [ alvyray.com ] .
CRT monitors reconstruct an image using something closer to a gaussian distribution , rather than a crisp rectangular one [ google.com ] as you 'd get if you simply doubled pixels .
The graphics of games made when CRTs were common were made on CRTs and thus take advantage of this .
The video game console emulation crowd has faced a similar issue , only there it 's more than just a CRT ; there 's also the distortions introduced by the various composite video encoding schemes ( color bleed , fringing , artifacts ) .
You might think that removing these distortions would improve the image , but you have to realize that the artists viewed things on the same systems , and thus tailored the art to look good in those circumstances .
It 's sort of like a web page designer getting a page to look just right in a buggy browser , even though it looks all wrong in one with proper rendering ; here you want the buggy browser , at least if you want to see the page as it was intended .
The thing that gets me is that a high-resolution LCD could horizontally display exactly what a Trinitron CRT did , as the vertical stripe phosphor pattern matches that on most LCDs .
The scaling algorithm would need to simulate the blurred-edge electron beam and mixing between pixels .
There would be some sub-pixel action too , as on a CRT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Repeat after me: A pixel is not a little square [alvyray.com].
CRT monitors reconstruct an image using something closer to a gaussian distribution, rather than a crisp rectangular one [google.com] as you'd get if you simply doubled pixels.
The graphics of games made when CRTs were common were made on CRTs and thus take advantage of this.
The video game console emulation crowd has faced a similar issue, only there it's more than just a CRT; there's also the distortions introduced by the various composite video encoding schemes (color bleed, fringing, artifacts).
You might think that removing these distortions would improve the image, but you have to realize that the artists viewed things on the same systems, and thus tailored the art to look good in those circumstances.
It's sort of like a web page designer getting a page to look just right in a buggy browser, even though it looks all wrong in one with proper rendering; here you want the buggy browser, at least if you want to see the page as it was intended.
The thing that gets me is that a high-resolution LCD could horizontally display exactly what a Trinitron CRT did, as the vertical stripe phosphor pattern matches that on most LCDs.
The scaling algorithm would need to simulate the blurred-edge electron beam and mixing between pixels.
There would be some sub-pixel action too, as on a CRT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126836</id>
	<title>Seems like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your LCD must have horrible hardware scaling. 640x480 looks good on my 22" widescreen LCD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your LCD must have horrible hardware scaling .
640x480 looks good on my 22 " widescreen LCD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your LCD must have horrible hardware scaling.
640x480 looks good on my 22" widescreen LCD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30132702</id>
	<title>Get a better monitor</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1258488480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's your monitor's fault it looks bad, get a better monitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's your monitor 's fault it looks bad , get a better monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's your monitor's fault it looks bad, get a better monitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30138312</id>
	<title>Re:software scaling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258468500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nvidia's excellent hardware scalar does not support HDMI monitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nvidia 's excellent hardware scalar does not support HDMI monitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nvidia's excellent hardware scalar does not support HDMI monitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126980</id>
	<title>Wikipedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have a look at this list of recreated game engines:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game\_engine\_recreation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have a look at this list of recreated game engines : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game \ _engine \ _recreation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have a look at this list of recreated game engines:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game\_engine\_recreation</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126794</id>
	<title>GOG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you try looking at Good Old Games?<br>I get all my "oldies" from there, they look good, well just as good as they looked on your old CRT.</p><p>Sylvain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you try looking at Good Old Games ? I get all my " oldies " from there , they look good , well just as good as they looked on your old CRT.Sylvain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you try looking at Good Old Games?I get all my "oldies" from there, they look good, well just as good as they looked on your old CRT.Sylvain</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127402</id>
	<title>Scale2x</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scale2x seems to be a good approach</p><p>http://scale2x.sourceforge.net/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scale2x seems to be a good approachhttp : //scale2x.sourceforge.net/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scale2x seems to be a good approachhttp://scale2x.sourceforge.net/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30133422</id>
	<title>It's called a FIR filter...</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1258490820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
And it has been used for at least a decade, if not longer.  It is quite simple to implement in either hardware or software, and does the job reasonably well.  Unlike some of the other algorithms mentioned, it requires no analysis of the rendered image and runs in constant time.  You can read about it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite\_impulse\_response" title="wikipedia.org"> here</a> [wikipedia.org].
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it has been used for at least a decade , if not longer .
It is quite simple to implement in either hardware or software , and does the job reasonably well .
Unlike some of the other algorithms mentioned , it requires no analysis of the rendered image and runs in constant time .
You can read about it here [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
And it has been used for at least a decade, if not longer.
It is quite simple to implement in either hardware or software, and does the job reasonably well.
Unlike some of the other algorithms mentioned, it requires no analysis of the rendered image and runs in constant time.
You can read about it  here [wikipedia.org].
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126970</id>
	<title>Concerning Myst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're after Myst in particular, there are a number of redone, later editions that support better resolutions and modern operating systems. Check Amazon.</p><p>My favorite is RealMyst, which is a complete 3d recreation of the original game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're after Myst in particular , there are a number of redone , later editions that support better resolutions and modern operating systems .
Check Amazon.My favorite is RealMyst , which is a complete 3d recreation of the original game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're after Myst in particular, there are a number of redone, later editions that support better resolutions and modern operating systems.
Check Amazon.My favorite is RealMyst, which is a complete 3d recreation of the original game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128464</id>
	<title>Re:Diablo 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use that to play Diablo II as well. It works pretty nicely. Failing that, I believe DII has a command line option, -w, to set windowed mode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use that to play Diablo II as well .
It works pretty nicely .
Failing that , I believe DII has a command line option , -w , to set windowed mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use that to play Diablo II as well.
It works pretty nicely.
Failing that, I believe DII has a command line option, -w, to set windowed mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127822</id>
	<title>glide3 to OpenGL wrapper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258465620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the other games but D2 can handle higer resolutions and scaling with the wrapper at<br><a href="http://www.svenswrapper.de/english/index.html" title="svenswrapper.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.svenswrapper.de/english/index.html</a> [svenswrapper.de]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the other games but D2 can handle higer resolutions and scaling with the wrapper athttp : //www.svenswrapper.de/english/index.html [ svenswrapper.de ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the other games but D2 can handle higer resolutions and scaling with the wrapper athttp://www.svenswrapper.de/english/index.html [svenswrapper.de]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126574</id>
	<title>Buy a cheap CRT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258488480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem solved.

<a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/monitors/" title="pricewatch.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pricewatch.com/monitors/</a> [pricewatch.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem solved .
http : //www.pricewatch.com/monitors/ [ pricewatch.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem solved.
http://www.pricewatch.com/monitors/ [pricewatch.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126678</id>
	<title>Re:For DOS games.</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1258489980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DOSbox is indispensable for playing old DOS games anyway. It emulates old platforms, including old hardware, extremely well. And it's a lot less hassle than booting a physical machine into DOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DOSbox is indispensable for playing old DOS games anyway .
It emulates old platforms , including old hardware , extremely well .
And it 's a lot less hassle than booting a physical machine into DOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DOSbox is indispensable for playing old DOS games anyway.
It emulates old platforms, including old hardware, extremely well.
And it's a lot less hassle than booting a physical machine into DOS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130372</id>
	<title>Re:For DOS games.</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1258479780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Myst was also remade as realMyst, with realtime rendering as good as or better than the original stills.  (And a bonus level)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Myst was also remade as realMyst , with realtime rendering as good as or better than the original stills .
( And a bonus level )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myst was also remade as realMyst, with realtime rendering as good as or better than the original stills.
(And a bonus level)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127680</id>
	<title>Hack your monitor</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1258463100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all firmware controlled these days, anyway.  So hack your monitor to teach it new tricks like displaying video in a subset of the actual LCD pixels available.  Blog your results with code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all firmware controlled these days , anyway .
So hack your monitor to teach it new tricks like displaying video in a subset of the actual LCD pixels available .
Blog your results with code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all firmware controlled these days, anyway.
So hack your monitor to teach it new tricks like displaying video in a subset of the actual LCD pixels available.
