3 ms·

> Which software exactly is functionally the same yet consumes more resources? Can you give some specific examples? Compare basic document editing in Office 36

by erik 5y ago

> Which software exactly is functionally the same yet consumes more resources? Can you give some specific examples? 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.

dahart 5y ago
> 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_of_Standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#Evolution_o...
- blihp 5y ago
  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)
  - varjag 5y ago
    Yep: as broke students in early 90s we ran VGA on a 1970s era amber terminal display.
_carbyau_ 5y ago
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.

by erik 5y ago

dahart 5y ago

> 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_of_Standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#Evolution_o...

blihp 5y ago
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)
- varjag 5y ago
  Yep: as broke students in early 90s we ran VGA on a 1970s era amber terminal display.

_carbyau_ 5y ago

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.