Where Did 1280x1024 Come From? 42
Alan Shutko asks: "I was playing with different resolutions recently, and got confused.
640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, they all have a 4x3 aspect ratio. But 1280x1024 has a 5x4 aspect ratio.
What's up with this? Somewhere in the annals of computing history, someone must have come up with 1280x1024. Why did they choose such an odd aspect ratio?"
Re:1280x960 (Score:1)
Is this still true, or did it only apply to older hardware? I've ran X in 920x690 mode with no problems, 690 isn't a multiple of 128.
One of the popular VGA modes was 320x256 (which is in the 5:4 ratio). It meant that you could have an array of scanlines, and index them with a single byte (with no wastage).
What programs used that screen mode? 320x200 was the standard mode for games (mode 13h). 320x240 was available with a hack ("Mode X"). Neither of these are multiples of 128, and I've never heard of 320x256 being used.
Re:1400x1050? (Score:1)
why 16bit? (Score:1)
Re:Monitor proportions (Score:1)
Re:1400x1050? (Score:1)
Re:1400x1050? (Score:1)
Pity my laptop only does 1024x768... but I did need a machine I could carry around.
Re:More odd aspect ratios (Score:1)
but, IMBW
Re:1400x1050? (Score:1)
just a note
Re:1280x960 (Score:1)
http://developer.webtv.net/design/res olution/ [webtv.net]
Re:1280x960 (Score:1)
However, none of the other very common resolutions we use, like 640x480, 800x600, 1152x864 or 1600x1200 (for those lucky enough
Re:1280x960 (Score:1)
Re:1280x960 (Score:1)
but i've also seen it on the pc...
another nice one is 256x256
Re:320x200 (Score:1)
Now THERE's a flashback - QBasic. I got carpal tunnel from QBasic... at the tender age of 18...
Was your for-poke-next method any faster than PSET?
nebulo
Vertical displays (Score:1)
640x870
!!!
Yes, a "backwards" display ratio - 3:4 - 1/3 taller than it was wide. This was designed to show a single sheet of paper at 100%; and it worked, too, you could just about line up a sheet of paper to the display.
And others will remember the Radius Pivot display, which could "swing both ways", so to speak; you could tilt it over horizontal for spreadsheets and tilt it back vertical for page layout. The neat thing on the Mac was the fact that the computer would automagically detect this and resize your desktop to accomodate.
Ahhhhh, those were the days....
nebulo
Re:More odd aspect ratios (Score:1)
No, it does. I noticed the discrepancy when using Xvnc for the first time. I remembered that the root window size on the target machine was 1152x?, so I set it to 1152x864 by doing the 4:3 math.
But then I couldn't figure out why I couldn't fit the same number of windows on the screen as I do when using X on the target's console. I had to force vncviewer to open at 1152x900 in order to get the same results. [*]
Others are using the same X setup as me, with similar boxen (older sparcs mostly) and they have the same res and effects.
[*] I actually had to walk upstairs to the target and run X on it, check the root window size, close X, and walk back downstairs to reopen the XVNC client. It was silly. Luckily it was a temporary necessity.
--
More odd aspect ratios (Score:1)
--
right now... (Score:1)
Re:320x200 (Score:1)
Quite.
The PSET function called a BIOS routine to do the write. Terribly slow.
Not that mine was THAT fast.. just a lot faster. (-:
Re:Vertical displays (Score:1)
The scrolling isn't perfect, which is why I want a reverse aspect ratio monitor.
Does anyone have a software solution? Like an X driver (server?) that just rotates the display 90 deg? Then you just stand the monitor on its side...
320x200 (Score:1)
Might it be possible that the 3 color phosphors were wider than they were tall? I've seen 160x240 done for that reason (small LCD).
I'll venture a guess... (Score:1)
Could it also have been brought about due to memory constraints? 1280x1024 will fit into 1Meg of video memory at 4-bit color depth, maybe 1364x1024 (close to the 4:3 aspect ratio) doesn't fit into one meg of video RAM as well?
Again, I'm guessing here, but isn't 1280x1024 the first "XGA/PGA" resolution? Could this resolution be held to a different standard than the "(S)VGA" resolutions?
All I know is, I like my resolutions high, and 1280x1024 suits me just fine on medium monitors (17", high end 15").
You want a messed up resolution? Dell's 1400x1050 LCD screens (XGA+)... I've got one of those puppies, and MAN, are they nice!
Re:1400x1050? (Score:1)
BTW, if you're looking at the 5000 (slimmer, not as expandable version of the Inspiron 7500) think very carefully about a Celeron or something else that runs cooler. My 7500 is incredibly stable and stays reasonably cool, but the PIII/650 Inspiron 5000's my company bought have real heat problems. Your lap getting uncomfortably warm is one thing, but having drive and cpu flakiness that trashes a filesystem when you run it too hot is a little outside what I'd consider acceptable. If you can hack the extra weight grab the 7500.
If you do want the 5000 look at Sceptre [sceptre.com]. They source the chassis from the same manufacturer Dell does.
