Dell new 20" wide LCD 2005FPW. Has anyone seen this beast?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
I would like to ask a few questions about LCD monitors but before I do, I just want to comment on what a nightmare it's been trying to phone Dell and inquire about what the differences are between the various different models, be it the two 19" monitors 2001 and 2005 and the two 20.5 inch monitors. Even when asking to be transferred to someone who knows the Ultra Sharp product, i.e., somone who isn't giving me information by reading from a knowledge Base ... but KNOWS the products, I have never spoken to a single person who hasn't had to refer to data sheet, and have ever spoken to anyone who couldn't talk about it without reading from data sheet. It's hard to believe, but I have spoken to over a dozen people in the last few weeks, and not one of them has really been familar with the product line they are selling ... and this is after asking, and supposedly being transferred to a product specialist in monitors. I don't think it even exists, or if it does, I have yet to be transferred there.

I'll have to admitt being a total novice at LCD, having used large CRT monitor since 1989. I've got some LCD monitors on order at the present time, so the next few weeks will be interesting.

I'm over 50 years old, and my eye sight has seen better days. I use 20" CRT at 1024x768, but was amazed recently at how sharp and easy to read the Dell 17-inch Ultra Sharp was that I installed at customer's site. I could sit far enough away from it to say it was further than I normally sit, and it was still easier to read than my own CRT. I think that resolution was 1280x1024. I would assume that the 19" monitor which also uses the same native resolution is even easier to read ...being a slightly larger screen.
Previous experience would tend suggest that to be true. Anyone out there familiar with both? I notice that there are two 19" Ultra Sharp monitors and that the latest 17" Ultra sharp is the 1703.

Not to get off subject by too much, I'm also interested in having a larger monitor, like the 20.5 inch Dell Ultra Sharp, but note that the native resolution is either 1600x1200 on the 2001FP and 1680X1050 for the newer 2005FPw (by the way, when asking people about these monitors at Dell none of them really new that there was a size difference or resolution difference). I had to find out about it in places like this Forum!).

I'd appreciate some feedback on the issue of changing the resolution, i.e., lowering it, in order to be ABLE TO SEE stuff. I realize, as on all monitors, that lowering the resolution does ... just that, and that it can't be as sharp or fantastic at a lower resolution. But how much does lowering the resolution degrade the sharpness of the text? For example, if I look at the 19" at 1280x1024 and I look at the same resolution on the FP2001 or FP2005FPw, does the mere fact that I'm not at native resolution anymore mean that the image is going to be a lot sharper and lot crisper on the 19" than on the 20.5 2001FP or 2005FPw? How significant is the difference ... when droping to a lower resolution on the larger 20" versus, the 19" or even the 17" monitor. The 17" looked so sharp to me. What happens to the sharpness, i.e., how much is it deminished when dropping out of "native mode" to a lower resolution? Is it significant.

I have given up trying to ask Dell such questions. Salesmen that I've talked to have seen these monitors but never compared them, and certainly never discussed resolution differences, or discussed "native resolution" and dropping out of it to a lower resultion. I'd very much like to ask forum users if they have any experience with the 20.5 in comparing lower resolutions to the sharpness of text when compared to monitors like the 15, 17 and 19 that run a lower resolutions. Not all of us are 30 years old with perfect vision. And not all of can see all that well at 1600x1200 or even 1600x1050.

Any and all imput from the forum members would be much appreciated.

- Sadhu.
 

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,689
2,811
126
If you have bad vision, get the 19 inch. 1905FP I believe is the newest model. 1280x1024 is the native resolution which is same as the 17". If you could see the 17" well, then 19" should be even better.

I would advise against 2001FP in your case. Things might be little too small for you at the 1600x1200 native resolution. Running anything less than native resolution in desktop will result in images and text looking terrible. For games it doesn't look that bad but it's definitely no-no for desktop.
 

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
I'm delighted to have a few replies already. Thank you.

I did read the reviews, and all the comments in the formum on the 20.5" before posting. I found reading all of it useful, and the review that the moderator directed me to was indeed amazing as far as what it looked at and discussed - far beyond what I see elsewhere.

However, so far, except for Naustica's reply, most of my major concers ... the sharpness and clarity of the monitor at resolution somewhat less than "native" where not addressed.

