Why I'm choosing the 2001FP over the 2005FPW

[housecat]

Here are my reasons for going with the 2001FP

1. Larger screen
2. Both are 1600 horizontal resolution
3. Older games that use 4:3 resolutions will scale better
4. 1600x1200 is a good standard benchmark res
5. The 2001FP is only 1 inch horizontally shorter, you can do the exact same 16:10 modes if you like them that much (but I bet people would be more psyched about fullscreen 1600x1200 anyway)

While I do not doubt the brightness/contrast is a plus in the 2005's favor, and I concluded the response time (being gray-gray 12ms) is possibly not even an improvement, if it was 1900x1200 it would be an easy choice.

Taking this all in (and reading Sadhu's remarks about both of the screens, as he owns both), if the 2005 was CHEAPER than the 2001, I'd go for it.

Otherwise, you lose a 1 1/2" of vertical display and gain 1" horizontal inch (going with the 2005).. meaning that in screen space its almost a wash, but you gain more physical space on the 2001FP.
And it is close enough that if HL2 is THAT great in widescreen, I can enable it and it will look nearly as well as a 2005 could display it. While the 2001 can easily do 1600x1050 widescreen, it would be impossible for the 2005FPW to do 1600x1200 fullscreen (obviously, but just a point to stew over and remember). While my everyday desktop and games that dont support widescreen (like Pirates! which is an awesome remake) give me the most screen and least trouble.

I watch no DVDs on my PC at all, if you do.. I would take a much harder look at the widescreen. Finally, my personal preference (besides for DVDs) has always been for fullscreens. I personally wouldnt even buy a widescreen TV (I hate my regular programs that I watch most often, even the news, looking scrunched). Though I'd sooner purchase a widescreen TV than PC screen.

Thanks, I hope this helps someone or at least adds to the archives for ppl searching for information. Tried to bring my findings into a concise post.

 

[housecat]

I should add, I got mine for $575 shipped.
For those who are looking to purchase, if you get it for $600 (or less) you have a deal that is not to be passed up! Take it.
I played the Dellf game for a 25% off coupon and applied a $25 off $325 for a grand total of $574.25.

I know this isnt the best that some of you have done on these ($550 or so), but it was close enough for me.

To bad the ship out date is Dec. 16th (but its my Christmas present from my wife anyway).

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: housecat
(but its my Christmas present from my wife anyway).

Lucky bastard.

 

[D0rkIRL]

Where'd you get the $25 off coupon? I have the 25% off one already, so i'm at 600 but the more I can chop off the price, the better.

I haven't seen either in person yet, hopefully the Kiosk locally has them on display so I can compare them, although I am leaning towards the 2001FP for essentially the same reasons, I game way more than I watch movies so the widescreen is not worth it to me. I'd just rather not deal with resolution conficts from the odd aspect ratio.

 

[housecat]

The code is expired, but you have mail.

 

[imported_Homerr]

Also posted in the other 2005FPW thread, but for reference:

2001FP = 199 square inches viewable

2005FPW = 185 square inches viewable

 

[nitromullet]

I agree with most of your points, as I would opt for the 2001FP over the 2005FPW myself. However, in regards to your statement about widescreen TV's...

I personally wouldnt even buy a widescreen TV (I hate my regular programs that I watch most often, even the news, looking scrunched). Though I'd sooner purchase a widescreen TV than PC screen.

You have this backwards, with a widescreen, a 4:3 image is slightly stretched when viewed in 16:9 mode. However, any quality widescreen TV will give you the option of having vertical bars on the side of the screen while displaying 4:3. In addition, with a 4:3, all of your movies are scrunched up. You know the notice at the beginning of the movie that notifies that the movie has been modified from its original format...? They do that by scrunching or cropping the image. IMO, I would rather have vertical bars or have the image slightly stretched when watching the news than to have horizontal bars when watching a movie.

 

[BullishDad]

A slight correction to the OP, in that the 2005FPW resolution is 1680x1050, not the 1600x1050 that was mentioned. I probably wouldn't have even brought this up, but it affects the OP point that you could still view widescreen on the 2001FP. You would not be able to run at 1680 because the max on the 2001FP is 1600.

