I apologize if I added to the confusion over this. Don't forget, drugs sometimes fog the mind. In my case, I was not taking anything illegal, but was in a car accident (as a pedestrian), and got hit by car while crossing the street. I was on pain medication and plead for mercy. Does it cloud my judgement on the two monitors. I don't think so. I just think it sometimes makes for unclear prose. I'm not on drugs at the moment, and I still see the earlier comments as holding true. My perception hasn't changed as the pain pills wore off. The only thing that's changed is that I hurt more.
Anyway, what I believe happened, to clarify my comments abou the app not fitting, was that I opened the application on the 2001FP, and then later dragged it over to the FPw. Actually, I had been dragging the Outlook window back and forth in order to compare how it looked. In order to drag stuff back and forth, you cannot be in the Max window mode, because when you are, you can drag a window. Okay, so looking at OUTLOOK 2003 filling the 2001FP, and then dragging it to the 2005FPw, you're dragging an app that fills the screen at 1600x1200 to a physically shorter monitor (the FPw runs at 1680x1050) and so naturally it's not all going to show the navigation pane at the bottom of the screen unless you do either of two things,
1. Scroll down to see it, or
2. hit the Maximize Windows button.
When you hit the maximize window on the FPW, it will automatically resize the various panes in Outlook and thus show the bottom Navigation panes too. I suppose the reason I mentioned Outlook 2003 was that it turns out to be a good example for demonstrating how you can be missing something when dragging stuff back and forth between two monitors of almost similar resolution but of different physical sizes.
But if you are only using one monitor, you won't have experience of being reminded that it's a shorter monitor. You'll still be living with a smaller monitor, but you won't be reminded of it, because you won't have the experience that I had of seeing something missing at the bottom.
I hope that clarifies it for you, and I apologize about the remark being misleading. I'm off the pain pills, and also, hopefully avoid making a remark that can be misinterpreted to mean "smushed." I can see exactly how Fr0zen2k4 thought that's what I meant, but that's not what I was saying. The FPW looks fine in my desktop apps and never looks "smushed."
But I'll tell you, after all of this comparing, the 2001FP really kind of holds its own very well, and if size is really important to you, (choruses of "size matters" here) you really should consider getting the 2001FP rather than the FPw because, as I was trying to point out with the Outlook 2003 example, it really is shorter, and there's no arguing with that fact. Could one live with the size differnces. I think one could. You just might not want to, that's all. Those that have the 2001FP are justified to say they wouldn't want to ... if size is importan to them.
When you step back from the desk, and look at them side by side, even the 19" inch monitor looks noticably taller. Somebody in this forum said it reminded them almost of 17" size. I can see that as being a valid comment, since the 1905FP looks taller. If the 2005FPw weren't so dam good, so dam nice, so dam crisp, I'd would't even hesitate to recommend the 2001FP over it. Especially since the 2001FP itself so impressive. I wouldn't say this is an easy decision except for those who know they want and need the size or know they want the wider aspect ration. It does give you more room width wize for more windows open. It's really a matter of what you're preference is. For those who want taller, I can see that the 2001FP is the right choice. For those who want one monitor with windows open side by side, it might just be that FPw foots the bill. (remember, i don't play games ... and so the considerations that come into the pticure with playing games are certainly lost on me - but there are plenty of experts here on that score).