actually memory cache tells your computer how much information it can manage, so a high end graphic will put harships on your computer. This is why its much easier to browse the web on something decent than a PoS. Things will load faster and everything will be smoother. also its an inside joke.
Eh, it loaded nearly instantly for me and my computer is three years old. Of course I also have a 25 Mbps fibre line, so ... yeah. (I agree on the size though; running 1280x1024 myself. I know a lot of people have bigger screens than a 19" these days, but a lot have smaller screens as well.)
Wouldn't that only apply for 3D video/images? I don't think 2D images need much of a comp to run well. High end 2D images seems to just be bandwidth hogs. So I'd still believe net speed is all you really need.. but of course, I've been wrong before =)
The thing is that the average person probably has an early quad core or a mid duel core system with I would say a range of vid cards from 6800s to whatever the latest is Monitor sizes range from 17" to 22" on average I would say... Some people upgrade all the time, but I am running a 8800gt for example, with a duel core 3.0 and a 22 in monitor at home... but at work, (and the forums are a website so people browse websites from all sorts of computers, from phones, to netbooks to gaming rigs) I am on a 17 in monitor running at 1280x1024 or 1440x900 if I hit the site with my laptop. I would like to see us be more friendly for different res settings on the website Back when I started doing web work, the idea was that you always worked in 800x600 for testing the site... this moved up overtime to 1024x768m, and I am guessing it's probably at 1280x1024 now but I am not 100% on that.