640 x 480 is still not dead


Windows still has to worry about displays running at 640×480 resolution. Even though the default minimum resolution was bumped up to 800×600 for Windows XP, there are still 640×480 devices out there, typically tiny monitors on servers. One common set-up is to have a bank of tiny little monitors, each corresponding to one server in a cluster, with one large monitor that can "tap into" any of the tiny monitors for a closer look. Even though these servers typically are managed via remote administration, keeping actual monitors available acts as a safety net when remote administration proves insufficient, for example, if there is a networking problem.

I don't know what the minimum video requirements will be for Vista, but I doubt they'll really affect these types of machines. These server monitors are not interested in any fancy new video features like Aero Glass or desktop composition.

Running at 640×480 is not just for these server monitors, though. I believe Safe Mode runs at 640×480, so Explorer still needs to be usable at that resolution. This has design consequences, for it means that every component of the interface that a user might need when in Safe Mode (such as the Start menu, Explorer windows, Add or Remove Programs, possibly Windows Update I'm not sure) needs to remain usable under such low resolutions. For the Start menu, for example, this means making sure that the default Start menu will still fit on the screen even at 640×480.

You might respond, "Well, that's stupid, letting this 640×480 limitation cramp your design. You should design for a high-resolution display, say something that is 1024×768 or greater, and have a special 'Safe Mode' version of the interface that runs in 640×480 for the cases where you have to squeeze into a smaller space."

This approach has two drawbacks. First, it means that there are two versions of the user interface that have to be designed, implemented, and tested. The amount of work is disproportional to the benefit, since Safe Mode is used less than one tenth of one percent of the time (and that's probably grossly over-estimating). If you were in a position to decide where user interface resources should be spent, would you spend it on a special Safe Mode interface, or would you rather spend it on making the Aero interface even more solid?

The second problem with a special Safe Mode interface is that, well, it's a special Safe Mode interface. When the user boots into Safe Mode, they're already anxious. Their computer doesn't work; they're trying to fix it. And then they boot up and are faced with a new interface that they're not familiar with. This doesn't do much to calm their anxiety.

Comments (52)
  1. Tom says:

    How come it’s impossible to use the display properties dialog in Windows since Windows 2000? It’s window height is too big, accessing the buttons at the bottom is impossible.

    Oh and using Aero with 8bpp color depth is fun…Windows should disable the new UI for such resolutions, it’s just a huge ugly mess…

  2. Peter Ritchie says:

    I believe 640×480 is the only resolution where a 3rd party driver is not required (i.e. a "VGA" card provides address space to display 640×480 without proprietary segment swapping) hence it’s used in "safe" mode so there’s a reasonable guarantee the video driver isn’t a variable.  Since "VGA" is the lowest common denominator Windows will likely always have to support 640×480.

  3. Mal says:

    The display properties dialog is 455 pixels high by default, so should be fine under 640×480.  The Advanced settings page however, is 558 pixels high on my machine, but then that’s probably because of the custom ATI tabs – so I would assume a server might not have these custom tabs installed.

  4. Carlos says:

    @Mal: The display properties dialog is unusable at 640×480 when the font size is set to large.

  5. Ring Zero says:

    If the minimum is really 640×480 then why does the box (and the website) say 800×600?

  6. AC: And Windows detects if it’s running in 640×480 mode and changes to 800×600 if the monitor supports it.

    I’ve seen it happen on my laptop – you get some toast that says "Windows has detected your monitor resolution is too low, want me to fix it?" or something like that.

  7. Gabe says:

    "Toast", Larry? I’m not familiar with that usage of the term.

  8. AndyB says:

    I think its rather Ironic that the onyl default dialog that doesn’t fit in 640×480 is the Display Properties one that you use to change the resolution to enable you to see the dialogs. Its so ironic that I almost think it was done deliberately :-)

    MS could create a special safe-moe GUI that was useable in special admin situations – a combination of the command prompt and a Management Console with options to load all the different snapins. This ‘admin mode’ would be perfect for remote administration anyway, so the effort would not be wasted in any way.

    The argument about users being anxious when running in safe mode and trying to fix their broken computer – generally, if they have enough knowledge to enter safe mode in the first place, and enough knowledge to attempt a fix, then they will surely be technically-minded enough not to mind that the GUI isn’t as familiar as when running in normal mode.