Blog your results with code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127232</id>
	<title>Hex-Editing and Disassembling</title>
	<author>ScaledLizard</author>
	<datestamp>1258456200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Changing the resolution that the game uses for rendering beats upscaling. This is sometimes possible using some clever hex-editing and disassembling. There are several things to look for; for one thing, find any occurrence of the screen resolution. Also, you will need to know whether the game is based on VESA, DirectX or whatever. For VESA, the INT 10h calls are what you seek. </p><p>Here are some notes of how I did it for MechWarrior 2:<br>
<a href="http://www.mech2.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&amp;t=213" title="mech2.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.mech2.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&amp;t=213</a> [mech2.org] </p><p>The Wikipedia article on VESA BIOS has links to the various VESA APIs:<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VESA\_BIOS\_Extensions" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VESA\_BIOS\_Extensions</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Yes, you need to know about hex-editing and disassembling, but this nerd business. And you may want to consult your lawyer on whether this is legal in your part of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing the resolution that the game uses for rendering beats upscaling .
This is sometimes possible using some clever hex-editing and disassembling .
There are several things to look for ; for one thing , find any occurrence of the screen resolution .
Also , you will need to know whether the game is based on VESA , DirectX or whatever .
For VESA , the INT 10h calls are what you seek .
Here are some notes of how I did it for MechWarrior 2 : http : //www.mech2.org/forum/viewtopic.php ? f = 17&amp;t = 213 [ mech2.org ] The Wikipedia article on VESA BIOS has links to the various VESA APIs : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VESA \ _BIOS \ _Extensions [ wikipedia.org ] Yes , you need to know about hex-editing and disassembling , but this nerd business .
And you may want to consult your lawyer on whether this is legal in your part of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing the resolution that the game uses for rendering beats upscaling.
This is sometimes possible using some clever hex-editing and disassembling.
There are several things to look for; for one thing, find any occurrence of the screen resolution.
Also, you will need to know whether the game is based on VESA, DirectX or whatever.
For VESA, the INT 10h calls are what you seek.
Here are some notes of how I did it for MechWarrior 2:
http://www.mech2.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&amp;t=213 [mech2.org] The Wikipedia article on VESA BIOS has links to the various VESA APIs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VESA\_BIOS\_Extensions [wikipedia.org] Yes, you need to know about hex-editing and disassembling, but this nerd business.
And you may want to consult your lawyer on whether this is legal in your part of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718</id>
	<title>See "Atari Emulation of CRT Effects On LCDs"</title>
	<author>fractalVisionz</author>
	<datestamp>1258490580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"A group at Georgia Institute of Technology has developed a fun little open source program to <a href="http://www.digitallounge.gatech.edu/gaming/index.html?id=2824" title="gatech.edu">emulate the CRT effects to make old Atari games look like they originally did</a> [gatech.edu] when played on modern LCD's and digital displays. Things like color bleed, ghosting, noise, etc. are reproduced to give a more realistic appearance."
<br> <br>
From Slashdot story <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/04/30/163228/Atari-Emulation-of-CRT-Effects-On-LCDs?art\_pos=4" title="slashdot.org">Atari Emulation of CRT Effects On LCDs</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A group at Georgia Institute of Technology has developed a fun little open source program to emulate the CRT effects to make old Atari games look like they originally did [ gatech.edu ] when played on modern LCD 's and digital displays .
Things like color bleed , ghosting , noise , etc .
are reproduced to give a more realistic appearance .
" From Slashdot story Atari Emulation of CRT Effects On LCDs [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A group at Georgia Institute of Technology has developed a fun little open source program to emulate the CRT effects to make old Atari games look like they originally did [gatech.edu] when played on modern LCD's and digital displays.
Things like color bleed, ghosting, noise, etc.
are reproduced to give a more realistic appearance.
"
 
From Slashdot story Atari Emulation of CRT Effects On LCDs [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30152622</id>
	<title>old games need old computers!</title>
	<author>seekertom</author>
	<datestamp>1257092700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't do this unless you want to solve the problem...
use an old pc system. I do. I have several, all different levels of modernization, back to the pc w/ 5 1/4 floppies, and the xt's, and the 186's, 286's, 386's. Each has its own particular strong points, and the games i happen to enjoy, the 2d's like commander keen, xargon, duke nukem etc, run just fine on those systems.
Ya, not everyone has the room or the expertise to keep these babies running. I'm lucky, I guess... I have both. But it's worth it to me not to have to waste time reinventing the wheel.
thanks fer lis'nin'    seekertom</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't do this unless you want to solve the problem.. . use an old pc system .
I do .
I have several , all different levels of modernization , back to the pc w/ 5 1/4 floppies , and the xt 's , and the 186 's , 286 's , 386 's .
Each has its own particular strong points , and the games i happen to enjoy , the 2d 's like commander keen , xargon , duke nukem etc , run just fine on those systems .
Ya , not everyone has the room or the expertise to keep these babies running .
I 'm lucky , I guess... I have both .
But it 's worth it to me not to have to waste time reinventing the wheel .
thanks fer lis'nin ' seekertom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't do this unless you want to solve the problem...
use an old pc system.
I do.
I have several, all different levels of modernization, back to the pc w/ 5 1/4 floppies, and the xt's, and the 186's, 286's, 386's.
Each has its own particular strong points, and the games i happen to enjoy, the 2d's like commander keen, xargon, duke nukem etc, run just fine on those systems.
Ya, not everyone has the room or the expertise to keep these babies running.
I'm lucky, I guess... I have both.
But it's worth it to me not to have to waste time reinventing the wheel.
thanks fer lis'nin'    seekertom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127724</id>
	<title>Remote Desktop</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1258463880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to sound weird, but if your version of Windows supports it, Remote Desktop may solve the problem. You can specify the size of the RD window, and a full-screen application running on the server's remote session will treat that as the maximum display resolution (meaning your graphics card should be able to stretch StarCraft to a 1280x960 RD window happily enough).</p><p>Technically this even works for 3d-accelerated games (the DirectX commands are sent across the network and executed on the client's GPU) but for something as old as StarCraft that won't even matter.</p><p>The catch is that client (non-server) versions of Windows don't allow you to RD from computer X into computer X again, so you'd need to have another computer somewhere with StarCraft installed, preferably located on a LAN.</p><p>Virtualization should also work just fine, especially since there's no risk of 3D acceleration stuff being a problem with games that old. If you have Win7 (Business or higher), you don't even need to install a second copy of Windows yourself; just install Virtual XP mode, have it start in a window (rather than the rootless mode usually used) and set the window's size appropriately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to sound weird , but if your version of Windows supports it , Remote Desktop may solve the problem .
You can specify the size of the RD window , and a full-screen application running on the server 's remote session will treat that as the maximum display resolution ( meaning your graphics card should be able to stretch StarCraft to a 1280x960 RD window happily enough ) .Technically this even works for 3d-accelerated games ( the DirectX commands are sent across the network and executed on the client 's GPU ) but for something as old as StarCraft that wo n't even matter.The catch is that client ( non-server ) versions of Windows do n't allow you to RD from computer X into computer X again , so you 'd need to have another computer somewhere with StarCraft installed , preferably located on a LAN.Virtualization should also work just fine , especially since there 's no risk of 3D acceleration stuff being a problem with games that old .
If you have Win7 ( Business or higher ) , you do n't even need to install a second copy of Windows yourself ; just install Virtual XP mode , have it start in a window ( rather than the rootless mode usually used ) and set the window 's size appropriately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to sound weird, but if your version of Windows supports it, Remote Desktop may solve the problem.
You can specify the size of the RD window, and a full-screen application running on the server's remote session will treat that as the maximum display resolution (meaning your graphics card should be able to stretch StarCraft to a 1280x960 RD window happily enough).Technically this even works for 3d-accelerated games (the DirectX commands are sent across the network and executed on the client's GPU) but for something as old as StarCraft that won't even matter.The catch is that client (non-server) versions of Windows don't allow you to RD from computer X into computer X again, so you'd need to have another computer somewhere with StarCraft installed, preferably located on a LAN.Virtualization should also work just fine, especially since there's no risk of 3D acceleration stuff being a problem with games that old.
