Apple Displays

[Bling3k12]

Brand Loyalty is the same reason people pay over $100 for a pair of Nike shoes... which I find absurd.

I wouldn't care which monitor I got, the Dell or the Cinema Display, but the next monitor I do get will be a Cinema HD (23"). I've found it's price point is about spot on with other manufacturers. LG's 23" monitor was $2100, and the Cinema HD was only $1999. Of course, this was just after some quick Google searching, but I think the Cinema HD is a good deal.

Thank god for Education discounts.

[aldo]

what the hell are you talking about? i've only used netgear stuff personally, but all of it has been quite easy to set up! install the driver from the CD (or download it) and you're good to go...

why would you need a hacked driver?

585007566[/snapback]

Exactly. I've set up tons of wifi cards, and they are very very easy on Windows. Hell, they are nearly plug and play easy on most Linux distros now (and with Gnome 2.10 they will be as easy as OSX).

This very well may have changed recently, but it wasn't the case when i had three different netgear units and one linksys unit. It wasn't until i found a sourceforge driver for a dlink device that anything worked correctly.

The airport xard is plug and play on a mac. That's what draws people to it.

I'm not arguing over the over performance merely the fact that people dont want to be bothered with such. Tech savy users such as yourself may be interested in troubleshooting and  or even the simple task of driver installs.  However i know many a user that would rather buy the card, plug it in and it work.  If apple products were as bad and over priced as people here are trying to make them out to be would they be selling? Nope.

As stated earlier. It's all relative to personaly choice!

585007587[/snapback]

It's a rebranded generic chipset card with the Apple badge on. It's no different whatsoever to a normal linksys, netgear etc one apart from it costs 4x as much and has a different connector so apple can get more money out of you.

Wifi is IMO better on WinXP SP2 than it is on OSX - it's just as easy to set up but has more power under the hood. Plus it costs far far less (I could buy an entire wifi setup for 2 computers, plus a wireless router for the price of one AE card)

A car has one basic function. Getting you around. Both a Mercedes and a Kia will successfully get you around. Look at it this way. Would you put the rims from a Kia on your Mercedes? HELL no. It wouldn't match. Therefore, who want's to besmirch the beauty of the G5 with the ununiform look of the Dell monitor. :x

585008259[/snapback]

But a Mercedes isn't a rebadge Kia. They don't just take the exact same car and put a different spray job - which is really what Apple does.

Brand Loyalty is the same reason people pay over $100 for a pair of Nike shoes... which I find absurd.

I wouldn't care which monitor I got, the Dell or the Cinema Display, but the next monitor I do get will be a Cinema HD (23"). I've found it's price point is about spot on with other manufacturers. LG's 23" monitor was $2100, and the Cinema HD was only $1999. Of course, this was just after some quick Google searching, but I think the Cinema HD is a good deal.

Thank god for Education discounts.

585009214[/snapback]

Wait another 6 months until 23" monitors get in the supply chain and watch the price plummet.

It's a bit different paying $100 for some shoes and basically $600 extra for the exact monitor.. I'd be willing to 'waste' $100 now and then, but not $600.

[NinjaMonkey82]

Why is it that people feel the need to come on here and b**** for no reason? There is absolutly no point to this thread.

If you don't want a Cinema Display then don't buy it, buy the Dell, case closed. Some people are willing to pay a bit more for looks, get over it why do you care? I could go to Wal-Mart and buy a tshirt for $10 or I could go to the mall and pay $20 for one that I think looks a bit better, is that wrong of me? Why do you care what someone else likes and buys?

And of course someone brings up the Apple is dying argument as usual. Hate to break it to you but Apple isn't dying anytime soon. Apple's install base is way up, there is a strong demand for iMacs and iPods, Xserve shipments are up 200% from last year, stock price is about to surge past $70. The iPod has got the Apple name back in the minds of consumers and is driving people in to Apple retail stores. Apple's retail stores are also doing a booming business.

Marhetshare means almost nothing. Marketshare is based on total number of computers sold in a quarter or year, of course Apple's is small but how big is Sony's or Alienware? You can't compare one company's marketshare to all of the others just because Apple is a different platform. They are a very profitable company so how are they dying?

[aldo]

Marketshare counts because thats what developers look at. I am not going to spend a lot of money developing an app for 1.5% of my market. Therefore OSX has less apps, and it shows. While there is plenty of shareware, a lot of big apps are missing.

You don't compare it with Dell, Alienware etc - they all use Windows. Therefore you want to be comparing OSX vs Linux vs Windows. Linux has around 30% of the server market and 2.5% of the desktop market. OSX has less than both. This is how 'niche' apple has become.

Hate to break it to you, but eMac, iMac and Powermac sales have _decreased_ by about 10% quarter on quarter. Ibook and Powerbook sales have been good, but only just enough to balance out the drop on desktops.

As I've said I don't think anyone would be happy here if Apple became the iPod company. As for the stock market - who cares? The stock market is a gamble more or less, next week it could be at $25 because someone released a new marketshare figure and everyone sold.

[thetechroom]

Wow. I have to admit, this thread is starting to get out of hand. I agree with NinjaMonkey82, if you don't want a Cinema Display then don't buy it, pretty damn simple. I didn't actually know Apple Displays were just repranded LCDs, oh well. I guess I will just have to stick with my plasma display!

[Southern Patriot]

I'm using a Dell monitor on my PowerMac G3/G4, but that's only because it was a nice 19" Trinitron that my school was giving away after they got some flat panels. My wife has poor eyesight, and she needed a bigger monitor (this computer is the one she usually uses). I've been thinking of getting one of the old-style Apple stickers to put over the Dell logo on the front though. Hey, Apple used to use Trinitron monitors too, so it's not like there is a huge difference in it (other than the fact that Display Properties calls it a Dell P991).

Yes, I know this is only slightly related to the topic at hand, but I thought I'd mention it because people were so disgusted at the thought of someone using a Dell monitor on a Mac.

[thetechroom]

Marketshare counts because thats what developers look at. I am not going to spend a lot of money developing an app for 1.5% of my market. Therefore OSX has less apps, and it shows. While there is plenty of shareware, a lot of big apps are missing.

You don't compare it with Dell, Alienware etc - they all use Windows. Therefore you want to be comparing OSX vs Linux vs Windows. Linux has around 30% of the server market and 2.5% of the desktop market. OSX has less than both. This is how 'niche' apple has become.

Hate to break it to you, but eMac, iMac and Powermac sales have _decreased_ by about 10% quarter on quarter. Ibook and Powerbook sales have been good, but only just enough to balance out the drop on desktops.

As I've said I don't think anyone would be happy here if Apple became the iPod company. As for the stock market - who cares? The stock market is a gamble more or less, next week it could be at $25 because someone released a new marketshare figure and everyone sold.

585009723[/snapback]

not saying your wrong, but surely the introduction of the New iMac G5 has increased sales for the desktop side to Apple....?

[Southern Patriot]

Hate to break it to you, but eMac, iMac and Powermac sales have _decreased_ by about 10% quarter on quarter. Ibook and Powerbook sales have been good, but only just enough to balance out the drop on desktops.

585009723[/snapback]

Two things to note here are that Apple has been really pushing the notebooks more than the desktops the past year or so, so it's not a huge surprise that desktop sales would go down a little. Also, this past quarter is usually a slower time for Apple since many of their new systems are typically announced in the next quarter. Remember that sales of the new iMac were only just beginning during the most recently reported quarter, and that the previous model of iMac was sold out for nearly half of that quarter. I'm sure that didn't help sales any. In fact, if the supply issue hadn't worked out the way it did, it's likely that desktop sales would have gone up, not down.

[XP_01]

If you don't like the price, don't buy it. It don't see the problem here, no one is forcing you to buy it...

[aldo]

not saying your wrong, but surely the introduction of the New iMac G5 has increased sales for the desktop side to Apple....?

585010222[/snapback]

Nope. Far too little iMacs actually in the channel to buy. Also, price is hitting Apple hard in the home sector - who is going to buy a $1400 iMac when you could get a Dell P4 system which has far better specs for half the price? It's very hard to convience anyone to switch to Mac when that sort of pricing is in effect...

[Southern Patriot]

Nope. Far too little iMacs actually in the channel to buy. Also, price is hitting Apple hard in the home sector - who is going to buy a $1400 iMac when you could get a Dell P4 system which has far better specs for half the price? It's very hard to convience anyone to switch to Mac when that sort of pricing is in effect...

