I can''t stand anything (game, desktop, web browser) being underneath 800x600...

I''m a gigantic res fanatic...

I''m not as much a sicko as you think, nes8bit. I don''t look at naked pics...

"Natalie Portman is hot. I have spoken..." - ILNP

quote: Original post by paulcoz

Hey, if you want better frame rates on a low-end PC you drop the resolution right?

Paulcoz.

What I meant is that 800x600 is even too slow for my 450. I can only imagine on a 166.

I cant stand it when my friends have their computers on high resolutions and then complain about how slow their computers run... I like to run whatever resolution makes the game go fastest.

Lucky assholes! I am a proud(:?) owner of a 200 mhz MMX system and it looks like I won''t have an upgrade in the near future. I have no choice but to play games in low-res, but I just HATE it. Any you with a 750mhz and GeForce...
Sheesh.

Got a 486/33, so I''m forced to use DOS & 320 x 200 for Command & Conquer: Red Alert. Awesome game, but still runs slow with lots of units on the map. On a Pentium, I''d try to use 640 x 480 or 800 x 600. Get too high, and the bitmapped graphics in most games get too small to see. Complaining about 800 x 600 being too slow on a 450?? What in the world are you playing, Falcon 6.0? How many polygons is your game throwing at you? Maybe you should stop playing alpha versions of games. Or at least get a 3D accelerator card, you probably don''t even have a 2D. Most of the games I play are right at home at 800 x 600 on a 400 MHz CPU.

I play on school computers, they are ~ 400 MHz (I am guessing).

Heck, Falcon 4.0 claims to run on as slow as 166 MHz. Maybe developers get too much into this realism thing.

People are complaining about not seeing text at high resolutions in Windows. ????? They program multi-trillion polygon games, and don''t know how to change the font size in Windows?????? Back to Windows 101, I guess.

I wouldn''t need a GeForce for low-res! *g*

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA