1024x768 makes computer faster than 800x600

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Buck, Jul 13, 2005.

  1. Buck

    Buck Guest

    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?
    Buck, Jul 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Buck

    Gazwad Guest

    Buck, <>, 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.
    Gazwad, Jul 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Buck, <>, 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.
    >
    Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, Jul 13, 2005
    #3
  4. Buck

    Gazwad Guest

    Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, <>, 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.
    Gazwad, Jul 13, 2005
    #4
  5. Buck

    Sly Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Buck, <>, 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.
    >
    Sly, Jul 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Buck

    Gazwad Guest

    Sly, <>, 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 shit.

    --
    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.
    Gazwad, Jul 13, 2005
    #6
  7. 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*
    Blinky the Shark, Jul 13, 2005
    #7
  8. Buck

    John Holmes Guest

    Gazwad blabbered in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:

    > Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, <>, 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.
    John Holmes, Jul 13, 2005
    #8
  9. Buck

    Alek Guest

    Naaaahh.......Different kinds yea.....but not all of em are people...Ya ?
    Alek, Jul 13, 2005
    #9
  10. On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:54:02 +0100, Gazwad
    <> 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.
    gordon freeman, Jul 13, 2005
    #10
  11. Sly, <>, the submersed, wrinkled chicken, and hides tanner
    and curer, made public:

    > 5 inches ingrown doesn't count


    I wager that you, being a proven twat, easily confuse centimetres and
    inches.

    --
    Lunch was nice;

    Decomposed horse flies and strawberry sauce accompanied with ailing spider
    heart and weasel genitalia topping infected inside unwholesome ears of corn
    and maggot artery compote feculent inside decomposing otter abscess with
    tendon preserve, arranged in a chilled skillet stuffed with well-done
    potato, big croutons of conch, lung and beef, fruit juice, a side of pickles
    and a litre of blood.
    Lord Howard Lightbury-Clullychitch, Jul 14, 2005
    #11
  12. Ok look at the internet stats of any site, you nerdy boy.
    You will see that about HALF (40-50%) of the people are still using
    800x600.
    That means that you are calling half of the internet users cunts.
    What a line that would make if each one was to give you a blow on your skull
    for your
    stupid accusations.


    --
    Kenfucious said:

    Michael Jackson has been vindicated.

    The truth is one, you must accept it. Reality is not a point of view, since
    if everything was a point a view, then the theory that everything is a point
    of view, is just a point a view and not something real.
    "Gazwad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, <>, 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.
    >
    Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, Jul 14, 2005
    #12
  13. See if this waters your mouth....
    30'' inch flat hig res

    compatible with PC's too

    http://www.apple.com/displays/

    --
    Kenfucious said:

    Michael Jackson has been vindicated.

    The truth is one, you must accept it. Reality is not a point of view, since
    if everything was a point a view, then the theory that everything is a point
    of view, is just a point a view and not something real.
    "Gazwad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Buck, <>, 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.
    >
    Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, Jul 14, 2005
    #13
  14. Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, <>, the irremediable, doped
    vomit, and broom maker, driveled:

    > Ok look at the internet stats of any site, you nerdy boy.
    > You will see that about HALF (40-50%) of the people are still using
    > 800x600.
    > That means that you are calling half of the internet users cunts.
    > What a line that would make if each one was to give you a blow on
    > your skull for your
    > stupid accusations.
    >


    So there are a lot of cunts around.
    Do you have a point?
    ****.

    --
    Lunch was nice;

    Purulent horse flies and bladder marinade smothered in pathological ears of
    corn and strawberry extract, simmered in a congealing pail containing fatty
    pieces of tendon and cooked anchovy in rotting stinking slime, a side of
    crackers and a mug of syphilis tea.
    Lord Bertram Sugglebedge-Mickleford, Jul 14, 2005
    #14
  15. my point is this:

    A computer is as good as its user.
    Your computer therefore STINKS!

    HA!

    --
    Kenfucious said:

    Michael Jackson has been vindicated.

    The truth is one, you must accept it. Reality is not a point of view, since
    if everything was a point a view, then the theory that everything is a point
    of view, is just a point a view and not something real.
    "Lord Bertram Sugglebedge-Mickleford"
    <> wrote in message
    news:-heels...
    > Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, <>, the irremediable,
    > doped
    > vomit, and broom maker, driveled:
    >
    >> Ok look at the internet stats of any site, you nerdy boy.
    >> You will see that about HALF (40-50%) of the people are still using
    >> 800x600.
    >> That means that you are calling half of the internet users cunts.
    >> What a line that would make if each one was to give you a blow on
    >> your skull for your
    >> stupid accusations.
    >>

    >
    > So there are a lot of cunts around.
    > Do you have a point?
    > ****.
    >
    > --
    > Lunch was nice;
    >
    > Purulent horse flies and bladder marinade smothered in pathological ears
    > of
    > corn and strawberry extract, simmered in a congealing pail containing
    > fatty
    > pieces of tendon and cooked anchovy in rotting stinking slime, a side of
    > crackers and a mug of syphilis tea.
    >
    Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, Jul 14, 2005
    #15
  16. Buck

    CountryLover Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:28:17 +0100, "Lord Granger Fizzlefine-Blibberman"
    <> wrote:

    >>> 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.

    >
    >I have a 10 inch cock, who fucking cares.


    And that's what, a total of your own puny 4 inches, plus your daddy's 6 incher
    you're sucking on?

    Fucking troll asshole.
    CountryLover, Jul 14, 2005
    #16
  17. Buck

    Buck Guest

    On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:21:51 +0100, "Lord Bertram
    Sugglebedge-Mickleford"
    <> wrote:

    >Ken ---> Knight Of The King Of Pop, <>, the irremediable, doped
    >vomit, and broom maker, driveled:
    >
    >> Ok look at the internet stats of any site, you nerdy boy.
    >> You will see that about HALF (40-50%) of the people are still using
    >> 800x600.
    >> That means that you are calling half of the internet users cunts.
    >> What a line that would make if each one was to give you a blow on
    >> your skull for your
    >> stupid accusations.
    >>

    >
    >So there are a lot of cunts around.
    >Do you have a point?
    >****.


    What do you know about cunts anyway? I mean besides your mother and
    grandmother's?
    Buck, Jul 14, 2005
    #17
  18. Buck

    Sly Guest

    ok, 12.450 cm ingrown doesn't count, you stupid twat

    "Lord Howard Lightbury-Clullychitch"
    <>
    wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sly, <>, the submersed, wrinkled chicken, and hides

    tanner
    > and curer, made public:
    >
    > > 5 inches ingrown doesn't count

    >
    > I wager that you, being a proven twat, easily confuse centimetres and
    > inches.
    >
    > --
    > Lunch was nice;
    >
    > Decomposed horse flies and strawberry sauce accompanied with ailing spider
    > heart and weasel genitalia topping infected inside unwholesome ears of

    corn
    > and maggot artery compote feculent inside decomposing otter abscess with
    > tendon preserve, arranged in a chilled skillet stuffed with well-done
    > potato, big croutons of conch, lung and beef, fruit juice, a side of

    pickles
    > and a litre of blood.
    >
    Sly, Jul 14, 2005
    #18
  19. Buck

    Alfred Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:28:17 +0100, "Lord Granger
    Fizzlefine-Blibberman"
    <> wrote:

    >gordon freeman, <>, the neanderthal, garmentless
    >fish louse, and eater of common weeds, bad mouthed:
    >
    >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:54:02 +0100, Gazwad
    >> <> 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.

    >
    >I have a 10 inch cock, who fucking cares.



    100,000 sperm and you were the fastest swimmer. That explains it all
    right there.

    Besides no one wants to hear about your farm animals you dickless,
    dirt scratching, booger picking, sister fucking, animal sucking, stump
    broke, walking, talking, eating, breathing testimony for keeping
    abortion legal sack of sub human shit.

    P. S. Have a nice day.
    Alfred, Jul 14, 2005
    #19
  20. Sly, <>, the all-around, free-range mammet, and cattle
    thief, pleaded:

    > ok, 12.450 cm ingrown doesn't count, you stupid twat


    And there we have it folks, sly is utterly confused.
    Of course, he'll deny he's confused. He's so dumbfounded he doesn't realise
    anything is the matter with him.

    Poor ****.

    --
    Lunch was nice;

    Scorched chef's pubic hairs and ostrich nostril sauce next to diseased
    discarded douchebags accentuated with unwholesome yak blister with chive
    conserve under aberrant heartworm ulcer with foreskin dressing, cooked in a
    steaming tureen with a slew of home-grown morsels of squash and uncooked
    garlic in fruit juice, a side of olives and a pint of vaginal discharge.
    Lord Halstead Peddlepark-Wovingwell, Jul 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JB
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    460
    dr_hardware
    Oct 27, 2003
  2. Adam Stoffel

    monitor goes black at 1024x768

    Adam Stoffel, Jul 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    479
    Jerry G.
    Jul 7, 2004
  3. Me
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    526
    Lord Garnett Climmerline-Dreckleford
    Jul 14, 2005
  4. Bill Crocker

    Canon S60; 1024x768...yes, or no?

    Bill Crocker, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    278
    [BnH]
    Sep 8, 2004
  5. Lodi

    Chip makes broadband 60 times faster

    Lodi, Jul 10, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    277
Loading...

Share This Page