585010347[/snapback]

Please show me a Dell system that has better specs than a 17" iMac (since you said $1400, which is halfway between the prices of the two 17" models, priced at 1299 and 1499), and only costs $700. To have better specs, it would have to at least include every feature the iMac includes (including all ports, etc.) and have a 17" (or bigger) widescreen display (I'll even allow the display to be separate, since Dell doesn't make integrated systems). Remember that the iMac has Serial ATA and either a combo drive or a SuperDrive depending on which side of $1400 you want to go. Also, last time I looked, Dell didn't sell any consumer systems with a 64-bit processor.

edit: by the way, Apple lists 1 to 3 business days shipping time for the 17" iMacs, so how are you saying that there are far too few to buy? Seems like you could buy one rather easily if you wanted to. My local CompUSA has them in stock.

Edited November 29, 2004 by roadwarrior

[malebolgia Veteran]

My beef with Apple and their Cinema Displays is regarding their limited warranty (1-year). This is pretty lousy, when compared to the standard 3-year warranty just about every other LCD distributor is offering.

[SpeakNoSparky]

Blah, Blah, Blah...

I love it when everyone uses the same weapons of war...they all lose...

Hasn't anyone figured out the simple facts in the tech industry? Dell is the PC industry Wal-Mart, with their products being of similar manufacture as everyone else (Target, K-Mart, et cetera) except they sell everything at a lower profit margin. Gateway/eMachines, HP/Compaq, Sony, Alienware & PC Club will always be the other guys trying to sell their wares, but will ultimately be unable to beat Dell. But Apple is not your general department store. Like Alienware and Voodoo PC , who cater to the gaming market, Apple markets to specific target clientele. Apple has the best portable music player on the market. The simple design of their systems makes for easy setup and usage. Things just work on a Mac. Video editing and restoration, music studio composition, image editing and creation all work beautifully. They have a high-capacity server SAN solution that just works great! Those users will be hard to stray away from Apple because of their renowned quality and simplicity.

Aside from all that crap, when a normal consumer (the vast majority of people out there) buys a computer, how often do they buy another brand monitor? How often do businesses buy different brand components for one purchase? Hell, name two companies that actually manufacture their own monitors! And what about quality? Color depth? Nothing you guys have put on this post has really been convincing enough to declare a winner here.

This thread was a waste of everyone's time.

- You don't need to see his identification. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.

:devil:

[Redestium]

I did a comparison a week ago, and the 2005FPW is one hell of a monitor. As mentioned in the first post, it beats the 20" Apple Display at every single spec, and costs significantly less. Plus, if you're lucky, you can get the 25% off coupon from the Dellf promotion, and get the 2005FPW for ~$550, as compared to the ACD for $1,299.

What do you get extra with the Apple Display? An aluminium casing, two Firewire ports, and an Apple logo - the only real tangible advantage is the Firewire hub. Nobody in their right state of mind should be spending $500 extra (or $750 if you factor in the discount) for two Firewire ports. Just put the brandname-loyalty aside for a minute and think about it - for the price difference you could get a whole new computer to go with the display.

The "better quality" argument is just a cover up, especially when, as threedaysdwn pointed out, the Apple displays are just re-branded LG's. Guess what - the new 2005FPW is a re-branded LG too.

The "looks" argument is not only ridiculous (you really need to learn the value of money if you're willing to throw away $500 on aesthetics), but also largely subjective. The 2001FP and the 2005FPW are far from ugly, in my opinion. The Apple Displays look elegant and unique, no doubt, but the Dells are just simple and professional (think IBM notebook design).

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see a clear winner here. ;)

585000835[/snapback]

Not to mention that the ACDs are far less adjustable in terms of tilt, swivel and height (the last two don't even apply).

Exactly!

Sometimes functionality is not the most important thing. If it already works just as well as the other product, then it better look nice and have something special about it.

On Friday I got my 20" Apple Cinema Display, and I don't regret the price. I did not consider any other monitor but the Cinema Display. I wasn't going to put that ugly Dell box on my PowerBook.

This Display doesn't look like your average monitor, it's a piece of art. The Aluminum frame, touch-sensitive power and brightness buttons ( 3G iPod-like) on the sides, and cable management (with white cables, by the way) make it worth its price.

I had the choice of value for my money or quality. I chose quality.

585006502[/snapback]

That just made me crack up. :p

Have you tried getting a Netgear, Linksys or DLink wifi card to work out of the box without a single hacked / 3rd party driver?

