Dell 2000FP 20" LCD Monitor for $759 + tax

[Stereodude]

Dell Small Business has the Dell 2000FP 20" LCD Monitor for $999 - auto 20% off - 5% coupon code 72CAD81454CE = $759 + tax w/ free shipping! Ends today (12/11/02).

I ordered mine earlier today. I got out for just over $800 after tax.

Stereodude

 

[Pradeep]

An excellent monitor, if you can afford it get one immediately.

The only problem I have with mine is the large bezel, as compared to the 19" models. But the picture quality is exceptional.

 

[Buck]

That is a good price, my 19' LCDs sell for more.

 

[mubs]

Pradeep,

I see that the 20” Dell LCD runs at 1600x1200. Do you find that acceptable or do you feel it’s too high a resolution for that size? I know this is quite subjective an issue, but still wanted your opinion.

I bought an IBM notebook last year (TP23) that has a 14.1” LCD. The thing runs only at 1400x1050. After using it for about a year, I’m half blind. Won’t make that mistake again! The problem with LCDs being the fixed resolution, I’d better be sure I can handle the optimal rez for it before I buy one.

I did a crude analysis; if the ideal rez for a 14.1” LCD is 1024x768, extrapolate the total viewable area and total pixels. The important columns are the Area-Delta, and TotalPixels-Delta under the ideal and actual scenarios.

                           Ideal               Actual				
                      ===============    ================
Size  Area     A-D    Rez.       TP-D      Rez.      TP-D
14.1  100.0    ---    1024x768    ---    1024x768     ---
14.1  100.0    0.0    1024x768    0.0    1400x1050   86.9    My StinkPad TP23
19.0  180.6   80.6    1280x1024  66.7    1280x1024   66.7    Dell, Viewsonic, Samsung
20.1  201.6  101.6    1400x1050  86.9    1600x1200  144.1    Dell

For my Stinkad, you see that for a 0% increase in viewable area, it has 86.9% more pixels. With the 20” Dell, for a 101% increase in area, you have 144% more pixels. For a guy with eyesight like mine, that might be a problem. A linear relationship between area and total pixels would mean the 20” Dell should run at 1400x1050. For this problem and this problem alone, I’m inclined to stick with CRTs.

Any comments?

Thanks.

 

[blakerwry]

whatever is confortable on the screen is good... typically, for a 15" i dont go above 800x600...

15" = 800 x 600
17" = 1024 x 768
19" = 1280 x 1024
20" = 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200

 

[mubs]

whatever is confortable on the screen is good

Blake, ain't that the truth! I need you to try and use my Stinkpad, then!

But there are some generally accepted guidelines, which say that a 15" LCD is equivalent to a 17" CRT, etc. So,

Size     CRT        LCD
 15    800x600   1024x768
 17   1024x768   1152x864

etc. I realize these are not hard and fast rules, but seem to be what the majority of the population would for those screen sizes.

BTW, 1600x1200 is a 46% (substantial, IMHO) jump in the number of pixels over 1280x1024!

 

[honold]

i have one, 1600x1200 is a perfect resolution for it. i use 1280x1024 on 22" crts, if that offers any insight to my perspective.

anybody with the $ should buy this immediately.

cadalyst labs gave it top honors as well, look it up.

 

[blakerwry]

on a 20" screen (Viewable) you will probably have dimentions about 16" by 12"... if you are running @ 1600x1200 that gives you an even 100DPI(or pixel per inch if you prefer) both ways. But if you tried to run @ 1280x1024, you would get 80dpi

on a 19" (viewable) you will find dimensions of ~15-1/4 by 11-1/2 @ 1280x1024 you have ~85 dpi

for a 17" you are likely to have dimensions of ~13.75" x 10.25"... @ 1024x768 you get ~75dpi

on a 15" you are likely to have ~12" by 9"... running @ 800 x 600 you will be at about 66dpi.


It's becoming obvious that as you get to a larger screen most people are trying to pack in more pixels per inch... this doesn't necessarily make sense from a visual asthetics stand point..

But it does make sense if you think about the reasons why people get larger monitors in the 1st place. I think they get them so they can view more things at once. If they tried to cram 1600x1200 onto a 17" monitor they would be sorely dissapointed, so they compromise... I'll run at high resolution, but I won't spend the money to get a large enough monitor so as to keep the DPI constant.

I'm sure if people who ran at 1600x1200 could easily afford the 25" monitors they would get them.

