2007FP or 2007WFP

If you like having programs/documents side by side, the 2007wfp works a bit better, if you're an alt tabber and play games, the 2007fp is a bit better. All games don't do wide screen (although there are hacks for some) so if you game you may want to stick with the 2007fp. The 2007fp has slightly more real estate, but for music and video producers, looks like widescreen is better.

 

I'm trying to make that decision now myself.

 

I'm waiting to see if the shipped 2007 series has got the banding fixed so i don't order one too early.

For productivity (or even general purpose), I would get the FP all the way. You gain much more height on the FP than you lose in width. There is just a bigger chunk of screen real estate.

FP 1600x1200 ( 1.92 Million pixels)
WFP 1680x1050 ( 1.76 Million Pixels)

1680/1600 = %5 difference on the long end
1200/1050 = %14 difference on the short end

Think about it: there is a miniscule advantage in the width of the WFP and this is already your large dimension anyway. The FP has a much bigger advantage in your most constrained dimension. You wont notice the difference in width, you will notice the extra height.

If using in landscape the FP can nicely display two pages side by side, that extra height is better to get as much readable vertical space on the screen as possible.
http://i.pbase.com/o4/04/606404/1/59792622.facing.png

If running in portrait, without question, the FP is more suited. The WFP is too tall/skinny the FP is a much better fit, that extra width will free things up.

The only time I would consider the WFP if you were almost exclusively going to watch widescreen movies on it. For general usage the FP makes much more sense.

In terms of gaming in widescreen, check out:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Concur that the standard 4:3 aspect LCDs appear taller (simply because..
they are). So it comes down to a matter of personal preference, everyday
usage, and if you are happy with the LCD's native resolution.

That stated, I have a 1907 FP at work, and a 2007 WFP at home. I haven't
really played games at home , since I need to upgrade my GPU.
(That doesn't imply I play games at work : )

For general use, the widescreen monitor at home is nice. I watched the Matrix
(DVD) and did some light editing. I think optimally, though, I'd want to have
side-by-side 19 or 20" 4:3 aspect ratio LCDs.

My 0.02,

-s

The benefit of the Widescreen model is, of course, it's 16:10 ratio. It's not all about how many pixels you can display on screen. It's about how they are arranged. If you think not, then why not find a monitor that is 50 pixels high by 40000? That's 2 million pixels, but sure as heck not in any manner of use by dimension.

I do web and graphic work, and the widescreen format is SUCH a breath of fresh air. Programs like Dreamweaver and Photoshop that have panels that take up your real estate are now on the sides and you get a lot more room to work with the document than a 4:3 monitor would ever offer.

Also, 4:3 don't have more pixels than a 16:10 when done in respective resolutions.

You can't compare a 4:3's 1600x1200 when your 16:10's vertical resolution is closer to 1024, which is the vertical resoltuion of 1280x1024.

The comparison would be 4:3's 1280x1024 (1.3 million pixels) vs a 16:10's 1680x1050 (1.77 million pixels)

If we're talking about a 1600x1200 resolution, that would be the equivalant of a 16:10 resolution of 1920x1200. That's 4:3's 1.9 million vs 16:10's 2.3 million.

lol.  that is funny.  you use the vertical measurement to support your argument ... why not use the horizontal?

I think the better thing to use is the diagonal measurement when comparing and the general price point of the monitors to determine what's what.