 

[housecat]

I should have said, I hate having my nightly news stretched (to widescreen aspect).. not scrunched. Poor choice of words.

I am thinking hard on my next TV to be widescreen. I have a 32" Sony Wega (tube) and love it, but am considering selling it and getting a sony 32" LCD widescreen (or bigger) due to the space and WEIGHT (UGH!).

I more than likely will go widescreen in the living room soon, but since one of the main credits to the PC world is backwards compatibility (and widescreen is mainly a cinematic trait), I'll probably fight off going widescreen until nothing is produced in 4:3 aspect anymore (or it requires hacks to get 4:3 in games working correctly).

Essentially the opposite of how it is today, and I highly doubt this would ever happen. 4:3 wont be abandoned like that. But widescreen will be implemented in all big name titles (as is the situation today).

Screens themselves will become obsolete (replaced by virtual reality/headsets/holograms/projectors or some other new fangled technology) before 4:3 aspect ratio screens situation become like 16:10/9 today in the PC world. Unless our HDTvs someday overtake the standard "desk PC".. then of course the rules are changed.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: BullishDad
A slight correction to the OP, in that the 2005FPW resolution is 1680x1050, not the 1600x1050 that was mentioned. I probably wouldn't have even brought this up, but it affects the OP point that you could still view widescreen on the 2001FP. You would not be able to run at 1680 because the max on the 2001FP is 1600.

I stand corrected. That does negate some of my weight in my statements. I stand by my final conclusion though. Thank you, I hoped to add some great information to educate someone who is trying to decide between these two screens.

I've tried to decipher the complete truth (sorting through people's bias because they own this model or that model) for people (and myself).

 

[Ackmed]

I have both the 2001FP, and 2005FPW.. as well as a 1800FP.

I like my 2005FPW, and plan on selling my 2001FP.

I dont care about benchmarking at 1600x1200. 1680x1050 on my system is virtually the same, so I assume on others it will be as well. You can go by 1600x1200 numbers in reviews.

You can get virtually any older game to work with widescreen, and settings a custom FOV will make seem like its a native res.

There are a few subtle differences between the two monitors. One being the wire holder on the back is a little better. The USB ports are on the right side of the monitor on the 2005FPW, left side on the 2001FP. The power buttons and others are smaller, less obtrusive, and there are less LED's in your face with the 2005FPW. The back stand of the 2005FPW is more square over the 2001FP is more round. Some of these things wont matter, and to be honest most dont to me. The power buttons do matter to me though. Ill try to post some pics later.

Here is a shot of my two monitors side by side. Havent reset the speakers yet.. as you can see.

Side by side

edit, also not power brick for the 2005FPW, like there is for the 2001FP.

 

[mpitts]

I got my 2005FPW today.

Holy crap. This thing is incredible. I have a few clients with the 2001FP and I think this thing kicks it's butt all over the place.

2005FPW = :thumbsup:

 

[ClockerXP]

Thanks for the info and the picture. I think I'll definitely go for the FPW now. I want my USB on the right side because of the layout of my furniture in my den. Also, I have too many power bricks as it is so the lack of one is a plus for me. The shape does seem a little odd/low at first but I'm sure I'll get used to it.

I'll have to get the speakers with the FPW...it has those as an option, right? I don't need anything nice...that's what my headphones are for.

C

 

[stash]

Where is everyone getting these great prices? The only price I see on Dell's website is $799, for both the FPW and the FP.

 

[housecat]

The speakers for the 2001FP work on the 2005FPW according to Dell. I am also thinking about tacking those onto my order (since I am waiting until Dec. 16th for the thing to even ship out!).. I dont care about sound that much.. and since I like to blast it anyway when I do.. a pair of amped Sennheisers would be my pick.

