zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. anthk+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-03-05 17:46:06
No, 4K. 1280x720 would be 640x480, the minimum usable for a Windows 95/98 desktop and most multimedia based software. Today that resolution it's almost the minimum for 720p video and modern gaming.

1920x1080 would be 800x600 back in the day, something everyone used for a viable (not just usable) desktop in order to be confortable with daily tasks such as browing and using a word processor. Not top-end, but most games would look nice enough, such as Unreal, Deus Ex and Max Payne at 800x600, which looked great.

replies(1): >>int_19+ME1
2. int_19+ME1[view] [source] 2023-03-06 07:19:39
>>anthk+(OP)
It was much more common to run games at a lower resolution than regular desktop, though. Even as 1024x768 became the norm for desktop, mostly, the crazy iteration rates on 3D hardware meant that most people who couldn't afford a new card every year would stick to 640x480 for the more recent 3D games.
replies(1): >>anthk+HG1
◧◩
3. anthk+HG1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-03-06 07:41:43
>>int_19+ME1
Yes, I did that even in the Geforce 2MX days. Games maxed @800x600, desktop at 1024x768.

Ditto with today's 1920x1080 desktop resolution on my Intel NUC and games at 1280x720.

But I could run 1280x1024@60 if I wanted. And a lot games would run fine at 1024x768.

[go to top]