If you have Win7 (Business or higher), you don't even need to install a second copy of Windows yourself; just install Virtual XP mode, have it start in a window (rather than the rootless mode usually used) and set the window's size appropriately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128770</id>
	<title>Try using Windows 7</title>
	<author>kaychoro</author>
	<datestamp>1258472820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just loaded Windows 7 on my desktop, and I loaded up the old classics: Warcraft II BNE and Starcraft.  I have a 22" widescreen LCD set to the native resolution at 1680x1050, but the games load up in the center of the screen in the regular aspect ratio without looking too grainy.  Obviously, it's scaling the pixels so you can see each pixel without much effort, but both games run smooth and look great.  My wife just got a new laptop as well (with Windows 7) and the games run the same on the laptop's widescreen, so I'm fairly confident that Windows 7 actually got something right!</p><p>The one thing that hasn't worked for me (but is not a bother) is the "BLIZZARD" logo at the beginning of the game has some funny colors mixed in, but who cares about that anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just loaded Windows 7 on my desktop , and I loaded up the old classics : Warcraft II BNE and Starcraft .
I have a 22 " widescreen LCD set to the native resolution at 1680x1050 , but the games load up in the center of the screen in the regular aspect ratio without looking too grainy .
Obviously , it 's scaling the pixels so you can see each pixel without much effort , but both games run smooth and look great .
My wife just got a new laptop as well ( with Windows 7 ) and the games run the same on the laptop 's widescreen , so I 'm fairly confident that Windows 7 actually got something right ! The one thing that has n't worked for me ( but is not a bother ) is the " BLIZZARD " logo at the beginning of the game has some funny colors mixed in , but who cares about that anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just loaded Windows 7 on my desktop, and I loaded up the old classics: Warcraft II BNE and Starcraft.
I have a 22" widescreen LCD set to the native resolution at 1680x1050, but the games load up in the center of the screen in the regular aspect ratio without looking too grainy.
Obviously, it's scaling the pixels so you can see each pixel without much effort, but both games run smooth and look great.
My wife just got a new laptop as well (with Windows 7) and the games run the same on the laptop's widescreen, so I'm fairly confident that Windows 7 actually got something right!The one thing that hasn't worked for me (but is not a bother) is the "BLIZZARD" logo at the beginning of the game has some funny colors mixed in, but who cares about that anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126948</id>
	<title>Video scaler</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use a software video scaler.<br>Or a hardware scaler :<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_scaler</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use a software video scaler.Or a hardware scaler : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video \ _scaler</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use a software video scaler.Or a hardware scaler :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_scaler</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127596</id>
	<title>Re:Um... change resolution?</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1258461960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Simply set your desktop to that resolution then. Problem solved.</i></p><p>You must be new here (as in to PC gaming).  Most Windoze-based games released from when DirectX was first launched up until about 7 or 8 years ago change the screen resolution to their own predefined resolution (which varies according to the age of the game, starting at 640x480 for the earliest ones and working up to 1024x768 for the later ones) when they start.  Some have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ini file or command line settings to prevent this happening (e.g. civ3, one of my favourites of the era, can be made to do this), but quite a lot don't.  Games that actually ask you what resolution to run in or that can be persuaded to run in a window rather than full screen are a fairly new innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply set your desktop to that resolution then .
Problem solved.You must be new here ( as in to PC gaming ) .
Most Windoze-based games released from when DirectX was first launched up until about 7 or 8 years ago change the screen resolution to their own predefined resolution ( which varies according to the age of the game , starting at 640x480 for the earliest ones and working up to 1024x768 for the later ones ) when they start .
Some have .ini file or command line settings to prevent this happening ( e.g .
civ3 , one of my favourites of the era , can be made to do this ) , but quite a lot do n't .
Games that actually ask you what resolution to run in or that can be persuaded to run in a window rather than full screen are a fairly new innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply set your desktop to that resolution then.
Problem solved.You must be new here (as in to PC gaming).
Most Windoze-based games released from when DirectX was first launched up until about 7 or 8 years ago change the screen resolution to their own predefined resolution (which varies according to the age of the game, starting at 640x480 for the earliest ones and working up to 1024x768 for the later ones) when they start.
Some have .ini file or command line settings to prevent this happening (e.g.
civ3, one of my favourites of the era, can be made to do this), but quite a lot don't.
Games that actually ask you what resolution to run in or that can be persuaded to run in a window rather than full screen are a fairly new innovation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30142250</id>
	<title>Zoom the window server</title>
	<author>krilli</author>
	<datestamp>1257083880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the window manager is the best place to do this, not the display drivers or the game engines.</p><p>Mac OS X has a whole-screen zooming function, and probably the new X.org stuff too. Smoothing is configurable. Just start the game in a window, and have a black background around it. Then zoom in at whole pixel intervals until the game is as large as it can be on your monitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the window manager is the best place to do this , not the display drivers or the game engines.Mac OS X has a whole-screen zooming function , and probably the new X.org stuff too .
Smoothing is configurable .
Just start the game in a window , and have a black background around it .
Then zoom in at whole pixel intervals until the game is as large as it can be on your monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the window manager is the best place to do this, not the display drivers or the game engines.Mac OS X has a whole-screen zooming function, and probably the new X.org stuff too.
Smoothing is configurable.
Just start the game in a window, and have a black background around it.
Then zoom in at whole pixel intervals until the game is as large as it can be on your monitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30197524</id>
	<title>RTCW!!</title>
	<author>nerdalert23</author>
	<datestamp>1258894140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dug rtcw back out of the cupboard 3 days ago, amazing how it looks on my system now...there's no way I could have had those textures on release... check out <a href="http://www.lolblog.eu/" title="lolblog.eu" rel="nofollow">LoL Blog</a> [lolblog.eu] for some in game frag movies..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dug rtcw back out of the cupboard 3 days ago , amazing how it looks on my system now...there 's no way I could have had those textures on release... check out LoL Blog [ lolblog.eu ] for some in game frag movies. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dug rtcw back out of the cupboard 3 days ago, amazing how it looks on my system now...there's no way I could have had those textures on release... check out LoL Blog [lolblog.eu] for some in game frag movies..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30136388</id>
	<title>Trance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple, but not great fix, disable Scaling in your graphics properties (nvidia or ATI, intel is too chad to both with scaling options)</p><p>will then just do a black box around the actual in game resolution, meaning you'll lose some screen size, but hey, it's better than playing with pixels that are 4x3 times the size they're supposed to be!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple , but not great fix , disable Scaling in your graphics properties ( nvidia or ATI , intel is too chad to both with scaling options ) will then just do a black box around the actual in game resolution , meaning you 'll lose some screen size , but hey , it 's better than playing with pixels that are 4x3 times the size they 're supposed to be !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple, but not great fix, disable Scaling in your graphics properties (nvidia or ATI, intel is too chad to both with scaling options)will then just do a black box around the actual in game resolution, meaning you'll lose some screen size, but hey, it's better than playing with pixels that are 4x3 times the size they're supposed to be!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130828</id>
	<title>Re:double? no! quadruple!</title>
	<author>Nesman64</author>
	<datestamp>1258482000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're making a mistake  The total number of pixels will quadruple, but the height and width only double.<br>A 1x1 monitor has 1 pixel.<br>A 2x2 monitor has 4 pixels, but is twice as wide.<br>A 4x4 monitor has 16 pixels and is twice as wide as the 2x2.</p><p>To double the apparent resolution, you have to double the height and width while quadrupling the number of pixels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're making a mistake The total number of pixels will quadruple , but the height and width only double.A 1x1 monitor has 1 pixel.A 2x2 monitor has 4 pixels , but is twice as wide.A 4x4 monitor has 16 pixels and is twice as wide as the 2x2.To double the apparent resolution , you have to double the height and width while quadrupling the number of pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're making a mistake  The total number of pixels will quadruple, but the height and width only double.A 1x1 monitor has 1 pixel.A 2x2 monitor has 4 pixels, but is twice as wide.A 4x4 monitor has 16 pixels and is twice as wide as the 2x2.To double the apparent resolution, you have to double the height and width while quadrupling the number of pixels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126600</id>
	<title>For DOS games.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258488960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, for DOS games, DOSbox can do a number of different scaling modes.  From the Wiki:

    normal: nearest-neighbour scaling (big square pixels)
    scan: like normal, but with horizontal black lines
    tv: like scan, but with darker versions of data instead of black lines
    advmame: smooths corners and removes jaggies from diagonal lines
    advinterp: identical to advmame
    rgb: simulates the phosphors on a dot trio CRT

As for old windows games, I hope to hear something else.

