4 ms·
I expect the standard would be something like 80x25 regardless, given the size and resolution of early terminal monitors and how small you could make text befor
by bbanyc 7y ago
I expect the standard would be something like 80x25 regardless, given the size and resolution of early terminal monitors and how small you could make text before it's unreadable. Whether a different sized greenback ends up making a 70 or 90 column punched card, it's not that big of a difference from what we got. The 4:3 aspect ratio is probably the bigger influence.
It's like how rack mounts are 19 inches wide because the Bell System made that the standard for its telephone relay racks 100 years ago. In the long run it's more important that there is a standard than what it is.
- flohofwoe 7y agoVideo memory addressing could have become quite a bit simpler and faster if the width would be nice round 2^N number (e.g. 32, 64 or 128 characters on a line), especially on limited 8-bit machines of the 70s and 80s. So 40 or 80 is indeed a somewhat strange choice (at least those numbers aren't completely odd though, with 40=(2^5)+(2^3) and 80=(2^6)+(2^4).
- thelazydogsback 7y agoTRS-80... 64 chars (or 32 double-width) by 16 lines