The fact of the matter is People do have brand loyalty. Often because its a tried and tested option for their requirements. It doesn't make their decision any less informed than anyone elses, they choose to buy the brands the like for reasons of security when it comes to compatibility.

I for one am looking at getting two 23" Displays for the recording studio i'm putting together. I've been looking at only one other monitor so far thats looked apealing and thats an HP. I've given others a shot yet not can compete thus far in my opinion with the new line of cinema displays.

Please don't take my response as one agreesive towards you it's merely to point out that people buy what they like.

it's all relative to man having the ability to make choices :)  and some choosing apple.

No ones choice is a bad choice simply because it's their choice.  (aside from faulty merchandise of course lol )

585007550[/snapback]

Be careful with the 23 inch; huge problems with pink shifts most notable in gray areas such as the brushed metal of iTunes. It was the main reason (there were others) that made me look elsewhere for my new display.

[SpeakNoSparky]

Be careful with the 23 inch; huge problems with pink shifts most notable in gray areas such as the brushed metal of iTunes. It was the main reason (there were others) that made me look elsewhere for my new display.

Now here is a great contribution. Thank you, Mav Phoenix, for useful information! As far as the Apple's lack of swivel and height adjustment, there are VESA mounts available for those that want something adjustable at the cost of losing aesthetics. Otherwise, I honestly like both brands. But I would be concerned if the monitor's color reproduction is poor.

Thanks again, Mav!

[NetRyder]

The thread seems to be going off-topic with discussions on market-share and other Apple products. Stick to the topic, people - we're talking about the Dell 2005FPW and the Apple display.

Right... and Kia > Mercedes... They both do the same things right?

585005934[/snapback]

People tend to use analogies when they have no real argument. Don't be one of those people.

As ike pointed out, the difference between a Kia and a Mercedes is not just "looks." There is a world of a difference in terms of comfort, features like DVD players, GPS navigation, sound systems, as well as engine performance. The Kia might cost less than the Merc, but apart from the price it offers no advantages over the Merc.

In case of the two displays, the situation is VERY different. The 2005FPW not only costs significantly less, but actually offers tangible advantages over the Apple display. The Merc offers better comfort, features and performance - the 2005FPW offers better display quality, and S-Video/PiP support. The only advantage the Apple display offers is "looks."

Take a look at Huezo's post, for instance:

This Display doesn't look like your average monitor, it's a piece of art. The Aluminum frame, touch-sensitive power and brightness buttons ( 3G iPod-like) on the sides, and cable management (with white cables, by the way) make it worth its price.

Do you see any real Mercedes-like advantages in there? It's all just looks and show. When you're considering a display, what's more important? Better picture quality and more value for money, or an aluminium frame and white cables? According to Huezo, it's the latter.

I had the choice of value for my money or quality. I chose quality.

585006502[/snapback]

No, you didn't. Like Chad said, you chose Apple. Your decision was obviously based only on externals, rather than real advantages. What you do with your money is not my concern, but just remember that you're only shooting yourself in the foot. The fact that you're willing to pay almost double the price for a display that has lower specs than a lower-priced competitor just gives Apple the chance to get away with it. If people stopped buying Apple displays, Apple would be forced to reduce prices, only making it better for customers. I don't understand how someone wouldn't want that. It suprises me.

Remember, it's not just the question of price difference; we're talking about REAL advantages that the Dell has over the Apple. If Apple offered a monitor with better specs than the Dell for a higher price than the Dell, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Have you tried getting a Netgear, Linksys or DLink wifi card to work out of the box without a single hacked / 3rd party driver?

585007550[/snapback]

Ummm...the AirPort Express streams music wirelessly!  It's NOT just a wireless router!

585008271[/snapback]

Chad was talking about the Airport Extreme router, not the Airport Express, or the internal wireless cards. What he says is absolutely true. Competing wireless routers offered by Netgear, Linksys, D-Link etc. work out-of-the-box, just like the Airport Extreme does. In many cases, they even offer more configurability and better range (dual antennae). Yet, the AE is priced higher, again simply because of the Apple sticker and the "pristine looks" - and Apple customers continue to buy them. This is what it surprising all of us.

Edited November 29, 2004 by NetRyder

[NetRyder]

And what about quality?  Color depth?  Nothing you guys have put on this post has really been convincing enough to declare a winner here.