  9. sean says:

    toast -> popup (like bread in a toaster)

  10. GeorgeBell says:

    One of the things I’ve noticed about the start menu in vista is that in higher resolutions it doesn’t scale. On my 1920×1200 screen it takes up about 10% of the screen when it is open, resulting in lots of extra scrolling and clicking which isn’t necessary. To me this is a bad use of screen real-estate.

    I think there should be some thought taken as to how the start menu looks in wide-screen displays, in large resolutions and in dual monitor situations. The reality is that windows 95 was 10+ years ago, and that setups are much different now. Part of the reason that we had a start menu in the first place was because the old way of doing things (c:frogger.exe) didn’t make sense with the new vga screens. Likewise the start menu can’t remain the same. I think there has been some good design done in the media center team to make starting programs on a tv work really well. Likewise I think the start menu needs an update for 1920×1200 and beyond. I find the vista changes totally ignore these new changes in the pc marketplace.

  11. BarryBo says:

    "Toast" == the ballon help / tooltip things that appear near the notification area on the right-hand side of the tray.

    The other trouble is 16 bpp colour – the default Windows Vista UI maps several control elements to the same colour, making basic navigation (like, to the IE properties page to configure a proxy, and download a display driver), very difficult.

    Barry

  12. A Different Tom says:

    @GeorgeBell:  Just a thought, but it may not appear to ‘scale’ due to the fact that Vista properly takes into account your display’s DPI.  On Windows 2000, you could bump up the resolution from 1280×1024 to 1600×1200 and things would get smaller, but that was only because Win2K assumed you were always running at 96DPI, even though your 1600×1200 was probably closer to 100DPI.  Vista now recognizes the higer DPI and scales things accordingly.  Specifically, a 10 point font should appear to be about .14 inches on your display.  Vista trys hard to ensure that it is,  whereas older versions of Windows didn’t.

  13. Jonathan says:

    Toast = message that comes sliding up, like a piece of toasted bread. MSN Messenger and Outlook have them.

    Balloon tips = tooltip with a tip pointing to a system notification area icon. "Screen res too low" is a balloon tip.

    Also, even if Windows can’t find a display driver, it installs a "Standard VGA" driver which can do up to 1024*768 32BPP 60Hz, probably using VBE (VESA BIOS Extensions). A lot of people at my work install new machines, and are then surprised at how slow their new computer is (or not notice it at all – we develop server software anyways). I do believe that Safe Mode doesn’t even load this driver either.

  14. Guruparan says:

    Vista display properties are built in as a explorer type window (So, the icons will hide, while creating a new vertical scroll bar!)..so no more issues with 640 x 480…(until the scroll bar helps!)

  15. tdorsey says:

    640×480 is still used by some people with low vision.

  16. Dustin Wyatt says:

    The argument that deisgn of a 640×480 interface would take away from Aero design seems disingenuous to me.

    Why would resources have to be removed from the Aero design team to design a 640×480 interface?  You already designed a 640×480 interface and have used it since Win95.

    [But that interface would need to be maintained. For example, somebody would have to design, implement, and test a “Windows 95 style Security Center”, since Windows 95 didn’t have one. That will cost you resources. -Raymond]
  17. JST says:

    I love Windows Safe Mode!  Really.

    There are lots of ancient systems out there that use the 640x480x4bpp paletted mode from the original IBM VGA boards.  Since Windows Safe Mode uses this setup, even the fanciest modern video boards still have to support it, so my ancient non-Windows machines still run on modern hardware.

  18. Phaeron says:

    Another solution would be to use a 800×600 virtual desktop with hardware panning into the 640×480 screen. A stock VGA should be able to handle it. It wouldn’t be pretty, but you wouldn’t have problems with fighting the 640×480 UI battle (which was long ago lost).

  19. reader says:

    Monday, October 16, 2006 1:47 PM by tdorsey

    640×480 is still used by some people with low vision.

    Boy will they be annoyed when they find out Vista has a 800 x 600 x 16bpp minimum in the display properties dialog!

    (Of course, the correct solution is HighDPI.)

  20. Ring One says:

    If the minimum is really 640×480 then why does the box (and the website) say 800×600?

    [For the same reason your car’s emergency spare tire doesn’t meet the manufacturer’s published miniumum tire requirements. I can’t believe I had to explain that. -Raymond]
  21. ac says:

    To make the story complete, in the current Windows versions there are already some related glitches.

