6 ms·
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
by dphnx 1y 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%);
}
- wiredfool 1y agoThe font on the page is definitely too wide -- it should be taller than wide, and 10 characters per inch.
- mark-r 1y agoI'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.
- wiredfool 1y agoMy recollection is that the dots were round on my dot matrix. But it also used a typewriter ribbon, so there was a bit of texture from that.
- mark-r 1y agoGood point, the dots were produced by pins that were round. What I meant to say was that the spacing might have been different in the two directions.
- wiredfool 1y agoYes, I’m sure they would be. Especially since the same font would have been used for normal width (10 characters per inch) and compressed (17 cpi).
- LocalH 1y agoI played with it a bit and 65% or so seemed more accurate to my memories