Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Dr Spin on Sunday February 28 2021, @09:35AM (1 child)

    by Dr Spin (5239) on Sunday February 28 2021, @09:35AM (#1118151)

    1152x900

    --
    Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29 2021, @04:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29 2021, @04:48AM (#1130612)

    It was actually the same standard resolution as HP's PA-RISC and other workstation graphics of the era. However the big difference was in refresh rates, where the HPs I believe ran at either 70 or 75 hz, and the Sparcs ran at 80 or 85hz. HP used vga to BNC and the sparc used 13W3 with dual wire RGB on special inner/outer connectors (see wikipedia for examples.). Both could be hooked up to a normal multi-mode monitor, but few were available when they came out, and as CRTs went away few new monitors supported the necessary modes (most only allowed fixed 60hz as well.)