Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ben.mcguire · Oct 7, 2005, 05:45 AM

I need your opinon please, I can pick up a dell 19" LCD for around £220 ish. Is the 20" widescreen that much better. Its like £200 odd pound more, I know its widescreen and a hight resolution but do you think it is worth the extra £££ for 1"

OreoCookie · Oct 7, 2005, 07:04 AM

No, you pay extra for a wide-screen monitor, not the extra resolution. And yes, for me it would be worth it. If it is for you, that's something you have to decide on your own. (A 19" LCD won't offer any advantage in terms of resolution compared to a 17" lcd.)

ben.mcguire · Oct 7, 2005, 07:18 AM

i thought as much beacuse there isnt much of a price gap between 17" or 19"

Cadaver · Oct 7, 2005, 09:33 PM

Typical LCD sizes/resolutions and megapixels (since its so popular of a way to spec cameras):

17", 18" and 19" LCD (squarish 5:4 aspect ratio): 1280 x 1024 (1.3MP)
20" (squarish 4:3 aspect ratio): 1600 x 1200 (1.9MP)
20" (widescreen 16:10): 1680 x 1050 (1.76MP)
23" and 24" (16:10): 1920 x 1200 (2.3MP)
30" (16:10): 2560 x 1600 (4.1MP)

The main difference between 17", 18" and 19" LCDs is the image size. The total number of pixels on the screen are all the same. There are a few widescreen 17" displays around - Sony makes one IIRC. They are 1280 x 768 pixels, and typically more expensive than a good standard 17" anyway (and you're really not gaining anything... you're losing pixels for the extra money, actually).

With 20" displays, you've got a choice between the "square" conventional-type display or a widescreen display. The choice is yours - you can have more pixels top-to-bottom or side-to-side. Personal preference... depends on how you work & what you work with.

23" 1920 x 1600 pixel widescreen displays are sold by Apple, HP and several others. Dell sells a 24" widescreen display with an otherwise identical resolution. Basically like a 20" conventional display top-to-bottom-wise, with extra pixels tacked on the sides.

Then there's Apple's big-boy option, the king of all displays, the 30" 2560 x 1600 widescreen display. More total pixels than two 20" displays added together. Expensive, but worth the price IMHO. I do a lot of medical graphics, and having the ability to have a 4 by 3 image matrix of full-diagnostic quality CT images open at once, on a singe display, is worth the $2600 (educational price) it cost me. I had been using two 20" 1600 x 1200 Dell 2001FP displays, and while good, there simply is no comparison. Plus I get more space top-to-bottom (room for the dock and other small miscellaneous windows).

Displays with higher resolution than the Apple 30" jump in price to $12K and above (and aren't compatible with most graphics cards anyway).

ben.mcguire · Oct 8, 2005, 04:58 AM

thanks for your opinon Cadaver, im not sure if my ibook could run 24" screen, plus no DVI so the apple displays are out of the question

The 20" dell widescreen currently has a 20% discount in europe, hopefully still will have when I have saved up the funds!!!

mduell · Oct 8, 2005, 02:09 PM

The 20" widescreen Dell also has many more pixels than the 19".
The 1" diagonal difference doesn't give you any significant change in screen area (due to the change in aspect ratio), but you get 35% more pixels.
Plus widescreen is just sexy

Cadaver · Oct 8, 2005, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by ben.mcguire

thanks for your opinon Cadaver, im not sure if my ibook could run 24" screen, plus no DVI so the apple displays are out of the question

The 20" dell widescreen currently has a 20% discount in europe, hopefully still will have when I have saved up the funds!!!

Ah, if you're using an iBook, you'll either have to use the dual-display hack, or you'll be stuck using mirrored displays at 1024 x 768. The iBook, without a hack, doesn't support dual independent displays (just mirror).

mduell · Oct 8, 2005, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Cadaver

Displays with higher resolution than the Apple 30" jump in price to $12K and above (and aren't compatible with most graphics cards anyway).

The IBM T221 is about $7k for over twice as many pixels as the 30" ACD (9.2m vs 4.2m). But it does require two duallink DVI ports, like the G5's 6800GT DDL has.

ben.mcguire · Oct 9, 2005, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Cadaver

Ah, if you're using an iBook, you'll either have to use the dual-display hack, or you'll be stuck using mirrored displays at 1024 x 768. The iBook, without a hack, doesn't support dual independent displays (just mirror).

Using the spanning doctor hack at the minute with an old 17" CRT,

The 20" widescreen Dell also has many more pixels than the 19".
The 1" diagonal difference doesn't give you any significant change in screen area (due to the change in aspect ratio), but you get 35% more pixels.
Plus widescreen is just sexy

I agree, I went and looked at the apple 20" yesterday to get an idea of size , damn I wish I had a powerbook and some more cash!!

ben.mcguire · Oct 13, 2005, 06:30 AM

Here's my Dilema,
Dell currently has this on sale for £356.00 inc vat/shipping. Do I buy now or wait till after xmas? I will be mega f***** if the price goes back up to £500.00 !!!

