[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter Now, I know you want to buy locally, but let me assure you that the only things this ensures is that a) you pay entirely too much money, and b) you don't get any bad pixels out of the box (they may still develop later on). Speaking of bad pixels, Dell has a 30 day satisfaction guarantee. If in that period you find any bad pixels or other problems with your newly delivered monitor, you call them up, send it back, and they send you another. You are free to keep doing this until you get one you are satisfied with. Really, though, don't wory about it so much. What happened with my 2001FP is that it arrived and I thouroghly inspected it for bad pixels when I got it and for a while after that. I didn't notice any, which pleased me. Currently, several months later, I have 4 pixels that have problems with them. I only ever notice them on black backgrounds and when I'm looking for them. They're so small as to be easily mistaken for a tiny speck of dust on the screen, and that's when I'm looking for them. On lighter backgrounds than almost pure black (that is, %95 of the time), they're completely invisible.

I considered the Dell 2001FP (and indeed, am still considering it), but after reading the Dell support forums on their website, it seems that almost no one was able to buy one with zero dead pixels. That seems to be the tradeoff with that particular monitor -- Dell sells them for a low and very reasonable price, but Dell may be able to do this because they're not necessarily buying the best factory production units. There are two guys on the Dell support forums who bought the 2001FP and sent them back with dead pixels, but ended up just getting a monitor back with the same number or more dead pixels. One nutty guy in particular says he's sent his back four or five times now, and he seems to be getting more and more dead pixels each time.

I would still definitely consider the Dell 2001FP, but the support forums make me wary. For me, the extra cost of buying locally is worth it, given the time and expense of having to send back a monitor with dead pixels, and the uncertainty of ever getting a proper one from Dell.

The Dell widescreen does look nice too. I just wish I could audition it locally. I can audition the Apple display locally, but it is somewhat on the expensive side.

 

[Helter Skelter]

Well, like I said, I believe the Apple display and Dell's widescreen are using the same LCD panel, so aside from features (Dell wins by a landslide here) and packaging they're more or less the same monitor, so you can at least get an idea of what the display quality will be, if not a guarantee of no dead pixels (almost no manufacturer will ever do that, it's just too expensive). Personally, I think 4 defextive pixels (that most of the time I never even notice, even though I was paranoid when I got the thing that they'd ruin the experience completely) out of almost 2 million after several months isn't too bad.

Yes, there were lots of problems when the 2001FP first came out. Things like LOTs of dead pixels on arrival, the backlight being partially visible through the bezel, and other issues. Those have been more or less resolved. People still get bad pixels sometimes, that happens with any manufacturer. I'm just saying it's not nearly as bad as it was and that the possibility of a couple dead or stuck pixels isn't the end of the world.

The 2005FPW is having some growing pains of it's own (yay first generations of new technology!), mostly having to do with the backlight and the bezel. So you might want to wait on that one, and I don't blame you. I'm just saying it's not as bad as all that in regards to the 2001FP, and that the people complaining of problems will always outnumber those who are vocal about things working as they're supposed to.

 

[AdamWill]

oh yeah, I forgot to mention the dead pixels, too. No dead pixels on a CRT.

Helter Skelter - yes, I know LCD panels have improved; two years ago I wouldn't even have *advised* him to reconsider *if* he scored a few points on my test, I'd've told him flat out he was insane to buy one. The response issue definitely has improved from 'ridiculous' to 'very good', but the thing is, it's still an *issue* (even 16ms displays apparently have issues that can be clearly seen on synthetic tests and slightly bug people in real life), whereas it's not on a CRT. The price difference can be brought to bear on the colour issue; either buy a display with at least equal and possibly better colour reproduction for a lot less money, or buy a very, very good CRT with *better* colour reproduction for the same money.

Given the difference in price and the fact that LCDs still have absolutely zero advantage over a well-setup high-quality CRT in actual picture quality terms, along with their numerous disadvantages, I still find it really hard to justify buying one, unless the space, weight and power savings really mean a lot to you. If all it's going to do is give you fifteen cubic inches of space in a corner which will be useless to you in any case, why do it? Buy a monitor, suffer lugging it out of the box and setting the picture up, and ignore the tauntings of your l33t LCD-toting friends. Then enjoy the couple hundred bucks you saved, and the nicer resolution...

 

[Helter Skelter]

You missed the part where my eyes are no longer bleeding (figuratively) from staring at a CRT all day (yes, I was using a good CRT and a high refresh rate, so don't even start that argument). Personally, I will never go back to using a CRT ever again. If you feel that you get better value out of a CRT, good for you, save some cash on the purchase. But my eyes no longer physically hurt after using my PC for any length of time and I have zero regrets in my purchase except that I didn't do it sooner.

 

[Fastjack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter You missed the part where my eyes are no longer bleeding (figuratively) from staring at a CRT all day (yes, I was using a good CRT and a high refresh rate, so don't even start that argument). Personally, I will never go back to using a CRT ever again. If you feel that you get better value out of a CRT, good for you, save some cash on the purchase. But my eyes no longer physically hurt after using my PC for any length of time and I have zero regrets in my purchase except that I didn't do it sooner.

To each his own I guess. For me it was the other way around. I checked out a Dell 2001FP recently and decided to keep my old and extremely blurry CRT instead. While I loved the sharpness of the LCD I just couldn't stand the bright blacklevel and the high response-time (compared to the CRT). Also all the default color-settings were completely off.
Just my 2 cents, YMMV and all that.

 

[uzziah]

don't mean to be a wanker, but maybe (gasp) consider a crt????

you could save major $$ and get a real nice set for half that price at least

or maybe space is a serious issue?

i know lcd is where it's at and all, but you are paying quite a bit right now. my reccomendation, buy a crt now, and i think in a few years you'll see a major price drop in lcd, if you really want one

 

[dawn777]

Thanks a lot about your help!!

I got a lot of knowledge about monitor!

Thanks again!!

 

[swiego]

I believe desktop LCD resolutions have been kept artificially low for reasons I do not understand. I've been using a 1920x1200 15.4" Dell panel in my laptop for at least a year and a half and it was not a terribly expensive option. It blows my mind why I can't get a 1600x1200 19" panel.

 

[breadnbutter]

swiego: Are you really using 1920x1200 as the resolution for your desktop? Wow!

It took me a while to get used to 1400x1050 on my notebook, now I just love it. But many people who look at it say that it would be much too small for them. So I guess that we will not see a huge increase in resolution unless Windows learns to scale.

 

[Helter Skelter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiego I believe desktop LCD resolutions have been kept artificially low for reasons I do not understand. I've been using a 1920x1200 15.4" Dell panel in my laptop for at least a year and a half and it was not a terribly expensive option. It blows my mind why I can't get a 1600x1200 19" panel.

There are a number of possible reasons.

1. Yield. It may not be as easy to maufacture a panel of that size and resolution with no/few defective pixels.
2. Response time, contrast ratio, and viewing angle. Funny thing, people seem to be a lot less picky about these when it comes to laptops or, in the case of viewing angles, are generally looking at the screen head-on, where it's not so much of an issue. Good thing too, because these laptop panels aren't always so great in these regards.
3. The resolution/size ratio. I love having 1400x1050 on my laptop's 15" screen. I'd probably not like it so much on a 15" desktop monitor. Why? Simple, things would likely be too small. It works well on laptops because people are generally a LOT closer to the screen than they are at their desks. Back up two or three feet more than usual from your laptop and see if you can still read text as easily.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter 3. The resolution/size ratio. I love having 1400x1050 on my laptop's 15" screen. I'd probably not like it so much on a 15" desktop monitor. Why? Simple, things would likely be too small. It works well on laptops because people are generally a LOT closer to the screen than they are at their desks. Back up two or three feet more than usual from your laptop and see if you can still read text as easily.

That's quite insightful! I think you're probably right about this.

 

[AdamWill]

Nope, I disagree. Remember, this thread is about 19" panels, and most of those are still 1280x1024! a 19" panel is more than big enough to display 1600x1200 comfortably. In fact, at 1280x1024 in OSes that can't cope with varying resolution-to-screen-size-ratios (like Windows), everything is too _big_. It's a fair point up to 17" panels, I guess, but not at 19" at all. Even for 17" I'd be happier with 1600x1200, but then I run an OS which understands the concept of variable dpi.

 

[Wodgy]

Well, Windows has supported variable DPIs since Windows 3.1, and completely arbitrary DPIs since Windows 95. There's even a cool little onscreen ruler in Windows XP, where you put a real ruler up to the screen and then pull the virtual ruler until it matches up perfectly with the real world ruler. However, this is buried deep in the advanced monitor configuration, and no one seems to use it. (The only time I've seen someone actually adjust the Windows DPI was a girl who had trouble using her 17 inch LCD at native 1280x1024 because she had bad eyesight. After adjusting, problem solved.)

 

[Helter Skelter]

Oh no, I agree almost completely about 19" LCDs, there's really no reason why they should be stuck at 1280x1024. 1400x1050 or 1600x1200 (if they can get decent quality and yields out of a panel of the required dot pitch, which I think would be somewhere around ~0.235mm) would be much better suited to them.

My personal opinion is that at 20.1" like my monitor, 1600x1200 is about perfect. I think 1400x1050 would fit 19" quite well at a similar (perhaps ever so slightly larger) dot pitch. Just my opinion. This is not to say that I'd complain if somone dropped a 20.1" desktop LCD monitor in my lap with a 1900x1200 (or better) resolution and decent performance otherwise (contrast, response time, etc).

 

[dawn777]

Thanks again for everybody help!!

this is my new question, need help!!


http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=105149