585010543[/snapback]

I think you may have missed some posts. Go ahead and compare the specs of the 2005FPW and the 20" Apple Display:

Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW:

- Size: 20.1" viewable

- Dot pitch (lower = better): 0.255 mm pixel pitch

- Max/Native Res: 1680x1050

- Brightness (higher = better): 300 cd/m2

- Contrast Ratio (higher = better): 600:1

- Response time (lower = better): 12 ms

- Connections: DVI, VGA, S-Video, 4 USB 2.0 ports

- Price: $799. (before rebates)

Apple 20" Display:

- Size: 20" viewable

- Dot pitch (smaller = better): 0.258 mm pixel pitch

- Max/Native Res: 1680x1050

- Brightness (higher = better): 250 cd/m2

- Contrast Ratio (higher = better): 400:1

- Response time (lower = better): 16 ms

- Connections: DVI, 2 USB 2.0 ports, 2 Firewire 400 ports

- Price: $1,299.

The 2005FPW is better in terms of dot-pitch, brightness, contrast ratio, and response time. These are the core specs any informed buyer will look at when deciding on an LCD display. According to some people here, the Apple display is "better" by the fact that it has an aluminium frame and white cables.

People continue to mention "quality" in all their posts, claiming that Apple is better in terms of this mysterious thing called "quality."

Tell me something - what defines quality? Both displays are re-branded LG's, which means they are manufactured by the same company in the same factories. The Dell is one step above the Apple in terms of the picture it displays - as is obviously evident from the specs posted above. Fact. 300 cd/m2, 600:1, 12ms is better than 250 cd/m2, 400:1, 16 ms, or do you want to disagree with me on that as well? So to me, it seems like the display "quality" of the 2005FPW is clearly better than that of the Apple. So what is this "quality" that the rest of you speak of, which makes the ACD any better than the Dell?

[NetRyder]

I could go to Wal-Mart and buy a tshirt for $10 or I could go to the mall and pay $20 for one that I think looks a bit better

585009697[/snapback]

Now you know why I hate analogies - they're overused, and 99% of the time, they are completely accurate. Case in point - the Kia vs. Mercedes, and now this.

[aldo]

Please show me a Dell system that has better specs than a 17" iMac (since you said $1400, which is halfway between the prices of the two 17" models, priced at 1299 and 1499), and only costs $700.  To have better specs, it would have to at least include every feature the iMac includes (including all ports, etc.) and have a 17" (or bigger) widescreen display (I'll even allow the display to be separate, since Dell doesn't make integrated systems).  Remember that the iMac has Serial ATA and either a combo drive or a SuperDrive depending on which side of $1400 you want to go.  Also, last time I looked, Dell didn't sell any consumer systems with a 64-bit processor.

edit: by the way, Apple lists 1 to 3 business days shipping time for the 17" iMacs, so how are you saying that there are far too few to buy?  Seems like you could buy one rather easily if you wanted to.  My local CompUSA has them in stock.

585010451[/snapback]

Fine, I'll do it for the $1,299 model.

Apple iMac G5:

17-inch widescreen LCD

1.6GHz PowerPC G5

512K L2 cache

533MHz frontside bus

256MB DDR400 SDRAM

NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra

64MB DDR video memory

80GB Serial ATA hard drive

$1,299.00

Dell:

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/f...s=19&l=en&s=dhs

P4 2.8GHz w/ HT & 800MHz FSB

128MB PCI-E Radeon x300 (upgrade it)

512MB DDR400 Dual Channel RAM

160GB SATA hard drive (upgrade it)

17" TFT

DVD & CDRW.

$858

It's a vastly faster machine, for, ok, not half price but 2/3rd price. Sure, it doesn't have Panther, but it has twice the RAM, twice the HDD, (nearly) twice the CPU (not 64bit but panther isn't 64bit so its moot), twice the FSB and finally a vastly faster GPU with twice the VRAM.

edit: also. Sure, you can buy one, but try buying a few thousand for a corperate rollout. The fact of the matter is that you can't. Dell can do that.

Edited November 29, 2004 by aldo

[NetRyder]

aldo, forget it. This discussion was about the displays, not the computers. The latter has been done to death, and there are valid arguments on both sides. Some people feel that OS X itself is enough to justify the the higher price of Apple computers, and I respect that opinion.

