[vouaobrasil]

On the other hand, subpixel rendering is absent from MacOS and makes it very difficult to using regular ol' 1920x1080 screens with modern MacOS. Yes, those Retina displays look nice, but it's a shame that lower res screens do not because they work perfectly fine except for the font rendering.

[nomel]

My first (and last) 1920x1080 monitor was 50lb CRT I picked up on the side of the road, in 2003.

I haven't owned a smartphone with a screen resolution that low, in over 10 years.

I think it's an amazing feat of marketing, by display companies, that people still put up with such low resolutions.

[lttlrck]

It's still a perfectly serviceable resolution.

Of course 16:19 pushed down display costs leading to the demise of 1920x1200 which is unforgivable ;-)

Those 120 pixels were sorely missed.

[hnuser123456]

You can still get 16:10, they're just classed as "business professional" models with matching price tag.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Buy them refurbished instead, then.

[sam_lowry_]

Hm... I am reading this on a 1600x900 screen of my T420s Frankenpad while sitting in dusk in a German campsite. I ordered the screen some 10 years ago off Alibaba or something, and it is exactly the resolution and brightness I need. I hope I will die before this Frankenpad, because contemporary laptops are awful in so many aspects.

You know... as you age, you really can't read all those tiny characters anyway.

[bee_rider]

It sounds like you have a proper computer anyway, do you really care about non-fixed-width fonts? These are office suite and web browser fonts.

If something needed to be rendered in some particular way, it should have been a PDF. For everything else there’s vim.

[hagbard_c]

> I think it's an amazing feat of marketing, by display companies, that people still put up with such low resolutions.

Stereo audio is still fine even though 5.1 exists

300 dpi printers are still useable even though 2400 dpi printers exist

double-glass windows are still fine even though triple-glass windows exist

2-wheel drive cars are still fine even though 4-wheel drive cars exist

Just because something new appears on the market that new thing does not need to take over from all predecessors when those predecessors are good enough for the intended purpose, especially not when the new thing comes with its costs - power use and higher demands on GPUs in case of display with higher resolutions than really needed.

[nomel]

And feet are fine, even though shoes exist.

Fire is fine, even though ovens exist.

We're animals, that are perfectly fine living naked in the wild (some still do today). It's all complete excess. Feel free to abandon the progression of tech, but, I challenge you to use a modern panel for a couple months, then try to go back to 1080p. It's like the console players who claimed 30fps was serviceable, fine. Sure, but nobody wants to go back to 30fps after they've used 60hz, or 144hz, for a non-negligible amount of time.

I also use a 1080p from time to time, it's servicable, but it's not comfortable, and it provides a far far inferior experience.

[vouaobrasil]

That's true that they aren't interested. But I still like such screens. I used one quite recently, and it worked just fine for my needs.

[perching_aix]

A Full HD CRT from the roadside in 2003? As if this was just a thing people had happen to them? Is this some elaborate joke I'm missing?

> I haven't owned a smartphone with a screen resolution that low

Smartphone in italics, because smartphones are known for their low pixel densities, right? What?

Did you own a smartphone at all in the past 10 years? Just double checking.

> I think it's an amazing feat of marketing, by display companies, that people still put up with such low resolutions.

And how did you reach that conclusion? Did you somehow miss display companies selling and pushing 1440p and 4K monitors left and right for more than a handful of years at this point, and yet the Steam Hardware Survey still bringing out 1080p monitors as the king month to month?

Sometimes I really do wonder if I live in a different world to others.

[nomel]

> As if this was just a thing people had happen to them?

No, literally, on the roadside, out for trash. Disposing of CRT has always been expensive since they can't fit in the trash and taking them to the dump has a fee for the all the lead. At the transition to LCD, they were all over the place, along with projection TVs. There was also a lot of churn when "slimmer" versions came out, that mostly halved the depth required. Again, it was literally 50lbs, and about 2ft in depth. It took up my whole desk. It was worthless to most anyone.

