How did people manage to do hours of "modern" tasks like web browsing or image/video editing back when the typical desktop display was a 13 inch, 640x480 CRT monitor?
>>51933346
because faggots like you weren't allowed to use computers.
>>51933346
Because they weren't using typical desktop displays to do it.
>>51933346
Web browsing pushed screens and resolutions to get bigger, before that, people were happy with fuking around in norton command and the command shell with 80 chara width.
>>51933346
No fags with 3 monitors, no autists screaming about bezels, a lot less shouting about the newest arbitrary resolution standard, just better in general.
>>51933346
Was that ever a thing? CRTs could scan at high rates. I always thought 640x480 was just for old people who couldn't handle tiny text.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workstation
>>51933469
The cheaper ones ran at lower res.
>implying CRTs were that small
>implying you couldn't buy 4K CRTs
>>51933487
I may just have had higher end stuff. The absolute lowest I've ever ran mine for general use and not to get leet framerate was 800x600.
>>51933503
you couldn't. There were 4k monochrome CRTs for medical purposes. There were never any 4k color CRTs
>>51933346
programs used to be made for smaller resolutions
>>51933346
there wasn't consuertard cancer like you to stop them with meme specs
>>51933577
>>51933367
>>51933446
Holy shit, nothing about my post was intended as bait, it was an idle question I was genuinely curious about.
You cunts are even easy to make mad by accident.
I ponder OP's underage status. People didn't do "hours" of web browsing back then; especially not on metered connections that charged for per-minute of Internet use. And they certainly didn't edit videos (see >>51933486) PCs and Internet were more novelty and less essential back then. By the time AOL changed that paradigm and made Internet use more ubiquitous, the average consumer level CRT did vastly better than 640x480.
>>51933469
>Was that ever a thing? CRTs could scan at high rates
It was a thing. RAM was expensive. Video RAM was really expensive. Frame buffer cards had to choose between resolution, bit depth, speed and price. You can't sell millions of computers to home-users if the computer costs a car payment, and the video card costs a second one. So to sell more machines, they had very limited video RAM. You could get use weird small resolutions like 512x320 at 8 bit color, even for the time a highish framerate, but had to drop to 16 color for 640x480, or 4 color of monochome even for 'high resolutions' like 800x600.
Did it suck? Yes. Did it allow more people to get computers & get into them? Also yes.
You will never have a custom Na'vi with 6 fucking monitors in 1998.
>>51933669
Casuals back then also didn't watch videos on their PCs. Internet video didn't become popular until the broadband age in the 2000s.
>>51933346
Because they weren't intended to baby newshits playing pretend professional, they were intended for people who were previously typesetting and designing graphics by hand or with extremely expensive, top-of-the-line specialized hardware in the case of the Macintosh you posted.
Also, you weren't even really that limited if you didn't want to be (and could afford it), pic related is from the late '70s.
Not to mention these systems were geared for physical content creation, rather than digital content, so having pretty font rendering didn't matter. You don't need a 2K monitor to draft a sign or poster, or design a circuit. It just makes things easier.
>>51933503
There was no 4K content to edit nor hardware to drive a 4K display, high-resolution general purpose monitors throughout the '80s generally were similar to 1024x768 or maybe 1280x1024.
>>51933697
I forgot to mention, at 8bit color, you got a horribly banded display of photographic type images (which were 8 bit palleted gif porn), or if you had a nicer OS, it would flloyed steinberg dither the image for you, or change your color map for each image in the slideshow while you masturbated. That's right, we couldn't jack off to video. We had to use slideshows of of gifs that took whole seconds to render fullscreen!
Do any of these freak monitors even exist anymore? are they sought after?
>>51933753
CRT monitors are dead in the eyes of normal consumers. Collectors still buy them for high prices
>>51933753
They're still out there, but very rare since their domain in the corporate world meant most of them were tossed or recycled unless sent to auction or saved by IT department employees.
Collectors will pay for them, but there are very few collectors of that kind of gear and most of them won't pay much for anything that isn't very well maintained.
>>51933753
Yes, but the tubes aren't made any more, so the only ones we have are the ones that haven't been destroyed.
It's worth note: if the tube power on (lights up) and isn't cracked, most problems with them are correctable. If you have tubes you want to get rid of, contact a local maker space or arcade enthusiasts. They covet them.
>>51933373
What is this? That setup looks sexy as hell.
>>51933346
Like this
>>51933346
they just did, man, like everything else
>>51933902
It's an EditDroid non-linear editing system used mostly by Lucasfilms, in a time before hard disks were really effective for storing video footage it used several LaserDisc players for content storage. IIRC the system was based around the Sun-1 workstation.
CAD and audio were another couple of markets that used highly specialized and powerful computer systems.
>>51933346
there were less modern tasks that needed doing back then and most programs and web sites were basic as fuck.
>>51934094
This isn't true at all, the web and multimedia are really the only radically new things computers have been doing in consumer space since around the late '80s.
