Comment by badc0ffee
12 days ago
It doesn't say exactly why 512x342 was chosen. But I'm more interested in why it was changed to 512x384 on later Macs. Is it just to fill the full 4:3 screen?
Beyond that, this article really wants to tell you how amazing that resolution was in 1984. Never mind that you could get an IBM XT clone with "budget" 720x348 monochrome Hercules graphics that year and earlier.
The 512x384 models are Macintosh LC adjacent, so the original LC monitor (the LC itself can do 640x480), or the Colour Classics. AFAIK it was partly in order to making the LC work better with the Apple IIe card (although the IIe software uses a 560x384 mode).
A Hercules card, whilst nice does suffer from the same non-square pixels issue as the Lisa, so not as nice for creating a GUI.
> although the IIe software uses a 560x384 mode
Nice, that's line doubled from the //e's 560x192 and would probably look crisp.
Both MDA and Hercules were 50 Hz. Real mid eighties king of cheap crisp displays would be 12 inch 640x400@71Hz Atari SM124 monitor. You could buy Atari ST + SM124 + Atari SLM804 laser printer + Calamus DTP package for the price of just the Apple laser printer alone :)
I had a XT clone + Hercules at the time (and SIMCGA for games), and the 50Hz refresh wasn't as bad as you'd think - the MDA CRTs were designed with slow decay phosphors to reduce flicker.
I actually had no idea that Atari made a laser printer. Everyone I knew with a ST (admittedly, not many people) was either doing MIDI or playing video games.