[quotemsg=20881278,0,582021][quotemsg=20880772,0,328798]If we give him the benefit of the doubt, then we should assume he was talking about gaming resolutions. I had a XGA (1024x768) card + monitor in about 1991, but that doesn't mean I could play any games at that resolution.
According to the article, he was only there for 17 years though, which would have been around 2001. In 2001, you could even play many games on a system with Intel integrated graphics at a resolution of 800x600 or higher. I can't image many people were gaming at 320x240 at the time, let alone considering it "high res". 640x480 would have probably been the bare minimum anyone would want to play PC games at, and even that would have been considered "low res" for PC games at the time.[/quotemsg]
Right. You have to go back in the thread for context, here. I was just replying to the point about 1600x1200 being fairly common, in the late 90's - that he was obviously talking about resolutions at which 3D graphics acceleration was being used, because SVGA and even XGA were fairly common well before that.
His exact words were laughable. No one debates that. The question is merely how far off the mark was he, which depends on which you think he was talking about 3D resolutions or not.