1905fp, 2005fpw, 2001fp, which lcd to get?

[monkeyman1133]

I was originally planning on getting a 1905fp, because a 19" lcd is more than enough for me, and it costs less. But, after reading all these threads about the 2005fpw and 2001fp, I'm not sure anymore.

Basically, all I will be doing is windows work, but I will need a lot of screen space. The more, the better. I do not care about ghosting, and am not so picky with image quality either, just nothing too horrible and its ok for me.

I'm currently using a pretty cheap 17" KDS lcd, and I'm ok with it. The one problem I do have with it is that 17" lcds have a native resolution of 1280X1024, and that makes the text in windows kind of small, compared to 15" lcds with 1024X800 native. Thats why I wanted to get a 19" lcd for my next monitor, becuase it has the same 1280 native res. but is much bigger. This should make the text bigger right? I know its possible to increase the size of text in windows, which is what I currently do now, but the only problem with that is it kind of increases the size of everything, and throws off a lot of programs, as in there are words running out of their proper text boxes and not visible anymore.

So anyways, I was reading about the new 2005fpw, and was kind of interested. My question is does the 2005fpw have a lot more screen space for windows work compared to the 1905fp? Also, how small/large will the text be at native resolution?(compared to native at 15" and 17") And, if in the future I am thinking of a dual monitor setup, would a dual 2005fpw work well and provide me with tons of screen space, as opposed to dual 1905fps?

 

[bjc112]

So anyways, I was reading about the new 2005fpw, and was kind of interested. My question is does the 2005fpw have a lot more screen space for windows work compared to the 1905fp? Also, how small/large will the text be at native resolution?(compared to native at 15" and 17") And, if in the future I am thinking of a dual monitor setup, would a dual 2005fpw work well and provide me with tons of screen space, as opposed to dual 1905fps?

If you need more USABLE workspace, widescreen in the only way to go. Text can be read easily.

I had a Sony e540 CRT (1600x1200) and I find my 2005fp (1680x1050) DVI is easier to read and easier on my eyes..


here is a screen shot...

WorkSPACE

 

[bjc112]

BTW:

Welcome to the forums.

 

[JBT]

The 2001FP actually has the most usable workspace out of those three and the highest resolution. Its a tough call between the 2005 and 2001 though. I would probably lean toward the 2005 just because of the widescreen. Actually I would skip all those and get a 2405 if I were in the market for an LCD lol.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: JBT
The 2001FP actually has the most usable workspace out of those three and the highest resolution. Its a tough call between the 2005 and 2001 though. I would probably lean toward the 2005 just because of the widescreen. Actually I would skip all those and get a 2405 if I were in the market for an LCD lol.

No, the 2001fp has more screen space.

Not more usable screen space.

 

[monkeyman1133]

Thanks bjc,

But just to make sure, the most important thing to me is that the text is big enough to read. As in have you ever seen a 15" and 17" lcd side by side? At their native resolutions, normal text is big on the 15(a little too big actually) but IMO at least, a little too small on the 17". This is why I would rather go with a 15" instead of a 17". So my question is: is the text on the 2005fpw bigger than a 17" lcd's? It is hard to tell from the screenshot.

Oh yeah, what I mean is that higher resolution is not exactly what I want if it makes the text too small. For me, a 17" lcd is hard to use because of this problem.

 

[bjc112]

Well my 17" Envision is 1280x1024 and its not bad..

I find text on my 2005fp ( 1680x150 ) easier than the Envision.

It could be the clarity of DVI, because I haven't changed any text size options ( which you could also do )

To me a 19" is not worth it since you get the same 1280x1024..

I say either 17" -> 20"

But I understand where you are coming from.. For you a 19" might work out just right.

 

[cbehnken]

the 2001FP or 2005fw will have about the same size text as your 17" lcd. The dot pitch is nearly identical and with LCDs this is the primary indicator of font size.

Go with the 19 if you need bigger text than you have now, go with the 2001FP if you want more screen real estate.

You only gain 80 more pixels in width with the 2005 over the 2001, but you lose 150 in height.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: cbehnken

You only gain 80 more pixels in width with the 2005 over the 2001, but you lose 150 in height.

which happens to equal 156,000 pixels.
2001FP 1600x1200 = 1,920,000
2005FP 1680x1050 = 1,764,000

Seems like kind of alot... but it really depends on users preferences.

 

[bjc112]

You only gain 80 more pixels in width with the 2005 over the 2001, but you lose 150 in height.

The 80 in width is definitely more usable than the slight height advantage.

We hooked up a Samsung 213T and 20" Apple Display on two mac Mini's and almost everyone that saw it chose the WS display.

The 213T rotates and the Apple does not.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: bjc112

You only gain 80 more pixels in width with the 2005 over the 2001, but you lose 150 in height.

The 80 in width is definitely more usable than the slight height advantage.

Sure it is... I guess you don't write much code in visual studio...

 

[monkeyman1133]

Thanks for the replies. I guess it is the dop pitch that makes the difference

DP(mm)
15"- 0.297
17"- 0.264
19"- 0.294
2001fp(20.1")- 0.255

So I think i will go with a 19" after all. I agree that text is easy to read because it is so sharp, but still, I just don't like looking at tiny text for too long. And increasing the size of the text in the windows options screws a lot of programs up.