>>51933753
That monitor is my dream.
I have a 21" 1600x1200 CAD monitor that I use for retro PC vidya. It is glorious.
>>51933346
probably because even back in the 90s i had a monitor capable of 1280x1024
>>51933418
no
new cheaper tech and mass production did
I started using photoshop when they first introduced "layers" ama
>>51934086
Cool, thanks for the info anon.
Do you happen to have any more pics of awesome old computer tech?
>>51933346
In many professional industries, you actually did have like 1024x768 and 1152x800 displays and shit, even in the (late) 80s.
You also had a several thousand dollar graphics card in your machine to output that, with a huge-ass framebuffer.
pic related, rather high resolution display with Windows 1.x drivers, probably used in desktop publishing for magazines and shit
also, if you were doing video editing when 640x480 was a common resolution, video resolution was 720x480, tops (go look at the MPEG-1 supported resolutions, it's a short, small list)
That being said, many pro programs were still designed to be usable at 640x480 and whatever because sometimes, you didn't have the dosh to dish out on an expensive card, or your card only supported 65536 colors at 640x480 and ran in 256 colors at 800x600 or 1024x768.
>>51933878
>>51933815
>>51933790
Cool thanks for the info, I have always wondered about this wide screen monitors. I have never come across one in person.
>>51933720
Oh wow. I don't remember this to be so obviously NextSTEP
>>51934266
I used to have a bunch, forgot where to find them, so I'll just dump some as I go.
>>51934209
Which was what version? I started off with 3.0, but I'm pretty sure it had layers.
>>51934646
Yeah, 3.0 was the first version to include layers.
>>51933367
/thread
>>51933911
looks pretty cozy
>>51933367
>>51933577
the average computer user was way more plebeian back then than now
I wish I had some desktop screenshots of some of the shitboxes I've snagged, they're fucking disgusting.
Easy, we used window management. Cascading, stacking, etc. Also, ui elements were smaller to accommodate the resolution. Run Windows 3.11 in a VM at 640x480 or 800x600 and it doesn't look so bad. Run win98 or 2000 under 1024x768 and it's a pain in the balls because a lot of ui elements were designed for that resolution.
Run Windows 10 under 720p and cry tears of blood. That's just how it goes.
I rather enjoyed my 640x480 display well into 2002 from the Packard Bell shitbox I had in 1994 because it was the CRT that would not die (though with the proper xorg.conf edits I was able to get it up to 800x600)
>>51935363
>goodies
wtf does that mean?
>>51935395
Probably tools and random ephemeral shit.
>>51935395
>The original MacPaint did not incorporate a zoom function. Instead of a zoom function, a special magnification mode called FatBits was used. FatBits showed each pixel as a clickable rectangle with a white border. The FatBits editing mode set the standard for many future editors.[10] MacPaint included a "Goodies" menu which included the FatBits tool. This menu was named the "Aids" menu in prerelease versions, but was renamed "Goodies" as public awareness of the AIDS epidemic grew in the summer of 1983.[11]
>>51935447
Should've renamed it tools instead.
>>51935474
No, AIDS was better.
>>51935474
Or they could title what's in their OS whatever the fuck they want because it's theirs.
>>51933739
Damn is there as way to find that wallpaper?
>>51935862
It's not a wallpaper, it's marketing demonstration.
If you're talented, you could vectorize it.
I hate using virtual machines for this exact reason.
However, what annoys me these days is there's more and more OSes and modern UX designs that seemingly love using way too much screenspace making things look 'clean' using an over-the-top amount of whitespace. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT.
>>51936205
Why are you running your VMs at 640x480?
>>51933346
a.) Software wasn't bloated as all fuck back then.
b.) You used to actually have to know how to operate a computer, you couldn't just point and click for everything.
>>51936220
This is 1600x1200, and for some reason a combination of AROS and VirtualBox lands me in a situation where I can't get the screen resolution any higher.
Plus, I use virtual machines, both at work and at home, where installing guest additions isn't possible, so I'm stuck with shitty screen resolutions.
Because operating systems up until the late 90s were designed with the idea that you'd be doing a few things at the same time while only focusing on one of those tasks. See: early Mac and Win95 opening a new window for every directory as a good example of this.
because in this time, people didn't make shitty web designs with 2000px padding and muh modern bars of color.
Every time someone talks about design standards nowadays, you see them shitting on the most organized and clean websites from the 90s but push their material design unintuitive garbage.
>>51933346
>640x480 CRT monitor?
Because a 640x480 CRT monitor looked crisp and lifelike. I remember playing Monkey Island 2 and going "It looks like a real cartoon!" but if you look at it now ( picture related ) it looks very pixely. Something I did not notice at the time.
>>51936226
Is that windows 3.1?
>>51936284
Just be thankful you aren't trying to use the vmware video device in KVM. AROS seems to hardcode that at 2560x1600.
>>51933727
Yes they did. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUgbqiEmkOI
>>51933753
I smashed a few up to harvest the flybacks.