On the other hand, in these 5 pages of posts, I have yet to see a valid, convincing reason why someone would rationally choose the 20" ACD over the 2005FPW.

[aldo]

aldo, forget it. This discussion was about the displays, not the computers. The latter has been done to death, and there are valid arguments on both sides. Some people feel that OS X itself is enough to justify the the higher price of Apple computers, and I respect that opinion.

On the other hand, in these 5 pages of posts, I have yet to see a valid, convincing reason why someone would rationally choose the 20" ACD over the 2005FPW.

585011461[/snapback]

Yea, I agree. Sorry, but every time someone challenges me to put up a Dell system for half the price and twice the specs I just can't help but do it... heh.

[thetechroom]

wait your not actually comparing the CPU's are you?

The architecture of the PowerPC chips is totallyy different to that of the Pentium 4 chips.

Oh and what about the screen coming with that Dell computer nothing compared to the one in the Mac, surely...

Also comparing the dull dell pc and the lushious Macintosh you have to give consideration of its looks and how much desk space it saves....

[thetechroom]

I have had bad experience with Dells in the past, which is why I choose the ADC over the dell screen even if I am paying the load of money extra surely thats valid enough for you?

[NetRyder]

I have had bad experience with Dells in the past, which is why I choose the ADC over the dell screen even if I am paying the load of money extra surely thats valid enough for you?

585011494[/snapback]

Thank you! That is possibly the first and only convincing reason I have seen in this thread. Going to someone else because you had a bad experience with a certain company sounds justifiable enough.

Of course, I'm willing to bet that more Dell customers have been happy with their purchases than those who weren't. There is a reason why they are the largest in the world. I'm also willing to bet that most other people here who are choosing the ACD over the Dell have never had a bad experience with a Dell display in the past...in fact, many of them have probably never even used one.

Besides, you can't even be sure that you're going to always end up with a perfect product even after paying a huge premium. Take Mav Phoenix's point above, for example - the 23" ACDs have their share of defects too.

It's a hit or miss situation - sometimes you end up with a lemon, but most of the time, people end up being happy with the products they purchase.

[Steven]

I think you may have missed some posts. Go ahead and compare the specs of the 2005FPW and the 20" Apple Display:

Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW:

- Size: 20.1" viewable

- Dot pitch (lower = better): 0.255 mm pixel pitch

- Max/Native Res: 1680x1050

- Brightness (higher = better): 300 cd/m2

- Contrast Ratio (higher = better): 600:1

- Response time (lower = better): 12 ms

- Connections: DVI, VGA, S-Video, 4 USB 2.0 ports

- Price: $799. (before rebates)

Apple 20" Display:

- Size: 20" viewable

- Dot pitch (smaller = better): 0.258 mm pixel pitch

- Max/Native Res: 1680x1050

- Brightness (higher = better): 250 cd/m2

- Contrast Ratio (higher = better): 400:1

- Response time (lower = better): 16 ms

- Connections: DVI, 2 USB 2.0 ports, 2 Firewire 400 ports

- Price: $1,299.

The 2005FPW is better in terms of dot-pitch, brightness, contrast ratio, and response time. These are the core specs any informed buyer will look at when deciding on an LCD display. According to some people here, the Apple display is "better" by the fact that it has an aluminium frame and white cables.

People continue to mention "quality" in all their posts, claiming that Apple is better in terms of this mysterious thing called "quality."

Tell me something - what defines quality? Both displays are re-branded LG's, which means they are manufactured by the same company in the same factories. The Dell is one step above the Apple in terms of the picture it displays - as is obviously evident from the specs posted above. Fact. 300 cd/m2, 600:1, 12ms is better than 250 cd/m2, 400:1, 16 ms, or do you want to disagree with me on that as well? So to me, it seems like the display "quality" of the 2005FPW is clearly better than that of the Apple. So what is this "quality" that the rest of you speak of, which makes the ACD any better than the Dell?

585010743[/snapback]

Topic Justified. Price, Quality and Performance all side with Dell there. How can anyone dispute that?

That alone is the rediculous reason why you DON"T spend $500.00 for looks.

My 2001FP is better than most montiors around. Though its not the 2005FPW its just about the same. The Black Border and Dell Logo matter NOTHING TO ME.

I do not drool over the looks, I drool over the screen!