> 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

> 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.