I'm a bit out of touch, but I noticed that back in the days of 800x600.. whenever resolutions would then get higher, e.g. to 1024x768, everything on the screen got smaller. And then what happened was people started getting interested in bigger screens, like from 14" to 15" to 17", 19" and so on. Did winxp or win98 have any option to decrease the pixel size, so that at higher resolutions, things weren't smaller? Even looking at Windows 7, I see an option to increase text size,
but no option to change pixel size
i'm thinking it might be possible to keep the screen at a particular size, and have a higher resolution without everything getting smaller, would it be?
do you remember a time when people had 14" square screens in 640x480 and stuff was big, then got massively smaller at 800x600 and even smaller at 1024x768, . and still with the 14" monitors?
The IBM T220 and T221 are LCD monitors that were sold between 2001 and 2005, with a native resolution of 3840×2400 pixels (WQUXGA) on a screen with a diagonal of 22.2 inches (564 mm). This works out to 9,216,000 pixels, with a pixel density of 204 pixels per inch (80 dpcm, 0.1245 mm pixel pitch), much higher than contemporary computer monitors (about 100 pixels per inch) and approaching the resolution of print media. The display family was nicknamed "Big Bertha" in some trade journals. Costing around $8,400 in 2003, the displays saw few buyers. Such high-resolution displays would remain niche...
@barlop naw
I'd say it was LCD TVs
it was cheaper to use the same panels in both and just swap out the controller cards. Also made more sense for multimedia.
hence 16:9 everywhere (since that was the common TV aspect ratio) and 720p/1366x758/1080p/UHD being standards over 'friendlier' aspect ratios for text
while TVs were 4:3, that was very much a CRT thing
also with LCDs things were smaller. a 29 inch CRT was a beast.
so people got bigger screens as more of the volume was screen
@JourneymanGeek Considering one... preferably with a keyboard / dock and hopefully taking 1-2TB NVMe SSDs... Which one are you using?
@JourneymanGeek probably less uncommon now that every TV comes with one or more HDMI connectors... I like the interchangeability between 'TV' and 'extended desktop' a lot tbh
@JourneymanGeek had a desk against the wall in those days, kinda had to put the monitor sideways or the keyboard (and me) wouldn't fit :D
@Hennes "The RAM and SSD components on Apple's M1 Macs are soldered in place, making the procedure extremely challenging, and there is reportedly a high chance of failure." - ugh
I prefer to stay outside of apple's sphere of influence tbh
there'll be some sort of performance increase or reliability excuse, but undoubtedly the intended side effect is to make their devices as little user serviceable as possible
yeah, I've already gone through the NVMe form factor thing with the work laptop I'm currently using... I recall actually taking it out and measuring it the first time around :x
And being used to the comfort of SATA cradles, I was unpleasantly surprised when it turned out to be very difficult to find a compatible USB adapter for that thing
its my throw in a bag pc , so I don't really mind, and I have 2 different USB things, one is all the ports, and the other does C to USB A x2 HDMI and ethernet
I went to a lecture about coreboot, about a decade back. (FOSDEM). It was interesting. Boot, no memeory controller configured. Run all ops from cache, config system. partial restart.