Bits and Bytes (1983)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
The Amiga 1000 in 1983 was handling 4,096 colours and 640x480 displays, too! Which seems silly now, but displaying colours and doing 3D rendering was unheard of back then.
Did Amiga sell a monitor that was capable of 640x480 at that time? That's a year before IBM had EGA, which was only 640x350, and four years before they finally got to 640x480 with VGA.
-
@CharlesHTN said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
Did Amiga sell a monitor that was capable of 640x480 at that time?
Yes, even with the original 1985 Amiga 1000 release. Not only did they sell it, I have the original model sitting here with me and it still works.
-
@scottalanmiller I interviewed at a place that asked about DOS the other week. They want the system to go away because it's unsupportable. Obviously not entirely up to the IT team there.
-
@travisdh1 said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@scottalanmiller I interviewed at a place that asked about DOS the other week. They want the system to go away because it's unsupportable. Obviously not entirely up to the IT team there.
Was it actually DOS? Or just getting called that? Because DOS is used as a catch all for all kinds of things that people can't identify.
-
Episode 8 done. It seems that there was a lot more focus in childhood education and teaching kids real world things like using your bank account. There are kids today who can't write out a check.
-
@mary said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
Episode 8 done. It seems that there was a lot more focus in childhood education and teaching kids real world things like using your bank account. There are kids today who can't write out a check.
Yes, especially in tech. The early 80s taught so much more tech than schools do today. Like orders of magnitude more. We were taught command line skills, programming, how things worked. My nieces went through a STEM program with a programming focus and making it all the way to university they were never once actually shown what a programming language was or even what files and programs were! The most rudimentary basics of computing never even touched on, stuff we learned in elementary school and built on for years.
-
@scottalanmiller didn't the original Sim City load on DOS?
-
@mary said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@scottalanmiller didn't the original Sim City load on DOS?
All games on PC prior to 2002 had to, and most long after did.
-
Episode 9 done. Strange to see how far we have come in graphics. Is there much difference today between monitors and TVs?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@travisdh1 said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@scottalanmiller I interviewed at a place that asked about DOS the other week. They want the system to go away because it's unsupportable. Obviously not entirely up to the IT team there.
Was it actually DOS? Or just getting called that? Because DOS is used as a catch all for all kinds of things that people can't identify.
I don't know for sure, it was in a different facility. The IT team that I interviewed with seemed to know wtf they were talking about, and were just as pleased at having it around as you would be.
-
@mary said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
Episode 9 done. Strange to see how far we have come in graphics. Is there much difference today between monitors and TVs?
Almost none today.
CRT monitors in the late 90s to early 00s were much higher resolution than TVs. Ever since the change to flat panels for everything, well, basically no difference. Even the "a TV has a tuner to receive OTA television" doesn't necessarily hold true.
-
@mary said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
Is there much difference today between monitors and TVs
Same as with monitors and speakers. Monitors are meant to "monitor" things and therefore are focused on faithful reproduction of what they are given. To be a television means it has a tuner for TV signals. There is obviously a ton of overlap. But a monitor doesn't imply that it can tune in television signals, and TV doesn't imply any intention of being used as a faithful reproduction device.
In practice, they are nearly the same thing and while people used to call monitors TVs all the time now people call TVs monitors all the time.
-
@travisdh1 said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
CRT monitors in the late 90s to early 00s were much higher resolution than TVs.
A typical late model, high quality CRT Television in the US was 525 lines and interlaced not progressive (which essentially makes the resolution only half as good.) So it was like having a resolution more like 262 lines. And not wide screen.
In computer terms, the old NTSC television standard was a lot like a 320x240 monitor resolution today, which is only 25% of a 640x480 resolution which itself is almost impossible to use today!
Televisions have to work with broadcast standards for resolution and dimensions. Computer monitors are free to be bigger, different shapes, vertical, higher resolution, whatever.
