Hi! It's built in a 7x8 matrix or so, while a 5x6 would be enough. For this reason, in the old days (that you mention as an indirect reference), this would constitute a waste of space and data, in almost all your glyphs, e.g. in "i" (1x4) vs "@" (7x6):

▒▓▓▓▓▓▓ ░░███░░
▒▓▓▓▓▓▓ ░█░█░█░
█▓▓▓▓▓▓ █░█░█░█
░▓▓▓▓▓▓ █░░████
█▓▓▓▓▓▓ ░█░░░░░
█▓▓▓▓▓▓ ░░███░░
▒▓▓▓▓▓▓ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓▓▓▓▓▓ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
            i                    @

▓: horizontal blank (prioritary optimization);
▒: horizontal blank (secondary optimization).

So much so that, you cannot share this font in real world materials (a trend of retro pixel art) without increasing the costs in the same way (this is a single example of the lesser portability in such an unawaredly resource-intensive, 2000s-designed fake retro font).

This kind of unserious design often use easy-to-do 5-px wide Ms (as you did); you were even more demanding with your larger Ws (7-px wide). Besides, you could not complete the lowercase (at this relatively large low-res size)…

That's why I cannot use your font in 'my' project of competing and complete basic ASCII fonts.

You can improve yours, I'm sure, but the size heterogeneity makes me believe you would need to redo it from scratch, without this flawed matrix as your base.

'Retro' does not mean 'freely underthough', IMO.

Keep up the effort in this kind of pixel art!

Errata: ▒: vertical blank; underthought; funny work all the same!

Good job! I can still see a few dupes (like "sS$") but the varying sizes already adds to the special style. (If you enjoy tinier glyphs, my project will appeal to you.) CYA!