>>51935862
>>51935909
i found a better version just googling
software designed to run on those machines was optimized for the limitations of the hardware and the human sitting in front of it
It's not the same as running modern OS/software on a 640x480 screen.
>>51937162
Gives you something to work with.
>>51937260
640x480 was a shitty, limiting resolution even with current software.
Carmack coding in 1996. Did you code back then /g/?
>>51936226
>You used to actually have to know how to operate a computer
You clearly weren't an admin in the 90's
>>51933346
Web pages had actual information on them, in plain HTML.
Not pointless pictures and animations that only distract from the story.
>>51937477
What the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever seen a typical 90s web page? This is actually one of the CLEANER examples.
Don't even get me started on the horrible <marquee> and glowing text nonsense from that era.
they just did, you spoiled fucking brat
>>51937521
Kid, I was on the internet in the 90's.
Also how the fuck is that not clean?
10 menu items, each of them probably linking to a single static HTML page.
>>51937640
>Kid, I was on the internet in the 90's.
Clearly you weren't if you think it wasn't filled with auto playing midis, annoying gifs, bright colors on white, scrolling text, popups, side scrolling, etc.
Either that or you're blinded with nostalgia. I'm only 25 and I remember how terrible the web used to be.
>Also how the fuck is that not clean?
I said it was clean for a 90s page. It probably would have taken like a minute to load back on a sub-56k connection though, so even for its time it wasn't that great.
>>51937521
>>51937640
http://www.cameronsworld.net/
>>51937768
Don't forget FRAMES FUCKING EVERWHERE
FRAMES INSIDE FRAMES INSIDE FRAMES
>>51937768
>I'm only 25
I'll bet you came online in 1999 with all the other normies.
The internet was good in the EARLY 90's, before it became popular.
>>51937834
>Kirk's enterprise shitting a lightsaber out of the shuttlebay
lolwut
>>51937864
I had a connection to the Internet maybe around 1997 or so. I didn't have constant access until maybe 2002 though.
>>51937854
>4chan's frames page is gone
>>51933911
>look at all that fucking WASTED screen real estate
back in the 640x480 and 800x600 days, everything was actually really compact designed to make the most of the resolution.
It's actually amazing how much you can stuff into such small resolutions if you just re-size things to much smaller dimensions.
>>51937864
There are several different points when it looks like the Internet got totally flooded with assholes.
It's funny that Eternal September happened because AOL suddenly tossed in a new audience of normies in the whopping five digit range.
There's probably still one more big wave coming since there's at least five billion fucking assholes we haven't had the joy of meeting yet.
>>51936699
>1:35
MOOT CONFIRMED TIME TRAVELER.
>>51938151
>That slight increase around 2007
T-thanks Apple
>>51938293
It's terrible to think we're on the verge of a tipping point where the majority of people on the Internet have only ever experienced it on a tablet or smartphone.
>>51938343
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmuJj8-k8pM
>>51934094
You can still do basically everything with these old machines.
Except Javascript is so heavy these days that you have to turn it off.
Still most sites seem to work at least halfway decently even with JS off, some shit's going to be fucked but you can usually read the site.
I like older computers and older software.
>>51933346
The same way you do yours now but will be laughed in the future.
Exigences change.
>>51935766
>could = should
lol
>>51938220
Who?
>>51937162
a quick one
ask the retards using shitnux here, you can't even get it to network after 2 weeks configuration
>>51933739
>they weren't intended to baby newshits playing pretend professional
you, sir, are a star tonight on this board. i absolutely love it when someone comes along and sums up the scene on /g/ with great accuracy.
i've lately been calling these guys 'overstimulated toddlers.'
>>51933346
I was running 800x600 in 1991 though...
>>51933815
>>51933790
> CRTs are rare
lol, if i checked craigslist right now, or the local dump, i'd find _literally_ mountains of them.
You guys are fucking idiots.
>>51939905
*you* can't even get it to network after 2 weeks configuration
>>51933753
They do and are very sought after.
>>51933752
>not seeing bonk.dl as a kid
we had fully animated porn in the late 1980s.
>>51939937
Pretty sure they're referring to those widescreen CRTs, not CRTs in general.
>>51939937
>CRTs are rare
The right ones in good shape are.
>>51934147
FW900 is better in every way but size
>>51938120
That's true. I was only trying to prove a point.
>>51938120
The flip side is that keeping those compact designs on a 200DPI monitor makes them literally unusable. HiDPI is why "bloatier" designs are more common these days.
>>51933446
Actually there were fags with three monitors, but they actually needed them. Now they need to find excuses to justify them, and the resolution standards were actually good so there was no reason to complain
Now that computers are for "everyone" and everything software related worth doing has been done, there's more complaining than creating to do for the poor computer nerd
>>51940841
It's mostly just linux DEs and windows that have bloaty UIs. Linux because it's all designed by autists with large screens (autists can't into empathy) and windows because it's designed for retards.
