640x480 color e-ink is the future of sustainable computing.
>>108881352Maybe back in 1997.
>>108881352what you on about retard, even in the Windows 3.1 days you would at least pick 1024x768 or 1280x1024 depending on what your monitor/gpu would support.
>>108881352It wasn't enough even in the whole of 80s. Professionals have been using 1024x768 since at least 1981. And it was enough for consumers too until they switched aspect ratio.
>>108881467We've come such a long way, from 1024*768 to 1366*768The future is amaze
>640x480 used to be perfectly sufficient when desktop environment didn't existfify
>>108881512Nah, it was fine on Windows 3.1 but the interface elements were built to use that scale.
>>108881352640 KB used to be perfectly sufficient, too.
>implying we were on 640x480 in the xp era
>>108881467>even in the Windows 3.1 days you would at least pick 1024x768lol maybe 10% did that. w3.1 was the days of 12-14 inch VGA monitors. SVGA at best with 800x600
>>108881352Debates used to be perfectly sufficient before we allowed women and blacks to vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYP8-oxq8ig
>>108881554>debate is on domestic matters>Kennedy's opening statement is about the worldHow the fuck did this guy get elected.
>>108881352I ran both XP and 7 on a 1280x1024 screen before it gave out and I finally moved to 1080p. Back then I thought that 5:4 screen was big and I didn't need more, now I'm on 1440p and I see 1080p as a downgrade.
>>108881591I ran xp and 7 on the same thinkpad from 2004 to 2010. I upgraded once in that decade and this decade I've had to "upgrade" several times because of flaky hardware, but I got full refunds so I guess they are just incompetent.
>>108881352Back then, yeah. Nowadays, I still think 800x600 is more than enough, the only problem being that some software is designed to be readable only if your monitor resolution is 999999999x999999999.
>>108881467800x600 was the sweet spot for readability on a typical CRT. 1024x768 felt blurry in places
>>108881641Really depends on the CRT. If you bought upper mid class or higher then XGA was totally fine on 17". Maybe even 15" if you had the dosh for a Trinitron
In the early 2000s I had an 1992 EIZO 21" monitor that I ran at 1600x1200@85Hz (slightly out of spec) I got for free and it felt like a complete dogshit downgrade when I had to switch to TFT because I had to move and couldn't take that monster with me.
>>108881546>>1088816411994 video game mag ad and oh look 486's with 1024x768 monitor and graphics card. 800x600 was late 80's early 90's shit.
>>108881681it was available you retard. doesn't mean the majority actually shelled out the dosh to have such hardware (they didn't)
>>108881681That's like saying >look, everyone in 2026 had a 5080 and a 8k monitor! Look at this catalog!!
>>108881687>>108881696holy retardation, pentium released in 1993 so these 486 are literally budget tier shit. here is an ad from 1994 for a non poorfag 1600x1200 monitor. you guys are either thirdies or poorfags or zoomers who have no idea.
>>108881743you still don't get the point lmao
>>108881352Wonder how would default Windows 11 with Edge open look on 640x480. Gotta set up a VM just to see it unironically.
>>108881352We could tolerate low resolutions and low framerates better because we had this thing called CRT DISPLAYS with no input lag and perfect motion clarity. They're just better at low resolutions than LCDs, which are better for high resolutions. >>108881652>>108881641It depended on the CRT being able to output HD resolutions while keeping refresh rates sufficiently high, it probably felt blurry for you because your refresh was too low.
>>108881352Back when there was only Windows 3.1, 3.11 for Workgroups maybe, Even then 640x480 was peasantry and we used 800x600 at a minimum or 1024x768 if possible. So yeah, nah, 640x480 was never sufficient.
>>108881503if xerox had this in 1982 how did bill gates sell dos to ibm ?
>>108881775>cookies notice bigger than the entire screen
I'm still using 1080p and I will never "upgrade"
>>108881352No it wasn't. It was already unusable even before XP came
>>108881352Pic related used to be perfectly sufficient. And it still is. They just don't want you to know because if everyone finds out, they lose.
>>108881352>green themeeasiest way to identify a booger eater
>>108881352That's miserable. Now open explorer.>>108881467Even if it's more like 800x600, that's still a damn side more than OPfag is trying to claim.
>>108881352Efficient UI design.Picrel is all we ever needed to get actual work done. If you’re not using that, you’re just fucking around and wasting time.
