Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > 1024x768 makes computer faster than 800x600

Reply
Thread Tools

1024x768 makes computer faster than 800x600

 
 
Buck
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
I've been having problems with a kind of sluggish computer (just a
bit) and have been doing things to try and fix this, but I just
switched to 1024x768 resolution and find it is much snappier than
800x600. Does anyone know why?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gazwad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
Buck, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the torturous, imbecilic festered sore, and prompter
in the theater, expostulated:

> I've been having problems with a kind of sluggish computer (just a
> bit) and have been doing things to try and fix this, but I just
> switched to 1024x768 resolution and find it is much snappier than
> 800x600. Does anyone know why?


Because you're a ****.
And that goes for anyone else who uses 800x600 or lower.

--
Lunch was nice;

Putrescent chef's pubic hairs and cuttlefish rot marinade accentuated by
grisly squirrel furuncle, cooked in a congealing pail containing home-grown
cooked nut and green pepper with pieces of turnip in salt water, a side of
pickles and a can of coagulated snail soup.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
I would say that for you too if you use a single screen!

I have 4 on my pc, that means my total resolution is 5120 x 1024,

and could be more since each one could be set to 1600 x 1200

giving me a total of 6400x1200, so if you snob him, I SNOB YOU!

What do you say about that?

MORON!



"Gazwad" <gazwad@bad-ass-mother****er.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) .nudism...
> Buck, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the torturous, imbecilic festered sore, and
> prompter
> in the theater, expostulated:
>
>> I've been having problems with a kind of sluggish computer (just a
>> bit) and have been doing things to try and fix this, but I just
>> switched to 1024x768 resolution and find it is much snappier than
>> 800x600. Does anyone know why?

>
> Because you're a ****.
> And that goes for anyone else who uses 800x600 or lower.
>
> --
> Lunch was nice;
>
> Putrescent chef's pubic hairs and cuttlefish rot marinade accentuated by
> grisly squirrel furuncle, cooked in a congealing pail containing
> home-grown
> cooked nut and green pepper with pieces of turnip in salt water, a side of
> pickles and a can of coagulated snail soup.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Gazwad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the funerary, overlarge
fermentation bucket, and gatekeeper, shrieked:

> I would say that for you too if you use a single screen!
>
> I have 4 on my pc, that means my total resolution is 5120 x 1024,
>
> and could be more since each one could be set to 1600 x 1200
>
> giving me a total of 6400x1200, so if you snob him, I SNOB YOU!
>
> What do you say about that?


I have two 21" monitors on this machine both running at 1600 x 1200.
I have several other machines each running a resolution of 1280 x 1024
Another runs at a rather lowly 1024 x 768

I maintain that anyone who uses a single screen with a resolution of 800 x
600 or less is a ****.


> --
> MORON!
>


Such an apt signature BTW.

--
Lunch was nice;

Braised ears of corn and fox terrier puddings marinade flash cooked aside
nasty octopus liver with apple vinaigrette under sizzled heads of lettuce
and tendon extract, served in a circulating double boiler heaped with
chilled bits of scallion in dressing, a side of celery chips and a pint of
thick, syrupy, green snot.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
why do some people try to answere someones questions and others just poke
fun and swear at the one asking questions......i know im gonna be nailed
with a bunch of crap now but who cares

"Gazwad" <gazwad@bad-ass-mother****er.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) .nudism...
> Buck, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the torturous, imbecilic festered sore, and

prompter
> in the theater, expostulated:
>
> > I've been having problems with a kind of sluggish computer (just a
> > bit) and have been doing things to try and fix this, but I just
> > switched to 1024x768 resolution and find it is much snappier than
> > 800x600. Does anyone know why?

>
> Because you're a ****.
> And that goes for anyone else who uses 800x600 or lower.
>
> --
> Lunch was nice;
>
> Putrescent chef's pubic hairs and cuttlefish rot marinade accentuated by
> grisly squirrel furuncle, cooked in a congealing pail containing

home-grown
> cooked nut and green pepper with pieces of turnip in salt water, a side of
> pickles and a can of coagulated snail soup.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Gazwad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
Sly, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the suffocating, pettifogging boar-pig, and
person employed to contaminate Volvos in car sales yards with Labrador dog
hair to give them a pre-loved look, uttered:

> why do some people try to answere someones questions and others just
> poke fun and swear at the one asking questions......i know im gonna
> be nailed with a bunch of crap now but who cares


Get your 8-year-old to explain how Usenet works, you gormless piece of ****.

--
Lunch was nice;

Salted orangutan snot with strawberry dressing aberrant with putrid reindeer
ulcer accompanied with microwaved human armpit hairs and bed bug phlegm
vinaigrette con stewed diseased body parts and tendon extract, arranged in a
congealing pot with a slew of thin croutons of pea and whole leek in stale
potato broth, a side of sweetbread and a pint of syphilis tea.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Blinky the Shark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
Sly wrote:

> why do some people try to answere someones questions and others just poke
> fun and swear at the one asking questions......i know im gonna be nailed


Because the world contains different kinds of people.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Holmes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
Gazwad blabbered in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:

> Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the funerary,
> overlarge fermentation bucket, and gatekeeper, shrieked:
>
>> I would say that for you too if you use a single screen!
>>
>> I have 4 on my pc, that means my total resolution is 5120 x 1024,
>>
>> and could be more since each one could be set to 1600 x 1200
>>
>> giving me a total of 6400x1200, so if you snob him, I SNOB YOU!
>>
>> What do you say about that?

>
> I have two 21" monitors on this machine both running at 1600 x 1200.
> I have several other machines each running a resolution of 1280 x 1024
> Another runs at a rather lowly 1024 x 768
>
> I maintain that anyone who uses a single screen with a resolution of
> 800 x 600 or less is a ****.
>


I agree.




--
Your mother was an unwashed compulsive liar who talked so much she was
kept on a small island in the middle of nowhere.









 
Reply With Quote
 
Alek
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
Naaaahh.......Different kinds yea.....but not all of em are people...Ya ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
gordon freeman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2005
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:54:02 +0100, Gazwad
<gazwad@bad-ass-mother****er.com> wrote:

>> and could be more since each one could be set to 1600 x 1200
>>
>> giving me a total of 6400x1200, so if you snob him, I SNOB YOU!
>>
>> What do you say about that?

>
>I have two 21" monitors on this machine both running at 1600 x 1200.
>I have several other machines each running a resolution of 1280 x 1024
>Another runs at a rather lowly 1024 x 768
>
>I maintain that anyone who uses a single screen with a resolution of 800 x
>600 or less is a ****.


My spacebar's bigger than yours.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: 1024x768 makes computer faster than 800x600 Me Computer Support 9 07-14-2005 01:29 PM
Re: design size.....800x600 1024x768 ? Sid Ismail HTML 0 08-06-2003 10:06 AM
Re: design size.....800x600 1024x768 ? Chris Morris HTML 0 08-06-2003 08:39 AM
Re: design size.....800x600 1024x768 ? viza HTML 0 08-06-2003 08:30 AM
Re: design size.....800x600 1024x768 ? Adrienne HTML 0 08-06-2003 05:10 AM



Advertisments