I'm not blind, mind you. I don't have TERRIBLE eyesight. Average. I'm not squinting at my screen right now, and it's using "normal" not extra large fonts. However, I do work long hours at the computer. It's my job, not my recreation. I have fun sometimes at the computer, like eveyone else, but I don't have the time to play computer games, and probably won't be (besides the odd game of computer chess). So, I'm not using my computer for long hours at a time for recreation. It's all business. Building web sites, designing web sites, editing documents, editing books. That kind of thing.

And therefore, the main issue that I had meant to focus on in my posting was this "native resolution" factor. Naustica has again mentioned (and I think Nasutica for the reply), and echoed what I have seen elsewhere, namely that the 20.5 inch monitor will look terrible at 1280x1024. I would like to inquire about whether others hold that view, and also ask perhaps to define "terrible," if possible. Naustica mentions the fact that monitor is not going to be suited to desktop. I'm really NOT looking for a monitor for games. Neither am I looking to watch movies. I do watch video tutorials, yes, and some Internet Flash, etc., but the purpose of the LCD in my case would be for use in my computer work.

I'm looking for a large LCD (I have a large CRT and I know CRT's are superior in many respects ... etc., etc., etc.) that I can use for computing all day and night long. I work very long hours, and was dramatically impressed by the brightness and ease of reading with the Dell 17-inch Ultra Sharp. But the screen is too small for my use (I'm used to a 21-inch CRT), and really require a larger working space to be productive. I could, and perhaps should buy a 19" as Naustica says, and stay at the NATIVE 1280x1024, if it's really true that reducing the resolution on the 20.5 destroys the sharpness and crispness of text. Do others agree that there is a night and day difference between text on the 17 and 19" Ultra Sharp, and the reduced resolution on the 20.5 2001 or 2005 FP Dell monitors. The salesmen at Dell tell me no worries, that there's no difference between lowering the resolution on CRT or LCD, it's going to be lower, and people are just "resolution" crazy when they say I won't like the 1280x1024 on the 20.5 inch.

Without having them side by side, I wouldn't be albe to tell. Of course, I suppose I could order both from Dell, and return one. Nevertheless, I would be very curious to know if anyone has tested, side by side, a 20.5 and 19-inch Dell, specifically at the same resolutions to see what the text differences are. ARE THEY obviously crisper and sharper on the 19"? I guess that's my question. Naustica seems to say yes they are (and again, Naustica, thank you for noticing that was one of my questions). Do others out there agree? Is there a reviewer out there that has looked specifically at this issue and compared both specifically for the ease of readibility of text ... side by side? Is the 19" the clear winner or are they similar. I guess I could be happy giving up size for sharpness, and ease of use. My eyes aren't that bad, of course, but I work so many long hours that I know that 1600x1200 or 1600x1050 would probably not be how I would view my desktop applicatons.

If the answer is such that the 19" is the clear winner, how come this fact isn't meantioned more frequently. Is it so that I am so into my own sphere of computing that I haven't noticed that people are mainly buying large monitors for games and video? Am I so out of touch? It's beginning to look that way.

I know there's the possiblity of buying two 19" monitors, but honestly, that's also not that as easy as using one larger monitor. I haven't rulled that out, but I'm still very interested to learn from those of you who have tested and compared the 20" and the 19" at 1280x1024 ... in order to at least learn what the story is here.

Thanks again for being patient enough to put up this old sadhu. (Om.)


 

RADON

Golden Member
Dec 13, 2000
1,218
0
0
It's kinda hard to see from the pictures, but does this model delete the power brick and have just a regular power cord connection?
 

jlinhart

Junior Member
Apr 18, 2001
14
0
0
Originally posted by: RADON
It's kinda hard to see from the pictures, but does this model delete the power brick and have just a regular power cord connection?

Yes, there's no power brick, just a standard power cord.
 

trikster2

Banned
Oct 28, 2000
1,907
0
0
I use a 21" LCD at work (1600x1200) and a 19" LCD with a 17"CRT at home. For productivity the dual LCD/CRT setup works best, even though my home setup is vastly inferior in screen quality. 1280x1024 on the LCD, 800x600 on the CRT (yes I like it that way). I can't believe it either but some web pages are still optimized for 800x600. For example, anything wider than 800pixes on www.cnn.com is just waisted space. Height is utilized though so there is a difference at higher reses. My mainly use for the CRT is for Text messaging, and Powerpoint presentations while I am working/playing. The 800x600 leads to very big/easy to see text, and for powerpoint presentations the 800x600 is close to what the projector will do so good for representation.

