Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> Yeah, that's another good delineation: if a game can't do widescreen,
> it automatically feels old to me. It's really hard for me to play
> fencepost'd games on a modern monitor; I have to REALLY enjoy the game
> to keep playing at that point. I'd almost certainly be looking for a
> wide-screen hack (or, at the very least, an option to play the game in
> a window, which I oddly find less offensive than 4:3 fullscreen)
> before continuing.

So do you play your old games in a window them? Or on a CRT?

Thinking back, I've played Crudader: No Remorse somewhat recently, as a
DOS game it probably ran at 640x480 so I'm pretty sure I ran it scaled
to full screen with fence posts. The posts just faded away as I played.

I thought System Shock 2 was the same but looks like it has been modded
to run at 1440p.

On 4/18/2024 1:01 PM, Ant wrote:
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 11:08 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>> On 4/16/2024 6:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure CRT's will continue to be well known..
>>>
>>> Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
>>> I mean, my kids know they existed, but mostly from movies and stuff.
>
>> Today.
>
> Same. Still have them, but not in used.

I somewhat regret getting rid of my Sony Trinitron monitor, older games
and consoles looked far better on it than modern LCDs. Unfortunately
space, and the weight of the thing with all the moves was a problem and
it's long gone.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 4/19/2024 4:14 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 4/18/2024 1:01 PM, Ant wrote:
>> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 11:08 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>>> On 4/16/2024 6:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure CRT's will continue to be well known..
>>>>
>>>> Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
>>>> I mean, my kids know they existed, but mostly from movies and stuff.
>>
>>> Today.
>>
>> Same. Still have them, but not in used.
>
> I somewhat regret getting rid of my Sony Trinitron monitor, older games
> and consoles looked far better on it than modern LCDs.  Unfortunately
> space, and the weight of the thing with all the moves was a problem and
> it's long gone.
>

I used to have one 20 years ago, but it got kind of lost in the moves
afterwards. I have the suspicion it might be still around my parents'
place somewhere.

On 4/18/2024 2:54 PM, Mike S. wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:36:49 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nah, 1990 still was in the 5.25" time. They only faded from view a few
>> years later. I remember when we bought our first 486 in... 1993? we had
>> the choice between one with a 3.5" and one with both 3.5" and 5.25", and
>> my dad took the one without the 5.25" drive. To my consternation,
>> because I thought those disks looked kinda cool, and my uncle had a huge
>> collection of games on them already.
>>
>> (and for what it's worth, here is an ebay offer for a sealed 5.25" copy
>> of the game: https://www.ebay.com/itm/235038004341)
>
> Yeah, my copy of Might and Magic 3 has a Copyright date of 1991 and it
> came on 5.25 floppies.

Now that was a great game.

I only got it on CD-Rom though.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:52:57 +0300, Anssi Saari
<anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Yeah, that's another good delineation: if a game can't do widescreen,
>> it automatically feels old to me. It's really hard for me to play
>> fencepost'd games on a modern monitor; I have to REALLY enjoy the game
>> to keep playing at that point. I'd almost certainly be looking for a
>> wide-screen hack (or, at the very least, an option to play the game in
>> a window, which I oddly find less offensive than 4:3 fullscreen)
>> before continuing.
>
>So do you play your old games in a window them? Or on a CRT?
>
>Thinking back, I've played Crudader: No Remorse somewhat recently, as a
>DOS game it probably ran at 640x480 so I'm pretty sure I ran it scaled
>to full screen with fence posts. The posts just faded away as I played.

Generally, I run older games in a window. DOS games usually get scaled
up a bit, just because a 320x240 window is a bit small... but a window
nonetheless. I'm not really a 'purist' when it comes to the visuals;
I've even been known to use filters (gasp! shock! horror!) to smooth
or otherwise improve the quality.

Well, that's with DOS games, anyway. Older Windows games I'll run
full-screen (if only because a lot of older windows games don't
support anything but full-screen anyway).

Despite my collection of older hardware, I don't have any CRTs. I
never found the difference in visual quality between LCDs and CRT to
be so great as to counterbalance the power-usage or size of the older
screens. Yes, some older games shine on CRTs, but not so much that I
want to dedicate an entire desk to a single monitor. ;-)

Or risk throwing out my back just to move a 21" monstrosity.

