Anyone have a widescreen 19" or 20" lcd?

[kehi]

Please lmk what you think. Thanks

 

[kehi]

anyone?

 

[bobsmith1492]

I've got one in the mail, actually, the one suggested on the mid-range guide on the front page. I'll let you know in a few days if you remind me.

 

[raystorm]

I like my Dell 2005fpw. I previously had a 6 year old 19in CRT and it was time to put it away for something new. Just about every brand new pc game has widescreen resolutions and DVD's look nice on it. No complaints other than the sorta low native res (1680x1050) but thats ok as new games simply don't run so hot in that res on my pc.

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: raystorm
I like my Dell 2005fpw. I previously had a 6 year old 19in CRT and it was time to put it away for something new. Just about every brand new pc game has widescreen resolutions and DVD's look nice on it. No complaints other than the sorta low native res (1680x1050) but thats ok as new games simply don't run so hot in that res on my pc.

sorta low native? If 19's run 1280x1024, how is a 400 horizontal pixel and 26 vertical pixel increase low? I too have a 2005fpw and all I can say is that all my friends are in envy. I would like to have a 24 inch widescreen but if my x1900xt shows signs of weakness at the "low" resolution of the 2005fpw, I can only imagine what would happen with an even greater resolution.

 

[raystorm]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache

Originally posted by: raystorm
I like my Dell 2005fpw. I previously had a 6 year old 19in CRT and it was time to put it away for something new. Just about every brand new pc game has widescreen resolutions and DVD's look nice on it. No complaints other than the sorta low native res (1680x1050) but thats ok as new games simply don't run so hot in that res on my pc.

sorta low native? If 19's run 1280x1024, how is a 400 horizontal pixel and 26 vertical pixel increase low? I too have a 2005fpw and all I can say is that all my friends are in envy. I would like to have a 24 inch widescreen but if my x1900xt shows signs of weakness at the "low" resolution of the 2005fpw, I can only imagine what would happen with an even greater resolution.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with that res. Like I said, most of the new games simply run poorly at that on my pc. Sooner or later I'll upgrade my videocard (its a 6800GS) to something much more powerful next year and will probably be able to run games at very high resolutions which the 2005fpw cant do. No big deal at all really and its a minor thing to complain about anyways. I love the monitor to death.

I usually play games at 1280x720/800 and only use 1680x1050 if its smooth enough.

 

[kmmatney]

I bought the Viewsonic widescreen 19" LCD. However the ViewSonic would not scale properly (my BenQ scaled fine) and all games were always stretched to full screen. Movies also did not look as good as I hoped, due to poor blacks (again much better on the BenQ). I ended up giving my wife the 19" widescreen and keeping my standard 19" BenQ.

However my wife likes the 19" widescreen - it feels "comfortable" to her. She only does desktop work, no games or movies.

After using a 1280 x 1024 LCD for a while, the 19" widescreen felt squashed. If your going widescreen, I would recommend at least a 20" LCD.

 

[nitromullet]

I'm very pleased with my 2005FPW, and I wouldn't hesitate recommending one to almost anyone.

The drawbacks:

1) You really should play games on it at native resolution, which can be tough even for the top of the line cards on certain games.
2) Some games still don't support widescreen properly - BF2 comes to mind. Some games to do support WS still require manual editing of a .ini or config file as opposed to simply using a drop down in the menu. http://widescreengamingforum.com/ will be indispensible should you decide to go with a widescreen display.

 

[phantom404]

Another vote for the 2005FPW. S-Video, DVI, VGA, USB, and Composite inputs are a nice feature. Ive even used the picture-n-picture that it has.

 

[Diasper]

I love mine personally.

I originally got it for the advantageous multimedia aspects but its made a very good work PC. I often run two windows of office next to eachother which helps speed things up no end when you've got an enormous amount of informaton and need to keep referring to it.

As for choices in the market atm from a couple of months back the choices were according to panel type were:

Dell 2005FPW (old S-IPS)- good and classic monitor. Decent specs but even better features - the feature set is even good compared to more recent monitors. In Short it's good and many people have it and are pleased. Finding opinions on it should be easier.
Belinea 10 20 35W / BenQ etc (MVA) - All these newer monitors sport the MVA panel which has some benefits over the Dell. Primarily, it sports slightly faster response times and blacks are a little deeper. The colours on the Dell are meant to be more accurate but it depends on calibration etc. Unless you can get a great deal on the Dell these might be a better choice.
Viewsonic (latest S-IPS) - Rated the best everywhere. Best response times, best viewing angles, probably best colours (?) but it is expensive and its feature of having a glossy coat means you can see your reflection in certain lighting conditions so you have to choose according to your invididual situation. This monitor is less well documented than others and especially the Dell but there is a thread here somewhere about it.

 

[wb182]

I have a 2005FPW and love it, but it was pretty much the primary reason I had to upgrade an otherwise good system.

I was running a 6600GT on a socket 754 athlon 64 3400+ w/ 1 gig of ram, and World of Warcraft had *major* issues because of the resolution of my monitor (1680 x 1050). I had to drop all graphics settings within the game to the bare minimum, and I still had absolutely pitiful framerates (like 7-13 FPS average in a raid dungeon).

Now w/ my new system (see sig) though, I have everything cranked up and it runs beautifully.

This is a long way of saying make sure you have a good video card for it

 

[Tweakin]

1680x1050 is a very addictive image on widescreen. HL2, HL and FarCry are a blast to play. I have gone through 3 Dell 2205's, a Gateway, Apple and now I'm running the Samsung 215tw. I stayed with the Samsung as the colors seem richer then the others and I don't have edge bleeding, but all are great monitors. I will never go back to a 5:4 Image.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache

Originally posted by: raystorm
I like my Dell 2005fpw. I previously had a 6 year old 19in CRT and it was time to put it away for something new. Just about every brand new pc game has widescreen resolutions and DVD's look nice on it. No complaints other than the sorta low native res (1680x1050) but thats ok as new games simply don't run so hot in that res on my pc.

sorta low native? If 19's run 1280x1024, how is a 400 horizontal pixel and 26 vertical pixel increase low? I too have a 2005fpw and all I can say is that all my friends are in envy. I would like to have a 24 inch widescreen but if my x1900xt shows signs of weakness at the "low" resolution of the 2005fpw, I can only imagine what would happen with an even greater resolution.

Agreed. 1680x1050 is PLENTY for now