SojIrOu Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 i'm in the same boat. i think height wise it'll be slightly more than a 17" but breadth wise it'll be much longer. i've got almost enough for a 2005fpw but i want a 2405fpw. but since vista won't work with the current lcds anyway i might as well get the 2005fpw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanvo Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 all i can say is the 2005fpw is not BIG!!! so if you want to get it in term for sizes... stay at away from it... the picture in the DELL website is false appearence, it looks much more smaller... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acezo Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 i'm in the same boat. i think height wise it'll be slightly more than a 17" but breadth wise it'll be much longer. i've got almost enough for a 2005fpw but i want a 2405fpw. but since vista won't work with the current lcds anyway i might as well get the 2005fpw. 586608599[/snapback] Why wouldn't Vista work with current LCDs? How'd you get that idea :wacko:? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBraasch Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 all i can say is the 2005fpw is not BIG!!! so if you want to get it in term for sizes... stay at away from it... the picture in the DELL website is false appearence, it looks much more smaller... 586608912[/snapback] you're really hung up on this whole thing arn't you. SIZE IS RELAVITE. It may be small for you compared to your old monitor, but for someone switching over from a 12" laptop, this thing is enormous. You bought something you don't like, so deal with it. Sell it, and quit bitching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmark327 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 (edited) Why wouldn't Vista work with current LCDs? How'd you get that idea?:wacko::? 586609371[/snapback] http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en...ff&q=hdcp+vista Before you blame MS, realize that the blame for this lies solely at the feet of the content distributors. MS gains nothing by imposing this requirement; however, if they want to be able to show HD content, they have to play by the rules of those who distribute it. Consider if they didn't do this: then you can't play HD content AT ALL. I.E. if they didn't do this, you'd be no better off because you still wouldn't be able to play the protected content. Draconian DRM sucks! Edited October 2, 2005 by darkmark327 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinojr Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 I found this pic online. 2005FPW vs E193FP I guess I'll have to be continue saving up for the 2405. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy_tho Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 I found this pic online.2005FPW vs E193FP I guess I'll have to be continue saving up for the 2405. 586611205[/snapback] Looks like perspective is playing a big role in that pic. The WS is a few inches farther back. Look at it in relation to the keyboard and desk. Also you get a higher native resolution. If your a gamer you may be better off with a 1280 screen but for app use I think I'd rather have the WS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmark327 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 No, the 19" will be significantly larger in height than the 20" widescreen; the 20" widescreen is almost exactly the same height as a 17" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SojIrOu Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Why wouldn't Vista work with current LCDs? How'd you get that idea?:wacko::? 586609371[/snapback] i'm sorry i meant high def stuff on vista won't work on the current lcds because of HDCP. so i'm still contemplating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolchan Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 I found this pic online.2005FPW vs E193FP I guess I'll have to be continue saving up for the 2405. 586611205[/snapback] Comparing a widescreen and fullscreen? :unsure: I wanted to buy the 24" before too, but none of the current graphics card are good enough to support the native resolutions in games yet. No, the 19" will be significantly larger in height than the 20" widescreen; the 20" widescreen is almost exactly the same height as a 17" 586612060[/snapback] What about width? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmark327 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Comparing a widescreen and fullscreen? :unsure: I wanted to buy the 24" before too, but none of the current graphics card are good enough to support the native resolutions in games yet. What about width? 586614318[/snapback] Obviously it's significantly wider, but the height is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanvo Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 it sad to see that this damn 20inch 2005fpw is freaking small!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmark327 Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Small? WTF, it's as tall as a 19" CRT and much wider. Besides, try playing new games at the 2405's native resolution without spending another $500 on a video card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SojIrOu Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 smaller is a good thing sometimes. my 19" lcd is too tall while my 17" lcd is just nice for close proximity (but obviously not as good for videos from afar). i've seen the 24" in person and found it too big (its like a tv on the desktop) :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternalStorm Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 The resolution IMO is too high on the 2405fpw to make gaming possible with any new games maxed out without spending a fortune on SLI that will be outdated soon anyways. The 2405 is much too big for close up viewing, the 2005fpw is the best combination of a lower resolution of around a 19" LCD and having the width to make it a lot easier to do stuff on and easier on the eyes instead of a tall 19-20" LCD that isn't wide enough. The only complaint is the refresh rate... 16ms is just too slow for me. but it's just so nice of a monitor for anything other than hardcore gaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smigit Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 regardless I'm tempted to get the 2405fs and letterbox games and just use fullscreen for windows. Would help me alot, especially if I'm doing any proogramming or watching a video from my bed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamend Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 darkmark327, how do the 2405FPW and 2001FP compare? I have the 24 and I'm thinking of getting the 