Final "what should I do" before I actually buy the monitor...

R

rayman2k2

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
8,069
Okay, I have 800 bucks, and I need an LCD, not a CRT. Okay then. Should I spend my 800 bucks buying:

Option 1: 1703FP save extra money for second one down the road...
Option 2: 191T+ save extra money for second one down the road...
or
Option 3: 2001fp and what extra money?

The 1703fp for it aesthetics and low ghost times, but a small screen compared to the others, the 191T+ because it looks good and I hear it does not ghost too much, 2001fp, need I say more?
 
i had a 17" lcd and i thought it was damn good, then i got a 2001fp and i was blown away... The 17" is SMALL... 191t ghost to much imho. 2001fp is the best LCD i have every used. Just wish i didnt have to rma now 3 of them to get one less then 7 dead pixels.

Still, its well worth the wait as dell lets me keep this one untill the new one gets here then i just send back the old one. All at Dells cost..
 
From what i heard theres a sale going on dell for 2001fp is going for less than $800.00
 
Prior to purchasing 2 2001FPs I was considering the 191T. I've always liked the 191T but was put off by the high response time. With new good looking fast response time displays out now, there's really no point in getting the 191T. I've not looked into the 1703FP, too small for me.

Obviously I'm going to say take advantage of the 20% discount on the 2001FP. Besides getting one heck of a display you might not need 2 of them. After all they do offer 1600x1200 res. Make sure you have a good fast video card though.
 
Originally posted by kmeson
Prior to purchasing 2 2001FPs I was considering the 191T. I've always liked the 191T but was put off by the high response time. With new good looking fast response time displays out now, there's really no point in getting the 191T. I've not looked into the 1703FP, too small for me.

Obviously I'm going to say take advantage of the 20% discount on the 2001FP. Besides getting one heck of a display you might not need 2 of them. After all they do offer 1600x1200 res. Make sure you have a good fast video card though.
Click to expand...


uh...hmm...hows the GF2MX400? Is that good enough.
 
Originally posted by rayman2k2
uh...hmm...hows the GF2MX400? Is that good enough.
Click to expand...

With a GF2mx400 you won't be playing games at the native resolution 1600x1200. As you probably know LCDs don't look as good when display is not at native resolution. However you could play at 800x600 and that shouldn't look too bad.

Of course the 2001FP has many options when displaying non-native resolutions: 1) 1:1, 2) Fit, 3) Aspect. With 1:1 you get a centered box of the reslution being displayed. 'Fit' does just that, it stretches the image to fit into 1600x1200. 'Aspect' uniformly scales the image, this may result in portions along the top/bottom or left/right not being used, e.g. black bars.

If you're not into games then I would think your MX would be fine.
 
Originally posted by kmeson
With a GF2mx400 you won't be playing games at the native resolution 1600x1200. As you probably know LCDs don't look as good when display is not at native resolution. However you could play at 800x600 and that shouldn't look too bad.

Of course the 2001FP has many options when displaying non-native resolutions: 1) 1:1, 2) Fit, 3) Aspect. With 1:1 you get a centered box of the reslution being displayed. 'Fit' does just that, it stretches the image to fit into 1600x1200. 'Aspect' uniformly scales the image, this may result in portions along the top/bottom or left/right not being used, e.g. black bars.

If you're not into games then I would think your MX would be fine.
Click to expand...

hmm...thanx!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top