Win95

On 8/27/2020 9:34 AM, Bill wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:

I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds.

Think of what you PAID for it too! I think I bought a light 22" for
about $229 about 8 years ago. Haven't checked prices lately.


Out of curiosity, I just checked Amazon.com. I didn't look at all the
choices, but the lowest price I noticed was $89.99


The quality between different brands and models varies a lot, however.


--
Ken

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:34:20 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:

I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds.

Think of what you PAID for it too! I think I bought a light 22" for
about $229 about 8 years ago. Haven't checked prices lately.

I had a 17" monitor in 1994, Cost about $700. I noted at the
time that the diagonal measurement as also about the depth of the
monitor for a CRT display. Used up a LOT of desktop space.

Ken Blake wrote:
On 8/27/2020 7:27 AM, Mayayana wrote:

"Chris" wrote

| I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays.
|
| Not much of a jump from 800x600 in 25 years!
|
| That's an 8-fold increase in area whilst shrinking the size, weight,
energy
| usage and improving the quality (analogue vs digital) of the monitor. I
can't
| imagine what kind of desk I'd need for a 27" CRT monitor.
|

I'm using a 27" monitor, at 1920x1080. More pixels
doesn't mean more advanced technology. It's about
the human body using the hardware. My eyes are
getting old.


So are mine, as well as the rest of me.

None of us are immune to that.



I set up this monitor on a cabinet drawer
slide, mounted under bookshelves over my desk. So
I can pull it out or push it back. Whatever I find
comfortable. It's 24-bit color and it's clear enough.


How clear the image is has a lot to do with what monitor it is, not just
its size and resolution.



There might be scenarios where more concentrated
pixels are useful, but that would mostly be on tiny
screens, like phones.


*Tiny* screens? A higher resolution means everything appears smaller.
Putting it on a smaller screen makes no sense. Higher resolutions need
*bigger* screens.

Nope. A higher resolution allows more pixels for rendering the same image.
For example fonts are much smoother and easier to read. "Retina" like
screens are much easier to read.

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 8/27/20 9:05 AM, Chris wrote:
On 26 Aug 2020 at 19:53:27 BST, "mechanic" wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:06:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays.

Not much of a jump from 800x600 in 25 years!

That's an 8-fold increase in area whilst shrinking the size, weight, energy
usage and improving the quality (analogue vs digital) of the monitor. I can't
imagine what kind of desk I'd need for a 27" CRT monitor.

I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds.

I never went larger than 17". 19" was simply too expensive.

Kirk Bubul wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:34:20 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:

I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds.

Think of what you PAID for it too! I think I bought a light 22" for
about $229 about 8 years ago. Haven't checked prices lately.

I had a 17" monitor in 1994, Cost about $700. I noted at the
time that the diagonal measurement as also about the depth of the
monitor for a CRT display. Used up a LOT of desktop space.

And sucked a lot of power and made a lot of heat!
--
Life's so loco! ..!.. *isms, sins, hates, (d)evil, illnesses (e.g., COVID-19/2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2), deaths (RIP), interruptions, stresses, heat waves, fires, out(r)ages, dramas, unlucky #4, 2020, greeds, bugs (e.g., crashes & female mosquitoes), etc.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
/ /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:05:48 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was common
for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m
bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try pushing
that with 25-yo hardware.

Your video card is pushing out a 5 GB/s signal? No need to send that
much data, there are screen buffers.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:44:50 +0100, mechanic wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:05:48 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was common
for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m
bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try pushing
that with 25-yo hardware.

Your video card is pushing out a 5 GB/s signal? No need to send that
much data, there are screen buffers.

Looking at the HDMI specs, I see various standards for those
cables/connectors are indeed specifying rates for video connections
upto and above 50Gb/s.

Some cables, some connectors!

On 27 Aug 2020 at 22:44:50 BST, "mechanic" wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:05:48 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was
common
for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m
bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try
pushing
that with 25-yo hardware.

Your video card is pushing out a 5 GB/s signal?

I said 5giga*bits* per second, but yes. And then some...

Remember that's per connection and modern graphics cards can drive several
monitors at upto 8K at the same time. So 5Gbps is a stroll in the park.