    During installation, if the video card is not recognized by the system, you’re left with 640×480. Now to change to higher resolution, once you install the driver, you need a "display properties" dialog. And that dialog doesn’t nicely fit in 640×480. At first you are  unpleasently surprized and think that you wouldn’t be able to perform the operation, and then you manage *somehow* (you hide the taskbar or something).

    Now not directly related, but wouldn’t be nice to have a Windows CE (or whatever the its name now is) interface as an option? And it’s a pitty that it’s so hard to buy really small LCD’s, I can imagine some nice uses of them, not only for big sets of servers.

  22. Dave says:

    "…would you rather spend it on making the Aero interface even more solid?"

    The Aero look is transparent, it isn’t *supposed* to look solid. If it does look solid, there is likely some problem and they should spend time trying to not make it be solid.

  23. Norman Diamond says:

    640 x 480 is still not dead

    100% true.  Thank you for mostly addressing that.

    Safe Mode is used less than one tenth of one

    percent of the time

    BIOS APIs are used less than one tenth of one percent of the time.  But they’d better work during that one tenth of one percent of the time, or your boot won’t proceed to the point where XP’s drivers will take over.

    I’ve had the same problem with display properties not being usable in 640×480 mode in order to get out of 640×480 mode, and a few other dialog boxes.  I guess I get it more than other English-language commenters because my usual Windows environment isn’t English and the default font size is 9.  Sure these dialogs are used less than one tenth of one percent of the time, but they need to be made to work during that time.

    Probably the most reproduced example of 640×480 comes from installing Vista under Virtual PC.  Other examples come from other video chips that aren’t recognized, and sometimes (under XP anyway) intermediate stages of installing graphics drivers from Intel or NVidia.

    Monday, October 16, 2006 10:31 by Larry Osterman

    AC: And Windows detects if it’s running in

    640×480 mode and changes to 800×600 if the

    monitor supports it.

    Correction:  Windows changes to 800×600 if Windows DETECTS that the adapter and monitor support it.  Sometimes Windows doesn’t detect it automatically even after I install a vendor’s driver, and I have to finish the settings by hand.  (Of course I have to finish the settings by hand anyway, since usually they can go past 800×600 too.)

    Monday, October 16, 2006 12:01 PM by Jonathan

    Also, even if Windows can’t find a display

    driver, it installs a "Standard VGA" driver

    which can do up to 1024*768 32BPP 60Hz,

    probably using VBE (VESA BIOS Extensions).

    Windows does that SOMETIMES.  Yes I’m glad when it does that.  I don’t know why sometimes it chooses the VGA Save driver instead (even when not in safe mode).

  24. Ring Zero says:

    [For the same reason your car’s emergency spare tire doesn’t meet the manufacturer’s published miniumum tire requirements. I can’t believe I had to explain that. -Raymond]

    You can’t?

    Do you know the meaning of the word minimum?

    [Do you know the meaning of the word emergency? -Raymond]
  25. Minor Clarification Man says:

    I don’t think that’s what he’s arguing. I think he was just pointing out that Aero will still have to function in 640×480, because designing a *separate* interface specifically intended for 640×480 would be too expensive.

  26. We make an tactical field pad (a ruggedized x86 PC for soldiers in the field).  It has a 640×480 LCD panel.  If Windows could not work with 640×480, our customers would be pretty ticked.

  27. Mark Steward says:

    800×600 is an everyday, workable minimum for consumers, so that’s what it says on the tin.

    I think I’ve seen XP run natively on 320×200, and thanks to terminal services you can have any screen size down to 1×1 (although, strangely, you can’t go the other way – mstsc has a limit of 1600 by default).

  28. John Melville says:

    Tablet PC is 700 x 400 (or something wierd like that)  Very few of the dialogs fit well on the tablet screen, and it requires a little ingenuity to navigate the UI (especially without a keyboard.)

    Make that one request for a little more testing on small screens.

  29. Ring Zero says:

    As Mr. Semack notes above, and as others have noted (including the example of servers using small monitors), Windows works on smaller resolutions than 800 x 600.

    Therefore, the minimum requirement is not 800 x 600. Perhaps it is recommended, but it is clearly not the minumum, unless you ignore the meaning of minimum.

