I'm looking at LCD monitors and this one seems to stand out as the best for what I'm looking for. Does anyone have any experience with this or similar monitors? The price isn't really as much of an issue as much as the quality and performance. If anyone knows of a monitor that performs better, please recommend.

Basically, the 1600x1200 is crucial, the 5ms is important, and the 800:1 contrast is a minimum.

6/20/2006 1:28:46 PM

Dell 2001fp FTW... seriously, it's a great monitor. The 24" widescreen is even better. HP makes very good monitors in this class also. Both the Dells and HPs have better features and similar, if not better, prices.

6/20/2006 1:30:19 PM

Yeah, the 24" widescreen is sexy, but I can't rationalize spending nearly twice as much for it, when I could just get 2 of the 19" ones for slightly more. Anyway the 2007FP looks nice, I'll have to keep that one on the list. Thanks for the tip.

6/20/2006 1:51:18 PM

dual 1907s would be like 60$ more, got mine for $235 shipped(if dell still has the deal on em) . if u get samsung panels which alot do , u'rs looking at 6ms and 1000:1 , not sure ab the resolution thing though.

6/20/2006 3:29:13 PM

well, here's a question about video cards, then. I have a geforce 6600gt PCI-E card in my system now. I tried adding an old PCI video card to do dual monitors, but my system didn't like that much. It worked, with a great deal of coersion, but eventually it quit on me. How flexible am I on getting another PCI-E card. Does it have to be the same chipset/model/brand? How picky should I expect my computer to be about that?

ooh, another concern is the .294 dot pitch.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 3:50 PM. Reason : can't forget that dot pitch.]

6/20/2006 3:49:19 PM

I have two of them.

They're very nice and I would highly recommend them.

6/20/2006 5:18:52 PM

two of which, the 1907s?

6/20/2006 5:54:02 PM

The 204Bs.

I don't like anything below 1600x1200 and I don't like widescreen monitors.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 5:58 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 5:57:50 PM

btw i meant 2x1907s cost = 1 204b+$60.

6/20/2006 6:21:42 PM

Yeah, but 1280x1024 on a 19" monitor sucks.

6/20/2006 7:19:55 PM

204Bs are ~$400 now. 2 1907s would be $525.

6/20/2006 7:26:13 PM

You can get them for about $410 with a $50 worth of mail in rebates at Circuit City.

6/20/2006 7:35:25 PM

i got my 1907 for 235$shipped, dell has these deals pretty often and it's even been cheaper than 235 shipped (i think it was like 209 shipped at 1 point). 2x235=$470
they are on ebay for around that price brand new w/ warranty also. u may be able to find the samsung for cheaper too on there to though.


u mentioned u need a superfast response time so i imagine u plan on doing some gaming. keep in mind that most montitors don't display thier best image when they aren't in their native resolution. so if u got the samsung make sure ur videocard is good enough to play ur games at 1600x1200 or else you'll be watching a slideshow. the 6600 may not be powerful enough depending on which games u'e playing.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 8:37:52 PM

The blurring effect caused when an lcd is displaying a non-native resolution is not nearly as noticeable in games as it is for web pages and documents. It's also not nearly as bad with higher resolutions as it is with lower resolutions. For example, the blurring is much more bothersome if you run an XGA LCD at sub XGA resoltions as it is with a UXGA lcd at SXGA+.

But yeah, you probably already know your desktop better be in 1600x1200 unless you want to get headaches reading web pages and word documents. That WILL mean huge video card demands if you plan on using those goofy graphic effects in Vista at those resultions.

[Edited on June 21, 2006 at 12:09 AM. Reason : ]

6/21/2006 12:05:46 AM

Yeah, if I got a 19"+ monitor, I'd DEFINITELY be running 1600x1200 for Windows. That's really why I want that resolution. My monitor at work is 19" and it runs at 1280x1024 and it looks terrible. Everything's too big at that resolution on such a big monitor.

6/21/2006 7:44:45 AM

Good luck finding a 1600x1200 19" panel. For whatever reason they just don't seem to really exist. It's bizarre because I have a 16.1" 1600x1200 panel.

I have the two 204Bs at home and two 1280x1024 19" LCDs at work and the pixel pitch (or whatever it's called) of the latter drives me crazy. It's just too big.

[Edited on June 22, 2006 at 2:17 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2006 2:16:18 AM

^ I've noticed that, and it is really strange.

6/22/2006 7:51:05 AM

yeah, I don't really see a difference between 19" and 20", the resolution is definitely more important than the exact size.

6/22/2006 8:04:25 AM

You could always rob and kill someone with a 30" apple monitor. Solves two problems at once really.

6/22/2006 8:13:07 AM