Old Monitor?

[SARGE]

I have an Amptron model A170E1-T5, have had for years it seems. I think it came with a cd with drivers but never used it. It's a 17" LCD. A bud was comparing my Lenovo laptop with Vista to speed of my new build and install, and hands down the Lenovo wins any race even though has alot less under the hood. He was saying my monitor probably can't handle the faster cpu and video am using now compared to when first bought the monitor, and even though it works, no matter the speed of video, if it can't handle it, will slow down to accomodate, thus I'm getting slower speeds. Does this make sense?

As an edit, I found the CD. Has a TFT-LCD display and dates under properties of files on cd date to Oct 2004.

[pam123]

Are you using a VGA to DVI adapter?
That will slow things down (If that's what you friend was talking about.) but if the performance is really lagging on the new desktop (specs please) then you may have another set of problems.

[glc]

Makes no sense at all. He's pulling that one out of his butt.

[SARGE]

kinda what I was hoping. I know have had monitor at least 5-6 years . I have no idea what the speed in "ms" is. I understand new ones nowadays either have a 5 or 2 ms rating, the lower number being the better. Mine prolly a 10-15, if they even measured back then.

[Force Flow]

I have no idea what the speed in "ms" is.

Taken from wikipedia (since it's written better than I could explain it):

Response time is the time a pixel in a monitor takes to go from active (black) to inactive (white) and back to active (black) again, measured in milliseconds. Lower numbers mean faster transitions and therefore fewer visible image artifacts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_monitor

Hardcore gamers like 8ms or lower, since they like to whip around a room/scene quickly. 16ms or higher would show a bit of a "ghosting" effect if they're whipping around quickly.

For surfing/email/word processing, it doesn't matter all that much.