That's not an entirely accurate response...
The theory of a screen-saver is that it doesn't have a 'static' image. Yes,
a constant image on a monitor will cause, over time, a burning of the
screen, leaving an opaque image on the monitor *all* the time. There are
various ways around this problem.
1) Use a screen saver (Note: not *all* screen savers will eliminate this
risk. The Microsoft 'Fishtank' (From the PlusPack) is pointless. Parts of
the image are static (Non moving) and will burn the screen eventually.
2) Turn your monitors off when you're not using them.
3) Die of old age.
In truth, it can take months for a screen to burn. My 'nix box has a static
image of the network usage (Yes, the numbers change, but the grids and such
never do), and it's been on constantly for 4 months. No burning, no bad
effects.
Use your head, if you think you need one, then use one. Otherwise, just turn
your monitors off when you're not using it
- Seijaku.
"Boomer" <Boomer__Baby__@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news: t.com...
> malicet wrote:
> > Do I really need a Screensaver on my monitor? How does it save the
> > screen? I have my display properties screensaver set at 'none'.
> > Should I select one? Advice please.
>
> USE A SCREENSAVER! USE A SCREENSAVER! The electronic rays in the back of
the
> monitor will BURN an image on your screen and you'll only ever be able to
> use the one program - the one that is burnt into your screen!
>
>
>
>