[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev screen widths
From: |
dickey |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev screen widths |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Apr 1999 07:11:45 -0400 (EDT) |
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 1999 at 12:17:18PM -0400, address@hidden wrote:
> >
> > no - 80 (132 column terminals weren't common until the early 80's -- around
> > the time that punchcards went away)
>
> I don't know about terminals, but I believe 132 column *printers* were
printers, yes, terminals no (there's a real difference ;-).
printer widths were pretty standard also, I believe because of the paper sizes,
and the limited range of character spacing -
and _that_ didn't change until the early 80's when laser printers became common,
so we could have more variations than switching lines/inch between 6 and 8.
wide terminals didn't hit the street until the word processing industry
boomed at the end of the 70's, and then they were a niche market until the
early 80's (a side effect of the IBM PC, some would argue).
(but that's just my first-hand experience ;-)
> very much the norm in the 70's. Since terminals were primarily for input,
> and input was originally done with punched cards, it was logical to make
> the terminals 80 columns, but printers were for output, and there was no
> reason to duplicate the width of the punched card. (Yes, I know that the
> terminals were also for output, but that was mostly for the programmer's
> benefit--reports and such generally used 132 columns.)
>
> Chuck
--
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
- Re: lynx-dev screen widths, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev screen widths, Bela Lubkin, 1999/04/16
- Re: lynx-dev screen widths,
dickey <=
- Re: lynx-dev screen widths, Henry Nelson, 1999/04/19
- Re: lynx-dev screen widths, Bela Lubkin, 1999/04/20
- lynx-dev screen widths, Philip Webb, 1999/04/21
- Re: screen widths [lynx-dev], Michael Warner, 1999/04/21
- Re: lynx-dev screen widths, David Woolley, 1999/04/23