Recomendation for a decent 20" non WS 1600x1200 monitor.

[JBT]

Hey Guys I'm looking for a 20" 1600x1200 LCD. I've got a Dell 2405FPW right now and am looking to go dual. I'd prefer this one not be WS so that the vertical resolutions match up and I can't afford another 24"

So far I've mostly looked at a Dell 2001FP which I've had in the past and liked a lot. Problem is most of them are ~3 years old and on ebay they are still going for ~$250 which IMO is too much. I can find a WS 22" brand new for that price but the res wouldn't match well. I don't mind used but can't seem to find anything I like at a good price.

Any recommendations would be great. I also need it to have a DVI and VGA port.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Avoiding the 2007FP?

My first revision ones were a bit disappointing but my Rev. A02 ones are much better. I'm not sure on the current state of them now for whatever they're using to make the current revision.

 

[postmortemIA]

Only affordable one is Samsung 204B, but it is far from perfect (terrible viewing angle, colors could be better)... those 20.1" UXGA are no longer "in" so might be difficult to find the good one.

 

[TheRyuu]

The single 2405, IMO, would be better then dual 20iners.

Unless you plan to add the two to it. In that case, the 2007fp is nice.

 

[PhotoMan]

HP LP2065 is the best choice here IMHO, but that depends what you want it for.

Still $360 after rebate from B&H.

 

[trikster2]

A cheap but very functional alternative would be a quality 19" panel in portait mode. 1280 vertical res would be close to the 1200 of the 2407 and for most web browsing the 1024 width is fine (as most web pages are designed for 1024x768 or 800x600).

I'm seeing a lot of 20.1" 1400x1050 panels. Less than ideal res, but they sure are cheap (paid $239 for my westinghouse). I actually like the dpi of the 1400x1050 20.1" better than the 1600x1200.......

 

[deadken]

Originally posted by: trikster2....I'm seeing a lot of 20.1" 1400x1050 panels. Less than ideal res, but they sure are cheap (paid $239 for my westinghouse). I actually like the dpi of the 1400x1050 20.1" better than the 1600x1200.......

I am glad to hear that you like the lower resolution better, because for what you paid, I wouldn't be happy at all. IIRC the Samsung 204B could have been had for not much more then what you paid ($270-$300).

As someone else has said, the 204b isn't perfect, but I LOVE mine. OP, look around for a Samsung 204b and see if a local retailer has a floor model you can see for yourself.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
The single 2405, IMO, would be better then dual 20iners.

Unless you plan to add the two to it. In that case, the 2007fp is nice.

I'm keeping the 2405 I just want to add a single 20" to it.



Thanks for the 204b recommendation cant say I have seen it i'll have to take a look.

 

[n7]

I have the 204B.

It's actually not bad if you always sit up straight & look squarely at it. Has decent color for gaming, etc (though not the most accurate).

But as with all TN panels, viewing angles especially from below or the sides aren't so hot.

If you can find one, look for the 204T.

I have that one also, & it's a pretty good S-PVA panel 20" (1600x1200).

 

[n7]

204T on eGhay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Samsung-SyncMaster-...7QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[KaOTiK]

Another vote for the 204T. I'm currently using 2 of them in dual and love them.

Kao

 

[JBT]

wow yeah the 204T sounds great.

 

[deadken]

I don't know how the colors on the 204T compare to the 204B, but IIRC, the 204B has a faster response time.

 

[JBT]

Either way I'm mostly concerned with price. I'll be using the 2405 for my main viewing and really just use the 20" for a secondary PC along with any over flow on the main system.

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: deadken

Originally posted by: trikster2....I'm seeing a lot of 20.1" 1400x1050 panels. Less than ideal res, but they sure are cheap (paid $239 for my westinghouse). I actually like the dpi of the 1400x1050 20.1" better than the 1600x1200.......

I am glad to hear that you like the lower resolution better, because for what you paid, I wouldn't be happy at all. IIRC the Samsung 204B could have been had for not much more then what you paid ($270-$300).

As someone else has said, the 204b isn't perfect, but I LOVE mine. OP, look around for a Samsung 204b and see if a local retailer has a floor model you can see for yourself.

Glad to hear of your affection for your hardware.

Yes I do like the lower resolution. This is my secondary monitor used for web pages. Since most web pages are designed for 1024x768 or even 800x600 your extra 200 horizontal pixels would just get me more white space and smaller text/images. $30 to $70 more is a lot to pay for poorer perfomance in my case.