The OS X UI is pretty much as compact as windows classic if you resize the dock
Can anyone link offhand any actual scientific studies on the diminishing returns of increasing framerate/resolution?
Like, anecdotally, going from 3fps to 5fps in WoW after tweaking some settings ten years ago was pretty great (my family had a shit computer and I couldn't legally work at that age), going from 5fps to 15fps when we got a new computer was fucking amazing, 15->30 great, and after that it was nice but I just stopped getting wow'd you know what I mean?
I'm sure the same holds true for resolution. Trying to find a size/price/framerate/resolution sweetspot
>>51937768
>I'm only 25
>>51933346
there was no web browsing or video editing at the time on PCs
at most you`d do some publishing and internet was mostly text based
>>51933346
don't you remember?
>>51937925
no it isn't. go to the main page, click on "filter" above all the boards list. then click on "use frames"
you're welcome
as shitty as the old internet was, i miss it. i know it's rose colored glasses, but i miss all those horrifically designed sites, marquees, auto playing midis. you also had to work hard to find the good shit. also also i miss degaussing my CRT. me and some buddies found out about a surplus computer warehouse who had some 21" monster dell workstation monitors. if i could go back in time and never throw away my old computer stuff i would.
>>51937834
you need to upgrade, brah.
>>51934543
it looks like a strange mixture between NeXTSTEP and the motif window manager.
>>51933346
We didn't use to spend all day everyday on computers anon.
In highschool in the 90's I think I used my computer about 1 hour a day. The rest of the time I was completely unplugged.
>>51933469
I used to play glquake at my native res, 800x600
svga nig
>>51941298
There's waybackmachine.org. Dial up tainted any nostalgia I might have had. The best time was when broadband first came out and the industry was still clueless about p2p. Those were the golden years.
>>51933753
I just junked some sun terminal monitor that had displayed everything in orange and black.
>>51938151
>TFW we got aol in my 1994/1995 school year
>>51937834
>no one on /g/ knows the feels i have right now
>>51941298
The old internet wasn't bad
It was just info-oriented instead of experience-oriented, so people who had no reason to use it didn't have a whole lot of fun. There was very little for "fun" in the design of it.
>>51933373
The main display looks like some kind of crazy rear-projection setup, too.
>>51941298
>you also had to work hard to find the good shit
this happens now, though
that one youtube playlist you stumble upon with over 100 tracks where you add 60% of it to your own shit and play it in your car with your friends a week later because it bangs, or those random foreign language sites (I'm fluent in Russian and know some Japanese) that have content unavailable anywhere else and not even searchable through Google, like finding a specific game walkthrough skillfully and entertainingly written in your native language
The only thing I miss about 90s internet are the chat rooms. I used to piss off my elementary school teachers by trying to connect through the library computers. Pretty sure I had talked to a gamut of characters by the time I was 11, from actual hot girls to real mid-40s pedos to guys who were our age now that just wanted to play Mech Warrior 2. I'd gush more but I just took a piss
>>51934543
who doesn't like goyOS?
>>51941433
that's kind of what i was trying to get across. the design wasn't great, but there were a lot of gems in the rough if you looked hard enough.
>>51941298
http://wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/
Because old web designs showed much more content widthwise. Nowadays, it's 30% menu on left, 30% ads on right and 40% main content in there middle. Modern websites waste a lot of screen space.
>>51933346
>How did people manage to do hours of "modern" tasks like web browsing or image/video editing back when the typical desktop display was a 13 inch, 640x480 CRT monitor
They didn't. For the most part.
Around, say, 1982, a typical home PC was a 4.77 MHz 8088/8086 with CGA graphics. You could do 640x200 in two colors, or 320x200 in sixteen beautiful shades: hideous magenta, hideous cyan, black, blue, green, yellow, red, and white. But wait, that's eight. Yep, because the rest were half as bright.
Typical "power" usage at the time was running a spreadsheet or a word processor. The word processor wouldn't be WYSIWYG. It would be simple text, with little symbols to indicate where particular formatting was inserted.
It was pretty common for people to stick with Hercules-compatible graphics. It was much less straining on the eyes, but monochrome. It maxed out around 720x350, but the text mode was noticeably cleaner looking. Since the video memory address was isolated, they were used for quite awhile as second monitors (e.g. debugger output) after Hercules itself became obsolete.
Hot shit at the time were programs like Carousel, which allowed you to suspend a program and load another. Sort of turning a regular program into a TSR. No multitasking, just jamming multiple programs into available RAM.
I don't remember moving video realistically arriving on home-grade PCs until maybe 1992 or so. Since there was no reasonable way to ship that much data around, you'd only find it on CD-ROM multimedia encyclopedias. A big selling point was a handful of shitty 320x200 (or less, I don't even remember now) 256-color videos of a few seconds in length.
So yeah, the only "video editing" type work was being done on seriously hardcore workstation hardware.
Check out the movie Tron. The visuals in that were utterly mind-blowing for the time. I doubt that the workstations on which they set up the animations could have done more than wireframe representations.