On 19/04/2024 15:14, Justisaur wrote:
> On 4/18/2024 1:01 PM, Ant wrote:
>> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 11:08 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>>> On 4/16/2024 6:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure CRT's will continue to be well known..
>>>>
>>>> Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
>>>> I mean, my kids know they existed, but mostly from movies and stuff.
>>
>>> Today.
>>
>> Same. Still have them, but not in used.
>
> I somewhat regret getting rid of my Sony Trinitron monitor, older games
> and consoles looked far better on it than modern LCDs.  Unfortunately
> space, and the weight of the thing with all the moves was a problem and
> it's long gone.
>

I had one for quite a few years but ended up ditching it for the same
reasons. I had a copy of War and Peace under the monitor stand so it
didn't break it.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:12:25 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/18/2024 2:54 PM, Mike S. wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:36:49 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nah, 1990 still was in the 5.25" time. They only faded from view a few
>>> years later. I remember when we bought our first 486 in... 1993? we had
>>> the choice between one with a 3.5" and one with both 3.5" and 5.25", and
>>> my dad took the one without the 5.25" drive. To my consternation,
>>> because I thought those disks looked kinda cool, and my uncle had a huge
>>> collection of games on them already.
>>>
>>> (and for what it's worth, here is an ebay offer for a sealed 5.25" copy
>>> of the game: https://www.ebay.com/itm/235038004341)
>>
>> Yeah, my copy of Might and Magic 3 has a Copyright date of 1991 and it
>> came on 5.25 floppies.

>Now that was a great game.

>I only got it on CD-Rom though.

I was always a "Might & Magic 2" fan myself. Played it to death on an
8-bit computer. It was an absolutely ridiculous game, with ridiculous
encounters (in particular, I remember fighting off hundreds of
'Cuisinart'* monsters, each of which did hundreds if not thousands of
points of damage per attack. Finally having a party able to not only
withstand those attacks but nuke them en masse with magic spells was
/such/ a satisfying experience). The visuals were a noticable step-up
from the first game (which was surprisingly text-heavy). The new skill
system made the game feel more like a tabletop RPG, the automap was a
very welcome QOL improvement, and the huge open-world was the Skyrim
of its era; so much to explore, so many hidden things to discover, so
many quests to do!

But by the time "Might & Magic 3" rolled around (1991), I was pretty
much done with the franchise. It's combat-heavy game-play and
tile-based presentation felt very old school when compared to
contemporary CRPGs like "Ultima 6" or even (the then venerable) "Pool
of Radiance"). "Underworld: The Stygian Abyss", which would release
less than a year after "Might & Magic 3", was the final straw,
cementing the fact that the franchise was officially behind-the-times
(at least in my eyes). And if I really wanted to play a tile-based
dungeon-crawler, the "Eye of the Beholder" games had a freshness to
them that the Might & Magic games lacked.

But I'll never forget the joy of smashing cuisinarts. ;-)

As for disks... the early 90s were the definite transition period
between 3.5" and 5.25" disks. I just have to look into my collection
of games; "Underworld" came on 5.25" 1.2MB floppies, but my copy of
"Wing Commander II" was on 3.5" 1.44MB disks. Not only did many games
release in different SKUs, each individually marked with what sort of
disk could be found inside the box, but pretty much every game also
included a 'disk exchange card', with instructions on how you could
swap your 3.5" disks for 5.25" floppies (or vice versa) for a minimal
charge.

Floppy disks were a surprisingly costly part of game development in
the 90s, and ate up a significant chunk of the profits for publishers.
Disks were expensive and - even purchased in bulk - could cost
anywhere from 50 cents to 2 dollars US! So with a game that shipped on
8 floppy disks, that might mean $10 of that might be spent on media
alone! The weight of all those disks also made it more expensive to
ship the games too. It's one of the bigger reasons why publishers were
so quick to switch over to CD-ROM, even when the game didn't really
need all that much storage space; it was a huge cost-saving for them.

