Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: bart Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:29:22 +0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <87frk10w51.fsf@onesoftnet.eu.org> <20250228144442.00002037@yahoo.com> <868qpnw2sn.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250303141305.00002119@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 13:29:21 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="71ccf53cfd1901b67d85c65a66d0edd4"; logging-data="1375042"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9fXD6y6B7B+uq4RC0xFct" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:9gbGYrR0bMBPp+Al37jgQyTRxkQ= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <20250303141305.00002119@yahoo.com> Bytes: 3211 On 03/03/2025 12:13, Michael S wrote: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800 > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S writes: >> >>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 >>> Richard Harnden wrote: >> [...] >>>> Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, >>> >>> My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than >>> square. >> >> Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old >> computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height). >> Certainly not square. >> > > Are you sure that you measured viewing area? > The references that I find on the net suggest 4:3 ratio for viewing > area, which makes sense, considering 4:3 ratio of pixels in VGA's main > graphics mode (64x480). > > 240mm x 180mm for IBM 8512 color display > 212mm x 155mm for IBM 8513 color display > 283mm x 212mm for IBM 8514 color display It depends on the aspect ratio of the pixels. But from I remember, in 640x480 mode, they were square, so the aspect of the full-frame image, assuming no overscan, would be 4:3. The CRT physical aspect is harder to measure (some may be masked by the enclosure for example). Domestic TV sizes in that era (40 years ago) were also 4:3, in the UK at least. And a lot of monitors would have been about the same. (I was then developing graphics hardware with increasing resolution, but one problem was finding suitable monitors, with a finer shadow mask for colour, that could accommodate higher line and frame rates. Wide-screen didn't start become popular until much later. I do remember massive monitors like ones with a 5:4 display, or 1280x1024, that I had to lug to trade shows.)