20 as a secondary display, but I'm worried that the 20 will look bad next to the 24 since it's a bit older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternalStorm Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 regardless I'm tempted to get the 2405fs and letterbox games and just use fullscreen for windows. Would help me alot, especially if I'm doing any proogramming or watching a video from my bed 586640406[/snapback] Definately, if gaming is not a priority these are awesome monitor's. I seem to do less gaming now with my 2005fpw than with my old 17" CRT because I get annoyed with the blurring, as it seems to effect me. But ya, if you want the large size for movies and desktop usage and then sacrifice clarity for letterbox/non-native resolution that is perfect ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CY:G Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Definately, if gaming is not a priority these are awesome monitor's. I seem to do less gaming now with my 2005fpw than with my old 17" CRT because I get annoyed with the blurring, as it seems to effect me. But ya, if you want the large size for movies and desktop usage and then sacrifice clarity for letterbox/non-native resolution that is perfect ;) 586640435[/snapback] What is this ghosting you guys talk about, i have the same monitor 2005FPW and i cant see any when i game, is this something some people notice better than others? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternalStorm Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 What is this ghosting you guys talk about, i have the same monitor 2005FPW and i cant see any when i game, is this something some people notice better than others? :unsure: 586640527[/snapback] It's the blurring that bothers me. I get bothered by even movie theatres motion or even television. I can't see why it doesn't bother people when gaming but to me it's really distracting. Most people seem to not notice a single thing, but any movement at all and I can tell that everything is blurring, not ghosting like a trail, but just blurred as in a motion blur while the pixels are changing color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smigit Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Definately, if gaming is not a priority these are awesome monitor's. I seem to do less gaming now with my 2005fpw than with my old 17" CRT because I get annoyed with the blurring, as it seems to effect me. But ya, if you want the large size for movies and desktop usage and then sacrifice clarity for letterbox/non-native resolution that is perfect ;) 586640435[/snapback] well gaming actually is somewhat of a priority for me just I have other uses. Would letterboxing actually affect the clarity (besides the fact its a smaller image). I wouldnt be changing the res of the monitor itself....I couldnt imagine their being a problem but perhaps im mistaken, I have no real experience with LCD's. edit: or are you refering to gaming on an LCD in general... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmark327 Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 darkmark327, how do the 2405FPW and 2001FP compare? I have the 24 and I'm thinking of getting the 20 as a secondary display, but I'm worried that the 20 will look bad next to the 24 since it's a bit older. 586640434[/snapback] Math, my friend, math: First, mine: (16x)?+(10x)?=20? 356x?=20? x=1.056 w=16x=16.95" h=10x=10.56" (4x)?+(3x)?=17? 25x?=17? x=3.4 w=4x=13.6" h=3x=10.2" Heights are almost identical. Now let's try yours: (16x)?+(10x)?=24? 356x?=24? x=1.272 w=16x=20.35" h=10x=12.71" (4x)?+(3x)?=20? 25x?=20? x=4 w=4x=16" h=3x=12" As you can see they'll be off by roughly ?". Or, you could always look up the specs on Dell's site, where they have the dimensions listed, which is :p fact what I did. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamend Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I wasn't talking about the dimensions. I was wondering about the brightness, contrast, colour accuracy, view angle, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternalStorm Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 well gaming actually is somewhat of a priority for me just I have other uses. Would letterboxing actually affect the clarity (besides the fact its a smaller image). I wouldnt be changing the res of the monitor itself....I couldnt imagine their being a problem but perhaps im mistaken, I have no real experience with LCD's. edit: or are you refering to gaming on an LCD in general... 586640572[/snapback] I would go and try gaming on several LCD's before actually making a decision. Manufacturers may claim 8ms or 12ms or 16ms response time, but you really have to have tried it out to be sure if it is good enough for you personally. A lot of people can do gaming fine on an LCD that is 16ms or much higher and not notice any problems until the ghosting starts to get bad, but blurring is an issue on even 8ms and below monitors, such as when there is movement whether it be moving in a game or dragging a window around the screen, you will see the moving thing blurred or out of focus as the pixels are trying to rapidly change colors. This affects every LCD out there, be it 4ms or 8ms and you have to try it out and see what suites your needs and your eye best. There seems to be (from my experience testing these at box stores) a difference between 8ms and 16ms but it isn't extraordinary or a 100% improvement by any means. This Dell is a fairly standard 16ms, but I would think it best you go out to maybe a friend or relatives house, or perhaps a store that has games preloaded onto an LCD based system and then give it a try or just by dragging a window around the screen and see what you think. It's not horrendous on this monitor, for many it's perfect, but for me it is annoying but not so bad I can't game, just I have to try and ignore it while I am gaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternalStorm Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I feel sorry for you, you have great eyes and sadly monitors that meet your visual requirements cost allot of money :(. 586642361[/snapback] Haha, well it's not that big of an issue, but whenever there is movement I can definately notice it stand out. It seems to have started when I got this crazy Dell and now I think they should crank up the fps on the television standard. Like during hockey games and they move the camera, that never used to be anything I noticed. And in theatres... bleh it sucks at the cheap theatres because it blurs like crazy. But it would be better for everyone if they came out with some 0ms LCD's... something to compete with CRT's. Just the thought is like ... candy to the eyes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts