OK. There were also 640x400, 640x350 (EGA) and 1280x1024. Under Windows, also "Small fonts" and "Large fonts", which changed size of controls, but not bitmaps.
Each of these options gives you something. Focusing on single resolution (or fixed-number multiples) is short signed, almost like basing your's OS binary API on soon-to-be obsolete and unstable C++ ABI (I'm taking shots at BeOS - they took the easy solution at the beginning and what problems it caused).
Especially when the system has the tools to handle the differences.
Comments
There was time, when desktops had 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768
Those are all the same ratio (4:3). You don't have to change the relative position or size of the elements to accommodate them all.
OK. There were also 640x400, 640x350 (EGA) and 1280x1024. Under Windows, also "Small fonts" and "Large fonts", which changed size of controls, but not bitmaps.
Each of these options gives you something. Focusing on single resolution (or fixed-number multiples) is short signed, almost like basing your's OS binary API on soon-to-be obsolete and unstable C++ ABI (I'm taking shots at BeOS - they took the easy solution at the beginning and what problems it caused).
Especially when the system has the tools to handle the differences.
>Under Windows, also "Small fonts" and "Large fonts", which changed size of controls, but not bitmaps.
It's worth pointing out that the large font option basically breaks Windows applications, including MS Office.