[luke8086]

To be precise, it only assumed 80x25 terminals with 16 colors, which I think fits into some definitions of retro, but I see your point :)

I've just added support for ascii & monochrome modes, and reduced the required screen size to 80x12, which I think is a reasonable minimum for readability.

Would you mind sharing what kind of hardware did you try it on?

[reaperducer]

You're almost there. But 80x12 is still a bit big for truly retro hardware.

Remember that 80 column screens were not the majority of computers in what we now consider the retro age. 40, 36, and even 32 columns screens were common.

Also, terminals would often have status bars, reducing the amount of vertical real estate. 12 sounds small, but with status indicators active, you're looking at 10 or even 8 usable lines.

[choilive]

Either I am very young or you are very old, because ANYTHING with a fixed 80 column screen is definitely retro. This is a weird thing to gatekeep.

[alisonatwork]

What commonly used UNIX terminals had less than 80 columns? VT100 had 80 columns, IBM PCs had 80 columns. I remember some 8 bit computers having text modes where you could choose to display less columns in return for getting more colors, but those computers never ran UNIX and getting on usenet was surely a pipe dream.

[luke8086]

Eh, to do it properly, 40 cols and less would require adjusting the whole layout and I just want to keep the code simple. I'm also not sure if the code would be fast enough to run on so old machines, I mean it's Python and not optimized at all. But feel free to fork and tinker if you're interested, at this point it's not really far off.

[johnisgood]

How come it is 80x25 instead of 80x24 (default dimensions for XTerm)?

[luke8086]

Interesting, I never noticed that 80x24 resolution. Apparently it's been inherited from VT100.

Now 80x25 was the standard text mode of IBM PC, which I'm much more familiar with. I used it because I was testing (over telnet) on some retro ones.