What do I do!!

mduell · Oct 13, 2005, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by ben.mcguire

Here's my Dilema,
Dell currently has this on sale for £356.00 inc vat/shipping. Do I buy now or wait till after xmas? I will be mega f***** if the price goes back up to £500.00 !!!

What do I do!!

356 quid is a good price... that'd be about $580 in the states before tax.

kcmac · Oct 13, 2005, 10:44 PM

Depends on what you are going to do with it. For a lot of graphic work, I prefer a wider screen due to all of the floating pallettes, etc. I also have multiple word documents open at once and work on a couple at the same time. Width is important to me for that as well.

For browsing and other general stuff, a taller screen might make more sense.

cb2001 · Oct 14, 2005, 01:16 AM

One of the other differences for Dell LCDs between 19" & below vs 20" and above, is the availability of S-video and Composite In on the monitor.

Not a very big deal, but it does let me watch TV (regular as well as PIP) on the dell decoding analog cable by my old VCR (its only use these days) for free, without having to invest in El Gato or some tuner VGA-KVM contraption.

Although, the 19" seems to be at the best value price point right now.

--

Originally Posted by Cadaver

Typical LCD sizes/resolutions and megapixels (since its so popular of a way to spec cameras):

17", 18" and 19" LCD (squarish 5:4 aspect ratio): 1280 x 1024 (1.3MP)
20" (squarish 4:3 aspect ratio): 1600 x 1200 (1.9MP)
20" (widescreen 16:10): 1680 x 1050 (1.76MP)
23" and 24" (16:10): 1920 x 1200 (2.3MP)
30" (16:10): 2560 x 1600 (4.1MP)

The main difference between 17", 18" and 19" LCDs is the image size. The total number of pixels on the screen are all the same. There are a few widescreen 17" displays around - Sony makes one IIRC. They are 1280 x 768 pixels, and typically more expensive than a good standard 17" anyway (and you're really not gaining anything... you're losing pixels for the extra money, actually).

With 20" displays, you've got a choice between the "square" conventional-type display or a widescreen display. The choice is yours - you can have more pixels top-to-bottom or side-to-side. Personal preference... depends on how you work & what you work with.

23" 1920 x 1600 pixel widescreen displays are sold by Apple, HP and several others. Dell sells a 24" widescreen display with an otherwise identical resolution. Basically like a 20" conventional display top-to-bottom-wise, with extra pixels tacked on the sides.

Then there's Apple's big-boy option, the king of all displays, the 30" 2560 x 1600 widescreen display. More total pixels than two 20" displays added together. Expensive, but worth the price IMHO. I do a lot of medical graphics, and having the ability to have a 4 by 3 image matrix of full-diagnostic quality CT images open at once, on a singe display, is worth the $2600 (educational price) it cost me. I had been using two 20" 1600 x 1200 Dell 2001FP displays, and while good, there simply is no comparison. Plus I get more space top-to-bottom (room for the dock and other small miscellaneous windows).

Displays with higher resolution than the Apple 30" jump in price to $12K and above (and aren't compatible with most graphics cards anyway).

ben.mcguire · Oct 14, 2005, 10:43 AM

yes I was hoping to use it with my PS2. Looks like im going to get this in the new year now , fingers crossed it will still be as cheap.

ben.mcguire · Oct 23, 2005, 02:18 PM

I did it but dont tell my g/f ,20" widescreen should be here next week some time, cant wait!!

ben.mcguire · Oct 25, 2005, 10:27 AM

Arrived today!! couldnt be happier

drissa · Oct 25, 2005, 05:48 PM

Well done Ben. Mine arrived tonight and I've just set it up. Incredible. I've only just stopped grinning after flipping the screen over and changing the image settings.

I'm not sure if it's any sharper than my previous CRT, but it's certainly brighter. The connectivity is great. And for video and audio work, it'll be wonderful.

ben.mcguire · Oct 26, 2005, 01:46 AM

I cant stop looking at it! it is SO bright, maybe to bright, makes my ibook screen look washed out out.
Just need to save up for a dsek to put it on now!! http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne...941&size=o

Madrag · Oct 26, 2005, 04:16 AM

I have been looking for LCDs and measured the height of the 20" ACD (only the screen) and found that it is smaller than a 19" 4:3 LCD...

I know you gain more space in the width.

Can anyone confirm that it is smaller in height?

nJm · Oct 26, 2005, 06:41 AM

19" LCDs are 5:4 not 4:3. I really don't like the 5:4 aspect ratio of the current crop of 17" and 19" LCDs. I much prefer widescreen, it just seems more natural and it is so much better for watching movies (my mac doubles as a DVD player for the bedroom).

Madrag · Oct 26, 2005, 10:16 AM

you're right, it's 5:4...

But as for the height of the 20" ACD, in comparison to a 19" 5:4, it only gains in width and not height (well only 26px)...

If I were to buy a 20" I would prefer a non-wide screen, but after reading some threads, I understand is more or less a matter of taste really.