> Smartphone in italics, because smartphones are known for their low pixel densities, right? What?

Over 10 years ago I had an iPhone 6 plus, with 1080p resolution. All my phones after have been higher. Their pixel densities (DPI) are actually pretty great, but since they're small, their pixel counts are on the lower side. There's nothing different about smartphone displays. The display manufacturers use the same process for all of them, with the same densities.

[kalleboo]

I think the italics are because it's so weird that most people have more pixels on the 6" display in their pocket than on the 24" display on their desk.

[hnuser123456]

CRT resolution was moreso limited by GPUs than the monitor itself. They don't have fixed pixels like LCD/OLED.

[nomel]

> GPUs than the monitor itself.

No, it was limited by the bandwidth of the beam driving system, which the manufactures, obviously, tried to maximize. This limit is what set the shadow mask and RGB sub pixels/strip widths. The electron beam couldn't make different color, different colored phosphor patches were used.

But, since bandwidth is mostly resolution * refresh, you could trade between the two: more refresh, less resolution. More resolution, less refresh. Early on, you had to download a "driver" for the monitor, which had a list of the supported resolutions and refresh rates. There was eventually a protocol made to query the supported resolutions, straight from the monitor. But, you could also just make your own list (still can) and do funky resolutions and refresh rates, as long as the drive circuit could accommodate.

This monitor could do something like 75Hz at 800x600, and I think < 60 at 1080p.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

I got a 21" Hitachi Superscan Elite or Supreme around that time from a gamer.

Because that thing could only do the BIOS text modes, and standard VGA at 640x480 at 60 or 70Hz. Anything else just showed OUT OF SYNC on the OSD, and then switched off.

Except when you fed it 800x600@160Hz, 1024x768@144Hz, 1280@120Hz and 1600x1200@70 to 80Hz, or anything weird in between.

I could easily do that under XFree86 or early X.ORG. A gamer under DOS/Windows rather not, not even with Scitech Display Doctor, because most games at that time used the hardware directly, with only a few standard options to chose from.

OUT-OF-SYNC zing

Was nice for viewing 2 DIN-A4 side by side in original size :-)

Fortunately a Matrox I had could drive that, as could a later Voodoo3 which also had excellent RAMDACs and X support.

[perching_aix]

That sounds weird and fun, although I can't seem to find the pattern that would have resulted in those numbers. 1024×768@144 (8bpc) works out to 340 MB/s, while 800×600@160 (8bpc) works out to just 230 MB/s, should have been able to refresh even faster. Or is that some other limitation that's not bandwidth? [0]

Was a bit surprised by that double A4 thing btw, but I did the math and it checks out - paper is just surprisingly small compared to desktop displays. Both size and resolution wise (1612×1209 would have put you right up to 96 ppi, with regular 1600×1200 being pretty close too). It's kind of ironic even, the typical 1080p 24" 60 Hz LCD spec that's been with us for decades since just barely fits an A4 height wise, and has a slightly lower ppi. Does have some extra space for sidebars at least, I guess.

[0] Update: ah right, it wasn't a pixel clock limit being ran to the limit there, but the horizontal frequency.

[perching_aix]

Yeah, DDC and EDID were standardized in '94, and were widely available and working well by '98 - if you were on Windows at least, running fresh hardware.

> This monitor could do something like 75Hz at 800x600, and I think < 60 at 1080p.

Assuming both modes were meant with 24-bit color ("true color"), that'd mean 17.36 Hz tops then for the FHD mode, ignoring video timing requirements. I don't think you were using that monitor at 17 Hz.

Even if you fell back to 16 bit color, that's still at most 26 Hz, which is miserable enough on a modern sample-and-hold style display, let alone on a strobed one from back in the day. And that is to say nothing of the mouse input feel.

[perching_aix]

They still had very real limitations in terms of the signal they accepted, and color CRTs specifically had discrete color patches forming discrete, fixed number of triads.