3 ms·

Which is why I pointed out Win2k, which can drive multiple 32-bit displays with at least HD resolution. I know this because I used to do it with multiples of th

Which is why I pointed out Win2k, which can drive multiple 32-bit displays with at least HD resolution. I know this because I used to do it with multiples of those 21" trinitron (woot the long dead physical dell outlet store) monitors that were 2048x1535 connected to my work computer. Sure today you can do 4k, but a not insignificant number of people are still running 1080p displays, which are actually fewer pixels than I had 20+ years ago. What you get with a modern machine is aero peak functionality, and transparency, but the ram usage doesn't magically go down if you turn it off on something like win7 where the option existed. Also, its funny that we could realtime repaint windows on a 486 with barely noticeable (if at all) lag, but we can't do it for a few dozen applications on a 5Ghz machine with dozen cores if there happens to be a requirement to repaint part of a window under a transparent one? Even so, if a full scale image (not that its even required for a peek type function) of a occluded window is needed, whats the storage requirements? A few dozen MB per application? But, that's not really how these applications work, when you peek/zoom/etc a window its getting redrawn in realtime. Otherwise you would see stale versions of windows that aren't visible, and if you notice that isn't what happens. Depending on settings (at least in KDE) there is a couple accuracy options that can be tuned which affect the repaint lag during zoom/peek/etc functions.

hnlmorg 4y ago
I can’t think of any graphics cards that could do 2048x1535 in 2000. Maybe several years later…much later…but even then you definitely wouldn’t be running that on a 21” screen because everything would have been tiny and scaling wasn’t a thing.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  https://www.matrox.com/sites/default/files/millenium-g450-user-guide-en.pdf https://www.matrox.com/sites/default/files/millenium-g450-us... page 47: Maximum display resolution Aspect ratio Main display *† Secondary display † 4:3/5:4 (traditional) 2048 × 1536 1600 × 1200
- StillBored 4y ago
  I mean, how many times can you be wrong in the same two sentences. I think people on this board have mentioned monitor resolutions went backwards for a decade... I'm fairly certain (but not entirely sure) it was a dell p1110, which I picked up about a dozen of for the company I was working for in late '98 or maybe '99. Definitely a 21" flat panel trinitron with a dell brand. There are various comments online about people buying the GDM-F520/etc and similar monitors based on the same tube in the late 1990's. And the graphics card wasn't the problem (although I can't remember if it was a pair of matrox'es or nividia's driving them). The problem was that at 2k it didn't like to remain converged over the entire screen all day long, so about once a day I would adjust the edge convergence. Which is probably why the recommended res (vs the max) was a notch lower, but IIRC it still had convergence issues. And you would apparently be shocked to know even win3.1 could do font scaling/etc, although I ran native 1:1 in NT4 then w2k because back then my eyes were good enough to notice the color fringing caused by the monitor going out of convergence. You might also be surprised that i have a 17" LG I purchased in ~97 (might have been 96) that I ran on my personal computer at 1600x1200 still sitting in my attic (would go check the date code, but lazy) . But, that's just a boring monitor, my boss in ~94 had an IIRC Ikegami (23/25" don't remember, but it was "huge" when i had a 15") that was doing 2k (or maybe a 19xx, it was weird) attached to some funky graphic card. The wikipedia page mentions there were trinitrons in the 1980's doing 2kx2k. So, maybe you didn't have one in your house but there were plenty in professional settings which were concerned about graphics accuracy, or having a lot of screen area. I was in the latter, we were attaching multiple heads (and not just my cheazy second herc for turbo debugger) to our customers in the mid 1990s with early versions of NT. (Random link about what I think is the same tube FD Trinitron® 0.22 Dot Pitch 2048 x 1536 @ 85Hz CRT https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/dell-21-monitor-p1100-is-it-a-sony-compare-to-f500r.507463/ https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/dell-21-monitor-p1100-i... I remember having the conversation with a buddy (who worked at a film shop you have probably heard of) and had the sony branded ones where he complained about the color accuracy, but said they didn't have convergence problems, so I blamed it on dell getting the lower quality ones.).
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    > I mean, how many times can you be wrong in the same two sentences. If you believe I’m wrong then a simple citation is enough. You don’t need to sprinkle your rebuttals with arseholery > And you would apparently be shocked to know even win3.1 could do font scaling/etc, Font scaling as been around for decades. That’s clearly not when I mean when I was taking about desktop scaling. And I still think the max resolution you described would be uncomfortably small for most people on a 21” monitor. These days operating systems scale widgets to work around that problem. Back then there was no such thing. > You might also be surprised that I wouldn’t, and again, no need to be an arse with your rebuttals. we are all grown ups so show some maturity > i have a 17" LG I purchased in ~97 (might have been 96) that I ran on my personal computer at 1600x1200 still sitting in my attic I do too. Never had a graphics card powerful enough to output that though and I had a pretty decent graphics card for that era. Or so I thought. Just goes to show there was a lot of hardware out there I didn’t get to play with. You make some good points. Pity about the way you made the.

