Monitor Upgrade

[ArMs]

I'm at a bit of an impass and would appreciate some advice/feedback/suggestions/etc. I have a Samsung 700NF, it's a 17" CRT that runs 1600x1200@75 - hell, it runs 2048x1536@60, but 60 Hz is painful. Getting ready to leave for my third year of college, I've gotten a bit tired of lugging the thing back and forth between home and school and the amount of space it eats up on my tiny college-provided desk - they were designed with laptop only users in mind.

Since a new desk wouldn't help with the transportation issues and I can't get one anyway, I figured I'd go ahead and buy an LCD panel. The biggest problem I'm having is that I'm very much spoiled by my 1600x1200 resolution. I feel digitally "cramped" running at lower resolutions, and it seems the vast majority of 17"-19" LCDs run at 1280x1024. I don't really want to drop $500+ on a 20" LCD just to run 1600x1200. Are they any smaller monitors that run 1600x1200 that I just haven't found? Should I just stick with my CRT? Or should I fall back to 1280x1024 to save the hassel of transportation and physical desktop real-estate?

 

[Matthias99]

All the 17" and 19" LCDs run at 1280x1024. Yes, you have to spring for the 20" models to get 1600x1200 resolution.

I don't know how anyone could stand running a 1600x1200 desktop on a 17" display, though. I can't even deal with it full-time on a 19" display unless I crank the text size up quite a few notches.

 

[ArMs]

Thanks, Matthias. As for the resolution, I have stupidly good eyes (18/20 vision) and it doesn't bother me. I guess I'll just drop the resolution a bit and go with a 17" LCD... oh well.

 

[myrcgarage]

I would suggest you to take your CRT to your dorm room for now. Then keep checking for good deals on Dell's monitors and get the 2005fpw or the 2001 for 300's. I just did it and I got mine for $381, but with tax, it is $405.

I can't stand running 1280. I am a programmer and I cannot live with 1280 to be honest. I need all the space on the screen in order to see different things at the same time. You are much more productive that way. Maybe that's why I have dual now

 

[ChuckHsiao]

Go with a laptop, maybe?

It's only a couple of bucks more than an LCD monitor, I'm sure...

 

[myrcgarage]

If you want high resolution LCD laptop, you need to pay quite a bit more.

 

[ArMs]

I have a laptop, and it has a 15" screen that runs 1400x1050, which is why I can't believe I can't find a stand alone monitor that runs at a higher resolution without being gigantic and expensive.

 

[TTLKurtis]

the 2005fpw is quite nice, i have one as well. it's really cheap for a big LCD too, you can get it for like $400 shipped (as someone else noted), and the quality is great.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: ArMs
I have a laptop, and it has a 15" screen that runs 1400x1050, which is why I can't believe I can't find a stand alone monitor that runs at a higher resolution without being gigantic and expensive.

Most people sit further away from desktop monitors than laptop screens (compared to working with a laptop on your lap or on a desk right in front of you); the lower DPI is less of an issue if you can actually position the screen properly. Try putting that 1400x1050 15" screen at arm's length and it looks awfully small.

High-density LCD panels are also more difficult/expensive to produce in larger sizes. Would you rather have a $500 21" 1600x1200 LCD, or a $1000 1600x1200 17" LCD (numbers arbitrarily made up to illustrate point)?

 

[ArMs]

I'd rather have a $250 17" 1600x1200 like my CRT... only light. :'(

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

1600x1200 on a 17 in crt is like microscopic. 19 inch lcd's run at 1280x1024, with bigger pixels.

 

[ArMs]

SuperTyphoon, I can read your sig on my 17" at 1600x1200 from 4.5' away. I really really want to stick with 1600x1200. I just didn't want to have to shell out $400 - $500 to get an LCD that could run it.

 

[duragezic]

If an ultra-high resolution relative to the screen size is your main priority, you are better off sticking to a CRT. I have the 900NF and for a while I ran 1600x1200 but even with larger text it had me squinting at times (my eyes are getting worse as well). Now I run 1360x1024 which is a perfect medium IMO. Of course, I have a 2005FPW coming tomorrow, so I'm going to give that a whirl side-by-side with the 900NF. The 1680x1050 resolution on the 2005FPW should keep everything approximately the same (given it has a few hundred more pixels in width but is also 2" wider, and it is approximately the same height as the 900NF while having roughly the same vertical pixels).