So my buddies dad won a $1500 gift card at work for Dell. They don't have a need for it and don't want to hastle with buying something and ebaying. So they offered 20% off to me if I bought some stuff there. I also received a coupon in the mail good to end of the month for 20% off various things at Dell, too. This coincides nicely with me looking for some monitors to replace my old dual 17s.

So, I was looking at these configurations (prices are pre my discount, listed in order of total cost)

2 19" DVIs $339 each
3 17" DVIs at $260 each (+ AGP card needed for 3rd monitor puts cost about similar as the 24)
1 24" wide aspect at $879
2 20.1" DVI wide aspects $463 each

It seems like the 20.1" wide aspects give the best screen real estate for the buck, but is it really worth the significant premium over 2 19" monitors? What about the 3 17s, this combo intrigues me as well.

I only put the 24" wide in there for the heck of it. But, does it make sense to get a single one of these and then 1-2 years from now when these things get real cheap pick up a second one? The only gaming I might do will be Civ IV (if I ever get around to buying it) and this purchase will be intended to last me for up to 5 years or more (unless screens get sick cheap in that time).

Also, if anyone else interested, we might can work a deal where I offer you the 20% from my coupon and 10% of my buddies Dad's discount (me keeping the other 10% as my fee).

1/10/2006 10:59:17 AM

24" is nice, but no webpages are widescreen, and you constantly have to resize shit as hitting fullscreen stretchs out like a motherfucker

1/10/2006 11:27:16 AM

wait a month or two and get the 30.7" LCD

1/10/2006 1:29:15 PM

Is that a serious recommendation? It is $2200 right now. It isn't going to be anywhere near the cost of these others in 2 months, probably not in 6 months.

1/10/2006 1:47:56 PM

you said you had a 1500 dollar gift certificate. I'll bet it will be ~1500 bucks in the next 2-3 months with coupon codes and system bundle deals.

1/10/2006 1:58:05 PM

Read it again, or maybe I wasn't clear?

1/10/2006 1:59:53 PM

I have the 24" wide screen and I couldn't be any happier with it, the monitor is awesome, I can view two full size web pages at once side by side, also useful for coding with several open files or moving text around form different files while leaving them all visible and open.

1/10/2006 2:46:44 PM

I just started running 2 20.1" monitors at 1600x1200. The jury is still out, but I like it so far.

[Edited on January 10, 2006 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/10/2006 2:52:11 PM

No other opines?

1/11/2006 3:50:20 PM

2 20.1" DVI 4:3 (for about $350 each when the deal comes around)

Wide aspect really isn't all that grand for generaly office work, internet, and most game. Two widescreens side by side would be a strain, imho (just too wide).

If I had to choose from one of the above I'd probably get the single 24". You'll use one monitor the vast majority of the time anyways. Pick up a 19" or 20" 4:3 to go next to it at a later date.

1/11/2006 4:51:16 PM

two 19's or a 19 and a 20.1" wide

1/11/2006 5:10:51 PM

i have a dell ultrasharp widescreen and it is the best thing since sliced bread

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=368446

1/11/2006 5:16:38 PM

get the 24. I own the 20.1 4:3 screen (which is MUCH better than the 20.1 widescreen btw) and have used several 17 and 19" models.

The 24 is by far the best.

1/11/2006 7:26:30 PM

the Dell 2005fpw is the best monitor ive ever owned. VIVA WIDESCREEN!

1/12/2006 8:08:07 AM

except the non wide-screen 20" is better and the widescreen 24" is better

1/12/2006 2:22:04 PM

better how?

1/12/2006 2:39:30 PM

the 20" widescreen has a shitty refresh rate as do the 19 and 17's.

the 20.1 normal aspect lcd (the one im typing on right now) has a 16ms response rate. And the 20" widescreen is a waste for anything but movies, you get MORE screen on the 20.1 normal one.

The 24" has more inputs, a card reader, and is big enough to display two windows side by side.

1/12/2006 3:00:13 PM

In re. of the 20.1 4x3 to the 20.1 widescreen, you are exactly incorrect on specs, and don't you claim to be an authority on stuff around here?

[Edited on January 16, 2006 at 11:31 AM. Reason : x]

1/16/2006 11:31:34 AM

Just read an UPDATED review of the 2005fpw. Looks like they a) fixed a lot of the color issues, b) fixed issues with a stable 1680*1050 dvi signal and c) fixed the brightness issues.

As for my comments about the 2001fp vs the 2001fpw, you DO get more real estate with the 2001fp, 1,920,000 pixels versus 1764000 pixels. And if you are gaming on the fpw, good luck finding games you can actually play at native resolution, which either means playing in 4:3 (equiv to a ~17" 4:3 lcd) or scaling up the image (loss of quality).

Unless you are a big movie buff, the 2001fpw is a waste and it's certainly a waste to get two of them.

1/16/2006 11:52:33 AM

I agree on screen real estate, etc. Problem is, the FP is carrying a bit of a hefty premium over the FPW ($463 vs $630) at this point.

I think I am just going to go the dual 19" route even if the response time and contrast isn't as nice as the 20FP, the price is metric tons cheaper.

1/16/2006 12:39:52 PM