 

[mubs]

honold, thanks, that's the info I was looking for. I would run a 22" CRT at 1280x1024 as well, so if you're comfortable runing the 20" LCD at 1600x1200, I would be too.

Blake, this is the one thing that has puzzled me--cramming more and more onto a given size. Just what kind of people are able to use their super-hi-rez screens for extended periods of time?? The Viewsonic VP2290b (Professional Series) LCD runs at 3840x2400. It's 22.2" in size.

 

[Mercutio]

You're far from the only one. I use 1280x1024 most of the time on my 21" CRTs, 1152x864 on 19" and 17". Web pages by and large aren't made for viewing at anything larger than 1024x768, but I always maximize the window I'm using to make reading a more normal experience.

The 15" LCDs I just bought for my lab PCs are 1024x768 native, and using the default text sizes in XP, that's far too high a screen resolution.

 

[mubs]

Thus far, the gentle persons of this forum (who I respect greatly) who have posted in this thread seem to run their displays like I would.

Sorry if I sound like a stuck record; what then prompts manufacturers to do something insane like sell a notebook with a 14.1" LCD that runs at 1400x1050 native (my Thinkpad). Dell themselves sell many models that have 15" LCDs running at 1600x1200! I recently ordered a Dell notebook for my brother, and it was a struggle to find a model that would run 1024x768 on a 14.1 or 15 inch LCD.

So why, just why, are the manufacturers doing this? I think it's only going to get worse. Maybe it's a secret plot to sell optical quality 15" magnifying lenses as an accessory.

 

[Mercutio]

Consumers are stuck with the idea that bigger numbers = better product. Stereo amplifiers are a great example of this (Do the 500 watts an Aiwa or Sherwood amp put out sound better than the 250 watts from an Onkyo or Yamaha? I think not), so are computer speakers e.g. the $6 3-piece set that says it contains 100W speakers on the box and of course computer processors.

 

[blakerwry]

Is it possible to run an LCD at a lower resolution(than native) and use a form of interpolation when scaling the image up to make the resulting image look good?

Or are you stuck with the only good quality picture being in the native resolution?


Personally, I have always felt like I run at a lower resolution than everbody else... my friends are always running one step higher than me on the same size monitors.. and their monitors aren't even as sharp or clear as mine...

But you guys seem to be right on target with what I am feeling. I dont want to have to squint to read text that's right infront of me...

 

[Pradeep]

Sorry mubs for not getting back sooner. Yes I find UXGA is perfect for a 20" viewable screen. No strain at all. I also have a Dell i8200 with UXGA on a 15" screen. That can be a strain at times, thos photos look very good at 133dpi. Of course with the LCD panels via DVI connection you have perfect convergence, with my Sony E-540 CRT I run it at 1280*1024 (still looking for 1280*960 rez) because UXGA is unreadable (the monitor quality is just craparse).

 

[mubs]

Thanks for the reply, Pradeep. As Blake said earlier,

whatever is confortable on the screen is good

but that seems to vary greatly by person. How you can stand UXGA on a 15" I don't know. SXGA+ on my 14.1" Thinkpad consistently gave me homicidal thoughts.

Blake, that exactly is the problem with LCDs. When designed & manufactured, there is one and only one resolution it will look good at. At other resolutions, display quality may or may not be acceptable. On my Thinkpad, while the native rez. was gorgeously crisp but difficult to read due to the small size, every other rez. was so blotchy I couldn't even think about switching away from the native rez. Of course the notebook LCD was on a DVI interface.

My brother recently bought a Viewsonic VA800 LCD, native rez. 1280x1024. He runs it on his desktop, with an ATI Radeon analog interface, at 1024x768. While display quality isn't as crisp as at the native rez., it's definitely acceptable. I guess YMMV, depending on the interface used and the LCD itself.

 

[blakerwry]

have you tried increasing your font size and leaving everything at the native resolution?

I know some prefer to use the "large" or "extra large" themes @ high resolutions in preference to the "normal" themes @ medium resolutions.

Personally, I think it messes up formatting too much. But they dont seem to mind.

 

[Pradeep]

Is it possible to run an LCD at a lower resolution(than native) and use a form of interpolation when scaling the image up to make the resulting image look good?

Or are you stuck with the only good quality picture being in the native resolution?

Interpolation always looks like turd compared to native. Some panels shrink the picture on the screen, giving the exact number of pixels required.