2005FPW question....

[stealth]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Regarding the difference in resolutions, would the 2005FPW set at the native
1680 X 1050 provide as much or more "real estate" than two separate 17" LCD
monitors set at 1280 X 1024? I'm contemplating using two wide aspect
monitors by vertically dividing the screen in half in lieu of using four
smaller monitors for use with a stock trading platform, but I don't know how
to correlate the differences in resolutions, or whether placing two windows
side-by-side on one 2005FPW would be adequate enough without having to
scroll versus using two 17"'s.


Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

s

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

stealth wrote:
> Regarding the difference in resolutions, would the 2005FPW set at the native
> 1680 X 1050 provide as much or more "real estate" than two separate 17" LCD
> monitors set at 1280 X 1024?

Obviously not. The two 17" monitors would provide 2560x1024, or 48% more
pixels.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:46:34 -0500, "stealth" <stealthyREMOVE@att.net>
wrote:

>Any input would be appreciated.

Well, it's not quite on point for your question, think about this: the
2005 at 1680X1050 is a mere 80 pix wider than the 2001. But it's 150
pix shorter. Or, 1,764,000 pix v. 1,920,000 pix on the 2001.
That's a net loss of 8.125% of the real estate for the same price.
This just doesn't make sense to me, to trade the addition of 80 pix
vertically for the loss of 150 pix horizontally. I find it a bit
difficult to believe that those 80 pix would make the difference in
being able to position two windows side-by-side or not. And for that,
you're losing quite a few lines off the bottom.

Chalk this up to my lust for the 2001, maybe. I don't know whether
I'm gonna be able to restrain myself when the price finally dips below
$500 after the holidays.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I'm sure their are alot of good 2005FPW screens out their but, on the Dell
Comunity forums and some others their has been alot of folks that claim to
have issues with backlighting and dead pixels.



"FoggyBottom" <fogbottom@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:gofks0dacbbi058vc3mkjtgeauus8m5tmo@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:46:34 -0500, "stealth" <stealthyREMOVE@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Any input would be appreciated.
>
> Well, it's not quite on point for your question, think about this: the
> 2005 at 1680X1050 is a mere 80 pix wider than the 2001. But it's 150
> pix shorter. Or, 1,764,000 pix v. 1,920,000 pix on the 2001.
> That's a net loss of 8.125% of the real estate for the same price.
> This just doesn't make sense to me, to trade the addition of 80 pix
> vertically for the loss of 150 pix horizontally. I find it a bit
> difficult to believe that those 80 pix would make the difference in
> being able to position two windows side-by-side or not. And for that,
> you're losing quite a few lines off the bottom.
>
> Chalk this up to my lust for the 2001, maybe. I don't know whether
> I'm gonna be able to restrain myself when the price finally dips below
> $500 after the holidays.

 

[stealth]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Almy" <webmaster5@almy.us> wrote in message
news:cqaa3201cv3@enews1.newsguy.com...
> stealth wrote:
>> Regarding the difference in resolutions, would the 2005FPW set at the
>> native 1680 X 1050 provide as much or more "real estate" than two
>> separate 17" LCD monitors set at 1280 X 1024?
>
> Obviously not. The two 17" monitors would provide 2560x1024, or 48% more
> pixels.


You just add up the pixels to compare equivalent screen size?

s

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

stealth wrote:

> You just add up the pixels to compare equivalent screen size?

Yes, to know how much information you can display.

 

[stealth]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"FoggyBottom" <fogbottom@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:gofks0dacbbi058vc3mkjtgeauus8m5tmo@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:46:34 -0500, "stealth" <stealthyREMOVE@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Any input would be appreciated.
>
> Well, it's not quite on point for your question, think about this: the
> 2005 at 1680X1050 is a mere 80 pix wider than the 2001. But it's 150
> pix shorter. Or, 1,764,000 pix v. 1,920,000 pix on the 2001.
> That's a net loss of 8.125% of the real estate for the same price.
> This just doesn't make sense to me, to trade the addition of 80 pix
> vertically for the loss of 150 pix horizontally. I find it a bit
> difficult to believe that those 80 pix would make the difference in
> being able to position two windows side-by-side or not. And for that,
> you're losing quite a few lines off the bottom.
>
> Chalk this up to my lust for the 2001, maybe. I don't know whether
> I'm gonna be able to restrain myself when the price finally dips below
> $500 after the holidays.


Thanks for the indepth answer. Given the responses, I am now leaning towards
four-six 17's mounted on a stand. Thanks to all!

s

 

[stealth]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Almy" <webmaster5@almy.us> wrote in message
news:cquo3602c0a@enews4.newsguy.com...
> stealth wrote:
>
>> You just add up the pixels to compare equivalent screen size?
>
> Yes, to know how much information you can display.


Gee, that was easy! I was expecting that the answer required some long
drawn out mathematical equation involving an advanced degree in some yet to
be discovered futuristic abstract calculus. <g>


Thanks!

s