4 ms·

Bear in mind that resolutions back then were much lower than now, and not all computers had 24 bit color frame buffers. Video cards ran one monitor for the mos

Bear in mind that resolutions back then were much lower than now, and not all computers had 24 bit color frame buffers. Video cards ran one monitor for the most part, with no others attached. Be had well written multi threading and preemptive multitasking implemented on a clean slate - no compatibility hacks required. That meant it worked well and was quick/responsive. There were still limits, and the OS didn't have many security protections that would get written in today.

navjack27 7y ago
I mean maybe. I was running 1600x1200 on my monitor back then.
- bitL 7y ago
  2048x1536 was already a thing as well.
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    Yup, had a 22” Mitsubishi monitor that could do that resolution in ~2002. Everyone would pick on me about the text being so small, but I’d let them sit at my desk squinting and I’d stand ten feet back and read the screen with ease as they struggled. The monitor was a beast though, around 70lbs if memory serves. Edit: Pretty sure this is the monitor: https://www.necdisplay.com/documents/ColorBrochures/RDF225WG_SpecBrochure.pdf https://www.necdisplay.com/documents/ColorBrochures/RDF225WG...
- joshspankit 7y ago
  Also we had actual 32bit colour, not this 24 + 8 alpha. You could actually look at a rainbow gradient without banding.
- Accujack 7y ago
  Some people were, but it wasn't too common. Workstations had far higher resolutions long before this, but home PCs running non 3d accelerated hardware were still mostly 1024x768-ish. The BeBox itself was vastly different hardware than a standard PC as well, so it could break a lot of rules as far as smooth concurrency and multitasking... kinda like the Amiga did.
anthk 7y ago
1280x1024, not so far from 1920x1080.
- Accujack 7y ago
  That was more the exception than the rule. Besides, 1080P is about 45% more pixels per frame than 1280, and likely at a higher frame rate. Big difference in hardware load.

navjack27 7y ago

I mean maybe. I was running 1600x1200 on my monitor back then.

bitL 7y ago
2048x1536 was already a thing as well.
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  Yup, had a 22” Mitsubishi monitor that could do that resolution in ~2002. Everyone would pick on me about the text being so small, but I’d let them sit at my desk squinting and I’d stand ten feet back and read the screen with ease as they struggled. The monitor was a beast though, around 70lbs if memory serves. Edit: Pretty sure this is the monitor: https://www.necdisplay.com/documents/ColorBrochures/RDF225WG_SpecBrochure.pdf https://www.necdisplay.com/documents/ColorBrochures/RDF225WG...
joshspankit 7y ago
Also we had actual 32bit colour, not this 24 + 8 alpha. You could actually look at a rainbow gradient without banding.
Accujack 7y ago
Some people were, but it wasn't too common. Workstations had far higher resolutions long before this, but home PCs running non 3d accelerated hardware were still mostly 1024x768-ish. The BeBox itself was vastly different hardware than a standard PC as well, so it could break a lot of rules as far as smooth concurrency and multitasking... kinda like the Amiga did.

anthk 7y ago

1280x1024, not so far from 1920x1080.

Accujack 7y ago
That was more the exception than the rule. Besides, 1080P is about 45% more pixels per frame than 1280, and likely at a higher frame rate. Big difference in hardware load.