LCD Monitor Recommendations

[tgillespie]

Some of the specs don't match up. Weight, and case dimensions for one.

Samsung makes nothing but the actual LCD. Dell makes the enclosure, stand, components, everything else. No way to tell whether its a Samsung or LG without taking a look. My guess is that its a version 2 as I doubt they would be rolling out old versions.

[ManagerJosh]

But the dell enclosures look a lot smaller...so how could it be a lot heavier?

[tgillespie]

But the dell enclosures look a lot smaller...so how could it be a lot heavier?

Probably because the Dell version has 2 USB ports with uplink and power supply, S-Video, and Component hardware built in.

[Sergio68]

Get a 20,1" widescreen in the middle, and the 2x 17" on the left/right of it

This can be a very good idea, same proportions, same height, no money wasted

(plus a second video card, probably PCI, to drive the third monitor)

Of course

Any suggestments for the PCI card ? It's a Power Mac Dual G5

[filburt1]

Probably because the Dell version has 2 USB ports with uplink and power supply, S-Video, and Component hardware built in.

The 2001FP and therefore probably the 2007FP actually has a four-port hub; the two ports you see on the side are also complimented by two ports behind the monitor.

[Radon3k]

Thanks for the recommendations. At this point, if the Dell screen is actually a Samsung, I might as well go for that. I'm not overly worried about the USB ports on the monitor (though it is a nice feature) so the Samsung should do just fine.

[filburt1]

Thanks for the recommendations. At this point, if the Dell screen is actually a Samsung, I might as well go for that. I'm not overly worried about the USB ports on the monitor (though it is a nice feature) so the Samsung should do just fine.

You'll actually grow to appreciate them quite a bit...it's a great convenience to have USB ports within arms reach, not on the floor.

[Jerry]

I have two 2001FP's.

Though one has a fault line on it now, so when I upgrade/replace my current system I'll go for 2 or 3 2007FP's I think, and use the one good flat left for kvm'ing amongst servers or eBay it etc.

Though most of my choice would be made on brand loyalty with out more research.

[MRGTB]

Personally, I would avoid any wide screen LCD's. Stick with a standard square type. Also if you like gaming get one with a fast ms rate. I got a NEC 19inch 90 GX2 with a 4ms rate. Which can display up to 1280X1024. Cost me £260

That also comes with a USB Port and have Analog and DVi connection

[filburt1]

Remember, though, that 1280 x 1024 is not a standard 4:3 aspect ratio, but an even more square 5:4.

[MRGTB]

Well what I was getting at with the wide screens. Is they tend to act like a wide screen TV and stretch things like desktop background images. Ever seen Windows Home Desktop on a wide screen LCD. Looks awful and distorted on the XP Home logo bit. For me there like the wide screen TV's. the display just look weird and not right in wide screen. Thats why i personally would avoid them and stay with a standard square type LCD. plus not all games support them proper and look all stretched and strange

[filburt1]

Well what I was getting at with the wide screens. Is they tend to act like a wide screen TV and stretch things like desktop background images. Ever seen Windows Home Desktop on a wide screen LCD. Looks awful and distorted on the XP Home logo bit. For me there like the wide screen TV's. the display just look weird and not right in wide screen. Thats why i personally would avoid them and stay with a standard square type LCD. plus not all games support them proper

Each to his own, of course. Naturally 4:3 LCDs won't have as many compatibility issues as 16:10 screens (16:9 would make a lot more sense, by the way). However, Windows seems to support it okay in my experience. You'll want to probably select a native widescreen wallpaper, yes, but Mac OS X comes with them, and Vista certainly will as well (and obviously they're easy to come by with a Google Image search).

Games, yes, that's another issue. Only very recent games properly support 16:10 without a bunch of screwing around in a console or config file...amusingly, Quake 3 gets it just fine through the console sans for a distorted reticle.

[MRGTB]

Personally I don't like them. Even though some would argue they give you more desktop space width ways to play around with. For me, I just can't get used to the display much the same way I hate viewing a wide screen TV. Just can't get used to the way things looked stretched sideways, just doesn't look right to me. Plus some games leave you with black side bands down the left and right side of games. Instead of them filling the whole screen like they do on a conventional LCD. Support will get better no doubt, but for now there are to many issues with them for my liking.

[Freesteyelz]

Well, whatever the max resolution is for the LCD, use that setting only.

[tgillespie]

Personally I don't like them. Even though some would argue they give you more desktop space width ways to play around with. For me, I just can't get used to the display much the same way I hate viewing a wide screen TV. Just can't get used to the way things looked stretched sideways, just doesn't look right to me. Plus some games leave you with black side bands down the left and right side of games. Instead of them filling the whole screen like they do on a conventional LCD. Support will get better no doubt, but for now there are to many issues with them for my liking.

I run a widescreen monitor and have no issues with images/pixel stretching. The only time one would run into stretching issues would be with an unsupported game. Otherwise, its not a problem what so ever.