* named after a specific chopper/blender kitchen-device that was
popular at the time

On 4/20/2024 4:21 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> I was always a "Might & Magic 2" fan myself. Played it to death on an
> 8-bit computer. It was an absolutely ridiculous game, with ridiculous
> encounters (in particular, I remember fighting off hundreds of
> 'Cuisinart'* monsters, each of which did hundreds if not thousands of
> points of damage per attack. Finally having a party able to not only
> withstand those attacks but nuke them en masse with magic spells was
> /such/ a satisfying experience). The visuals were a noticable step-up
> from the first game (which was surprisingly text-heavy). The new skill
> system made the game feel more like a tabletop RPG, the automap was a
> very welcome QOL improvement, and the huge open-world was the Skyrim
> of its era; so much to explore, so many hidden things to discover, so
> many quests to do!
>
> But by the time "Might & Magic 3" rolled around (1991), I was pretty
> much done with the franchise. It's combat-heavy game-play and
> tile-based presentation felt very old school when compared to
> contemporary CRPGs like "Ultima 6" or even (the then venerable) "Pool
> of Radiance"). "Underworld: The Stygian Abyss", which would release
> less than a year after "Might & Magic 3", was the final straw,
> cementing the fact that the franchise was officially behind-the-times
> (at least in my eyes). And if I really wanted to play a tile-based
> dungeon-crawler, the "Eye of the Beholder" games had a freshness to
> them that the Might & Magic games lacked.
>
> But I'll never forget the joy of smashing cuisinarts. ;-)

I only started with 4, then got 5 (and enjoyed the experience of putting
both of them together to make the combined world; that was one expansion
which totally held the promises it made), then moved to 3. I all got
them as cover discs on some magazine that only existed for selling old
games to people (Bestseller Games). I spent a lot of time in games from
that magazine, and I didn't mind they were older because at least they
were running fine even on my antiquated computer at the time.
>
>
> As for disks... the early 90s were the definite transition period
> between 3.5" and 5.25" disks. I just have to look into my collection
> of games; "Underworld" came on 5.25" 1.2MB floppies, but my copy of
> "Wing Commander II" was on 3.5" 1.44MB disks. Not only did many games
> release in different SKUs, each individually marked with what sort of
> disk could be found inside the box, but pretty much every game also
> included a 'disk exchange card', with instructions on how you could
> swap your 3.5" disks for 5.25" floppies (or vice versa) for a minimal
> charge.
>
> Floppy disks were a surprisingly costly part of game development in
> the 90s, and ate up a significant chunk of the profits for publishers.
> Disks were expensive and - even purchased in bulk - could cost
> anywhere from 50 cents to 2 dollars US! So with a game that shipped on
> 8 floppy disks, that might mean $10 of that might be spent on media
> alone! The weight of all those disks also made it more expensive to
> ship the games too. It's one of the bigger reasons why publishers were
> so quick to switch over to CD-ROM, even when the game didn't really
> need all that much storage space; it was a huge cost-saving for them.
>
>

I never thought about that, but that actually is totally true. I thought
it was mostly the convenience, but yes, just shipping one disc instead
of 8 was certainly cheaper, even with the higher prices for CDs back then.
I still remember that some publishers went overboard and started to ship
some games on multiple CDs (FMV games mostly, which everybody forgets
for good reason)

--
email: gmkeros@gmail.com
microblog: https://dice.camp/@kyonshi
macroblog: https://gmkeros.wordpress.com
pictures: https://portfolio.pixelfed.de/kyonshi

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:07:30 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/20/2024 4:21 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>> I was always a "Might & Magic 2" fan myself.

>I only started with 4, then got 5 (and enjoyed the experience of putting
>both of them together to make the combined world; that was one expansion
>which totally held the promises it made), then moved to 3.

MM4 (Clouds) and MM5(Darkside) were probably the best of the series
(despite my enjoying the 2nd game more). The entire 'merge the two
games into one, or enjoy each separately' thing was a gimmick, but a
neat one. Overall, it had a mix of good graphics and gameplay.
Nonetheless, the entire tile-step mechanic just felt so old-school
(this before old-school was seen as cool) that I had a hard time
enjoying them. Why play such clunky games, my train of thought was,
when there was so many other games exploring newer and more exciting
ways of playing?

(You can argue that I was shortchanging the games with that line of
thinking, and I probably wouldn't disagree with you, but that's how I
viewed it back then ;-)

>I all got
>them as cover discs on some magazine that only existed for selling old
>games to people (Bestseller Games). I spent a lot of time in games from
>that magazine, and I didn't mind they were older because at least they
>were running fine even on my antiquated computer at the time.

Ah, cover disks. The magazines that came with floppies were a useful
source of spare disks (after you tried the demos, of course!), and the
ones that came with CD-ROMs were a bonanza of goodies that never
seemed to end. Especially in the early/mid-90s, when they squeezed
literally HUNDREDS of games onto each disk.

