3 ms·
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.
by 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.