Hard to say. What's good/great for some people may not be for others. You're the best person to define you current and future needs. You'll have to read through all the reviews for each model and pick which one sounds best to you.
The most important thing is, if possible, find each of your top choices at a local store so you can see them for yourself. Be aware I think some stores somehow split the signal to share with mutiple screens so they may possibly look better when directly attached to a PC.
Dont get whoo'd by the monitors saying their 19". Its actually smaller than I prefer because it is widescreen. A normal 19" is actually bigger in my opinion but hey whatever you like is what you should go for. If you budget is a little flexible go for a 22" widescreen which is a more reasonable size.
Not that there's anything wrong w/ them, but I'm used to working on 1280x1024 resolution; those all have native 1440x900 resolution. Lots of web pages, games, and other documents are formatted to look correct on a 1280x1024 resolution. There's nothing wrong with adding real estate, but you don't want to subtract any. So you will probably find that documents and web pages that used to look fine, now require you to scroll down to see the content at the bottom.
It's possible that you can set your resolution to 1280x1024, but then you get the big black bars on the sides, and the monitor (and/or graphics card) has to interpolate the best fit... which never works out right. Basically, you want to ALWAYS keep your output set to the native resolution (in this case, 1440x900).
Watching a DVD on these monitors will look better than your typical 4:3 (non-widescreen) monitor, and some games will look better in the 1440x900 resolution, but you will have to "look" up and down more often than you would on a 1280x1024 monitor. (although you won't have to look left/right as much... you will have better "periferal vision" w/ any of these.
BTW: same goes for all those 1366x768 monitors out there.
Personally, for under $200 I would stick w/ a traditional Acer or ViewSonic 1280x1024 4:3 ratio monitor.
I'm also not sure why everybody is clammoring for 19" as opposed to 17". I don't think bigger is necessarily better, especially when sitting at a desk. You're not getting any more resolution... not more pixels, just bigger pixels. But either way is fine... the price difference is not much.
BTW: I have two monitors on my home computer, an Acer 17" 1280x1024 and a Samsung 56" DLP HDTV (1920x1080). The big guy is for movies, but games look pretty darn good too. Text is a little fuzzy, but the huge widescreen lets you play from across the room.
I don't really like any of those LCDs especially the Viewsonic since it does not have DVI. They are all 6-bit LCDs since they are so cheap, but most people can't tell the difference between a cheap 6-bit LCD and a more expensive 8-bit LCD.
But if I were forced to choose one of these then I suppose it would be the Acer AL1916WAbd Black 19". Why? It doesn't come with crappy built in speakers.
I recently checked out the monitors (19") under $200.00. I believe the biggest viewing area is the 4:3 monitor. I finally bought a Hanns-G monitor (model 196-d) from pc connection. The cost was $129.95 after rebates and free shipping if you bought $250.00 in retail value on order.
The monitor arrived the next day and I had NO dead pixels. I played
Lord of the Rings on it and it looked great. I have had it for 4 months and no problems with it. Also I have viewed digital photos on it and they looked excellent.
My computer is a pentium 4 with radeon video card with DVI out (Monitor has both DVI and analog-comes with both cables).