One last note, Myst was re-released as a "Masterpiece Edition" with higher resolution re-rendered graphics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , for DOS games , DOSbox can do a number of different scaling modes .
From the Wiki : normal : nearest-neighbour scaling ( big square pixels ) scan : like normal , but with horizontal black lines tv : like scan , but with darker versions of data instead of black lines advmame : smooths corners and removes jaggies from diagonal lines advinterp : identical to advmame rgb : simulates the phosphors on a dot trio CRT As for old windows games , I hope to hear something else .
One last note , Myst was re-released as a " Masterpiece Edition " with higher resolution re-rendered graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, for DOS games, DOSbox can do a number of different scaling modes.
From the Wiki:

    normal: nearest-neighbour scaling (big square pixels)
    scan: like normal, but with horizontal black lines
    tv: like scan, but with darker versions of data instead of black lines
    advmame: smooths corners and removes jaggies from diagonal lines
    advinterp: identical to advmame
    rgb: simulates the phosphors on a dot trio CRT

As for old windows games, I hope to hear something else.
One last note, Myst was re-released as a "Masterpiece Edition" with higher resolution re-rendered graphics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127062</id>
	<title>Um... change resolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply set your desktop to that resolution then.  Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply set your desktop to that resolution then .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply set your desktop to that resolution then.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126596</id>
	<title>this might help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258488900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Gaming\_with\_Blackbars\_(Pillarboxing)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Gaming \ _with \ _Blackbars \ _ ( Pillarboxing )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Gaming\_with\_Blackbars\_(Pillarboxing)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128462</id>
	<title>your monitor</title>
	<author>royler</author>
	<datestamp>1258471320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>does it look how you want if you turn the resolution on your own monitor down?</htmltext>
<tokenext>does it look how you want if you turn the resolution on your own monitor down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does it look how you want if you turn the resolution on your own monitor down?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126772</id>
	<title>At least they know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258491480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sometimes envy the Chinese, they at least know that they're being censored. Here in the "west", it's just getting started and people in general have no idea what's going on.<br>The first step to defeating censorship is public awareness of censorship. China has us beat here. By the time China stops censorship, the western countries will have become what they demonized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sometimes envy the Chinese , they at least know that they 're being censored .
Here in the " west " , it 's just getting started and people in general have no idea what 's going on.The first step to defeating censorship is public awareness of censorship .
China has us beat here .
By the time China stops censorship , the western countries will have become what they demonized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sometimes envy the Chinese, they at least know that they're being censored.
Here in the "west", it's just getting started and people in general have no idea what's going on.The first step to defeating censorship is public awareness of censorship.
China has us beat here.
By the time China stops censorship, the western countries will have become what they demonized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30148958</id>
	<title>Gfx/Monitor scaling</title>
	<author>gwdoiron</author>
	<datestamp>1257071520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't see this in any prior posts.
If you are using nvidia hardware on windows, open the nvidia control panel.  Go to Display-&gt;Adjust Desktop Size and Position-&gt;"2. When using a resolution lower than my display's native resolution..."
You can choose between monitor native scaling (passes through video and lets the LCD do the scaling), fixed aspect ratio (gfx card scales it up but keeps the same aspect ratio, probably getting black borders), and fullscreen (gfx card scales it up to fullscreen, ignoring the native aspect ratio).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't see this in any prior posts .
If you are using nvidia hardware on windows , open the nvidia control panel .
Go to Display- &gt; Adjust Desktop Size and Position- &gt; " 2 .
When using a resolution lower than my display 's native resolution... " You can choose between monitor native scaling ( passes through video and lets the LCD do the scaling ) , fixed aspect ratio ( gfx card scales it up but keeps the same aspect ratio , probably getting black borders ) , and fullscreen ( gfx card scales it up to fullscreen , ignoring the native aspect ratio ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't see this in any prior posts.
If you are using nvidia hardware on windows, open the nvidia control panel.
Go to Display-&gt;Adjust Desktop Size and Position-&gt;"2.
When using a resolution lower than my display's native resolution..."
You can choose between monitor native scaling (passes through video and lets the LCD do the scaling), fixed aspect ratio (gfx card scales it up but keeps the same aspect ratio, probably getting black borders), and fullscreen (gfx card scales it up to fullscreen, ignoring the native aspect ratio).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130680</id>
	<title>Re:software scaling</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1258481220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, use DVI and not VGA connections when doing that. Video drivers won't let me unstretch with VGA connections since I have old Belkin OmniCube KVMs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , use DVI and not VGA connections when doing that .
Video drivers wo n't let me unstretch with VGA connections since I have old Belkin OmniCube KVMs .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, use DVI and not VGA connections when doing that.
Video drivers won't let me unstretch with VGA connections since I have old Belkin OmniCube KVMs.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127230</id>
	<title>Re:2xSal or hqx in a gpu driver?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258456140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can do most of these scaling algorithms as a shader program on gpu, so it could be "plugged in" with a decent wrapper app for older windows apps</p><p>use dosbox with windows3.1 where applicable else (still have to look into, but i believe win95 might run inside it as well)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can do most of these scaling algorithms as a shader program on gpu , so it could be " plugged in " with a decent wrapper app for older windows appsuse dosbox with windows3.1 where applicable else ( still have to look into , but i believe win95 might run inside it as well ) : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can do most of these scaling algorithms as a shader program on gpu, so it could be "plugged in" with a decent wrapper app for older windows appsuse dosbox with windows3.1 where applicable else (still have to look into, but i believe win95 might run inside it as well) :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127610</id>
	<title>Older games</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1258462140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now I'm playing Fallout 2 with a <a href="http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=file&amp;file\_id=1270" title="nma-fallout.com">high rez patch</a> [nma-fallout.com] on a 22" LCD.  I've also got a <a href="http://www.gibberlings3.net/widescreen/" title="gibberlings3.net">widescreen mod</a> [gibberlings3.net] installed for Torment, but it works with any Infinity Engine game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now I 'm playing Fallout 2 with a high rez patch [ nma-fallout.com ] on a 22 " LCD .
I 've also got a widescreen mod [ gibberlings3.net ] installed for Torment , but it works with any Infinity Engine game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now I'm playing Fallout 2 with a high rez patch [nma-fallout.com] on a 22" LCD.
I've also got a widescreen mod [gibberlings3.net] installed for Torment, but it works with any Infinity Engine game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131486</id>
	<title>Re:software scaling</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1258484520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd have to agree. While some older LCD displays had rather poor scaling, I've had no such concerns with resolution scaling on modern displays. My previous laptop (1400x1050), current laptop (1920x1200), and current desktop LCD (1920x1080) look perfectly fine scaling older games, from 640x480 on up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have to agree .
While some older LCD displays had rather poor scaling , I 've had no such concerns with resolution scaling on modern displays .
My previous laptop ( 1400x1050 ) , current laptop ( 1920x1200 ) , and current desktop LCD ( 1920x1080 ) look perfectly fine scaling older games , from 640x480 on up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have to agree.
While some older LCD displays had rather poor scaling, I've had no such concerns with resolution scaling on modern displays.
My previous laptop (1400x1050), current laptop (1920x1200), and current desktop LCD (1920x1080) look perfectly fine scaling older games, from 640x480 on up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126946</id>
	<title>Re:Try dos games.</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1258450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article poster lists several favorite games of his that he wants to play, and your suggestion is to find older, different games?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article poster lists several favorite games of his that he wants to play , and your suggestion is to find older , different games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article poster lists several favorite games of his that he wants to play, and your suggestion is to find older, different games?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128176</id>
	<title>After reading all of this, it occurs to me</title>
	<author>MistrBlank</author>
	<datestamp>1258469280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two options:</p><p>Fix it at your video card:<br>Make sure your video card supports video scaling for your monitor.  I know for a while, I could tell my nvidia card to handle the scaling to my display for out of scale screens so that it would either stretch, full, or not scale at all and still display using the best native resolution of the monitor by adding letterboxing (in most cases around the whole screen).  The video card would thus override the scalar in the monitor as a result.</p><p>Fix it at your video:<br>Buy a screen that allows you to turn off the internal scalar.  I know my current TV allows me to do this and at least one of my Dell's did it.  I think it was my 2004 24" model.</p><p>In either scenario, you'll likely want to buy something that doesn't have a high resolution so you're not staring at a postage stamp on a 24" monitor.  I find 17" screens at 1280x1024 are best for the older games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two options : Fix it at your video card : Make sure your video card supports video scaling for your monitor .