    [It is the design minimum. Sure, you can go lower, just like you can drive a car with no tires. But it wasn’t designed for it. I’m still baffled that this is such a hard concept. -Raymond]
  30. Puckdropper says:

    I’ve got a Server 2003 box that’s got a 640×480 display.  I use the computer for just a few minutes a week while my other computer is busy doing something else.  Sometimes’s it’s annoying trying to run through a dialog or wizard clearly designed for a larger screen and not using standard Windows templates.  (At least I can keyboard navigate with the Windows Templates.)

    So designers and programmers, you need to consider those with the 640×480 screens as well as those that may be running at 768×1024 (Portrait Mode).  My little sister got a new tablet PC that supports portrait mode, and I was using a LCD earlier today that was rotated to portrait mode.

  31. David Lawrence says:

    Anyhow, the 640×480 res *does* work with the display properties gump.  You just have to unlock the taskbar and move it down.  Just did that today to be able to read a 14" monitor without reaching for my glasses.

    For those that don’t know you can always specify 640×480 even though the settings page doesn’t seem to allow it by clicking on Advanced, then choosing the Adapter tab and clicking the Display All Modes button (or words to that effect.)

  32. Morten Saxov says:

    Well, check out this site: http://winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm

    I am sure you would discover that Windows can run on specs lower then what is on the box. But that doesn’t mean that Microsoft have to encourage people to run Windows XP on a socket 3, Pentium Overdrive 8 MHz & 20 MB RAM.

  33. Chris J says:

    On a vaugely related(?) note, I was quite suprised to get my XP box running in <a href="http://cej.nightwolf.org.uk/images/XPLowRes.JPG">320×240 with 16 colours</a> when a screen saver crashed… I’m suprised that XP supported going that low, but wasn’t suprised the display properties box was a little too big to fit in the window :-)

  34. Norman Diamond says:

    Monday, October 16, 2006 11:49 PM by John Melville

    Tablet PC is 700 x 400 (or something wierd

    like that)

    The tablet PCs that I’ve seen have 1024×768 screens, stylus input, and Windows XP.  But today I saw an announcement of an ultraportable tablet PC that will have 800×480 and Windows XP (didn’t check if it will have stylus input).

  35. Stu says:

    The new "Origami" UMPC’s have 800×480 screens, the same height as 640×480. They typically have a hardware scaling system to reach higher resolutions (it looks crappy, but it’s the only way to make it useable, too many Windows dialogs are too tall).

    I don’t know what Vista UMPC’s will have, but it better be higher.

    Even Windows 98 has many dialogs that don’t fit properly on 640×480 screens, you pretty much have to turn on taskbar auto-hide, just to make things barely usable.

    If 640×480 support is only being maintained for Safe Mode, why not use a "panning desktop" by default in Safe Mode?

    Support has been there since Windows 95, so it’s pretty mature, and it’s much more usable to scroll the screen then to have to memorise the keyboard shortcuts to the controls at the bottom of tall dialogs.

    I suppose the arguement is "scrolling the desktop would be confusing to newbies" (paraphrased). Well Safe Mode is confusing to newbies:

    Why does my desktop background look rubbish? Why are my icons different? Why does my flash pen not work? What do you mean I can’t connect to the interent?

    My computer must be broken. Stupid Microsoft.

  36. CN says:

    Stu et al:

    I am not sure, but considering the lack of performance when scrolling generally (run dir for system32 in safe mode to see what I mean), I would guess that "virtual screeen panning" might be a pretty bad idea after all. Of course, it’s easier to optimize the code for "scroll the full screen", but in a pure framebuffer driver, the speed is still limiting.

  37. Stu,

    Safe mode may be confusing for newbies but I doubt newbies will be using safe mode.  Safe mode, by definition, is for emergencies when the computer has crashed.  So is a newbie going to fix the computer?  No, he/she is going to call tech-support.  I doubt the newbie will even boot into safe mode – and in fact not even know about safe mode since the person is, well, a newbie.

    Ring Zero,

    Raymond Chen is an excellent programmer who takes time out of his busy day to tell us why things are the way they are in Windows.  He also gives us great programming tips and tricks to make our lives easier.  Please stop being a moron.  The only thing you are doing is giving Mr. Chen every reason he needs to wonder why he spends time on this blog.

    Raymond Chen is a resource to be used wisely and with care – not another n00b for the slashdotters to pick on.

    James

  38. Ring Zero says:

    I read the blog all the time and find it valuable.