Funny how people have such striking taste differences, that photo only confirmed (for me) even further that I am making the right choice! Its apparantly obvious that the screenspace almost dwarfs the 2005, and I dont think I'd be as productive in Windows running widescreen personally. I'll be staying away from widescreen until every Windows application and game is specifically designed to be displayed best on a 16:10 screen.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: housecat
The speakers for the 2001FP work on the 2005FPW according to Dell. I am also thinking about tacking those onto my order (since I am waiting until Dec. 16th for the thing to even ship out!).. I dont care about sound that much.. and since I like to blast it anyway when I do.. a pair of amped Sennheisers would be my pick.

Funny how people have such striking taste differences, that photo only confirmed (for me) even further that I am making the right choice! Its apparantly obvious that the screenspace almost dwarfs the 2005, and I dont think I'd be as productive in Windows running widescreen personally. I'll be staying away from widescreen until every Windows application and game is specifically designed to be displayed best on a 16:10 screen.

Yeah it's all personal preference. The 2001fp is a much better monitor for text/productivity, while the 2005fpw I would say is nicer for gaming, and way better for movies.

Personally I'd love to have both, but alas that requires money. I'm looking into a widescreen monitor down the road to accompany my 17" 710T . I wonder how long it will take for that 2005fpw to go down in price....

 

[Rudee]

Looking at the side by side pics, I prefer the 2005 over the 2001. I don't care for the big "DELL" logo on the front, thus I appreciate the more subtle logo on the 2005.

 

[imported_driver]

Just wanted to comment that the 2005fpw has about 187 square inches of real estate at 1680x1050 while the 2001fp has 160 square inches of real estate at 1600x1000 (same 16:10 aspect ratio). So even though you can do the same resolution, you are giving up about 17% real esate on the 2001fp when used as a widescreen display. And for me, everything that I use the computer for supports widescreen resolutions.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: driver
Just wanted to comment that the 2005fpw has about 187 square inches of real estate at 1680x1050 while the 2001fp has 160 square inches of real estate at 1600x1000 (same 16:10 aspect ratio). So even though you can do the same resolution, you are giving up about 17% real esate on the 2001fp when used as a widescreen display. And for me, everything that I use the computer for supports widescreen resolutions.

Your numbers are a bit off, the 2005FPW has 182 sq inches, while the 2001FP has 161.2 sq inches for a 16:10 picture. And other than movies, computer apps and games are primarily AR neutral, the 2001FP will always have have more space available.

 

[imported_driver]

Games are not AR neutral. Most newer games these days show more information on a widescreen display versus a 4:3 display. In other words, you actually see more on the left and right. Widescreen wins there, hands down. You get a larger display area and you see more information.

Applications are also not AR neutral. When I'm doing photo editing, I prefer a wider screen, because the aspect ratio of my photos are 3:2. That's wider than 4:3.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: driver
Games are not AR neutral. Most newer games these days show more information on a widescreen display versus a 4:3 display. In other words, you actually see more on the left and right. Widescreen wins there, hands down. You get a larger display area and you see more information.

Or you simply open up the top/bottom of the game frame on a 4:3 display, giving you a bigger picture and more information top to bottom.

Applications are also not AR neutral. When I'm doing photo editing, I prefer a wider screen, because the aspect ratio of my photos are 3:2. That's wider than 4:3.

More height means more room for horizontal toolbars and digital cameras shoot pictures pictures that are 4:3. Regardless, the physical size and pixel count of a 20" 4:3 screen is larger than the 20" 16:10, which means more room.

 

[imported_driver]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: driver
Games are not AR neutral. Most newer games these days show more information on a widescreen display versus a 4:3 display. In other words, you actually see more on the left and right. Widescreen wins there, hands down. You get a larger display area and you see more information.

Or you simply open up the top/bottom of the game frame on a 4:3 display, giving you a bigger picture and more information top to bottom.

Hmm, I guess you don't get it. Go do a google search on Counter Strike and Half Life 2. You see more with a widescreen display, period. The game actually renders more imagery. Running the game at a 4:3 AR means you're looking at a WS image that's been cropped on the sides.