>>51937521
>repeating patterned backgrounds
>hideous pseudo-3D GIF buttons
>can't search for anything
You know what was best? When screens were 256 colors (out of a palette of 262,144 colors), you'd click on one window and all the colors in another visible window would turn crazy and shitty.
>>51938469
Every time I try to do so I get script errors up the ass
>>51939937
The ones he was referring to definitely were rare. You can find mountains of shitty 1024x768 displays all day, but ultra-high-end displays at resolutions greater than 1600x1200 are quite rare nowadays, widescreen monitors rarer still, and widescreen CRTs made during the beige era? Forget about it.
I remember inheriting my family's old mid-90s Mac around 2000 or so and feeling amazed when I figured out I could ratchet the monitor's resolution up from the defualt 800x600 to 1152x960...
Going 16:10 1680x1050 with a 20" iMac G5 in 2005 felt similarly amazing, as did going to 2560x1440 on a 27" iMac in 2009.
I haven't really felt that amazed since 2560x1440. Going HIDPI was pleasant by it definitely didn't give the same kind of thrill.
>>51940974
The stopping point will be when antialiasing is entirely unnecessary in 3D graphics. I don't know where that point is, but there's still visible stepping on clean lines at acute angles on a 15" rMBP. The stepping is far, far less severe than what you'd see on a 1440x900 or 1600x900 15" laptop but it can be seen from time to time.
>>51941938
>tfw even after experiencing 2K resolutions you go back to 1280x1024 without giving a shit
It literally works with fucking damn near everything.
>>51941752
Open up Internet Options, Advanced, "Silently ignore all errors..."
As long as you have stuff turned off like ActiveX etc it's safe.
>>51936638
This is also because of scanlines.
>>51936638
that's a 320x200 game, you didn't play it with double-sized pixels back then like that picture
the pixels aren't so "square" on a crt, plus you have scanline effects
>>51939491
>tfw you aren't here forever
>>51941428
http://www.textfiles.com/underconstruction/
>>51941581
>Check out the movie Tron. The visuals in that were utterly mind-blowing for the time. I doubt that the workstations on which they set up the animations could have done more than wireframe representations.
They still sell that software, it's called Maiko. It was originally on Symbolics Lisp machines.
>>51942560
Thank you for brining this in to my life.
>>51934086
That's really cool. My mom was an exec at Universal, and was actually the person who convinced them to buy their first NLE setups, which were very early AVID rigs IIRC, but I'd never heard of those EditDroids.
Film editing was pretty cool in the old days. She was in charge of all of the "creative" marketing stuff (trailers, TV spots, posters, etc.) and I remember going into work with her when I was a little kid and watching the editors actually cut and splice film and preview it on these tables that had reels and a rear-projection screen.
How fucking old are you to never have experienced CRT monitors, OP? I'm 18 and even I used CRT monitors when I was younger like everyone else my age did. Hell, the schools were full of them.
>>51943393
Here's an example of one of those film editing tables, by the way.
You can probably imagine how much of a revolution it was going to digital NLE, even when it was on crude clunky computers that took hours to render a few minutes of video.
The trailer department was able to switch as early as they did largely because they were doing short segments, often output in low resolution for TV. I believe they still had to cut the final trailers on film for theatrical use, but they'd use NLE to come up with the arrangement of things and then just copy it in film. It was quite a few more years before NLE took off for editing of TV and then of full-length films.
>>51939448
Bottom line is that it's theirs and they decide how many names their products have and what those names are.
Do you mind if I post some old computers?
How about this room, where Chile's computer-driven economy was managed.
Fuckin' truckers ruined that whole scheme though.
>>51943520
>chile wanted to actually create a star trek style computer economy
>they actually did it and used only 200 people to outwork a 40,000 worker strike
South america is wild man
>>51937419
Damn that keyboard's got some ass. Big booty board.
The Internet
I've stared at this picture for years and wondered about the hardware. What kind of information is being conveyed on the big board at the right? It also seems like something resembling newsprint is on the big screens on the left. It seems the ones in back are tickers / scrolling signposts.
The real wild ones are the smaller screens below the big board at right (looks like it is depicting a Galaxy-class starship and maybe some warp reaction sub-process?), and namely the giant Klingon-UI looking screen center left. The symbols on the control panels inset on the right arm of the evil mastermind issue chairs match up with the symbols on the board - is this maybe a way for a group of mentats to vote on issues really quickly and settle differences in perhaps an anonymous way?
Fucking so many questions.
>>51943608
Sorry I am referencing
>>51943520
I just wanted to show another view of that room.
Anyway what kind of computer terminal comes without an ash tray? Kids these days with their smoking-unfriendly computers. Where the hell do you set your cigar?
>>51943595
Those graphics make me suspect they set up in a defunct bowling alley or indoor archery range.
>>51943637
like
we could make this again now right but it is just that production costs are not worth it?