hnlmorg 4y ago

I can’t think of any graphics cards that could do 2048x1535 in 2000. Maybe several years later…much later…but even then you definitely wouldn’t be running that on a 21” screen because everything would have been tiny and scaling wasn’t a thing.

justsomehnguy 4y ago
https://www.matrox.com/sites/default/files/millenium-g450-user-guide-en.pdf https://www.matrox.com/sites/default/files/millenium-g450-us... page 47: Maximum display resolution Aspect ratio Main display *† Secondary display † 4:3/5:4 (traditional) 2048 × 1536 1600 × 1200
StillBored 4y ago
I mean, how many times can you be wrong in the same two sentences. I think people on this board have mentioned monitor resolutions went backwards for a decade... I'm fairly certain (but not entirely sure) it was a dell p1110, which I picked up about a dozen of for the company I was working for in late '98 or maybe '99. Definitely a 21" flat panel trinitron with a dell brand. There are various comments online about people buying the GDM-F520/etc and similar monitors based on the same tube in the late 1990's. And the graphics card wasn't the problem (although I can't remember if it was a pair of matrox'es or nividia's driving them). The problem was that at 2k it didn't like to remain converged over the entire screen all day long, so about once a day I would adjust the edge convergence. Which is probably why the recommended res (vs the max) was a notch lower, but IIRC it still had convergence issues. And you would apparently be shocked to know even win3.1 could do font scaling/etc, although I ran native 1:1 in NT4 then w2k because back then my eyes were good enough to notice the color fringing caused by the monitor going out of convergence. You might also be surprised that i have a 17" LG I purchased in ~97 (might have been 96) that I ran on my personal computer at 1600x1200 still sitting in my attic (would go check the date code, but lazy) . But, that's just a boring monitor, my boss in ~94 had an IIRC Ikegami (23/25" don't remember, but it was "huge" when i had a 15") that was doing 2k (or maybe a 19xx, it was weird) attached to some funky graphic card. The wikipedia page mentions there were trinitrons in the 1980's doing 2kx2k. So, maybe you didn't have one in your house but there were plenty in professional settings which were concerned about graphics accuracy, or having a lot of screen area. I was in the latter, we were attaching multiple heads (and not just my cheazy second herc for turbo debugger) to our customers in the mid 1990s with early versions of NT. (Random link about what I think is the same tube FD Trinitron® 0.22 Dot Pitch 2048 x 1536 @ 85Hz CRT https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/dell-21-monitor-p1100-is-it-a-sony-compare-to-f500r.507463/ https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/dell-21-monitor-p1100-i... I remember having the conversation with a buddy (who worked at a film shop you have probably heard of) and had the sony branded ones where he complained about the color accuracy, but said they didn't have convergence problems, so I blamed it on dell getting the lower quality ones.).
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  > I mean, how many times can you be wrong in the same two sentences. If you believe I’m wrong then a simple citation is enough. You don’t need to sprinkle your rebuttals with arseholery > And you would apparently be shocked to know even win3.1 could do font scaling/etc, Font scaling as been around for decades. That’s clearly not when I mean when I was taking about desktop scaling. And I still think the max resolution you described would be uncomfortably small for most people on a 21” monitor. These days operating systems scale widgets to work around that problem. Back then there was no such thing. > You might also be surprised that I wouldn’t, and again, no need to be an arse with your rebuttals. we are all grown ups so show some maturity > i have a 17" LG I purchased in ~97 (might have been 96) that I ran on my personal computer at 1600x1200 still sitting in my attic I do too. Never had a graphics card powerful enough to output that though and I had a pretty decent graphics card for that era. Or so I thought. Just goes to show there was a lot of hardware out there I didn’t get to play with. You make some good points. Pity about the way you made the.