Dell 2001FP vs. NEC FP2141SB 22" CRT

[MrPabulum]

Really, it depends on how much gaming you do. My friend loves his Samsung 1200NF, though it takes up a lot of space and is bulky. CRTs simply have an advantage in gaming, though I believe the gap is fairly small. I have a Viewsonic VP171B, and I am never going back to CRTs. And while I don't game as frequently as my friend, I do play whenever I get some free time (CoD, UT2004) and the LCD shows no signs of ghosting. Text is much sharper too. Like Mem said, the perfect geometry and crispness will impress your eyes. 😉 You can't go wrong with either, really, just depends on what you want. If you intend to get a CRT, you might consider the cheaper NEC FP2111B. Its identical to the FP2141B, without the extra resolution of 2048 x 1536. How often do you plan to use it?

If an LCD is on your horizon, Viewsonic has released a new model: VP912B

19", 1280 x 1024 res., 12ms refresh. Be the envy of your friends and pets! :beer:

 

[BenSkywalker]

If you intend to get a CRT, you might consider the cheaper NEC FP2111B. Its identical to the FP2141B, without the extra resolution of 2048 x 1536. How often do you plan to use it?

Once you can game @2048x1536 running 85Hz as long as your rig can push the game you are playing at that res you will use it.

Only complaint I ever hear is that since this is a trinitron tube it has those two microscopic lines on it.

The two lines are because it's an AG tube, the FP2141 is actually a Diamandtron tube(Mitsubishi/NEC make their own tubes which IMO are a decent amount better then the Trinitron tubes which seem to have a lot of problems with convergance).

 

[imported_catch22]

Thanks for all the replies guys. Opinions seems split on the monitors, but i'm leaning towards the NEC.

 

[EGGO]

Originally posted by: Ozone1

Photo of my FP2141sb (1)

Photo of my FP2141sb (2)

Photo of my FP2141sb (3)

Thanks for these photos, they really help me get a better idea how big that thing is other than a white background.

Now I, myself, am going for the CRT.

I am one who had both LCDs and CRTs in this household and used them for many things in many different angles. CRT for more color and I don't have to stare straight at it (I do go on my bed sometimes to type stuff which is a foot below the monitor level).

 

[ntdz]

you cant really go wrong w/ either one, both have their strengths and weaknesses

 

[hytek369]

i have the Mitsubishi 2070SB-BK and have been thinking about getting the dell as a replacement since all my friends have moved over to LCDs

i think i am going to wait since i am pretty happy with my Mitsu. Conformity is not always a good thing

 

[kmmatney]

I have a 6 year old 19" Sony CRT (paid $800 back then), and it is definately losing its convergance. It went downhill about a year ago. Its still very usable, but not as sharp as it used to be, and I notice it big time. With an LCD, the sharpness will be there forever, assuming that everything else works. We happen to have some older 15" LCDs monitors at work that still look perfect after 4 years.

At work, I recently replaced my ViewSonic 19" Trinitron CRT (also losing some of its sharpness after 4 years) with a cheap Mag 17" LCD, and I like the LCD a lot better. Work is mainly programming, scientific software, and MS Office. For the lower price ranges, I'd rather get a $300 LCD, than a $300 CRT. For your price range, I don't know.

 

[EGGO]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
I have a 6 year old 19" Sony CRT (paid $800 back then), and it is definately losing its convergance. It went downhill about a year ago. Its still very usable, but not as sharp as it used to be, and I notice it big time. With an LCD, the sharpness will be there forever, assuming that everything else works. We happen to have some older 15" LCDs monitors at work that still look perfect after 4 years.

At work, I recently replaced my ViewSonic 19" Trinitron CRT (also losing some of its sharpness after 4 years) with a cheap Mag 17" LCD, and I like the LCD a lot better. Work is mainly programming, scientific software, and MS Office. For the lower price ranges, I'd rather get a $300 LCD, than a $300 CRT. For your price range, I don't know.

I have a 15" Compaq CRT and I must say it's still very very very good quality. I've had it for 5 years now (going on 6) and that's the only part of my computer now that I had absolutely 0 problems with, or really even thought of upgrading.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
I have a 6 year old 19" Sony CRT (paid $800 back then), and it is definately losing its convergance. It went downhill about a year ago. Its still very usable, but not as sharp as it used to be, and I notice it big time. With an LCD, the sharpness will be there forever, assuming that everything else works. We happen to have some older 15" LCDs monitors at work that still look perfect after 4 years.

At work, I recently replaced my ViewSonic 19" Trinitron CRT (also losing some of its sharpness after 4 years) with a cheap Mag 17" LCD, and I like the LCD a lot better. Work is mainly programming, scientific software, and MS Office. For the lower price ranges, I'd rather get a $300 LCD, than a $300 CRT. For your price range, I don't know.

have you heard of OLEDs? not sure where they will be hitting the market, but i am sure it will happen in no longer than 6 years. IIRC LCDs do have lifetime limitation due to the backlight and longevity is no longer a concern when something revolutionary is about to replace it soon down the road.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Dell 2001FP