From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jon@fourwinds.com (Jon Steinhart)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:50:13 -0800
Subject: [TUHS] 80 columns ...
In-Reply-To: <C897CF91-901E-4075-B70E-36F850B20762@jctaylor.com>
References: <CAP6exYK_XOF16T-=h1ebmn3UsoXX5cHBkkiUvsGxJKxuHHa=fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7wpo8rud7y.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
 <60C45CFF-0B5C-4DAB-8936-BA27ECFFA487@gmail.com>
 <025501d3598f$008f19d0$01ad4d70$@ronnatalie.com>
 <CAJfiPzz5ujn0Me-brHXrzMTumOxrDas6hE43bTQPuvJaEneY1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <201711101905.vAAJ5SpV031420@darkstar.fourwinds.com>
 <47fee362-0fde-69ff-7794-a88cf3069030@telegraphics.com.au>
 <201711102043.vAAKhaYB020128@darkstar.fourwinds.com>
 <20171110205806.GB29606@mcvoy.com>
 <201711102102.vAAL2tM6024205@darkstar.fourwinds.com>
 <20171110210921.GD29606@mcvoy.com>,
 <201711102112.vAALCeDG026186@darkstar.fourwinds.com>
 <C897CF91-901E-4075-B70E-36F850B20762@jctaylor.com>
Message-ID: <201711102150.vAALoD1v001419@darkstar.fourwinds.com>

William Corcoran writes:
> It could also be that the 80 column display with 24 rows using 8 bit characters
> fit nicely within a 16k memory chip (or four (4) 4K chips). I wonder if that
> fact eventually helped OEM’s settle in on the ubiquitous 80x24 terminal size?

Well yes, having worked for a company that made terminals at the time, that is
one of the reasons.  The other is the availability of monitors that were cheap
because they were compatible with televisions.  Similar to the reason that we
were stuck with crappy HD monitors for years.

Jon