I'm thinking of replacing the CRT with this 20" Wide LCD from dell, (SHOULD match the height of the 19" LCD nicely) but I too am concerned that the resolotion will be hard on the eyes.....
 

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
Trickster(2),

Wondering if you have a Dell Ultra Sharp 19 LCD. A few days ago there were two different models online at Dell. I think the one that is now missing was the 1901 (at $629). The other must be the new model, the $1905FP at $499. Was I just seeing things, or was there another?

Anyway, I am thinking of ordering a 19" Ultra Shap becausesome have put the fear of non-native resolution in me ... and I'm thinking that everything might be too small for my regular desktop computing work on the 20.5 at 1600x1200 or 1600x1050 (depending on which 20.5).

Perhaps you've seen my posts on in the last day or so on the 20.5? In any case, I'm wondering about the 19" and you seem to have one? Is it an Ultra Sharp? DO you like it? Which model and if different than the 2005, do you have any idea what's different in the 1905?

Would stuff appear larger on the 19 at its 1280x1024 than it would on the 20.5 at 1600x1050? Some people have told me it would be about the same due to the difference in monitor size. But I would imagine this would be easier to read and things would be bigger than on the 17-inch 1280x1024, which seemd fine to me.

I was hoping that someone had looked at both the 20.5 and the 19" side by side at the same resolution (1280x1024) and could comment about how different they looked. It would be nice to have a larger monitor, but not if 19" is going to be sharper and easier to see stuff.

Any thoughts on these issues would be appreciated greatly.

Best Regards,
The 'ol sadhu.

 

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,689
2,811
126
Sadhu, you said you owned 21"+ CRT. You run it at 1024x768. Well try it at 1600x1200. Does the size of fonts and text bother you at that resolution? Because that's basically what you're going to see on 2001FP at 1600x1200. Granted things will be sharper and clearer on the LCD but the size should be the same.

As for non-native res on desktop, you know my position on it. It's unacceptable and unuseable IMO. Text just looks horrible and blurry. If you like I can send you some non-native desktop shots on my 2001FP. PM if you're interested and I'll take some pics with my camera and send it to you.
 

Skylander

Junior Member
Oct 10, 2004
13
0
0
Sadhu,

I agree with Naustica. If you have no problem to read the text on your 21" under 1600x1200 resolution, I think you should get 2001FP. Otherwise, you can adjust the font size at the advaced setting. OR get 19" model.

Moroever, for the issue of 2001FP vs 2005FPW, I personally suggest 2001FP. Although I haven't seen 2005FPW in person, I have checked out Apple 20" Cinema LCD display. They have both wide screen resolution of 1680x1050. I think the height of the screen is not enough. I think the height of 2001FP is better.

If I got a 23" LCD in the future, I will go for widescreen. I think the 23" model have a better ratio on height and width for wide screen. But for 20" (Dell), 2001FP is better.

 
Nov 13, 2004
39
0
0
I just orderd one of these beasts should have it today or monday.. Will do a review with many pictures.

Has anyone orderd and received there's yet. ?

I wouldnt worry about the gaming resolution as almost all new games can be forced to change resolutions to 1680x1050 without any problems.
 

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
Schadenfroh,

I believe the info on the Dell site (which is admittedly hard to find) says the following:

"Monitors carry the longer of either a 3-year limited warranty or the remainder of the warranty for the Dell computer to which the monitor will be connected."

Hope this is right. Don't trust the site, but inquire when you order if the info is up to date.

Sadhu
 

ryedizzel

Member
Aug 12, 2004
36
0
0
so have any of you whom purchased these monitors receive them yet??

and SADHU, chill with the 10 paragraph posts. i think we all understood what you are trying to find out from your first post, which still could have been summed up in a few sentences.
 
Nov 13, 2004
39
0
0
I bought one of these monitors its on its way, I will do many tests with pictures of how games run etc.. I cant believe how most people get scared away by the resolution.. Als most all newer games support custom resolutions and if they dont there is hacks.
 