Originally posted by: Accord99

Applications are also not AR neutral. When I'm doing photo editing, I prefer a wider screen, because the aspect ratio of my photos are 3:2. That's wider than 4:3.

More height means more room for horizontal toolbars and digital cameras shoot pictures pictures that are 4:3. Regardless, the physical size and pixel count of a 20" 4:3 screen is larger than the 20" 16:10, which means more room.

The digital camera that I have (Canon 300D) shoots in 3:2. Most professional or higher end cameras shoot in 3:2. 35mm film is also in 3:2. It doesn't matter if the entire screen is larger if the aspect ratio is wrong. With a narrower display, my 3:2 photo would be limited by the width and I couldn't display it as large as on a WS display.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: driver
Hmm, I guess you don't get it. Go do a google search on Counter Strike and Half Life 2. You see more with a widescreen display, period. The game actually renders more imagery.

I get it. What you don't get is that with a 4:3 screen, you can have an equally wide FOV but with more top/bottom information.

The digital camera that I have (Canon 300D) shoots in 3:2. Most professional or higher end cameras shoot in 3:2. 35mm film is also in 3:2. It doesn't matter if the entire screen is larger if the aspect ratio is wrong. With a narrower display, my 3:2 photo would be limited by the width and I couldn't display it as large as on a WS display.

And in the end, you have a bit larger picture, I have more space for toolbars. And what's the aspect ratio of office documents? Programming apps? Internet browsers? There are none, so the bigger screen wins.

 

[imported_driver]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: driver
Hmm, I guess you don't get it. Go do a google search on Counter Strike and Half Life 2. You see more with a widescreen display, period. The game actually renders more imagery.

I get it. What you don't get is that with a 4:3 screen, you can have an equally wide FOV but with more top/bottom information.

No, I don't think you get it. And I guess you won't get it unless you see it. Compare these 2 screen shots:

http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/...strider_1100819220.jpg
http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/...derwide_1100819523.jpg

The first one is from a 4:3 display, and the second one is from a WS display. Same scene in the game. Bottom line is that the game renders more imagery on the WS display. To achieve the same FOV on the 4:3 display, you'd have to stretch the image vertically (or squish it horizontally), resulting in distorted images.

Originally posted by: Accord99

The digital camera that I have (Canon 300D) shoots in 3:2. Most professional or higher end cameras shoot in 3:2. 35mm film is also in 3:2. It doesn't matter if the entire screen is larger if the aspect ratio is wrong. With a narrower display, my 3:2 photo would be limited by the width and I couldn't display it as large as on a WS display.

And in the end, you have a bit larger picture, I have more space for toolbars. And what's the aspect ratio of office documents? Programming apps? Internet browsers? There are none, so the bigger screen wins.

Bigger is not naturally better. <insert bad joke here>. Some people, I for one, prefer a WS display over a 4:3 one because it's more natural looking. It's easier on my eyes. It fills my field of view better.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: driver
No, I don't think you get it. And I guess you won't get it unless you see it. Compare these 2 screen shots:

http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/...strider_1100819220.jpg
http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/...derwide_1100819523.jpg

The first one is from a 4:3 display, and the second one is from a WS display. Same scene in the game. Bottom line is that the game renders more imagery on the WS display. To achieve the same FOV on the 4:3 display, you'd have to stretch the image vertically (or squish it horizontally), resulting in distorted images.

I get it perfectly fine. The point is that the 4:3 screen could be set to display the exact same wide picture, but with the top and bottom opened. Much like some movies shot in Super35 can be transformed into full-frame by revealing the top and bottom sections. But without worrying about losing the direction's intended framing method, since ARs are not important in games. It's only a matter of the game developer's offering the choice.

Bigger is not naturally better. . Some people, I for one, prefer a WS display over a 4:3 one because it's more natural looking. It's easier on my eyes. It fills my field of view better.

Certainly, it's a matter of choice. Personally, a 20" widescreen that's only as tall as a 17" 5:4 screen makes it too short for my choice of applications. And BTW, the 1.5 AR digital camera picture will actually be slightly larger on the 4:3 than the 16:10.