320X240, 1024X480, 640X480 not practical?

[imzjustplayin]

I'm looking at older laptops and I'm starting to wonder how it was possible to use these computers for their intended purpose. I have some memories of my usage of old laptops but as of now, I'm feeling like anything less than 1024X768 is simply unuseable with 800X600 bordering on useless. Now I'm aware that programs are being made with higher screen resolutions in mind, making smaller screens useless with those newer programs. So now I'm wondering, in 1993, it was common to see a 320X240 screen on a laptop. Looking at this picture: http://www.sunflowerhead.com/msimages/Word2.png which says 640X480, I don't see how one could use word on a 320X240 screen. I have my monitor set to 1024X480 because I'm trying to emulate the use of a particular laptop I'm looking at and I'm thinking about much it would suck to have to write a paper on it. I'm using Word 2002 which doesn't seem too bad about wasting screen space but my memory of older programs is fuzzy. Since finding pictures of older word versions, they seem to utilize the same amount of space as the newer ones, with the only determinant being the number of task bars.

Am I simply used to being spoiled with lots more screen realestate or is 640X480, 1024X480, 320X240 simply not practical? I've used 1600X1200, 1400X1050, 1280X1024(everyday), 1024X768 and I don't have much issue moving between the screen sizes. I am aware that most programmers and web designers program around 800X600+ which may be a factor. So I'm wondering how could anybody use these screen sizes at that time? "You can always move to a smaller or larger house but you can never get used to the commute." This quote was in reference to the need in choosing a house that doesn't have you commuting 2 hours each way to work and that you can get used to the size of the house, but not the commute. So with that quote in mind, I'm wondering whether the screen resolution is the commute time or the size of the house.

 

[Biges]

There were times, when computer games were 320x200 and I really enjoyed them. I even play some of them today.

 

[Benny]

I'm wondering whether the screen resolution is the commute time or the size of the house.

Above 1024x768 it's the size of the house. (depending on the software, some need much more, you can't assemble a car in a trailer.)

Below it's commute time (loads of scrolling around)

With 640x480 and 1024x480 the main problem will be screen hight, but these things aren't made for work, I'd consider them to be web browser and email packed into some hardware.

 

[philjohn]

1024x768 has been too small for a fair few years IMHO. 1280x1024 (or at a push 1280x800) is the absolute minimum I can handle these days, but even going back to 1208x1024 for a couple of days whilst my 24" HP was swapped out was painful. That's why for my next laptop I'm looking at a 1920x1200 screen, which on some Dell Vostro models will only add an extra £75 to the price.