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
It's nice to know you can sum them up in a few sentences. If easy, perhaps you can answer it all in a few sentences also.
 

D1gger

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
5,411
2
76
I ordered one on November 12, haven't received an estimated ship date yet.
 

BullishDad

Member
Feb 11, 2001
162
0
0
Sadhu, I have similar concerns like yours, due to not being as young as I used to be!

I find it difficult to read fine print without my reading glasses and currently have a 15" LCD at home. If I wear my glasses to look at the screen, it is clearer, but I have to sit very close which is a bit uncomfortable.

I've been looking into purchasing a new, bigger LCD. After quite a bit of reading I came to the conclusion that keeping the monitor at its native resolution will enusre the sharpest formation of text characters. As a result, I'm leaning towards buying the Dell 1905FP. It seems to me that the characters on a 20" monitor running at 1600x1200 will be too small.
 

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
RE: MONITORS - RESOLUTION and EASE OF READABILITY
Suggest ryedizzel and those not interested in the subject not read this post.

BullishDad,

Well, those of us who are dads perhaps are in a different from "the young and restless," or is it "the young and the reckless?" I guess that depends.

In my own case I can read my own 21" monitor at 1024x768 without any strain, and without glasses (though I wear them for reading the newpaper), and I can even read my 21" CRT at 1280x1024 without glasses, meaning I can make it what it says with little difficulty. However. to say that so with the same ease as 1080x768 would be false. Whether the sharpness and brightness of the LCD resolution would make a huge difference when attempting to read 1280x1024 or higher is the question.

As an interesting aside, it was MORE THAN INTERESTING for me to note that on the 17" Dell Ultra Sharp - the 1703FP - , whose native resolution is 1280x1024, was completey sharp and excellent at 1024 (not it's native resolution) when I checked it out in the next office - no Cleartype or video card anti-aliasing being used) In fact, it was good that I had to scratch my head and wonder what all the hub-bub about "native resolution" was about. Yes, on paper, I quite understand the reason why non-native resolution on LCDs is regarded as inferior. I just have to say that I don't see any fuzziness on the 1703 in 1024x768. None. I have others say the same thing. Go figure!

Previously, before you wrote, two others were kind enough to write me, and in the spirit of cooperation, which is often the landmark of computer forums, tried to help me figure what would be right for me. I was expecting more replies, but in retrospect, three replies (I'm including yours) and only one flame ... is pretty good.

In the end, however, I decided that such decisions have to made in the real world ... without depending upon the opionions or on the perferences of others. We can talk all we want about what's "sharp," or "fuzzy" or "funny" or "blurry" but in the end, it's really not appropriate to ask for an opinion from a forum of experts, and certainly not from a Dell sales specialist.

So, sometime in the next week or two, I plan to line all of them up on a desk in our offices, and try to determine what the right choice is for ME. If you're interested, I'll give you my comments on the two 20.5 FP monitors versus the 19" as soon as I have them formulated - just to see if the findings are surprising or not. I would suggest you also try to do the same.

Apologies to go to ryedizzel. I'm not looking to upset him with posts that are not three sentences or not single paragraphs. Back in the old days, when I used CompuServe (this is going back to the 1980s), long forum posts were the norm. Perhaps I'm just out of step with this Brave New World. Truth be told, ryedizzel was right about the fact that the previous posts could have been more succinct. I'm sure they could have. But I'd simply suggest that those wh are not interested in wading through my posts don't bother to read them. That way, you don't have to chastise me, and I don't have to be chastised.

And if there are any others, like BullishDad, some who, perhaps, whose eyesight might be slightly in decline, and who spend a fair amount of time reading text, and you feel have something to add to a discussion about text and sharpness and ease of reading of the screen, I'd like to encourage you to do so while this thread at least two interested readers focussed on making a decision. After all, in a thread dealing with 20.5 monitor with a native resolution of 1600x1200 it's not exactly OFF TOPIC that there be some discussion about screen resolution and readibility. It's no different, for example than expecting to see a far amount of discussion about games. I accept that some people will consider that an immensely important aspect, even if I do not.





 

w00t

Diamond Member
Nov 5, 2004
5,545
0
0
gaming : CRT
lcd: browsing the internet, instant message= gay shit
why get a lcd when they cost more and arent as good as crts its like ripping yourself off
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |