Re: 1024x768 makes computer faster than 800x600

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

  1. Me

    Me Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:54:02 +0100, Gazwad <> wrote:

    >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 ****.


    Not if he has bad eyes. 800x600 is much easier for the visually handicapped to read.
     
    Me, Jul 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Me, <>, the diabetic, one-dimensional bung, and hair dresser,
    aspersed:

    > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:54:02 +0100, Gazwad
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> 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 ****.

    >
    > Not if he has bad eyes. 800x600 is much easier for the visually
    > handicapped to read.


    So, he's a blind ****. He's still a ****.

    --
    Lunch was nice;

    Braised earwax balls and apple marinade next to roasted sea horse running
    sore, simmered in a cooling mug chock full of leafy croutons of rutabaga and
    whole pistachio nut in fruit juice, a side of chips and a few ounces of
    thick, syrupy, green snot.
     
    Lord Eaton Pickspear-Clupperlock, Jul 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    Buck Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:14:25 +0100, "Lord Eaton Pickspear-Clupperlock"
    <>
    wrote:

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

    >>
    >> Not if he has bad eyes. 800x600 is much easier for the visually
    >> handicapped to read.

    >
    >So, he's a blind ****. He's still a ****.


    Yeah two homos calling me a **** for using 800x600 resolution. How
    lame. You guys are real dorks. Gazwad you are so stupid you probably
    think everyone has a 21" screen like you. I once bought a 19" screen
    and didn't like it, too big, so I stick with 17". And the letters at
    1024x768 are way too tiny on a 17". Now if you got a problem with that
    I suggest you go **** yourself up the ass. Gazwad I bet you like
    getting your underwear pulled down by your father and getting your ass
    spanked you dickless boner. What are you doing here, why don't you
    read the name of this group. 24hoursupport.helpdesk. Not
    24hourhangoutfordorks. You are not wanted here, now go play with your
    dolls. You wanna know who is really a ****? Your mother. hahaha.

    By the way to the others forget my original question, it is probably
    not really faster at 1024x768, my system seems to go up and down,
    sometimes sluggish at other times faster. I'll have to see what the
    problem is.
     
    Buck, Jul 13, 2005
    #3
  4. Buck, <>, the plaguelike, muddled gherkin, and person who
    drives the cattle to market, hacked:

    > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:14:25 +0100, "Lord Eaton Pickspear-Clupperlock"

    <
    easures.of.semen>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>> I maintain that anyone who uses a single screen with a resolution
    >>>> of 800 x 600 or less is a ****.
    >>>
    >>> Not if he has bad eyes. 800x600 is much easier for the visually
    >>> handicapped to read.

    >>
    >> So, he's a blind ****. He's still a ****.

    >
    > Yeah two homos calling me a **** for using 800x600 resolution. How
    > lame. You guys are real dorks. Gazwad you are so stupid you probably
    > think everyone has a 21" screen like you. I once bought a 19" screen
    > and didn't like it, too big, so I stick with 17". And the letters at
    > 1024x768 are way too tiny on a 17". Now if you got a problem with that
    > I suggest you go **** yourself up the ass. Gazwad I bet you like
    > getting your underwear pulled down by your father and getting your ass
    > spanked you dickless boner. What are you doing here, why don't you
    > read the name of this group. 24hoursupport.helpdesk. Not
    > 24hourhangoutfordorks. You are not wanted here, now go play with your
    > dolls. You wanna know who is really a ****? Your mother. hahaha.
    >
    > By the way to the others forget my original question, it is probably
    > not really faster at 1024x768, my system seems to go up and down,
    > sometimes sluggish at other times faster. I'll have to see what the
    > problem is.


    How will you see anything? You red-faced, myopic, retard.

    --
    Lunch was nice;

    Over-ripe syphilis scabs and bladder seasoning next to putrid haddock
    pustule with strawberry vinaigrette, cooked in a congealing pannikin
    brimming with lifeless scraps of squash and cucumber in bad-smelling
    asparagus broth, a side of sweetbread and a mug of sewage.
     
    Lord Harlow Ocklekit-Onkinfoot, Jul 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Buck wrote:

    > spanked you dickless boner. What are you doing here, why don't you


    Dickless boner. Hmmm. That's gonna take some thinking about.

    > By the way to the others forget my original question, it is probably
    > not really faster at 1024x768, my system seems to go up and down,
    > sometimes sluggish at other times faster. I'll have to see what the
    > problem is.


    I think that's probably accurate: that it doesn't really do that (be
    faster at higher screen size).

    --
    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 14, 2005
    #5
  6. Me

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Buck wrote:
    >
    >> spanked you dickless boner. What are you doing here, why don't you

    >
    > Dickless boner. Hmmm. That's gonna take some thinking about.
    >

    Definately something wrong with the math there ;o)
     
    Toolman Tim, Jul 14, 2005
    #6
  7. Toolman Tim wrote:

    > "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Buck wrote:


    >>> spanked you dickless boner. What are you doing here, why don't you


    >> Dickless boner. Hmmm. That's gonna take some thinking about.


    > Definately something wrong with the math there ;o)


    I finally get my head around boneless chickens...now this!

    --
    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 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Me

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Toolman Tim wrote:
    >
    >> "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Buck wrote:

    >
    >>>> spanked you dickless boner. What are you doing here, why don't you

    >
    >>> Dickless boner. Hmmm. That's gonna take some thinking about.

    >
    >> Definately something wrong with the math there ;o)

    >
    > I finally get my head around boneless chickens...now this!
    >

    And those darn buffalo wings. What is this world coming to? Or, in the above
    case, not coming to...
     
    Toolman Tim, Jul 14, 2005
    #8
  9. Me

    Buck Guest

    On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:13:35 +0100, "Lord Harlow Ocklekit-Onkinfoot"
    <> wrote:

    >How will you see anything? You red-faced, myopic, retard.



    Gag on my balls you perverted granny-raping queer.
     
    Buck, Jul 14, 2005
    #9
  10. Buck, <>, the bemused, inflatable faggot, and ankle biter,
    anguished:

    > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:13:35 +0100, "Lord Harlow Ocklekit-Onkinfoot"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> How will you see anything? You red-faced, myopic, retard.

    >
    >
    > Gag on my balls you perverted granny-raping queer.


    Wouldn't that be a grandpa-raping queer?
    IKYABWAI

    --
    Lunch was nice;

    Pickled crunchy handkerchief dregs and apple vinaigrette under contaminated
    cadaver foreskins and jellyfish giblet garnish smothered in seared ears of
    corn accompanied with rotting diseased body parts and crow blight vinegar,
    dished up in a randomly twitching pail filled with tiny croutons of pea,
    green bean and parsnip in feculent vaginal discharge, a side of pastries and
    a can of eye gunk.
     
    Lord Garnett Climmerline-Dreckleford, Jul 14, 2005
    #10
    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:
    480
    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:
    509
    Jerry G.
    Jul 7, 2004
  3. Buck

    1024x768 makes computer faster than 800x600

    Buck, Jul 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    955
    CountryLover
    Jul 14, 2005
  4. Bill Crocker

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

    Bill Crocker, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    297
    [BnH]
    Sep 8, 2004
  5. Lodi

    Chip makes broadband 60 times faster

    Lodi, Jul 10, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    307
Loading...

Share This Page