OK, first off I'm a nerd, this is true, but y'all are terrible!
OK, first off I'm a nerd, this is true, but y'all are terrible!
Back then, 640x480 offered a solid image size. Today’s 1920x1080 provides over 775% more pixels, marking a huge leap in resolution.
You're really young, but it's clear you missed a lot of changes. I was around when PCs existed and the first screens had just 80 lines. The graphics were tiny—320x200 pixels!
This trend has been consistent over the past six years. My 15-year-old laptops run at 1080p or better, while my 2001 monitor supports 1920x1200. Most older laptops used resolutions like 1366x768, 1280x800 or 1400x900. 1366x768 is still viable, and newer low-end machines often match that quality.
I still use a square monitor for my web browsing setup, but the screen size really impacts gaming more than it does for browsing. Your question seems a bit unclear, though. When LCD and plasma TVs first appeared, many thought 720p wasn’t worth it. Those low-res screens were quickly replaced by better technology, just like old tube displays being phased out.
I understand the situation and want to share my perspective. In today’s games, the visuals are impressively realistic, though performance can be lacking. Still, at 1080p with moderate settings, they look quite good, and the gap between low and high quality isn’t huge.
Acceptable resolution varies based on screen dimensions and how far you're viewing it from. I'm comfortable with 1080p on a laptop but not at all on a large 48-inch display. Luckily, scaling techniques have improved significantly, so resolution drops rarely need to be an issue.
Absolutely, that's right—I got my first rig as an Apple IIe from a friend. Seeing how far I've come is impressive!