    My question was a legitimate one. Raymond’s answer was fine, except that for some reason he chose to append “I can’t believe I had to explain that,” implying the question was a dumb one. I have to admit I got snarky after that because I thought his response deserved it.

    I am over my snarkyness but I will say once more that the minimum requirement thing doesn’t make much sense. First of all, as I’ve pointed out, it redefines the word minimum. Secondly, Raymond’s post itself talks about how Microsoft designers have to make sure everything works at 640 x 480. So, since 640 x 480 is required to function, and this is the lowest resolution that’s required to function, most people would say that the minimum required resolution is 640 x 480.

    [800×600 is the design minimum. Obviously the “absolute theoretical minimum” doesn’t go on the box because people would have a reasonable expectation that meeting the “minimum requirements” would still be usable. I mean, the theoretical minimum number of tires on a car is zero (you could drive on rims), but no car manufacturer is going to say in their vehicle specifications “tires optional”. Same thing with the requirements on the box. Why is this surprising? -Raymond]
  39. Cooney says:

    > I mean, the theoretical minimum number of tires on a car is zero (you could drive on rims), but no car manufacturer is going to say in their vehicle specifications “tires optional”

    No it isn’t and no you can’t. You’ll get at most 10 miles and god help you if you have to brake. Meanwhile, the minimum display size is zero – I have a computer or 10,000 like that and they work just fine. Anyway, the topic is how 640×480 is still used by MS, so why is the design minimum 800×600?

    [See, you said it yourself. It can be done, for 10 miles at least. So you were wrong when you said it can’t be done. (If you think this is nitpicking, it’s the same nitpicking that Ring Zero was doing.) As for the design minimum: If the design minimum were 640×480, people would complain, “Get with the 21st century! Screens are big now. Stop designing for 640×480 already.” -Raymond]
  40. Stephen Jones says:

    —-"Safe mode may be confusing for newbies but I doubt newbies will be using safe mode.  Safe mode, by definition, is for emergencies when the computer has crashed.  So is a newbie going to fix the computer?  No, he/she is going to call tech-support.  I doubt the newbie will even boot into safe mode – and in fact not even know about safe mode since the person is, well, a newbie."—–

    You’re completely forgetting that Windows will boot into safe mode automatically if it fails enough times.

    Also the old question of not recognizing the video card. With W9* you would get 640 x480 x 16  color automatically. I once ran a computer for two years that way (porn looked vile) because nobody told me I needed to find a driver for the video card.

  41. Sometimes servers are run at 640×480, where you have a rack of them in the datacentre and one shared popup LCD or legacy CRT monitor to work with. Usually the datacentre is over-cooled, you have a trackball instead of a mouse (pop-out keyboard) see, and invariably some networking crisis to diagnose (if it isnt a network crisis, you can come in remotely, see).

    while most apps shouldnt bother to test L&F on a 640×480 GUI, emergency management and system setup tools do still need to work at this level.

    The alternative is serial port access and command line operations, which unix/linux does, but which is a lot less easy in windows. Have you ever tried to set up the display and networking settings of a w2K03 server from the command line?

  42. Neil says:

    I’ve noticed this comments box now requires a window inner width of 762 pixels (I used to post to this blog on a 640×480 virtual desktop).

  43. James says:

    The fear of confusing users with ‘minimum’ requirements brings back memories of a laptop user I knew some time ago, who always made sure to boot his laptop into ‘Safe Mode’. (Well, who wants to run in *unsafe* mode?!) It can’t have been a great user experience for him; on the bright side, I suppose at least he felt ‘Safe’!

    Steve has a point: you might not need/want the Word text formatting dialog to work at 640×480, but if your server’s network settings can’t be changed without wheeling over a big monitor, it’s a serious pain.

  44. Carlos says:

    Ring Zero, don’t feel bad, it’s been established long ago that Mr. Chen is a supreme asshole with an extemely snobbish attitude towards others. Either you ignore it and stay or you go. Let the little boy have his fun and make his snarky comments and visit another website.

    [I believe the standard term is “thermonuclear device” (episode 2). -Raymond]
  45. Cooney says:

    > See, you said it yourself. It can be done, for 10 miles at least. So you were wrong when you said it can’t be done.

    Nope, there is a presumption that if you can operate a car with 0 tires, you can do it without destroying the car. Likewise, you can run windows in 640×480, it just sucks because MS can’t manage to make it work.

