>Hi Keith.
>
>With older video cards, a smaller screen resolution and/or window size did make a difference. Older video cards were slower at drawing windows (users usually wouldn't notice the diffence). But with the new video cards, 8mb+ of video memory, there almost is no speed difference. Even when the screen resolution is really high.
>
>So the speed slow down was when a program has to interact with windows to draw it's window area. So what you have heard was true in the past, but not with a fairly new machine.
>
>Thats my take on the size issue. I can vouch for this, because I wrote a program for my dad that charts his stocks. On my older machine that I orignally wrote the program, the scrolling was really bad the bigger the window/resolution. On my newer machine (366mhz celeron with a TNT video card, wahu) there is no slow down now when the window is scrolling and the resolution is at 1024x768.
>
>Rob.

Thanks Rob. I pro'ly should have said, as well
that these are, again, batch mode programs and
typically I either just update the FoxPro desktop
(if I'm using that term correctly) or put up a
therm bar. In either case I'm only updating once
every few seconds (based on a record count).

Even on a 16 bit video card with 1M or 2M I just
can't see @SAY's having any significant or even
measurable impact on processing whether full
screen or smaller.

I do imagine that Ed's comment about running the
program minimized might have some impact.

What say U?

...kt