POLL: Sony XBrite HS95P LCD vs DELL 2005FPW

[PremiumG]

ok, there were two ads that I went to check out for LCD monitors.

The Sony HS95P 19inch LCD with XBrite and 12ms response time vs.
Dell 2005 FPW. The specific Dell 2005 I checked out had no dead pixels but a little back lighting issues. The sony LCD was perfect.


Sony Pros:
costed $100 less
XBrite screen

Dell Pros:
Widescreen
Higher Resolution
More tilt, height options

 

[James3shin]

2005

 

[Bateluer]

I love my 2005, even with its minor backlight issue

 

[VIAN]

X-Brite although a cool technology, isn't really a Pro. It can also be a con because of how reflective the surface can be.

From experience: thank god for height options. That alone is worth a lot to me when buying an LCD.

I chose the 2005 of course.

 

[JBT]

typically you can find deals for the Dell 2005 for around $350. So I hope you paid less than that esspecially if its used.

 

[duragezic]

I have my brightness down on my 2005FPW to about 35. Anything above 50 is too bright and hurts my eyes on certain backgrounds. And anything less than 50 makes the back lighting quite even, and it only bleeds a little in a corner or two if my room is very dark. So personally, I don't think the 2005FPW has as serious of backlight bleeding as people say, especially during regular usage, but I did get a Aug 05 rev, so maybe they got a little better with them.

 

[tjaisv]

No question about it -- definitely the Sony XBrite. High-gloss screens offer superior visual picture quality over their regular matte LCD counterparts like the 2005FPW. Virtually all new laptops are made this way now, and it's just a matter of time before this coating technology becomes equally as common a feature on LCD monitors. The only major drawback is yes the potential reflection/glare, but it's really hardly an issue under normal lighting conditions and definitely something that your eyes can automatically adjust to either way.

 

[n7]

You can't compare a 1280x1024 LCD to a 1600x1200 one.

I'd take the Dell, but i do love X-Brite, Opticlear, etc.

This monitor is better than the Sony: http://www.necdisplay.com/products/Prod...lassificationFamily=2&Classification=1
And it has Opticlear.

Really though, the 20" Dell is a better monitor overall.

 

[tjaisv]

I was just talking about picture quality. I don't know about you guys, but next to screen size an LCD's image/text quality is the most important feature to me in deciding which one to get. Next is response time, quality of panel, extra features, and so forth.

And even at 1600x1200 the Dell still doesn't look as clear, sharp, vibrant and stunning as an Xbrite/Opticlear LCD at 1280x1024. Most people don't even run at 1600x1200 anyway, according to all the polls i've seen, 1024x768 and 1280x1024 are still by far the most popular res rates.

 

[xtknight]

The Dell just because I think Sony is the spawn of Satan. I would strongly disagree with both actually. Sure, widescreen looks great, if you can get games to be compatible with it. If you can, good for you, but if not, you're just about stuck. Any other resolution essentially looks like crap on an LCD, that's just the way it is. If I were you, I would take a IPS (or TN) NEC screen with OptiClear (whatever it's called) coating and be done with it.