Having access to the Internet even back then, I was less dependent on
CD-ROMs to get access to demos, but they were a useful 'archival
medium' for demos that I knew I might want to look at later. Even for
those of us with online access, downloading a 5 or 10MB demo was a
time-consuming chore. Unless you absolutely needed the
latest-n-greatest demos, it was better just to slip in a handy
cover-disk and install it from there.

And those rare cover disks that offered COMPLETE games (sometimes
unintentionally ;-)? Those you hung onto like they were the rarest of
4-leaf clovers.

I still have a few cover disks lingering about just for that reason.

>> Floppy disks were a surprisingly costly part of game development in
>> the 90s, and ate up a significant chunk of the profits for publishers.
>> Disks were expensive and - even purchased in bulk - could cost
>> anywhere from 50 cents to 2 dollars US! So with a game that shipped on
>> 8 floppy disks, that might mean $10 of that might be spent on media
>> alone! The weight of all those disks also made it more expensive to
>> ship the games too. It's one of the bigger reasons why publishers were
>> so quick to switch over to CD-ROM, even when the game didn't really
>> need all that much storage space; it was a huge cost-saving for them.

>I never thought about that, but that actually is totally true. I thought
>it was mostly the convenience, but yes, just shipping one disc instead
>of 8 was certainly cheaper, even with the higher prices for CDs back then.
>I still remember that some publishers went overboard and started to ship
>some games on multiple CDs (FMV games mostly, which everybody forgets
>for good reason)

It wasn't just the price of the medium itself, but getting the data
onto the CD-ROMs was both cheaper and faster. CD-ROMs were also less
likely to go bad, which meant fewer returns/exchanges too.

Multiple CD-ROM games (not just FMV games) were the bane of my
existance for years. Sure, at the start it was exciting (a game that
spanned multiple-CDROMs? Some games used up to 8 CDs; that's 5.5GB!!!
How in the world could any game need that much data? It was
mind-blowing ;-) but the appeal really started to fade as /every/ game
did it. Not only did it extend installation time, but you'd have to
constantly juggle disks just to play the game. It took me back to the
8-bit days when PC games constantly asked you to swap floppy disks!

But what really annoyed me was storage. Because I hadn't the room to
keep all the boxes for my games, I stored my CDs in those large CD
binder books (some of which held up to 200 disks). And because games
kept coming on ever larger number of CD-ROMs, I kept having to buy
more (and larger) binders to store them. What was worse, the continued
this long after DVDs became a viable medium.

(Unlike the floppy-to-CD transition, there was much less financial
advantage to moving to DVDs. While publishers might have saved some
money by pressing fewer disks, creating a DVD was still more expensive
per disk than making a CD-ROM. It also required investment in DVD
pressing hardware, and risked losing a not-insignificant number of
customers who didn't have DVD drives yet. So PC publishers were slow
to jump onto the DVD bandwagon).

And by the time DVDs were starting to become common, the transition to
digital downloads had started in earnest (not to mention games were
becoming so bloated that even DVDs were barely able to contain them).

Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>I never thought about that, but that actually is totally true. I thought
>it was mostly the convenience, but yes, just shipping one disc instead
>of 8 was certainly cheaper, even with the higher prices for CDs back then.

CD technology was over a decade old by the time CD-ROM games became a
thing, and assuming a certain minimum number of copies, was actually quite
a bit cheaper per disk than floppy disks. CD-ROMs are made by stamping
an aluminum disk and then sandwiching it between two clear plastic disks.
Pre-recorded floppy disks were made in duplication machines that had to
write out the floppy disk sector by sector, track by track. The more
advanced ones had 4X speed drives and an automatic feeder, simpler ones
just used a bank of standard floppy drives that copied at regular drive
speeds and had to be loaded and unloaded manually.

So game companies actually saved a fair bit of money switching to CD-ROM.
Instead of hiring their own employees to feed disks into expensive
duplicators they could outsource whole media manufacturing task to one
the same companies making music CDs.

