20" widescreen at 1680x1050

I'm thinking of getting one of dells 20" wide screen monitors at
1680x1050 but am concerned of the high resolution. Will web pages
appear small and the menu items at the top of the screen maybe too
small. I have a 19" 1280x1024 and think the images and web pages are
good. Would you recommend this monitor? its mostly going to be used
by my 71 year old dad but thought the size would make it ideal for
stock quotes on one side and graphs on the other.

tia,
Chris

i cannot recommend that size at that resolution.
everyone i know that has one hates it, esp if they came from a regular
aspect. dot pitch is .26
i only like the 20 in non-wide aspect.

then i would go to the 22 wide (model 2208), or 24 wide.
the 22 wide is about as tall as the 19 regular, and almost 4 inches
wider, but the resolution is 1680x1050 and its on sale now for about
$300. dot pitch is just a tad smaller than the 19inch you are used to
at .28

i just picked up 4 of them, people like them.
they even have a special edition 22inch in silver, with a built in
webcam and microphones for $320, model sp2208
i ordered one of those also, coming tomorrow.


Chris wrote:
> I'm thinking of getting one of dells 20" wide screen monitors at
> 1680x1050 but am concerned of the high resolution. Will web pages
> appear small and the menu items at the top of the screen maybe too
> small. I have a 19" 1280x1024 and think the images and web pages are
> good. Would you recommend this monitor? its mostly going to be used
> by my 71 year old dad but thought the size would make it ideal for
> stock quotes on one side and graphs on the other.
>
> tia,
> Chris

Chris, did transcribed the following::
> I'm thinking of getting one of dells 20" wide screen monitors at
> 1680x1050 but am concerned of the high resolution. Will web pages
> appear small and the menu items at the top of the screen maybe too
> small. I have a 19" 1280x1024 and think the images and web pages are
> good. Would you recommend this monitor? its mostly going to be used
> by my 71 year old dad but thought the size would make it ideal for
> stock quotes on one side and graphs on the other.
>
> tia,
> Chris
>

I have the Dell 2007WSFP using a a 256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro.
I have really enjoyed this monitor. I bought this to replace a
6 year old 17" standard LCD screen that was slowly giving up the
ghost.... I run it at the max setting of 1680x1050 32bit color.
And have it connected to the DVI input ports of the X1300.
That said, I looked at the larger 22 and 24" models, and cost won
out in the end. Plus after checking out the physical dimensions
I found that the screen height was close to the height of my 17"
standard LCD. I think you will find that the physical height of
the the 19" that you are replacing will be closer to that of the
22" WS.

Just something to think about.
JDa

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 02:10:49 -0500, Jay B <jayB@audiman.net> wrote:

>i cannot recommend that size at that resolution.
>everyone i know that has one hates it, esp if they came from a regular
>aspect. dot pitch is .26
>i only like the 20 in non-wide aspect.
>
>then i would go to the 22 wide (model 2208), or 24 wide.
>the 22 wide is about as tall as the 19 regular, and almost 4 inches
>wider, but the resolution is 1680x1050 and its on sale now for about
>$300. dot pitch is just a tad smaller than the 19inch you are used to
>at .28

I also would recommend the 22" wide or the 24 wide. The 24 wide would
be a big step up in "computing experience", at least it has been for
me.

I had a 22" wide for a while and liked it. I ended up selling it with
a system I was selling to get a higher price when I downsized from 4
monitors on my desktop PC to 2.

I have the 20" non-wide (1600 x 1200) and the 24" wide (I forgot the
dimensions 19xx x 1200). My recommendation would be, in order, 1) the
24" wide, 2) the 22" wide, and 3) the 20" non-wide.

You probably will go with the 22" wide -- it's the best bang for the
$$$.

Whats the difference between the E228WFP and 2208WFP besides price?

Chris

"Chris" <chris95008@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f85a9c23-dcb7-495f-9a3d-01b1f79cb545@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I'm thinking of getting one of dells 20" wide screen monitors at
> 1680x1050 but am concerned of the high resolution. Will web pages
> appear small and the menu items at the top of the screen maybe too
> small. I have a 19" 1280x1024 and think the images and web pages are
> good. Would you recommend this monitor? its mostly going to be used
> by my 71 year old dad but thought the size would make it ideal for
> stock quotes on one side and graphs on the other.
>
> tia,
> Chris


For basic web browsing, I think the widescreen format is wasted. The
standard, square-size display looks better for that. I have a 22" inch
widescreen monitor, and have to resize the Firefox browser window because
too much space is wasted when it is full screen, or the content is
off-center.

the first (E228) is non-ultra wide, and the second (2208) is ultra wide.

the screen itself and resolution and size is the same. ultra is suppose
to be better, but i dont see any difference.

the ultra has usb ports and will tilt, swivel and raise up and down.

the ultra is on sale now, same or cheaper than non-ultra. so its a no
brainer.




Chris wrote:
> Whats the difference between the E228WFP and 2208WFP besides price?
>
> Chris
>
>

i tend to agree about the wide screens. i dont really like them either
for the same reason.
that's why you notice it more in the 19 and 20 inch models.
i will never use them or recommend.
when it gets to 22inch, the height and resolution is really the same as
a 19inch,
so you may not notice the difference.

my preferences are the same as journey's: 24, 22, then 20 non-wide,
then 19 non-wide




History Fan wrote:
> "Chris" <chris95008@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f85a9c23-dcb7-495f-9a3d-01b1f79cb545@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm thinking of getting one of dells 20" wide screen monitors at
>> 1680x1050 but am concerned of the high resolution. Will web pages
>> appear small and the menu items at the top of the screen maybe too
>> small. I have a 19" 1280x1024 and think the images and web pages are
>> good. Would you recommend this monitor? its mostly going to be used
>> by my 71 year old dad but thought the size would make it ideal for
>> stock quotes on one side and graphs on the other.
>>
>> tia,
>> Chris
>
>
> For basic web browsing, I think the widescreen format is wasted. The
> standard, square-size display looks better for that. I have a 22" inch
> widescreen monitor, and have to resize the Firefox browser window because
> too much space is wasted when it is full screen, or the content is
> off-center.
>
>

Chris wrote:
> I'm thinking of getting one of dells 20" wide screen monitors at
> 1680x1050 but am concerned of the high resolution. Will web pages
> appear small and the menu items at the top of the screen maybe too
> small. I have a 19" 1280x1024 and think the images and web pages are
> good. Would you recommend this monitor? its mostly going to be used
> by my 71 year old dad but thought the size would make it ideal for
> stock quotes on one side and graphs on the other.
>
> tia,
> Chris
I have the Dell 20" wide screen at home and at work I have a pair of
19s. The 20" is noticeably better than the 19s as far as image clarity
goes. Even with its finer pitch its more readable. Although it may be
that at work the video card is Dells ATI X300. But at home I sprang for
an nVidia 7900GTX. Also for that X300 to drive two monitors they have
to be in analog mode. I don't know what would happen if I were to plug
in a pair of 19" into the nVidia system which would allow the two to use
their digital mode. But my hope is that I would be impressed.