I know for a while , I could tell my nvidia card to handle the scaling to my display for out of scale screens so that it would either stretch , full , or not scale at all and still display using the best native resolution of the monitor by adding letterboxing ( in most cases around the whole screen ) .
The video card would thus override the scalar in the monitor as a result.Fix it at your video : Buy a screen that allows you to turn off the internal scalar .
I know my current TV allows me to do this and at least one of my Dell 's did it .
I think it was my 2004 24 " model.In either scenario , you 'll likely want to buy something that does n't have a high resolution so you 're not staring at a postage stamp on a 24 " monitor .
I find 17 " screens at 1280x1024 are best for the older games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two options:Fix it at your video card:Make sure your video card supports video scaling for your monitor.
I know for a while, I could tell my nvidia card to handle the scaling to my display for out of scale screens so that it would either stretch, full, or not scale at all and still display using the best native resolution of the monitor by adding letterboxing (in most cases around the whole screen).
The video card would thus override the scalar in the monitor as a result.Fix it at your video:Buy a screen that allows you to turn off the internal scalar.
I know my current TV allows me to do this and at least one of my Dell's did it.
I think it was my 2004 24" model.In either scenario, you'll likely want to buy something that doesn't have a high resolution so you're not staring at a postage stamp on a 24" monitor.
I find 17" screens at 1280x1024 are best for the older games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768</id>
	<title>software scaling</title>
	<author>mambodog</author>
	<datestamp>1258491480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno, on my 1920x1080 display old games look pretty good using Nvidia (driver) scaling (fixed aspect ratio, scale to fit vertically). Maybe just because its sufficiently high res, scaling artefacts are not particularly noticeable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , on my 1920x1080 display old games look pretty good using Nvidia ( driver ) scaling ( fixed aspect ratio , scale to fit vertically ) .
Maybe just because its sufficiently high res , scaling artefacts are not particularly noticeable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, on my 1920x1080 display old games look pretty good using Nvidia (driver) scaling (fixed aspect ratio, scale to fit vertically).
Maybe just because its sufficiently high res, scaling artefacts are not particularly noticeable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126922</id>
	<title>Isometric 2D RPGs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For Infinity engine-based RPGs &mdash; the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series, plus Planetscape Torment &mdash;, you can use the <a href="http://www.gibberlings3.net/widescreen/" title="gibberlings3.net" rel="nofollow">Gibberlings 3 widescreen mod</a> [gibberlings3.net]. I have also been lucky with Arcanum, since Terra Arcanum hosts a <a href="http://terra-arcanum.com/downloads/" title="terra-arcanum.com" rel="nofollow">high resolution patch</a> [terra-arcanum.com] that works perfectly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For Infinity engine-based RPGs    the Baldur 's Gate and Icewind Dale series , plus Planetscape Torment    , you can use the Gibberlings 3 widescreen mod [ gibberlings3.net ] .
I have also been lucky with Arcanum , since Terra Arcanum hosts a high resolution patch [ terra-arcanum.com ] that works perfectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Infinity engine-based RPGs — the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series, plus Planetscape Torment —, you can use the Gibberlings 3 widescreen mod [gibberlings3.net].
I have also been lucky with Arcanum, since Terra Arcanum hosts a high resolution patch [terra-arcanum.com] that works perfectly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127570</id>
	<title>Re:See "Atari Emulation of CRT Effects On LCDs"</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258461480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like how they presume everyone had crap TVs or poor Ataris.</p><p>Take the Enduro image - it never looked that bad on my real set.  The playfields were a solid color (no noise), and the sunset was a rainbow of distinct colors, not a blurry orangish mess.   In fact most Atari games look quite crisp, with visible pixels, on my original unit and original CRT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like how they presume everyone had crap TVs or poor Ataris.Take the Enduro image - it never looked that bad on my real set .
The playfields were a solid color ( no noise ) , and the sunset was a rainbow of distinct colors , not a blurry orangish mess .
In fact most Atari games look quite crisp , with visible pixels , on my original unit and original CRT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like how they presume everyone had crap TVs or poor Ataris.Take the Enduro image - it never looked that bad on my real set.
The playfields were a solid color (no noise), and the sunset was a rainbow of distinct colors, not a blurry orangish mess.
In fact most Atari games look quite crisp, with visible pixels, on my original unit and original CRT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131316</id>
	<title>Re:See "Atari Emulation of CRT Effects On LCDs"</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258484040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's funny that they bother to emulate all the RF/composite garbage to get the experience of real hardware.  Meanwhile, I mod my real hardware to get rid of all the RF/composite garbage.  S-video from an Atari 2600 is really really nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's funny that they bother to emulate all the RF/composite garbage to get the experience of real hardware .
Meanwhile , I mod my real hardware to get rid of all the RF/composite garbage .
S-video from an Atari 2600 is really really nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's funny that they bother to emulate all the RF/composite garbage to get the experience of real hardware.
Meanwhile, I mod my real hardware to get rid of all the RF/composite garbage.
S-video from an Atari 2600 is really really nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127606</id>
	<title>LG Flatron L1953H</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258462080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See title, my monitor with native res 1280x1024. I was playing StarCraft right before I connected to Slashdot and it looks perfectly crisp and clear. The problem is probably that your monitor has a crappy firmware scaler, it's a bit late to say "buy a better monitor" but your best bet is probably some sort of software scaler like the one in the nVidia control panel (which looks crap compared to my monitor's firmware scaler IMHO but would probably be an improvement for you, ATi should have something similar).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See title , my monitor with native res 1280x1024 .
I was playing StarCraft right before I connected to Slashdot and it looks perfectly crisp and clear .
The problem is probably that your monitor has a crappy firmware scaler , it 's a bit late to say " buy a better monitor " but your best bet is probably some sort of software scaler like the one in the nVidia control panel ( which looks crap compared to my monitor 's firmware scaler IMHO but would probably be an improvement for you , ATi should have something similar ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See title, my monitor with native res 1280x1024.
I was playing StarCraft right before I connected to Slashdot and it looks perfectly crisp and clear.
The problem is probably that your monitor has a crappy firmware scaler, it's a bit late to say "buy a better monitor" but your best bet is probably some sort of software scaler like the one in the nVidia control panel (which looks crap compared to my monitor's firmware scaler IMHO but would probably be an improvement for you, ATi should have something similar).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131490</id>
	<title>Good idea for LCD manufacturers</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1258484580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of LCD screens have an option to center the raster at a 1:1 scale in the middle of the screen, which does make the display look a lot nicer, though tiny.</p><p>The new idea would be for it to center the largest integer scale of the raster that fits on the screen instead. Then your game display would look nice but be larger.</p><p>I would suspect it is trivial for the LCD to do this, probably easier than the current "blurry" scaling. And it could be a worthwhile feature some would pay for, such as you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of LCD screens have an option to center the raster at a 1 : 1 scale in the middle of the screen , which does make the display look a lot nicer , though tiny.The new idea would be for it to center the largest integer scale of the raster that fits on the screen instead .
Then your game display would look nice but be larger.I would suspect it is trivial for the LCD to do this , probably easier than the current " blurry " scaling .
And it could be a worthwhile feature some would pay for , such as you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of LCD screens have an option to center the raster at a 1:1 scale in the middle of the screen, which does make the display look a lot nicer, though tiny.The new idea would be for it to center the largest integer scale of the raster that fits on the screen instead.
Then your game display would look nice but be larger.I would suspect it is trivial for the LCD to do this, probably easier than the current "blurry" scaling.
