4 ms·
The title is incorrect, because b&w Macs have 512×342 resolution, not 512x324. It wouldn't've been too crazy had Apple went with 64K x 4 chips, so they'd've ju
by johnklos 1y ago
The title is incorrect, because b&w Macs have 512×342 resolution, not 512x324.
It wouldn't've been too crazy had Apple went with 64K x 4 chips, so they'd've just needed four of them to get 128 KB at a full 16 bits wide.
512x342 was 16.7% of 128 KB of memory, as opposed to 18.75% with 512x384. Not much of a difference. But having square pixels is nice.
- jerbear4328 1y agoIt looks like it's just the HN submitted title which is wrong (currently "Why the Original Macintosh Had a Screen Resolution of 512×324"). The article's title is "Why the Original Macintosh Had a Screen Resolution of 512×342", and "324" doesn't appear anywhere on the page.
- bscphil 1y agoLooks like someone is reading Hacker News comments and editing the page - archive.org captured the page probably mid-edit, and it says "324" in one place: https://web.archive.org/web/20250527202300/https://512pixels.net/2025/05/original-macintosh-resolution/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250527202300/https://512pixels...
- 90s_dev 1y ago> wouldn't've Really, John? You really had to make me parse that word?
- brookst 1y agoYou version of shouldn’t’ve’s punctuation isn’t like that?
- webstrand 1y agoIt's a great word, I use it all the time.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y agoIt usually isn't transcribed with Klingon orthography.
- 90s_dev 1y agoI bet you also work for the IRS don't you
- kragen 1y agoYou shouldn't've tho. Who'd've complained if you hadn't've?
- kstrauser 1y agoWho’d’ve thought?
- JKCalhoun 1y agoWorth adding? The (almost [1]) omni-present menu bar ate 20 pixels of vertical space as well — so you could say the application had 322 of useable rows. [1] To be sure, many games hide the menu bar.