4 ms·
640x480 @ 14" is 57 dpi, but Windows, back then, was commonly configured for 96 dpi. Making fonts tiny was the only way for them not to render huge on the typi
by hapless 11y ago
640x480 @ 14" is 57 dpi, but Windows, back then, was commonly configured for 96 dpi.
Making fonts tiny was the only way for them not to render huge on the typical end-user device.
- frik 11y ago1280x1024 on a 17"/19" TFT screen was common in 2004. Your numbers are from a decade before that. Websites were often optimised for minimum width of 800px to cater also old 800x600 CRT screens from last century.
- DiabloD3 11y agoI didn't get an LCD until like 2008 or 2009. But yeah, I was doing 1280x960 on a 17".
- frik 11y agoCRTs are bad for your eyes. I replaced all CRTs in my life with LCD in 2001. They got very inexpensive in 2002. CRTs were very flexible when choosing a screen resolution- 32x200, 800x600, or even 1600x1200 on a 17" - no problem. Today many cheap LCDs look only fine in their native resolution. I wish we one could still buy 16:10 or even 4:3 LCD monitors nowadays. A ~4K monitor in 4:3 would be awesome.
- DiabloD3 11y agoLCDs had really bad contrast, and IPS wasn't really a thing yet. I just was horribly unimpressed with how bad LCDs looked for the longest time. Now I'm pining for an impulse driven OLED. True blacks combined with the pixel grid an LCD has, with no persistence of vision issues.
- bluedino 11y agoPeople are still buying 15.6" 1366x768 laptops by the truck load