Rant about GUI-based computing.
Back in 1992ish, only some of the mediocre-to-lousy PC's my high school ran Windows 3.1. I discovered that a screen resolution of 640×200 was available, and then I marvelled at how much of a monkeywrench running at a non-square aspect ratio could be. Some things adapted properly, some were consistently stretched out, some were a mishmash of half-visible text and inaccessible buttons.
It's 2017, and in two and a half decades, things are somehow _worse._
Rant about GUI-based computing.
A current example:
I use a 3840×2160 LCD monitor, but just because I have all those pixels doesn't mean I can fill them all at the frame rate I want, so I set a mode of 1920×2160 hoping for a pixel aspect ratio (PAR) of 2; each pixel is twice as wide as high.
Does the much-touted scalable "Modern" Win10 interface adapt? Of course not! It simply renders as though the pixels were square, and I can't see any to fix it. *sighs*
Rant about GUI-based computing.
@ElectricKeet To be fair, that's mostly because over the course of the late '90s and early '00s square pixels became the absolute standard with the advent of LCD screens, whereas in the CRT era it was much easier to mess about with resolutions without having the resulting picture look like ass.