-
@scottalanmiller this sent me down a rabbit hole regarding vector images lol.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@mary said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
Is there much difference today between monitors and TVs
Same as with monitors and speakers. Monitors are meant to "monitor" things and therefore are focused on faithful reproduction of what they are given. To be a television means it has a tuner for TV signals. There is obviously a ton of overlap. But a monitor doesn't imply that it can tune in television signals, and TV doesn't imply any intention of being used as a faithful reproduction device.
In practice, they are nearly the same thing and while people used to call monitors TVs all the time now people call TVs monitors all the time.
I'm not sure this is still the case, but Visio was selling a Monitor without a tuner as a TV in Best Buy the last time I was looking at buying a TV... Though it was a 'smart TV' so it had Netflix, Hulu, etc on it. I suppose you could argue those were the tuners.
-
@Dashrender said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@scottalanmiller said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@mary said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
Is there much difference today between monitors and TVs
Same as with monitors and speakers. Monitors are meant to "monitor" things and therefore are focused on faithful reproduction of what they are given. To be a television means it has a tuner for TV signals. There is obviously a ton of overlap. But a monitor doesn't imply that it can tune in television signals, and TV doesn't imply any intention of being used as a faithful reproduction device.
In practice, they are nearly the same thing and while people used to call monitors TVs all the time now people call TVs monitors all the time.
I'm not sure this is still the case, but Visio was selling a Monitor without a tuner as a TV in Best Buy the last time I was looking at buying a TV... Though it was a 'smart TV' so it had Netflix, Hulu, etc on it. I suppose you could argue those were the tuners.
Most brands sell models without a tuner now.
-
@Dashrender said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@scottalanmiller said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@mary said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
Is there much difference today between monitors and TVs
Same as with monitors and speakers. Monitors are meant to "monitor" things and therefore are focused on faithful reproduction of what they are given. To be a television means it has a tuner for TV signals. There is obviously a ton of overlap. But a monitor doesn't imply that it can tune in television signals, and TV doesn't imply any intention of being used as a faithful reproduction device.
In practice, they are nearly the same thing and while people used to call monitors TVs all the time now people call TVs monitors all the time.
I'm not sure this is still the case, but Visio was selling a Monitor without a tuner as a TV in Best Buy the last time I was looking at buying a TV... Though it was a 'smart TV' so it had Netflix, Hulu, etc on it. I suppose you could argue those were the tuners.
So you aren't sure if it is mislabeled, while saying it is mislabeled?
It's probably a monitor, not a TV. Nothing makes it a TV other than some marketing. Marketing is not a factor. Not a TV.
-
@JaredBusch said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@Dashrender said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@scottalanmiller said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
@mary said in Bits and Bytes (1983):
Is there much difference today between monitors and TVs
Same as with monitors and speakers. Monitors are meant to "monitor" things and therefore are focused on faithful reproduction of what they are given. To be a television means it has a tuner for TV signals. There is obviously a ton of overlap. But a monitor doesn't imply that it can tune in television signals, and TV doesn't imply any intention of being used as a faithful reproduction device.
In practice, they are nearly the same thing and while people used to call monitors TVs all the time now people call TVs monitors all the time.
I'm not sure this is still the case, but Visio was selling a Monitor without a tuner as a TV in Best Buy the last time I was looking at buying a TV... Though it was a 'smart TV' so it had Netflix, Hulu, etc on it. I suppose you could argue those were the tuners.
Most brands sell models without a tuner now.
Most things are monitors now. Regardless of the tuner, because you CAN put a tuner in a monitor, they've moved to using monitors for nearly all things today.
-
Episode 10 done. Interesting how simple tones were amazing discoveries back then. Anyone could be on the cutting edge to find out what could be done. That being said, I lost countless hours of my life to frooty loops lol.
-
Episode 11 done. All the word processing power we have today is impressive compared to where we came from. Simple editing seemed laborious compared to today where we simply drag the mouse or click a button. Are hot keys from that era and were just carried over?It makes me wonder what things will look like 20 years from now.