    [You can run Windows 640×480. It won’t be fun, but it still works. I don’t think anybody promised that it’d be fun. That’s why the box says “minimum resolution 800×600”. -Raymond]

    Steve:

    > Sometimes servers are run at 640×480, where you have a rack of them in the datacentre and one shared popup LCD or legacy CRT monitor to work with.

    Why would you ever do this? Am I just spoiled by serial consoles that can be run in a quiet office somewhere else?

  46. Seven says:

    This is the first time I am actually posting something on raymond’s blog.

    Like raymond, I can’t believe how difficult it is for some to grasp the difference between the design minimum and the absolute theoretical minimum.

    The design minimum is one that allows you to use the application/software/OS/whatever at that minimum requirement for long periods of time for no problem.

    The absolute theoretical minimum that is used in emergency situations is one that allows you to use the same thing for short periods of time, often to solve a problem but it would be very difficult to use it for long periods of time .

    I can use windows xp at 800×600 for long periods of time and all the UI is adjusted properly. However, safe mode uses 640×480 because safe mode is usually used in emergency situations when you need to fix something. Why is it 640×480? Probably because you don’t need any other drivers (other than the default one) to display at 640×480 and as a result, lowering the dependencies of safe mode operation.

    Another analogy, you went to work one day wearing a simple pair of pants and no underwear (because they are all in the laundry). Your minimum design requirement at this point is a pair of pants (unless you want everyone to see you in your full glory). You sat down on your chair and while adjusting the chair, suddenly your pants split and now everyone would be able to take a peak of your full glory if you stood up. You need to get home and change immediately.

    You look to your coworker’s cubicle and you find her long sweater there. You borrow it from her, tie it around your waist so that your glory is once again hidden and you make your way home in a cab to change. What was your absolute theoretical minimum requirements at this point? A pair of sweaters.

    Notice how your absolute theoretical minimum requirements is not the same as your design minimum. Because if it was the same, then you wouldn’t mind going out to work wearing sweaters tied around your waist.

    For those who say raymond’s comments are snarky, understand where he is coming from. For example, if you had to explain to a grown men who is currently participating in advanced some programming class why you should create an array of 100 integers instead of creating 100 individual integers, you would probably have the same reaction.

    It was something he felt was very elementary to the readers of his blog and then you guys call him an asshole, a thermonuclear device. Real nice.

    And another thing, I understand how microsoft has done some stupid things or even things that are just wrong, but please, lets not jump on the bandwagon and say things like ‘Microsoft redefines the word minimum’.

  47. Seven says:

    I realised I made some grammatical errors in my earlier post and I may have made some typo errors too. I apologise.

  48. Norman Diamond says:

    I believe the standard term is "thermonuclear

    device" (episode 2).

    Episode 3 is intolerance of other thermonuclear devices?

  49. ender says:

    Speaking of resolutions, I long ago made a small program that let you change the Windows resolution to anything supported by the graphic card. After playing with it for a few minutes, I readjusted the dialog to fit to 320×200 display (but that didn’t help me when I somehow managed to set 320×80 at school).

  50. Cooney says:

    For a bonus, make it into a service and install it on a coworker’s machine.

    /going to hell

  51. Igor says:

    To all those complaining about Raymond being a thermonuclear device I have very simple piece of advice:

    If Raymond Chen is the thermonuclear device then first RTFM before approaching him — otherwise you don’t have the right to complain if it blows up in your face.

    It pisses me off when people waste my time by asking me to do things they could do themselves.

    It is akin to booting your computer just to use calculator, calendar or clock.

    I believe that they are not lazy — they are just spoiled brats and there is really no excuse for such behavior so I vote for zero tolerance.

    Here is one fine example — my mother’s friend. She bought a pre-paid card to top up her cell phone — the one you need to scratch to reveal a number which you enter into the phone after dialing a certain number, specific to your service provider.

    Of course, she asked me to do it. If she were just lazy you would expect her to say "Please could you do that for me, because I don’t feel like doing it at the moment?"

    Instead she said "Please could you do that for me, because I don’t know how to do it?" Of course I told her to go forth and multiply because instructions are printed on the back of the damn card.

    These days you have to teach people to respect your time.

  52. 640k says:

    640 (x480) is enough for everyone.

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content