>I still remember that some publishers went overboard and started to ship
>some games on multiple CDs (FMV games mostly, which everybody forgets
>for good reason)

My copy of EverQuest II came on 10 CD-ROMs. It was also available on
two DVD-ROMs and while I had a DVD-ROM drive back then I went with the
CD version because I knew it was probably the most we'd ever see a game
release on.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On 4/21/2024 5:20 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:

>
> My copy of EverQuest II came on 10 CD-ROMs. It was also available on
> two DVD-ROMs and while I had a DVD-ROM drive back then I went with the
> CD version because I knew it was probably the most we'd ever see a game
> release on.
>

Oh yeah, Everquest II. But that was at the switch to DVDs arleady.
But I was thinking about games like Under a Killing Moon from '94, which
came on 4 CDs at a time when other games might still come on 3.5" floppies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_a_Killing_Moon

--
email: gmkeros@gmail.com
microblog: https://dice.camp/@kyonshi
macroblog: https://gmkeros.wordpress.com
pictures: https://portfolio.pixelfed.de/kyonshi

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>

>Floppy disks were a surprisingly costly part of game development in
>the 90s, and ate up a significant chunk of the profits for publishers.
>Disks were expensive and - even purchased in bulk - could cost
>anywhere from 50 cents to 2 dollars US! So with a game that shipped on
>8 floppy disks, that might mean $10 of that might be spent on media
>alone!

First floppy disk I ever bought: 5.25" 160k SS/SD
(Single Sided / Single Density.)

$10

That was in 1981 or 1982, I forget which now.

Xocyll

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 4/18/2024 1:01 PM, Ant wrote:
>> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 11:08 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>>> On 4/16/2024 6:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure CRT's will continue to be well known..
>>>>
>>>> Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
>>>> I mean, my kids know they existed, but mostly from movies and stuff.
>>
>>> Today.
>>
>> Same. Still have them, but not in used.
>
>I somewhat regret getting rid of my Sony Trinitron monitor, older games
>and consoles looked far better on it than modern LCDs. Unfortunately
>space, and the weight of the thing with all the moves was a problem and
>it's long gone.

Had one of those, and they were nice. Mine died though and the only way
to get it fixed was at an NEC facility in Ottawa.

70lbs that thing weighed, so shipping it there and back would have cost
more than it was worth.

I do NOT miss the weight of CRT TVs and monitors.

Xocyll

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:30:06 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
><snip>
>
>>Floppy disks were a surprisingly costly part of game development in
>>the 90s, and ate up a significant chunk of the profits for publishers.
>>Disks were expensive and - even purchased in bulk - could cost
>>anywhere from 50 cents to 2 dollars US! So with a game that shipped on
>>8 floppy disks, that might mean $10 of that might be spent on media
>>alone!

>First floppy disk I ever bought: 5.25" 160k SS/SD
>(Single Sided / Single Density.)

>$10

>That was in 1981 or 1982, I forget which now.

And - just to make it even more clear about how expensive that was -
$10USD in 1981 was the equivalent of $35USD in 2024. I've seen used
flat-screen TVs go for less in thrift stores. ;-)

I can't remember the year (late 80s, probably) but I recall purchasing
a box of 3M 10x 5.25" floppy disks (probably DS/SD, since it was for
my 8-bit) for about $25. It was a significant chunk of change. It was
the 80s equivalent of buying a new external hard-drive.

Yet, for all we look down on floppies - so fragile, and holding so
little data - they were incredibly versatile, useful and so, so
superior to most alternatives.

I can't say I /miss/ floppy disks, but I do miss the form factor.
There was something very reassuring about those slender cassettes
(especially 3.5" disks); a solidity and presence that said, "Yes, I am
here holding your data". Slotting the disk into the drive and getting
that reassuring 'clunk' was quite satisfying too. Smaller form-factors
- like thumb-drives - never quite recaptured that. I think it's why I
loved ZIP disks (and its competitors, like LS120 super-floppies) so
much.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:38:29 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:

>
>I do NOT miss the weight of CRT TVs and monitors.

The /only/ thing I miss about CRTs is that you could put things on top
of them. Files. Disks. A keyboard. It was a useful storage area; out
of the way enough that you weren't cluttering up your immediate
work-area, but still accessible enough that you could grab stuff from
atop it at need.

Although God forbid something you put on top of the monitor fell
off... and then you'd have to shift the bastard device to get to your
lost documents.

The closest I've gotten, in this age of flat-screens, to that lost
functionality was when I bought a little drawer for my tower computer
that slotted into a 5.25" external drive bay. ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> >I do NOT miss the weight of CRT TVs and monitors.

I did miss the pure blackness when flatscreens were new.

> The /only/ thing I miss about CRTs is that you could put things on top
> of them. Files. Disks. A keyboard. It was a useful storage area; out
> of the way enough that you weren't cluttering up your immediate
> work-area, but still accessible enough that you could grab stuff from
> atop it at need.

