Re:Your CPU may have slowed down on Wednesday
by dahart on Tuesday June 22, 2021 @12:58PM
(#27594134)
> Sure, 365 has loads of additional functionality
Right, so you’re agreeing with me and disagreeing with @miltondts? UX isn’t what we were discussing.
> This was maybe the case in the mid-90’s.
“In the PC world, the IBM PS/2 VGA (multi-color) on-board graphics chips used a non-interlaced (progressive) 640 × 480 × 16 color resolution that was easier to read and thus more useful for office work. It was the standard resolution from 1990 to around 1996. The standard resolution was 800 × 600 until around 2000.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#Evolution_o...
Re:Your CPU may have slowed down on Wednesday
by blihp on Tuesday June 22, 2021 @02:37PM
(#27595400)
One problem with that entry: the PS/2 only ever had a minuscule share of the market. In the clone world, which was the lions share (think Dell, Lenovo etc of today), resolutions were all over the place. So 800x600 was often the minimum resolution many developers were targeting for things like dialog boxes etc in that timeframe. It's a fiction to say there was a standard during that time, there were many. From SVGA (800x600) on, it was more a combination of user preference, monitor capability and any minimum software requirements as to what resolution a given user would run. Unlike digital LCDs of today, analog monitors didn't care what resolution you ran them at as long as they could handle the horizontal/vertical frequencies you were throwing at them and the phosphor mask had the resolution needed. (and if it didn't have the resolution, the picture would just look progressively more blurry as you jacked up the resolution being sent to it)
Re:Your CPU may have slowed down on Wednesday
by varjag on Tuesday June 22, 2021 @06:45PM
(#27598260)
Yep: as broke students in early 90s we ran VGA on a 1970s era amber terminal display.
Re:Your CPU may have slowed down on Wednesday
by _carbyau_ on Tuesday June 22, 2021 @11:06PM
(#27600335)
I have been using 1600x1200 for 20 years. I had a single CRT. Later upgraded to two LCDs of the same res.(So I guess 3200x1200, but not for gaming.)
Then 1920x1080 didn't seem worth the cost.
Then gaming landscape changed and 60Hz is not a thing anymore, now it has to be 120+.
So have been waiting until 4k 120Hz+ and the money in my pocket meet.
Compare basic document editing in Office 365 with Office 2000 running on Win2k. Sure, 365 has loads of additional functionality, and your data follows you across devices. But the base user experience is largely worse.
> It’s easy to forget that 20 years ago we had 800x600 screens, 24 bit color was not ubiquitous, and 60hz monitors were practically non-existent.
This was maybe the case in the mid-90's. But by the late 90's 1024x768, 85hz, and 24 bit color were standard. 1280x1024 and even 1600x1200 were not uncommon.