Discussion

Ken Shirriff's blog

lysace: No idea if this was a factor, but 80x25 on the IBM PC allows for showing 80x24 plus that extra line of function key labels:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_BASIC#/media/File%3AIBM_Ca... (IBM BASIC screenshot)

bluedino: Imagine when edit.com came out and QBASIC used it for the editor. You lost two more lines of valuable code space!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS_Editor#/media/File%3AMS...

II2II: Tangentially related: is there a history covering IBM's development of microcomputers? It is clear that the traditional story of the development of the IBM PC leaves out many important details. There the 5100/5110/5120, which goes back to the mid-1970's and reflects the stereotype of IBM. There is also the System/23 DataMaster, where the hardware seems to be the basis of the IBM PC. This seems to go against the traditional story that the IBM PC was some sort of renegade project. (If anything, they appear to be companion projects. The main difference being the DataMaster's focus upon IBM firmware/software.)

jtarrio: You know, this is funny because QBasic did not use EDIT.COM. Instead, QBasic was the editor and EDIT.COM was a simple program that called "QBASIC /EDIT" :-)

thakoppno: One theory I saw argued the punch card size was the reason for 80x24. But why were punch cards that size? They were designed off of the cards used for the census. Why were the census cards that size? Because they were modeled after the dollar bill size.I do love thought experiments like this but do believe they’re insatiably unresolvable.

BirAdam: Man. I love the design of old terminals, computers, and such.I am, also, extremely glad that these form factors were abandoned. Having an old terminal, it is possibly the least ergonomic machine I have ever used.

ronsor: In the end, all reasons resolve to either "it's what we had at the time" or "someone thought it looked good."