I remember my 6th grade teacher told me to put 5.25" floppy disks on top on Apple 2 monitors. :/
--
"[Jesus continued his message, saying:] 'Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.'" --John 4:23-24
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 4/23/2024 10:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:30:06 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>> say:
>> <snip>

> I can't say I /miss/ floppy disks, but I do miss the form factor.
> There was something very reassuring about those slender cassettes
> (especially 3.5" disks); a solidity and presence that said, "Yes, I am
> here holding your data". Slotting the disk into the drive and getting
> that reassuring 'clunk' was quite satisfying too. Smaller form-factors
> - like thumb-drives - never quite recaptured that. I think it's why I
> loved ZIP disks (and its competitors, like LS120 super-floppies) so
> much.

At least they were much harder to lose than the numerous USB thumb
drives I've got now, and all fit in the same container the same way.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 4/24/2024 4:25 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 4/23/2024 10:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:30:06 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>>> say:
>>> <snip>
>
>> I can't say I /miss/ floppy disks, but I do miss the form factor.
>> There was something very reassuring about those slender cassettes
>> (especially 3.5" disks); a solidity and presence that said, "Yes, I am
>> here holding your data". Slotting the disk into the drive and getting
>> that reassuring 'clunk' was quite satisfying too. Smaller form-factors
>> - like thumb-drives - never quite recaptured that. I think it's why I
>> loved ZIP disks (and its competitors, like LS120 super-floppies) so
>> much.
>
> At least they were much harder to lose than the numerous USB thumb
> drives I've got now, and all fit in the same container the same way.
>

it also was harder to put them in the wrong way round more than once,
unlike usb drives which you have to try in at least three different ways
until they work as they should

--
microblog: https://dice.camp/@kyonshi
macroblog: https://gmkeros.wordpress.com
pictures: https://portfolio.pixelfed.de/kyonshi

Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 4:25 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> > On 4/23/2024 10:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:30:06 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
> >>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
> >>> say:
> >>> <snip>
> >
> >> I can't say I /miss/ floppy disks, but I do miss the form factor.
> >> There was something very reassuring about those slender cassettes
> >> (especially 3.5" disks); a solidity and presence that said, "Yes, I am
> >> here holding your data". Slotting the disk into the drive and getting
> >> that reassuring 'clunk' was quite satisfying too. Smaller form-factors
> >> - like thumb-drives - never quite recaptured that. I think it's why I
> >> loved ZIP disks (and its competitors, like LS120 super-floppies) so
> >> much.
> >
> > At least they were much harder to lose than the numerous USB thumb
> > drives I've got now, and all fit in the same container the same way.
> >

> it also was harder to put them in the wrong way round more than once,
> unlike usb drives which you have to try in at least three different ways
> until they work as they should

USB-C fixed that though. :P
--
"[Jesus continued his message, saying:] 'Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.'" --John 4:23-24
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 4/24/2024 5:25 PM, Ant wrote:
> Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 4:25 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2024 10:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:30:06 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
>>>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>>>>> say:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I can't say I /miss/ floppy disks, but I do miss the form factor.
>>>> There was something very reassuring about those slender cassettes
>>>> (especially 3.5" disks); a solidity and presence that said, "Yes, I am
>>>> here holding your data". Slotting the disk into the drive and getting
>>>> that reassuring 'clunk' was quite satisfying too. Smaller form-factors
>>>> - like thumb-drives - never quite recaptured that. I think it's why I
>>>> loved ZIP disks (and its competitors, like LS120 super-floppies) so
>>>> much.
>>>
>>> At least they were much harder to lose than the numerous USB thumb
>>> drives I've got now, and all fit in the same container the same way.
>>>
>
>> it also was harder to put them in the wrong way round more than once,
>> unlike usb drives which you have to try in at least three different ways
>> until they work as they should
>
> USB-C fixed that though. :P

Upped it to 5 different
ways?
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 25/04/2024 02:05, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 5:25 PM, Ant wrote:
>> USB-C fixed that though. :P
>
> Upped it to 5 different
>  ways?

The USB-C on my phone is a bit rubbish as the port has a habit of
collecting dust which means the cable gets a bit loose and prone to
falling out. Every few months it's out with the specially crafted
toothpick and for an extra clean the compressor I use with my airbrush.

JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 25/04/2024 02:05, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 5:25 PM, Ant wrote:
>>> USB-C fixed that though. :P
>>
>> Upped it to 5 different
>>  ways?
>
>The USB-C on my phone is a bit rubbish as the port has a habit of
>collecting dust which means the cable gets a bit loose and prone to
>falling out. Every few months it's out with the specially crafted
>toothpick and for an extra clean the compressor I use with my airbrush.

That's all my complaint with the new computer, instead of the case
having the USB on the front, it's on the top, where it would be
guaranteed to fill up with dust until it became non-functional if I
didn't have the external CD/DVD covering the hole.

What retarded ass monkey thought that was a good idea?

And it's not some brand-x it's a fucking corsair 4000d.

Xocyll

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:38:29 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I do NOT miss the weight of CRT TVs and monitors.
>
>
>The /only/ thing I miss about CRTs is that you could put things on top
>of them. Files. Disks. A keyboard. It was a useful storage area; out
>of the way enough that you weren't cluttering up your immediate
>work-area, but still accessible enough that you could grab stuff from
>atop it at need.

The only thing that got "stored" on top of a CRT (monitor or TV) at our
place, was the cat.

Kitties loved CRTs for the delicious heat they produced.

>Although God forbid something you put on top of the monitor fell
>off... and then you'd have to shift the bastard device to get to your
>lost documents.
>
>The closest I've gotten, in this age of flat-screens, to that lost
>functionality was when I bought a little drawer for my tower computer
>that slotted into a 5.25" external drive bay. ;-)

So you almost created that age old tech support tales of the cup holder
(putting a coffee cup on the extended cd-rom.)

My monitor sits on a little "hutch" which is actually the top case of an
ancient desktop XT, turned back to front - old burned dvds in cases
underneath (and the new sound bar) and pills/watches/rings/etc on top.

I used to put the CRTs on it to lift them high enough so I wasn't
looking down at them, the lcds put much less strain on it, but then
those old cases were strong enough to stand on easily.

I swear new case material is so thin you could bend it if you sneezed in
it's general direction.

Xocyll

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 03:43:35 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:

>JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
>spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On 25/04/2024 02:05, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2024 5:25 PM, Ant wrote:
>>>> USB-C fixed that though. :P
>>>
>>> Upped it to 5 different
>>>  ways?
>>
>>The USB-C on my phone is a bit rubbish as the port has a habit of
>>collecting dust which means the cable gets a bit loose and prone to
>>falling out. Every few months it's out with the specially crafted
>>toothpick and for an extra clean the compressor I use with my airbrush.
>
>That's all my complaint with the new computer, instead of the case
>having the USB on the front, it's on the top, where it would be
>guaranteed to fill up with dust until it became non-functional if I
>didn't have the external CD/DVD covering the hole.
>
>What retarded ass monkey thought that was a good idea?
>
>And it's not some brand-x it's a fucking corsair 4000d.
>

Get USB covers. Cheap.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 4/25/2024 12:50 AM, Xocyll wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
> say:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:38:29 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I do NOT miss the weight of CRT TVs and monitors.
>>
>>
>> The /only/ thing I miss about CRTs is that you could put things on top
>> of them. Files. Disks. A keyboard. It was a useful storage area; out
>> of the way enough that you weren't cluttering up your immediate
>> work-area, but still accessible enough that you could grab stuff from
>> atop it at need.
>
> The only thing that got "stored" on top of a CRT (monitor or TV) at our
> place, was the cat.
>
> Kitties loved CRTs for the delicious heat they produced.
>
>
>> Although God forbid something you put on top of the monitor fell
>> off... and then you'd have to shift the bastard device to get to your
>> lost documents.
>>
>> The closest I've gotten, in this age of flat-screens, to that lost
>> functionality was when I bought a little drawer for my tower computer
>> that slotted into a 5.25" external drive bay. ;-)
>
> So you almost created that age old tech support tales of the cup holder
> (putting a coffee cup on the extended cd-rom.)
>
>
> My monitor sits on a little "hutch" which is actually the top case of an
> ancient desktop XT, turned back to front - old burned dvds in cases
> underneath (and the new sound bar) and pills/watches/rings/etc on top.
>
> I used to put the CRTs on it to lift them high enough so I wasn't
> looking down at them, the lcds put much less strain on it, but then
> those old cases were strong enough to stand on easily.
>
> I swear new case material is so thin you could bend it if you sneezed in
> it's general direction.
>
Cheaper to make, encourages re-purchases, pure profit!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.