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…
I agree with your general point, but the specific example isn't as egregious as you make it out to be. In the mid-90s, protocols for determining supported monitor resolutions were just coming out. The first widely-adopted protocol was DDC2, which wasn't standardized until mid-1996. Had Windows 95 or 98 defaulted to 1024x768@72Hz, a significant fraction of users would upgrade and find their display didn't work. To get…
It's possible that standards were still too rough, but the statistic left a strong impression on me. I believe the general concept is validated elsewhere as well --- I'm pretty sure Jacob Nielsen has a similar finding.