>>51943658
>production costs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment
SAGE cost more than the Manhattan Project. The console is like probably one of the cheapest parts of the overall system.
It really is still amazing as fuck.
Anyway I doubt we could a MASTERWORK grade fully engineered system of this magnitude any more. Shit the whole IBM System 360 was specified in a couple dozen pages of printed APL. Engineering these days is not at the level it was at even 25 years ago. If we tried to do this now it'd be a vendor fuckfest of useless COTS crap shoehorned into a bizarre half-works thing resembling a normal computer.
>>51943608
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSmQCvfT4pU
>>51943293
Phew, was afraid someone would forget to post symbolics stuff in this thread.
>>51943595
>>51943657
I'm thinking roller rink.
Those would've made some sweet Spacewar machines.
>>51942137
>>51942362
Speaking of which, why hasn't the effect been properly emulated yet? The closest to a decent emulation I found was that one shader programmed by that Nvidia guy.
Others look like shit.
>>51943293
Bumping
>>51943727
Thanks. Has a lot of detail. This woman seems pretty breathlessly enchanted with the old days for somebody so young. Gotta be a kid of people who fled or something eh?
>>51943769
Genera is still the best ever Lisp development environment.
I have it running on a virtual machine. There are instructions and sheeeeeit out there.
The screens were just as big, stuff was written smaller, and UI elements were adjusted accordingly. You could cram just as much information on a screen.
Image editing didn't really exist, and video edition was done in analog.
The biggest differences are that needs have changed, and the text looks nicer.
>>51943881
>stuff was written smaller
In those days I typically used the 'Tiny' Xterm font.
It's really tiny now but I have a bigger monitor so I made everything bigger.
In the old days if you got a bigger monitor you probably would just display more information at once instead of making things big and easy to read.
>>51943769
Jeez I love 80's computer ad copy.
There are tons of old computer magazines on archive.org now and I love just downloading a shitload to my iPad for comfy 80's ad browsing.
Beagle Brothers still had the best ads, but I almost like the unintentionally hilarious ones the best.
Sooooo much shit talking in the ad copy too. All in all, 9/10 would read the 1980s again.
Dat hyper key.
OP doesn't know that computing was even comfier back in the olden days.
>>51941298
>never throw away my old computer stuff
MFW I still have my first ever computer, in working shape. Apple IIGS. I souped it up too with some extra modern shit and I want an Apple II Pi so fuckin' bad.
NEVER THROW ANYTHING AWAY.
>>51944013
Fuck.
You make me feel bad for throwing away my Amstrad 8086 complete with CRT monitor and 5.25 dual floppy drives
>>51941581
>So yeah, the only "video editing" type work was being done on seriously hardcore workstation hardware.
No.
In about 1989 I worked with my sixth grade teacher (I knew Hypercard and he didn't) to create a sort of half-"edited" multimedia school lesson all about the movie Its a Wonderful Life using one of those industrial LD players. A magnified view of the Mac's screen would show up on the overhead, we'd watch a video segment or a few that were cued up back to back, a little Hypercard animated Proto-Powerpoint would play, and the whole thing was dank and interactive as fuck.
Took me like the whole year but I got to skip most of the class to write this program. It was kickass. If anyother anon reading this is a TLCer, sig heil.
Anyway if you think about it, this is basically just the same exact thing as an EditDroid. I could have made another semi-arbitrary movie from Its a Wonderful Life if I was that clever in those days.
I do not know for certain but I suspect there were tapes made on demand and shit with Hypercard and some LDs. Those "insert your ugly child into a cartoon" type deals from the 80s and early 90s seem like they must have been something ghetto like I mentioned above.
>>51944027
It's not mine. I just GIS'd a nice Apple II up.
Mine's visible, barely, in
>>51938469
Also visible is my ancient Powerbook G4 which still works great.
>>51943476
>16 hours of battery life
That's pretty fucking radical.
>>51933346
>video editing
Most video was done using special equipment. People didn't use NLEs.
Image and audio editing was the same.
The modern workflows are relatively recent inventions.
>>51933346
ț̸̱͎̮̎̓͗͡ě̻͖͈̩̫̮̩̯͂ͥ͜ŝ̡̰̝̝͈̫̰͙̏ͫͥͪ͛̔ͧ̏t̟̹̹̺͕̺͐͌̈̓ͫͬ̋̚͠i͔̼̲̪̝̺͉̭ͦͭ͒̓̔͘n̸ͣͯ̏̋ͩ͆̇҉̥̭͖̭̫̥̰̳͘g̴̝͉̰̣̗̣̭̹ͫ̏̈́̈́ͪͪ̓̉̇́͞
>>51944013
>told my dad my Performa's monitor is kill, told him I'd give him money to order a new one
>he tosses the Performa
㎭ ℁ ₰℧㏍
>>51944319
№౭∀ ⨊∆⊤S ƥʘɷ
>>51933346
Because web devs didn't have designer fags telling them to put 50px of padding and 100px of whitespace between each element.