And it could be a worthwhile feature some would pay for, such as you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127642</id>
	<title>Re:A solution for some old RPGs (Ps:T, BG, IwD)</title>
	<author>sa1lnr</author>
	<datestamp>1258462680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used this process for Planescape Torment</p><p><a href="http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/2009/01/planescape-torment-fully-modded.html" title="blogspot.com">http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/2009/01/planescape-torment-fully-modded.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>Worked a treat, though widescreen v2.1 is linked there it worked fine with v2.2.<br>I had to used the nVidia fixer near the end as I have an 8800GT.</p><p>For Baldur's Gate using the Baldur's Gate II engine I use easytutu</p><p><a href="http://www.usoutpost31.com/easytutu/" title="usoutpost31.com">http://www.usoutpost31.com/easytutu/</a> [usoutpost31.com]</p><p>And for Arcanum: Of Steamworks &amp; Magick Obscura I use drog black tooths unofficial patch, high resolution patch and high res town maps. iirc you have to install the official 1.0.7.4 patch before these two.</p><p><a href="http://www.terra-arcanum.com/downloads/" title="terra-arcanum.com">http://www.terra-arcanum.com/downloads/</a> [terra-arcanum.com]</p><p>they are both under "Arcanum" -&gt; "Unofficial"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used this process for Planescape Tormenthttp : //thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/2009/01/planescape-torment-fully-modded.html [ blogspot.com ] Worked a treat , though widescreen v2.1 is linked there it worked fine with v2.2.I had to used the nVidia fixer near the end as I have an 8800GT.For Baldur 's Gate using the Baldur 's Gate II engine I use easytutuhttp : //www.usoutpost31.com/easytutu/ [ usoutpost31.com ] And for Arcanum : Of Steamworks &amp; Magick Obscura I use drog black tooths unofficial patch , high resolution patch and high res town maps .
iirc you have to install the official 1.0.7.4 patch before these two.http : //www.terra-arcanum.com/downloads/ [ terra-arcanum.com ] they are both under " Arcanum " - &gt; " Unofficial "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used this process for Planescape Tormenthttp://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/2009/01/planescape-torment-fully-modded.html [blogspot.com]Worked a treat, though widescreen v2.1 is linked there it worked fine with v2.2.I had to used the nVidia fixer near the end as I have an 8800GT.For Baldur's Gate using the Baldur's Gate II engine I use easytutuhttp://www.usoutpost31.com/easytutu/ [usoutpost31.com]And for Arcanum: Of Steamworks &amp; Magick Obscura I use drog black tooths unofficial patch, high resolution patch and high res town maps.
iirc you have to install the official 1.0.7.4 patch before these two.http://www.terra-arcanum.com/downloads/ [terra-arcanum.com]they are both under "Arcanum" -&gt; "Unofficial"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126594</id>
	<title>Try dos games.</title>
	<author>sjwt</author>
	<datestamp>1258488900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your problem is you are not looking old enough, try runing DOS games in <a href="http://www.dosbox.com/" title="dosbox.com">Dosbox</a> [dosbox.com], nice scaling options there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your problem is you are not looking old enough , try runing DOS games in Dosbox [ dosbox.com ] , nice scaling options there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your problem is you are not looking old enough, try runing DOS games in Dosbox [dosbox.com], nice scaling options there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126698</id>
	<title>Try a screen magnifier.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258490280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you use Linux, try a screen magnifier, like the "Enhanced Zoom Desktop" plugin for Compiz.  I did this with a couple older games, and it did an admirable job, though it's not a perfect solution.  Zoom in until the game fills as much of the monitor as possible, center it, and hit the zoom lock key combination.</p><p>This may look and/or work better than trying to run things full-screen, definitely works better if you're using a multi-monitor setup, and lets you scale up picky windowed games that won't resize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use Linux , try a screen magnifier , like the " Enhanced Zoom Desktop " plugin for Compiz .
I did this with a couple older games , and it did an admirable job , though it 's not a perfect solution .
Zoom in until the game fills as much of the monitor as possible , center it , and hit the zoom lock key combination.This may look and/or work better than trying to run things full-screen , definitely works better if you 're using a multi-monitor setup , and lets you scale up picky windowed games that wo n't resize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use Linux, try a screen magnifier, like the "Enhanced Zoom Desktop" plugin for Compiz.
I did this with a couple older games, and it did an admirable job, though it's not a perfect solution.
Zoom in until the game fills as much of the monitor as possible, center it, and hit the zoom lock key combination.This may look and/or work better than trying to run things full-screen, definitely works better if you're using a multi-monitor setup, and lets you scale up picky windowed games that won't resize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126674</id>
	<title>hqx</title>
	<author>numbertheo</author>
	<datestamp>1258489920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA has examples exclusively involving line art and that's pretty much the worst case for standard upscaling techniques.  The scaling technique you're been searching for is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hqx" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">hqx</a> [wikipedia.org].  Too bad there isn't any way to get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA has examples exclusively involving line art and that 's pretty much the worst case for standard upscaling techniques .
The scaling technique you 're been searching for is hqx [ wikipedia.org ] .
Too bad there is n't any way to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA has examples exclusively involving line art and that's pretty much the worst case for standard upscaling techniques.
The scaling technique you're been searching for is hqx [wikipedia.org].
Too bad there isn't any way to get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127388</id>
	<title>Re:many (not all) modern LCDs don't scale ...</title>
	<author>Per Wigren</author>
	<datestamp>1258458180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All modern NVidia cards use automatic scaling on the GPU. My 2560x1600 monitor doesn't have any scaling at all. It can display only 2560x1600 and 1280x800, period. However, I never notice this limitation because the graphics card can scale any resolution so even if I try some obscure OS like AROS, all VESA resolutions just work. Other modern cards probably also do this, but I haven't tried it. The PS3 doesn't, however so if I connect my PS3 to it, I get a picture in the middle and black borders around it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All modern NVidia cards use automatic scaling on the GPU .
My 2560x1600 monitor does n't have any scaling at all .
It can display only 2560x1600 and 1280x800 , period .
However , I never notice this limitation because the graphics card can scale any resolution so even if I try some obscure OS like AROS , all VESA resolutions just work .
Other modern cards probably also do this , but I have n't tried it .
The PS3 does n't , however so if I connect my PS3 to it , I get a picture in the middle and black borders around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All modern NVidia cards use automatic scaling on the GPU.
My 2560x1600 monitor doesn't have any scaling at all.
It can display only 2560x1600 and 1280x800, period.
However, I never notice this limitation because the graphics card can scale any resolution so even if I try some obscure OS like AROS, all VESA resolutions just work.
Other modern cards probably also do this, but I haven't tried it.
The PS3 doesn't, however so if I connect my PS3 to it, I get a picture in the middle and black borders around it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127032</id>
	<title>Dupe.. sort of</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember seeing a program which was designed to mimic all the imperfections of CRT displays. This was a main slashdot article something this year.</p><p>Obviously I don't expect the questioner to have seen every slashdot article, but if someone remembers it that may be of help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember seeing a program which was designed to mimic all the imperfections of CRT displays .
This was a main slashdot article something this year.Obviously I do n't expect the questioner to have seen every slashdot article , but if someone remembers it that may be of help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember seeing a program which was designed to mimic all the imperfections of CRT displays.
This was a main slashdot article something this year.Obviously I don't expect the questioner to have seen every slashdot article, but if someone remembers it that may be of help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126888</id>
	<title>CRT screen driver for LCD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are CRT emulators for LCDs.  They recreate those nice fuzzy round pixels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are CRT emulators for LCDs .
They recreate those nice fuzzy round pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are CRT emulators for LCDs.
They recreate those nice fuzzy round pixels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130804</id>
	<title>Re:See "Atari Emulation of CRT Effects On LCDs"</title>
	<author>Trixter</author>
	<datestamp>1258481880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm with you.  I think the students underwent such a project without having seen an actual television from that era.  If you're trying to emulate something, you need the original something to compare against.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you .
I think the students underwent such a project without having seen an actual television from that era .
If you 're trying to emulate something , you need the original something to compare against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you.
I think the students underwent such a project without having seen an actual television from that era.
If you're trying to emulate something, you need the original something to compare against.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127214</id>
	<title>Modeline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258455840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; My ideal goal is to run these games at exactly double their original resolution &mdash; running 640 x 480 games at 1280 x 960, for example &mdash; so that each original pixel takes up exactly a 2 x 2 block of screen pixels, yielding graphics that are perfectly crisp and decently big. I've tried arcane settings in graphics card drivers (new and old), I've tried forcing the OS to run at a given resolution, and I've tried PowerStrip, all to no avail. Short of writing a new, modern engine for my favorite games, is there a reasonable solution to this problem?"</p><p>Just use a proper modeline, It's as simple as this. That's the way I use to watch YT videos on my older PC. BTW, for a 1280x1024 monitor, using 640x512 probably will lead to a better image, since it's  an exact (sub)multiple.</p><p>Well, easier if you use Linux, that is. Or a Mac (which I don't know).</p><p>YMMMV.</p><p>Just an aside, if you really want good quality on LCDs with lower resolutions, you might want to use an OpenGL-supporting card (like NVidia). Never tried, but there are settings (in the app "nvidia-settings", duh!) which control antialiasing and disable modification by applications. Someone more knowledgeable could lend a hand here and say whether this is viable.</p><p>This is an interesting thing to do later...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; My ideal goal is to run these games at exactly double their original resolution    running 640 x 480 games at 1280 x 960 , for example    so that each original pixel takes up exactly a 2 x 2 block of screen pixels , yielding graphics that are perfectly crisp and decently big .
