20" Widescreen is overated

[secretanchitman]

2405/2407 IMO.

but, 20" widescreen is personal preference though. ive seen people either love/hate it.

 

[duragezic]

Some builds were pretty bad but overall for how damn many they sold, the 2005FPW has excellent build quality. Very often there is no dead/stuck pixels and the later builds nearly all have very little backlight bleed. Mine is almost not noticeable, and only slightly so in a completely dark room on a completely black screen. As a percentage I'd say they are much better than most LCDs out there (there are some very cheap and crappy no-name 17" and 19" for cheap these days).

The apple buy is pretty noobish. Almost no reason at all when the Dell is available for WAY cheaper and is better (see the head-to-head AT review, they found the 2005 to be better).

 

[SynthDude2001]

I don't think widescreen monitors are overrated, it's just a personal preference thing (like most other choices in computer hardware), and lots of people happen to like them. I've got a 2005FPW myself and it works great for gaming, DVD watching, and HDTV watching (which I do a lot of). If you don't watch a lot of widescreen content, then you might want to consider that a standard 4:3 AR monitor would be better for you

 

[Boze]

Originally posted by: Dkcode
The n00b who knows nothing forgets about the countless threads on the internet about the dell with the shoddy quality control. Lets not forget the inevitable backlight bleeding problem that plauges this product. Dont pass me off with this n00b bullshit cos it wont work.

Figures the noob who knows nothing also forgets about Dell's excellent support when it comes to their LCD monitors and how every single purchaser that I know of who has gone through the appropriate channels to have their malfunctioning product RMA'ed and repaired or replaced has received a 2005FPW returned them in perfect working order.

You screwed yourself. M4H called you out on it. Be a man and accept it and just purchase a 2405FPW and you'll feel fine. Trust me.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
I wasn't impressed with my 2005FPW when I replaced a 19" CRT @ 1600x1200. I was hoping for a more "high res" look in regards to desktop real estate and actual DPI, guess that comes with the 2405. Realistically I'd love to see a 20" widescreen @ 1920x1200, that would rock!

Agreed.. I hate standard LCD's DPI. I saw a 15" laptop screen at 1920x1200 and the image quality at that DPI just blows me away. My 2001FP looks blurry in comparison.

 

[Nirach]

My Apple 20" is fine, cost me a damnsight less than yours (HE Discount, oh baby). I've yet to have a problem with it.

If you're going to try and use the 'the rest of my stuff is black' crap, you need to wake up. How often, when you're sat at your computer, do you sit there and look at much other than what's on the screen. I bet you don't even look at the keyboard to type.

It's not overrated, just different. If you'd gone with the Dell, you'd probably have felt less ripped off. Seeing as it offers more connections, and so on and so forth.

 

[pulsedrive]

Yeah I am going to have to back the WSFTW folks. *grin* Also going to have to say that yes, while you aren't a n00b for purchasing apple, it wasn't the brightest thing to do when you have Dell as an option for about half the price. As far as shoddy construction, WTF are you talking about, any manufacturer that sells THAT many of one thing is going to have some that have problems, and it?s a fact of life. Look at how many they sold vs. how many people have had bad ones; it is a fairly small percentage.

As for the whole 4:3 vs. WS debate, it's all personal preference.

Also, learn to TYPE!

 

[Peter]

>Also, learn to TYPE!

You learn to type an apostrophe ' not an accent (quote: it?s) thankyouverymuchsir.

20" widescreen TFT has EXACTLY the same physical screen height as 19" CRT. At work I'm running that combination side by side, with the CRT at 1400x1050 and the 20" TFT at native 1680x1050. Needless to say that image quality is worlds apart - well worth the price delta. This might not matter if you're dealing with images not text.

 

[rcabor]

When I first got my 2005FPW, I though that it was too short and deceided to return it. I got it on a friday, so used it over the weekend and monday morning when I got to work and looked at my old monitor, something seemed not quite right. When I got home that night and looked at the 2005fpw again, I realized how much that monitor grew on me. I have trouble looking at 4:3 monitors now, and I have had the 2005 fpw for 9 months and love it.

 

[Liver]

Seems like this thread is trolling? Or someone just venting, but . . .

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: CalamitySymphony
Widescreen is for human vision. Unless your eyes are weird and have periperal vision going up and down, or your not human...

In order for that to happen, he would have to have one eye right above the other... That would be so weird... One on the forehead and one on the nose... It might be good good for Anti Aircraft Artillery games... LOL

 

[sxr7171]

Agreed 20" WS is a waste of time. When the Dell 2005FPW came out for the same price as the 2001FP people jumped on it, but the regular old 2001FP had more usable screen area.

The panel manufacturers actually save money making 16:10 aspect ratios as they can cut more panels out of the substrate they use than if they were cutting 4:3 panels.

16:10 gets good when you hit 24" though and my 2405FPW is the same height as the 2001FP but much wider, and it is a great gaming experience with it. It's so much more immersive when your peripheral vision is covered.

 

[Peter]

Generalization, yet again. You are confusing personal choice with universal truth.

I for one use a widescreen 20" monitor for work, simply for the fact that my main application has its toolbars down the sides, and thus, a wide monitor leaves a much more useful work area than a 4:3 or even 5:4 one.

