Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the most important lessons about mass-use computer tools is that overwhelmingly people use defaults . I first realised this back in the 1990s when shitty default monitor resolution and refresh rate would literally inflict pain (headaches and eyestrain). MS Windows 95 / 98 shipped with a default of 800x600@60Hz. This was on CRTs, many viewed under office flourescent lighting, which gave rise to a bloody awful f…
> This on systems which could easily be bumped to 1024x768 or better. Well, on a 14 inch CRT with no DPI scaling it’s debatable whether a higher resolution was ‘better’.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130321082317/http://www.bbc.co...
Font selection dialogue: https://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/0c3b043fb25425d17444ff8e...
https://neurologicexam.med.utah.edu/adult/cases/windows_disp...
The effect would still be finer resolution AND readable fonts. Less eyestrain.
Unlike, say, on present-generation MacOS, which does effectively limit upper-end display resolution.