I 've tried arcane settings in graphics card drivers ( new and old ) , I 've tried forcing the OS to run at a given resolution , and I 've tried PowerStrip , all to no avail .
Short of writing a new , modern engine for my favorite games , is there a reasonable solution to this problem ?
" Just use a proper modeline , It 's as simple as this .
That 's the way I use to watch YT videos on my older PC .
BTW , for a 1280x1024 monitor , using 640x512 probably will lead to a better image , since it 's an exact ( sub ) multiple.Well , easier if you use Linux , that is .
Or a Mac ( which I do n't know ) .YMMMV.Just an aside , if you really want good quality on LCDs with lower resolutions , you might want to use an OpenGL-supporting card ( like NVidia ) .
Never tried , but there are settings ( in the app " nvidia-settings " , duh !
) which control antialiasing and disable modification by applications .
Someone more knowledgeable could lend a hand here and say whether this is viable.This is an interesting thing to do later... ; -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; My ideal goal is to run these games at exactly double their original resolution — running 640 x 480 games at 1280 x 960, for example — so that each original pixel takes up exactly a 2 x 2 block of screen pixels, yielding graphics that are perfectly crisp and decently big.
I've tried arcane settings in graphics card drivers (new and old), I've tried forcing the OS to run at a given resolution, and I've tried PowerStrip, all to no avail.
Short of writing a new, modern engine for my favorite games, is there a reasonable solution to this problem?
"Just use a proper modeline, It's as simple as this.
That's the way I use to watch YT videos on my older PC.
BTW, for a 1280x1024 monitor, using 640x512 probably will lead to a better image, since it's  an exact (sub)multiple.Well, easier if you use Linux, that is.
Or a Mac (which I don't know).YMMMV.Just an aside, if you really want good quality on LCDs with lower resolutions, you might want to use an OpenGL-supporting card (like NVidia).
Never tried, but there are settings (in the app "nvidia-settings", duh!
) which control antialiasing and disable modification by applications.
Someone more knowledgeable could lend a hand here and say whether this is viable.This is an interesting thing to do later... ;-P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126664</id>
	<title>2xSal or hqx in a gpu driver?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258489800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A number of emulators already have good algorithms for scaling fixed-pixel images that preserve the sharpness while removing aliasing.  Wikipedia of course has a page on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel\_art\_scaling\_algorithms" title="wikipedia.org">Pixel art scaling algorithms</a> [wikipedia.org].  The 2 best ones out there are 2xSal and hqx.</p><p>The problem is that these only work within emulators that implement the algorithms.  This clearly does not work for something like StarCraft.  Graphics drivers (both ATI and NV) already have options to scale between virtual and physical resolutions.  The ideal solution would be for them to offer different scaling algorithms that can be picked - standard bilinear or a modified one for classic games.  Everything "just works" then and you get nice graphics.</p><p>I'm not going to hold my breath on ATI or NV ever officially implementing this in their release drivers.  However I'm wondering how hard it would be to add an option like this to one of the open source linux X drivers, or maybe even to Wine/DosBox.  Also for windows isn't there a way to intercept graphics calls (along the lines of what FRAPs does)?  Would it be possible to create a wrapper program that intercepts all the graphics calls and adds a scaling algorithm after each frame is drawn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A number of emulators already have good algorithms for scaling fixed-pixel images that preserve the sharpness while removing aliasing .
Wikipedia of course has a page on Pixel art scaling algorithms [ wikipedia.org ] .
The 2 best ones out there are 2xSal and hqx.The problem is that these only work within emulators that implement the algorithms .
This clearly does not work for something like StarCraft .
Graphics drivers ( both ATI and NV ) already have options to scale between virtual and physical resolutions .
The ideal solution would be for them to offer different scaling algorithms that can be picked - standard bilinear or a modified one for classic games .
Everything " just works " then and you get nice graphics.I 'm not going to hold my breath on ATI or NV ever officially implementing this in their release drivers .
However I 'm wondering how hard it would be to add an option like this to one of the open source linux X drivers , or maybe even to Wine/DosBox .
Also for windows is n't there a way to intercept graphics calls ( along the lines of what FRAPs does ) ?
Would it be possible to create a wrapper program that intercepts all the graphics calls and adds a scaling algorithm after each frame is drawn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A number of emulators already have good algorithms for scaling fixed-pixel images that preserve the sharpness while removing aliasing.
Wikipedia of course has a page on Pixel art scaling algorithms [wikipedia.org].
The 2 best ones out there are 2xSal and hqx.The problem is that these only work within emulators that implement the algorithms.
This clearly does not work for something like StarCraft.
Graphics drivers (both ATI and NV) already have options to scale between virtual and physical resolutions.
The ideal solution would be for them to offer different scaling algorithms that can be picked - standard bilinear or a modified one for classic games.
Everything "just works" then and you get nice graphics.I'm not going to hold my breath on ATI or NV ever officially implementing this in their release drivers.
However I'm wondering how hard it would be to add an option like this to one of the open source linux X drivers, or maybe even to Wine/DosBox.
Also for windows isn't there a way to intercept graphics calls (along the lines of what FRAPs does)?
Would it be possible to create a wrapper program that intercepts all the graphics calls and adds a scaling algorithm after each frame is drawn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30132332</id>
	<title>Re:My comments on the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258487220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, up the resolution on ZSNES and enable 2xSAI or whichever interpolation algorithm looks the best to you. It will look way better than fullscreen 640x480, even if you are using a CRT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , up the resolution on ZSNES and enable 2xSAI or whichever interpolation algorithm looks the best to you .
It will look way better than fullscreen 640x480 , even if you are using a CRT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, up the resolution on ZSNES and enable 2xSAI or whichever interpolation algorithm looks the best to you.
It will look way better than fullscreen 640x480, even if you are using a CRT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126630</id>
	<title>A solution for some old RPGs (Ps:T, BG, IwD)</title>
	<author>Soul-Burn666</author>
	<datestamp>1258489260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A mod was released for these games which pretty much handles higher resolution. It does that not by up-scaling but rather by showing you a larger section of the hand-drawn pixel-perfect game map, keeping the original crispness.<br>The mod can be found <a href="http://www.gibberlings3.net/widescreen/" title="gibberlings3.net">here</a> [gibberlings3.net].<br>Nice example screenshots for Planescape: Torment <a href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/05/29/planescape-landscapes/" title="rockpapershotgun.com">here</a> [rockpapershotgun.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mod was released for these games which pretty much handles higher resolution .
It does that not by up-scaling but rather by showing you a larger section of the hand-drawn pixel-perfect game map , keeping the original crispness.The mod can be found here [ gibberlings3.net ] .Nice example screenshots for Planescape : Torment here [ rockpapershotgun.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mod was released for these games which pretty much handles higher resolution.
It does that not by up-scaling but rather by showing you a larger section of the hand-drawn pixel-perfect game map, keeping the original crispness.The mod can be found here [gibberlings3.net].Nice example screenshots for Planescape: Torment here [rockpapershotgun.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30132928</id>
	<title>solution on Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258489140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wine explorer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/desktop=GAMENAME,1280x960 path/to/GAME.exe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wine explorer /desktop = GAMENAME,1280x960 path/to/GAME.exe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wine explorer /desktop=GAMENAME,1280x960 path/to/GAME.exe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129518</id>
	<title>Re:many (not all) modern LCDs don't scale ...</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1258476120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NVIDIA has scaling (with blurriness), unless the drivers decide your monitor is an HDTV and replace the scaling options with desktop resizing options (which is annoying as hell, let me tell you)....</p><p>I have this 23" 1080P monitor currently on sale at <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009176" title="newegg.com">NewEgg</a> [newegg.com] and <a href="http://www.microcenter.com/single\_product\_results.phtml?product\_id=0310494" title="microcenter.com">Microcenter</a> [microcenter.com].  Its scaling is better than NVIDIA and serviceable, but still somewhat blurry/smeared.  Cheap though.</p><p>Strangely enough this native 1920x1080 monitor cannot support 1440x1080.  Go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NVIDIA has scaling ( with blurriness ) , unless the drivers decide your monitor is an HDTV and replace the scaling options with desktop resizing options ( which is annoying as hell , let me tell you ) ....I have this 23 " 1080P monitor currently on sale at NewEgg [ newegg.com ] and Microcenter [ microcenter.com ] .