>>51944319
a performa was the first machine i owned that could do over 256 colors
naturally the first use for 16 bit "high/thousands" color was for porn
dem smooth skin tones tho
>>51943754
>Chaosnet
That sounds cool.
>>51944013
My old 2e is boxed up in my parents' garage. I have the DuoDisk 2 as well, but a color monitor. Man, the hours I spent playing Ultima and Bard's Tale on that thing...
>>51943956
It helped that there were real substantive differences between platforms as well. Apple was the last to keep that sort of banter going up through the ad copy for the G4 systems. Once a system succumbed to x86 boredom the company would stop making funny ads.
>>51933528
>4K CRT
WHAT MODEL?
>>51933346
by not gagging on the dick of stupid shit like flash, javascript, and fancy graphics
with some tweaking of whitespace you could easily 4clams at 640x480
>>51936220
>Why are you running your VMs at 640x480?
whenever i have needed to use a VM it has almost always been to use old or basic programs
why would i need more than a small ass resolution for CLI based tasks?
>>51938386
WHAT. THE. FUCK?!
>>51938469
>instead of having modern versions of these sexy beasts we have millions of black rectangles
>>51943563
there's a reason hitler fled to argentina
>>51945648
black and white crts have no color mask (naturally), this means you can display a dot literally anywhere on the screen, only limited by how accurate the driving electronics are, and how well focussed the beam is
>>51939937
>Moutains of run-of-the mill, shit spec 17 inch (15.7 inch visible) worn-out shadow mask tube CRTs that at 85Hz can do 1024x768 and no more
Fixed. They aren't really worth anything, any modern LCD is better than them. The only good stuff is 19 inch and up Trinitron-type CRTs.
>>51938386
i need to sit down for a minute
Test
>>51941752
>>51942024
Or, you know, just install GNU/Linux and Firefox ;)
>>51933346
Better ask how 640k of conventional memory and a few megs of extended memory was enough.
>>51938505
>Except Javascript is so heavy these days that you have to turn it off.
This. I tried browsing the internet on my old Pentium II recently and it was literally slaughtered by JS. Everything just ground to a halt essentially, pegged at 100% CPU and not much happening (with the occasional "script has stopped responding" message). With machines ~12+ years old it's Noscript or no internet.
>>51938386
Suddenly School Shootings start to make sense to me.
>>51933346
Everything was optimized back then and bloating was rightfully deprecated.
That's why I still use several programs from the win98 era. I'd still be using Firefox 3.5 if it weren't for security issues.
>>51933753
21" of 1600x1200/ 85Hz goodness
>>51946389
>>51933753
and the pic I meant to add
>>51946210
i doubt most website JS is optimized, like, whatsoever
they're all "this piece of JS only uses 20% of a core on my i7 while animating this menu, no problem"
>>51933346
>digital video editing
>when a 13" VGA monitor was standard (late 80's)
i don't think so, tim
>>51946071
I fell for the crt meme
Contrast 50%, bright 10%, 6.5k warmth, 1024x768 100hz how do i make it less cancer? Lower digital vibrance?
>>51934167
Towards the end almost every computer crt of any size could do 1600x1200. It looked like shit on my 15" CRT, but worked.
There were oddball CRTs that had fixed resolutions though. Usually from high end Unix workstations.
>>51947157
>could do 1600x1200. It looked like shit on my 15" CRT, but worked.
I should mention, I was using matrox cards on XFree86, was writing my own modelines, and had hand crafted config files. I have no idea of you could output those resolutions on other cards or systems.
>>51945757
He was complaining about the low res. Of course you're not going to make your windows unnecessarily large but you're also not going to purposefully make them small when you want bigger windows.
>>51946830
Nvm found a guide, contrast to 100 than up bright from 0 till blacks become less black
>>51933373
Sexy as fuck
Saludos cordiales
THEY DIDN'T
>>51933346
People who needed to do image editing/video editing were professionals, they were obviously capable of affording above "typical" equipment.
And most websites back in the day were designed for 640x480, so there was no more problem browsing them than you have today browsing websites designed for 720p or 1080p with a 1920x1080 monitor.
>>51943476
>still better than my 15-g092sa
>>51946408
I've been looking for the beige version of that forever to match some of my high-end IBM hardware.
This thread is comfy, I'm staying
>>51950736
>tfw I'll never own a z50
Too bad they don't run on AAs though.
![MitsubishiDS20M_Amiga1200[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/B54dwt5.jpg "MitsubishiDS20M_Amiga1200[1].jpg")
>>51933346
The UI and early internet was designed with it in mind. And it's not as bad as it sounds.
I was using 1024x768 up until earlier this year.
Additionally, I don't think 13" CRT monitors were in use for much of the time GUIs were popular. Once you started to see full color UIs with mouse integration the 19" monitors came out.
>>51933753
They exist and they are highly sought after. I've been trying to track that exact model down for years.