Re:More odd aspect ratios (Score:1)
Hercules Graphics Cards (Score:1)
It had better resolution than CGA, but I have to say it sucked being the only one amongst my friends without color. I was so happy the day I got a copy of "SIMCGA" - a TSR program that allowed us Hercules users to fool games into thinking they were running on a computer with a CGA card installed; a requirement for most PC games back then. I owe whoever wrote "SIMCGA" (and who released it as public-domain) a big thank-you.
Didn't the Hercules cards allow you to have a VGA card installed simultaneously?
Re:Hercules Graphics Cards (Score:1)
If you're out there Mr. Guzis
Re:right now... (Score:1)
It was later replaced by 1152x864 (4:3).
-- Sig (120 chars) --
Your friendly neighborhood mIRC scripter.
1400x1050? (Score:1)
Sometimes you by Force overwhelmed are.
For hysterical purposes (Score:1)
Back in the '80s... (Score:1)
1320x992 (Score:2)
I have pasted a few modelines below. The most important number for a lot of people is the dotclock (120 in the example). You can bring that down or up, depending upon how high of refresh rates you can use with your system. IIRC, this runs at about 60 Hz, but it may be a bit higher (65 or so). Please also realize that xvidtune may be of use.
Also note that I'm not a genius when it comes to this stuff, and it could cause bad things to happen (though most modern displays can shut off when fed a bad signal..)
Modeline "1320x992" 120 1320 1348 1516 1752 992 994 999 1036
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:1320x992 (Score:2)
Whoops.. If you have a fixed-freq monitor, this probably won't work, but it should work for any multisync monitor. I came up with this because my monitor is only spec'd to do 1280x1024, and I didn't want to try my luck at a higher resolution (which would have probably forced me to use lower refresh rates).
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:1280x960 (Score:2)
...phil
Re:Monitor proportions (Score:2)
Re:320x200 (Score:2)
I think that this mode was popular because the complete video memory fit into one memory segment. No need for page flipping a-la ModeX.
I still remember the days of bypassing PSET and using my own Pixel Routines in QBASIC.
DEF SEG = &HA000 'the VGA segment
'fill screen with red:
FOR i = 0 TO 64000
POKE i, 4
NEXT
Those were the days. Direct memory access under DOS. Without fear of the BSOD, without fear of infringing on another process' memory... [drool]
Wasn't it X ...? (Score:2)
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
Re:1400x1050? (Score:2)
OT, but I ran some benches of my new V3 3000 (replacing a burned out ATI) against my old SLI V2s.. The V2's kicked its ass, by up to 40%. I sincerely hope the 'Bigger, Badder' V3 models really are.. (Scariest part? I have 64M of video subsystem memory in there now)
It's for games (Score:2)
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Addressing, Memory Requirements, and the IRIS (Score:2)
The comments about memory adderssing make sense for the horizontal size, but not necessarily for the vertical. That said, it is definitely easier to get a 4040-like counter to reset every 1024 ticks than every 960 ticks - but this is trivial.
I think the reason may be that older systems actually used 24-bit color, often with no underlay/overlay/alpha channel. This gives 3 bytes per pixel, for a total of 3.75 Meg for the display. This fits comfortably within a 4M framebuffer. The next higher multiple of 128 for the horizontal is 1408, with a 1056 vertical (for 4:3), and that is too much for a 4M framebuffer.
I know that back in 1987 (and probably before), the SGI Iris (with a whopping 25MHz R3000 and 32M RAM!) had a 1280x1024x24bpp display. (of course, that was 24 bits color, 24 bits z-buffer, 2 bits overlay, 2 bits underlay, and another 24bit+24bit rendering buffer, for a total of 100 bits/pixel!)
This may be another one of those "They're doing it, so we might as well, too" kind of things.
Monitor proportions (Score:2)
Anyways.. 1280x1024, in addition to offering memory-aligned scanlines as stated in every other comment, provides perfectly square pixels, which comes in pretty handy for graphics work.
Re:More odd aspect ratios (Score:2)
Another is 800x600 (4:3) and Apple's 832x624. Apple supports 800x600 on some Macs, 832x624 on others, and both on other models.
1280x960 (Score:3)
One of the popular VGA modes was 320x256 (which is in the 5:4 ratio). It meant that you could have an array of scanlines, and index them with a single byte (with no wastage).
David.
DRAM rows is why (Score:3)
One of those obscure reasons was address translation. If you form the linear framebuffer address as (2048*y)+x, it made doing blt hardware much easier: just map x and y onto the appropriate row and column bits.
Another of those reasons was being able to load the video shift registers at the same times each line. This made the timing control easier to do in the logic of the day (think MSI counters and gates.)
Modern gfx conrollers refresh the display using periodic burst DRAM access instead of actual shift registers; and they have hardware to help deal with the x-y to linear address translation. So the whole issue of row size pretty much goes away.
dvd_tude
"I'm ANN LANDERS!! I can SHOPLIFT!! " - Zippy