Its scaling is better than NVIDIA and serviceable , but still somewhat blurry/smeared .
Cheap though.Strangely enough this native 1920x1080 monitor can not support 1440x1080 .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NVIDIA has scaling (with blurriness), unless the drivers decide your monitor is an HDTV and replace the scaling options with desktop resizing options (which is annoying as hell, let me tell you)....I have this 23" 1080P monitor currently on sale at NewEgg [newegg.com] and Microcenter [microcenter.com].
Its scaling is better than NVIDIA and serviceable, but still somewhat blurry/smeared.
Cheap though.Strangely enough this native 1920x1080 monitor cannot support 1440x1080.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30142214</id>
	<title>Re:Blocky scaleup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257083640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey that's pretty cool. Few things define a true gentleman better than his taste in non-square pixels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey that 's pretty cool .
Few things define a true gentleman better than his taste in non-square pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey that's pretty cool.
Few things define a true gentleman better than his taste in non-square pixels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30137906</id>
	<title>Re:2xSal or hqx in a gpu driver?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1258465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I hope for some time for one thing regarding the topic - scaling virtual machines!</p><p>Flawless game running (you can use OS that was all the rage at the time of game release...and optimally let the VM create link in host that automatically launches guest + game), and no toying trying to modify windowing system to use those filters; virtual machine handles those (preferably in another thread/etc.)</p><p>There are virtual machines under GPL (perhaps they are not the fastest, but for older games...). There are GPL emulators with cfilter code for the taking. I hope it's not <i>if</i> but <i>when</i> this will happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I hope for some time for one thing regarding the topic - scaling virtual machines ! Flawless game running ( you can use OS that was all the rage at the time of game release...and optimally let the VM create link in host that automatically launches guest + game ) , and no toying trying to modify windowing system to use those filters ; virtual machine handles those ( preferably in another thread/etc .
) There are virtual machines under GPL ( perhaps they are not the fastest , but for older games... ) .
There are GPL emulators with cfilter code for the taking .
I hope it 's not if but when this will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I hope for some time for one thing regarding the topic - scaling virtual machines!Flawless game running (you can use OS that was all the rage at the time of game release...and optimally let the VM create link in host that automatically launches guest + game), and no toying trying to modify windowing system to use those filters; virtual machine handles those (preferably in another thread/etc.
)There are virtual machines under GPL (perhaps they are not the fastest, but for older games...).
There are GPL emulators with cfilter code for the taking.
I hope it's not if but when this will happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129568</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap solution...</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1258476360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure which I'd rather see... a monitor wearing a bra, or the chest the bra originally came off of.</p><p>Oh, who am I kidding... I totally know which I'd rather see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure which I 'd rather see... a monitor wearing a bra , or the chest the bra originally came off of.Oh , who am I kidding... I totally know which I 'd rather see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure which I'd rather see... a monitor wearing a bra, or the chest the bra originally came off of.Oh, who am I kidding... I totally know which I'd rather see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128212</id>
	<title>Re:For DOS games.</title>
	<author>pyster</author>
	<datestamp>1258469640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use dosbox all the time... Never actually read the dox so I had no idea scaling modes existed.  Checked out the wiki... man, this is gonna make Grave Yardage and a bunch of the dosgames I love look sweet. Thanx a lot for the input.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use dosbox all the time... Never actually read the dox so I had no idea scaling modes existed .
Checked out the wiki... man , this is gon na make Grave Yardage and a bunch of the dosgames I love look sweet .
Thanx a lot for the input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use dosbox all the time... Never actually read the dox so I had no idea scaling modes existed.
Checked out the wiki... man, this is gonna make Grave Yardage and a bunch of the dosgames I love look sweet.
Thanx a lot for the input.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127704</id>
	<title>No way to get it??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258463520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> [Hqx is] used in emulators such as Nestopia, bsnes, ZSNES, Snes9x, FCE Ultra and many more.</p> </div><p>Nestopia - GLP<br>bsnes - GLP<br>ZSNES - GLP<br>FCE Ultra - GLP</p><p>Looks like lots of ways to get the code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Hqx is ] used in emulators such as Nestopia , bsnes , ZSNES , Snes9x , FCE Ultra and many more .
Nestopia - GLPbsnes - GLPZSNES - GLPFCE Ultra - GLPLooks like lots of ways to get the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> [Hqx is] used in emulators such as Nestopia, bsnes, ZSNES, Snes9x, FCE Ultra and many more.
Nestopia - GLPbsnes - GLPZSNES - GLPFCE Ultra - GLPLooks like lots of ways to get the code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30141990</id>
	<title>Run them in a VM</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1257080760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old games like this run fine inside a VMWare VM with DirectX support.</p><p>Install the VM, install Windows in it, set the Vm resolution to whatever the size is you want (you can set a Vm res to ANYTHING by resizing the window), then launch the game in "full screen" on the VM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old games like this run fine inside a VMWare VM with DirectX support.Install the VM , install Windows in it , set the Vm resolution to whatever the size is you want ( you can set a Vm res to ANYTHING by resizing the window ) , then launch the game in " full screen " on the VM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old games like this run fine inside a VMWare VM with DirectX support.Install the VM, install Windows in it, set the Vm resolution to whatever the size is you want (you can set a Vm res to ANYTHING by resizing the window), then launch the game in "full screen" on the VM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128348</id>
	<title>vnc?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258470660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some versions of VNC (UltraVNC?) do scaling. You could run over VNC at the desired resolution and just stretch the window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some versions of VNC ( UltraVNC ?
) do scaling .
You could run over VNC at the desired resolution and just stretch the window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some versions of VNC (UltraVNC?
) do scaling.
You could run over VNC at the desired resolution and just stretch the window.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127194</id>
	<title>Diablo 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a 3DFX Glide wrapper for Diablo 2: <a href="http://www.svenswrapper.de/english/index.html/" title="svenswrapper.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.svenswrapper.de/english/index.html/</a> [svenswrapper.de]<br>It has windowed mode, desktop resolution, aspect ratio correction, 32 bit rendering, bilinear filtering, super sampling, and shader gamma to name a few.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a 3DFX Glide wrapper for Diablo 2 : http : //www.svenswrapper.de/english/index.html/ [ svenswrapper.de ] It has windowed mode , desktop resolution , aspect ratio correction , 32 bit rendering , bilinear filtering , super sampling , and shader gamma to name a few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a 3DFX Glide wrapper for Diablo 2: http://www.svenswrapper.de/english/index.html/ [svenswrapper.de]It has windowed mode, desktop resolution, aspect ratio correction, 32 bit rendering, bilinear filtering, super sampling, and shader gamma to name a few.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127966</id>
	<title>Super Old School</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258467180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Play Zork, then you won't have that problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Play Zork , then you wo n't have that problem ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Play Zork, then you won't have that problem ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127942</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap solution...</title>
	<author>marqs</author>
	<datestamp>1258466940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could also try to cover your monitor with some kind of filter. Perhaps some thin fabric?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could also try to cover your monitor with some kind of filter .
Perhaps some thin fabric ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could also try to cover your monitor with some kind of filter.
Perhaps some thin fabric?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126906</id>
	<title>get some sun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about you stop playing old worthless games and go outside?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about you stop playing old worthless games and go outside ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about you stop playing old worthless games and go outside?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30135224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30132332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30137906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30133510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30138312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30142214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0039243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30132210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30133510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30142214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30135224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30137906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30127164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30132332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30128212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30131486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30129374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30138312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0039243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30126590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0039243.30130350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