Personal preference, and suitability for a certain task - that's why there are different products.

 

[pulsedrive]

Yep got to agree with Peter here, I personally LOVE my 2005, but then again my Wife hates it. She also hates Widescreen TVs, so that may have something to do with it. *smirk*

I like my 2005 for the extra space and because I mostly play WoW and it antively supports WS, so you get a LOT more space in WoW to work with. I would love a 2405 but just can't justify it.

 

[Sureshot324]

Wide screen is better for movies/games (at least the games that support wide screen) and 4:3 is better for everything else. When you're reading web pages, writing code, or writing a word document, it's much better to have the vertical space, as the horizontal is just going to go to waste unless you're going to have 2 documents side by side. I have a 17" 4:3 LCD, and the only reason I would want a larger screen is movies and games, so my next monitor will be widescreen. I don't care that much about desktop real estate.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Peter
Generalization, yet again. You are confusing personal choice with universal truth.

I for one use a widescreen 20" monitor for work, simply for the fact that my main application has its toolbars down the sides, and thus, a wide monitor leaves a much more useful work area than a 4:3 or even 5:4 one.

Personal preference, and suitability for a certain task - that's why there are different products.

I am not sure what post you are replying from and the angle of attack... However, those resolutions do not exist because the consumers want it... 16:10 widescreen is going to become the standand in a few years... 4:3 is on its way out and perhaps 5:4 will stay just because many LCD's had/have that aspect ratio... But thats not the point...

Fact: Human vision is just like widescreen, well, not just like, but it replicates it pretty well. You can get much more in your field of vision with a widescreen display than with a square or 4:3 display.

Moving our eyes left or right is less of strain than up or down...

Of course it is personal opinion as to what a person prefers in an aspect ratio, but much of that is only because of habit. I am quite convinced that people would have chose 16:10 over 4:3 given the choice at the beginning, but since we cannot rewrite history, we will never know.

 

[Peter]

Well, for watching TV, widescreen is the way to go, no question. But for getting actual work done, 4:3, 5:4 or even portrait orientation monitors make much more sense for quite a few applications. People generalizing that this or that format is a "waste of time" just don't see the whole picture (pun intended).

 

[secretanchitman]

so which would be more practical, 2001 or 2005? 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 (i think)?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
so which would be more practical, 2001 or 2005? 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 (i think)?

If you're doing lots of things that support or need widescreen (watching movies/widescreen TV, playing games that support widescreen), or you like working on a widescreen monitor, go for the 2005FPW.

Otherwise, the 2001FP is probably a better choice, since you get more screen area overall.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Peter
Well, for watching TV, widescreen is the way to go, no question. But for getting actual work done, 4:3, 5:4 or even portrait orientation monitors make much more sense for quite a few applications. People generalizing that this or that format is a "waste of time" just don't see the whole picture (pun intended).

Size for size I would agree with you, but much of that is the flaw in the measuring system (the way they get the 20" figures). I could only think of in rare situations where I would rather have a 5:4 ratio monitor as opposed to a 16:10... It isn't that 5:4 isn't usefull, it is just that if the vertical size of the displays are the same, then 16:10 will always be superior to 4:3 or 5:4.

But I agree that for someone to say "4:3 is worthless", or "16:10 is useless" are extremes and spoken out of ignorance.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Peter
Well, for watching TV, widescreen is the way to go, no question. But for getting actual work done, 4:3, 5:4 or even portrait orientation monitors make much more sense for quite a few applications. People generalizing that this or that format is a "waste of time" just don't see the whole picture (pun intended).

It isn't that 5:4 isn't usefull, it is just that if the vertical size of the displays are the same, then 16:10 will always be superior to 4:3 or 5:4.

Well, obviously, but that would mean the WS display is physically larger (and therefore, at least with today's LCD technology, always going to be more expensive). A 20" diagonal 16:9/10 display is always going to be physically smaller than a 20/21" diagonal 4:3 display.

A 19" 5:4 display should be about 11.9x14.8 inches, or around 176 square inches of display.

A 20" 4:3 display should be about 12x16 inches, or 192 square inches of display.

A 20" 16:10 display should be about 10.6x16.9 inches, or around 180 square inches of display.

For comparison, a 24" 16:10 display will be around 12.1x19.4 inches, and have around 235 square inches of display.

A 20" 16:10 is barely larger than a 19" 5:4 in terms of actual visible screen area, and noticeably smaller than a 20" 4:3 display. It's also shorter vertically than a 19" 5:4 monitor by more than an inch. It's widescreen, but it's also definitely a compromise in terms of actual screen size (much like comparing a 30" or 34" 16:9 widescreen CRT HDTV against a 36" 4:3 model).

On a 20" 4:3 display, a 16:9/10 AR window will be about 16"x9/10". A 16:10 display gives you about an extra inch on the side, and a half-inch vertically compared to watching the content letterboxed on a 20" 4:3 display. It's definitely better than a 19" 5:4 for viewing widescreen content, though.

 

[openwheelformula1]

20' widescreen is perfect imo for a desktop computer. Which one of you can beat my 50' Plasma and 32' LCD? Both are connected to htpcs tuning HD and running widescreen games.