No need to send that
much data, there are screen buffers.

Chris wrote:
On 27 Aug 2020 at 22:44:50 BST, "mechanic" wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:05:48 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was
common
for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m
bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try
pushing
that with 25-yo hardware.
Your video card is pushing out a 5 GB/s signal?

I said 5giga*bits* per second, but yes. And then some...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

UHBR 20 (20.0 Gbit/s per lane)

Maximum total bandwidth 80.00 Gbit/s
Maximum total data rate 77.37 Gbit/s
Encoding scheme 128b/132b

Just to give some idea what kinds of rates a modern
card can cough up. The interface is clock-synthesized,
and "only runs as fast as it has to". If sending 800x600 at 60FPS,
the rates would be quite a bit lower.

That makes the per-lane speed, similar to some
flavor of Thunderbolt.

*******

Twenty five years ago, cards were showing up with two
VGA connectors, but the connectors were not equal. One
VGA connector had a Brooktree DAC running at whatever
was the "full rate" of the day. The second DAC was
less capable, like maybe 1024x768.

The DAC arms race, stopped at "400 megahertz bandwidth".
This seemed to equate in the specs, to a horizontal
resolution of 2048 at a refresh of 60 frames per second.
So in terms of what resolution was being pushed, that's
to give an idea. Still pretty decent.

Brooktree was kinda "wiped out", when the GPU makers managed
to put a DAC inside the GPU, and then Brooktree no longer
had a "magic sauce" to offer.

It's not clear what we should quote as the vertical resolution.
Some specs may have listed 2048 x 1536, it's possible
others hand-waved at 2Kx2K. Not a lot of monitors out
there could be used to test that the output looked reasonable.
(Higher res monitors exist, but they may not have
VGA connectors on them for the most obvious
reasons of how ****ty it might look.)

You couldn't do 2560x1600 on VGA, but you could
do something in roughly the same ballpark.

Since VGa is analog, and the wiring isn't all that
good, the higher resolution settings tend to have
reflections and ghosting. If pushed to the limit, it's
hard to say what the best-case recovery of the signal
would look like. But it probably doesn't quite cut it
at 2560x1600. On VGA, 1920x1080 is safer.

Paul

On 8/27/20 1:29 PM, Kirk Bubul wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:34:20 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:

I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds.

Think of what you PAID for it too! I think I bought a light 22" for
about $229 about 8 years ago. Haven't checked prices lately.

I had a 17" monitor in 1994, Cost about $700. I noted at the
time that the diagonal measurement as also about the depth of the
monitor for a CRT display. Used up a LOT of desktop space.

I decided that was big enough (for a CRT monitor),, that 19" was a
mistake. New monitors fit in much less space (and weigh a lot less too).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

Jesus -- The other white meat!

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:04:19 -0400, Paul wrote:

Since VGa is analog, and the wiring isn't all that
good, the higher resolution settings tend to have
reflections and ghosting. If pushed to the limit, it's
hard to say what the best-case recovery of the signal
would look like. But it probably doesn't quite cut it
at 2560x1600. On VGA, 1920x1080 is safer.

That's the point, anyone familiar with working with systems at that
sort of bandwidth knows the difficult problems of getting consistent
impedance across the cards, through the connectors and then the
connection from a HDMI cable to the monitor. A TDR plot would be a
nightmare!

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:29:22 +0100, mechanic
wrote:

25 years on, we are reminded of the big changes Win95 showed
compared to the preceding Win3.1 (I'm talking of home/consumer
versions). 25 years is a long time - what is it, 12-15 Moore
periods? Shouldn't we expect rather more change in the hardware as a
result? Software has come a long way, we have AI and virtual reality
on the horizon, but the hardware seems to have stagnated. The basic
vision behind 'one computer for each home/desk' hasn't changed.

We now have thin clients.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:28:04 +0100, ? Good Guy ?
wrote:

This post contains hypertext message that contains the main information. Your machine can't handle this correctly so you'll be better off plonking my posts once and for all rather than wasting time trying to read it.

You use ? in your name it won't work in a killfile.