top | item 44970418 (no title) dphnx | 6 months ago Ah, so the characters we’re seeing here are twice as wide as they would be when printed? Adding some CSS to compress the page horizontally looks a lot closer to the first image you shared: html { transform: scaleX(50%); } discuss order hn newest wiredfool|6 months ago The font on the page is definitely too wide -- it should be taller than wide, and 10 characters per inch. mark-r|6 months ago I'm not sure the original MX-80 had square dots. Since they made this to be pixel accurate, the aspect ratio might be off because the MX-80 was off.The key test is not how it looks on screen, but how it looks printed. load replies (1) LocalH|6 months ago I played with it a bit and 65% or so seemed more accurate to my memories
wiredfool|6 months ago The font on the page is definitely too wide -- it should be taller than wide, and 10 characters per inch. mark-r|6 months ago I'm not sure the original MX-80 had square dots. Since they made this to be pixel accurate, the aspect ratio might be off because the MX-80 was off.The key test is not how it looks on screen, but how it looks printed. load replies (1)
mark-r|6 months ago I'm not sure the original MX-80 had square dots. Since they made this to be pixel accurate, the aspect ratio might be off because the MX-80 was off.The key test is not how it looks on screen, but how it looks printed. load replies (1)
wiredfool|6 months ago
mark-r|6 months ago
The key test is not how it looks on screen, but how it looks printed.
LocalH|6 months ago