2 Intern

 • 

370 Posts

November 1st, 2004 16:00

Makena,

I'd suggest you ought to actually look at some monitors in these sizes at the two resolutions Jeffpriz referred to since you really have to stick with the "native" resolution.  These are both beautiful monitors, but I personally prefer the 1280x1024 resolution over 1600x1200 even though the latter is on a bigger screen.  But it's personal preference.

10 Posts

November 1st, 2004 16:00

Two of the other big differences between the two monitors:

1901 1280 x 1024 Resolution and 25ms response
2001 1600 x 1200 resolution and 16ms response

I have the 2001fp and love it..

Message Edited by jeffpriz on 11-01-2004 12:17 PM

1K Posts

November 1st, 2004 23:00

As far as image quality, having both side by side I definitely give the edge to the 2001. The 1600x1200 is not that much smaller then the 1280x1024 on the 1901, you can make some adjustment with the DPI and the XP zoom feature if needed. (Ctrl+scroll on mouse).

Jury is out on the 2001FP monitor reliability or any other issues, as it is still pretty new. The 1901 is a little over a year old and has been a rock solid LCD, and top quality image. Zero dead or locked pixel.

You probably want to look at the new 1905 though I would think, faster response time and incredible contrast ratio (by specs). Haven't actually seen it yet though. Local Dell Kiosk had the 2001 though and I bought one in a nano second.

2 Posts

November 2nd, 2004 21:00

Thanks so much to each of you. You have been exceptionally helpful. You all brought up some very good points for consideration. I now fell much more confident in making a decision.

You guys are the best...Regards to all,

Makena

No Events found!

Top