![movies_laserdisc_t658[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/d3UfrdT.jpg "movies_laserdisc_t658[1].jpg")
>>51934086
I wonder if it used the blank Laserdiscs we see floating about from time to time.
>>51933346
This faggot doesn't know about analogue editing
>>51940974
>playing a game at 3fps
>>51945556
It's so cool they renamed it Ethernet and everybody uses it now.
>>51945618
>It helped that there were real substantive differences between platforms as well. Apple was the last to keep that sort of banter going up through the ad copy for the G4 systems. Once a system succumbed to x86 boredom the company would stop making funny ads.
I think the golden years for shit-talking in computer ads were roughly 1980-1986. This is when there were literally a thousand different and unique platforms with no standardization whatsoever except perhaps on RS-232 as a serial interface, the USB of the day.
>>51945589
These days you can just use a flash card and a CFFA. It emulates a SCSI drive. Also they're making a new ZIPgs so if you want the fastest Apple II that's the ticket.
>>51946503
I suspect most sites are running Bitcoin miners in JS on every machine browsing.
With all the JS obfuscation it'd be ridiculously easy to do.
>>51942137
you can barley fucking see scanlines at that res
>>51933753
There's dat keyboard with dat fat ass again.
Is it maybe also speakers or something?
>>51953341
>>playing a game at 3fps
If you're old enough 3fps would have seemed pretty good depending on the game. Ultima 7's too fast at 6-7fps.
Kids these days.
>>51933367
Best.post
>>51936699
There at the end I am going to say someone is watching through a capture card. Still, the CRT of a PC back then was very nice compared to a television.
>>51943696
SAGE was a very unique system with even a distributed computing network before arpanet even existed! It's ridiculous radar tracking processing power was only matched by computers build at the end of the 80s.
>>51954148
I never played shit computer games with frame rates like that. In those years I was playing console and arcade games that ran silk smooth.
>>51954148
Yeah, but the dude is talking about playing World of Warcraft in 2005, not Ultima in the early 90s.
>>51941621
>muh design
>pointless search
You know how you search a web page? You index it and its content with another web page.
I bet you'd rather do it with some godawful jquery hack
site:site.com query.
>>51954493
>shit computer games
Too bad, you missed out on some of the best games ever.
>>51933346
The same way people in 10 years are going to ask how we game or watch movies on screens less than 8k monitors/televisions
>>51941399
you could have made a few hundred dipstick
>>51933346
there weren't THAT much ads
>>51941085
>there was no web browsing or video editing at the time on PCs
Bullshit, Netscape 4.72 was my browser of choice on my Q700's.
>>51954907
>Bullshit, Netscape 4.72 was my browser of choice on my Q700's.
IE 5.5b for me. XML support.
Bought it retail before MS started giving it away. Think I had it on my Performa 6400.
>>51955003
Literally nothing has changed in all this time, except that government mandated spyware is now baked into the motherboard / cpu. Also games look nicer but ultimately who cares.
>>51955145
Nothing fundamentally, but shit is much more optimized to basically be internet/media consumption appliances nowadays.
>>51955145
>Pentium
Wait..what? Macs were on PowerPC in the 90s
>>51956933
It ran on x86 systems as well, since it was based on OPENSTEP.
>>51955145
God, I still miss Platinum. Shit was so fucking nice.
and it combines pretty well here with the NeXT-style icons, it looks pro as fuck
Aqua was okay (and it eventually got better, peaking in 10.4), but hot damn, Platinum was nice.
>>51957408
That's news to me, I honestly thought NEXT Workstations were also PPC
>>51957458
Back when Apple followed its own UI style guide.
>>51956933
That's not running on a Mac, senpai.
>>51955145
>>51957458
This. Why was Platinum so sexy? User interfaces were actually well designed back then, before we fell into the dark ages of Windows XP and early Aqua.
>>51957475
NeXT black boxes exclusively used the Motorola 68040, and after that NeXT transitioned into a software company and ported NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP to Intel, SPARC, and PA-RISC systems.
I'm not really sure why they released Rhapsody for x86 systems, though. I guess since it was at the height of the Mac clone era, Apple was desperate to get their dicks in any way they could.
>>51957494
>Back when Apple followed its own UI style guide.
>that pinstriping
Maybe if they were advertising a MacBook they retrieved through time travel in 2002.
>>51957549
I got that it's not running on a Mac but I immediately though it was a 90s Hackintosh, if that was even a thing back then
>>51957583
there were no public releases of mac os for x86 architecture at that point
rhapsody was only available to developers, and the only release it got was the very first versions of mac os x server (before mac os x 10.0), and that only saw a powerpc version
>>51957637
-- i don't know what the story is with it having an x86 version at all, but perhaps it was a carry over from the NeXT/BSD systems it was derived from, both of which had mature x86 support at the point rhapsody started
>>51957637
Do you know if x86 Rhapsody was still capable of running Mac OS applications?
I've been looking at it since the discussion started and it looks way cooler than I thought it was, almost like a PowerPC A/UX but with a shitty platinum interface.
