I feel like I'm missing something about these 2001fps [Archive]

Freakin

02-10-2005, 09:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I mean I'm obviously going to get one. I have to because I am a multi-tabler and a 2+2er and I want to fit in. I was just wondering what to expect...

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you already answered your own question? Fitting in is what you can expect. Oh, and I heard they can get you laid more too, which is potentially -EV depending on your constitution.

Freakin

dgoldsmith

02-10-2005, 10:08 PM

1) LCDs are easier on the eyes then CRTs for extended periods of time.
2) Footprint is smaller on desk.
3) Dell 2001FP stand is very flexible for height, tilt and swivel adjustments.
4) 4 video inputs, possibly lower power requirement
5) Cause it's a 20-inch LCD /images/graemlins/grin.gif
6) Cause every serious 2+2'er has one /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
7) Just cause /images/graemlins/cool.gif

ThePinkBunny

02-10-2005, 10:11 PM

I have a 19" CRT that does something like 2500x1600, but its hard to read.

My laptop's 17" 1920x1200 is easy on the eyes. I have a dell coming to replace my crt.

MikeyObviously

02-10-2005, 10:13 PM

Yeah, I like the style too. Having 2 2001fps on my desk would be pretty stylish. Having a 19 inch CRT and a 17 inch CRT of complete different brands, colors, and resolutions is just nerdy. Plus it takes up my entire desk...

MikeyObviously

02-10-2005, 10:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have a dell coming to replace my crt.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha. I think I am going to get one too. I just want a flat panel, thats all there is to it. how are you getting rid of the crt?

surfdoc

02-10-2005, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am missing something here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, yeah, like half of your desk.

TomBrooks

02-11-2005, 12:38 AM

The screen is 1" bigger, it takes up less room, and some CRTs flicker.

Hermlord

02-11-2005, 01:06 AM

These guys are all fools....the Viewsonic VP211B (http://viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp211b/) is a much higher quality monitor, plus it's 1.3in bigger. Costs a lot more though. But with the hours we put in at the screen, I think it's worth it. Much easier to look at.

MicroBob

02-11-2005, 01:21 AM

I am probably the only "serious" 2+2'er who actually doesn't have one.

I keep waiting for someone to come out with something better.
I mean...these are 2001 models afterall....can't some company come up with 1900x1200 or something for a reasonable price?

I have a CRT that does 1600x1200 (actually it does more than that but it's pretty small)...and my laptop does 1400x1050.
So I feel like I'm behind the times.

I have a tinted screen-filter over my CRT that is much easier on the eyes then most CRT's I have dealt with.
I don't have any eye-strain problems with it or anything....which is pretty impressive because my eyes are sensitive to just about everything.

RED_RAIN

02-11-2005, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1) LCDs are easier on the eyes then CRTs for extended periods of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Look at refresh rates.

AA suited

02-11-2005, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) LCDs are easier on the eyes then CRTs for extended periods of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Look at refresh rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

CRT's refresh. the faster the refresh, the better on your eyes.

LCD's dont need to refresh. that's why it's great on your eyes. it can probably be set to 1hz, but 60hz is the lowest standard for Windows.

AncientPC

02-11-2005, 02:40 AM

I can't explain the exact details, but refresh rates don't mean the same thing on LCDs and CRTs.

Edit: What the guy above me said.

Benholio

02-11-2005, 02:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) LCDs are easier on the eyes then CRTs for extended periods of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Look at refresh rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't just look at refresh rates to compare CRTs to LCDs, they update the screen in a completely different way. LCDs aren't plagued with the flicker problem that CRTs have at the lower refresh rates. This is what makes LCDs so much more easy on the eyes than CRTs.

SinCityGuy

02-11-2005, 03:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Cause every serious 2+2'er has one

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew if I was diligent enough, I would eventually find out whether or not I was a serious 2+2'er.

Now I know for sure that I'm not a serious 2+2'er, because I have a 21.3" Samsung 213T. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Entity

02-11-2005, 03:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) LCDs are easier on the eyes then CRTs for extended periods of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Look at refresh rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Refresh rate doesn't really come into play in LCDs at all.

Anyway, I switched from a dual CRT setup (19" Sony and 21" Dell Trinitron) to a dual 2001FP, and my eyestrain has reduced significantly. No more headaches.

Rob

AncientPC

02-11-2005, 03:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now I know for sure that I'm not a serious 2+2'er, because I have a 21.3" Samsung 213T. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

213T > 2001FP. Good choice. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Muisyle

02-11-2005, 04:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I know for sure that I'm not a serious 2+2'er, because I have a 21.3" Samsung 213T. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

213T > 2001FP. Good choice. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, $900 is > $550, I agree.

SinCityGuy

02-11-2005, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
213T > 2001FP. Good choice. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, $900 is > $550, I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it was $800 with the rebate. An extra 1.2" of diagonal screen space doesn't sound like much, but it's fairly significant when you actually see it.

moondogg

02-11-2005, 08:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am probably the only "serious" 2+2'er who actually doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd get concentrate on getting broadband before getting a 2001fp. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

I keep waiting for someone to come out with something better.
I mean...these are 2001 models afterall....can't some company come up with 1900x1200 or something for a reasonable price?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's amazing that they are able to sell a 4 year old piece of hardware for as much as they do. It says a lot for the quality of the design IMHO. Technology has to be pretty damn good to fall into the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" category.

Michael Davis

02-11-2005, 08:53 AM

I don't have one either but I've been overlapping tables. So I just ordered one.

-Michael

B00T

02-11-2005, 09:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
how are you getting rid of the crt?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say he would put it in the nearest garbage can or dumpster.

dgoldsmith

02-11-2005, 10:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
how are you getting rid of the crt?

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Sell it on eBay, (+EV)
2) Dontae it to a local school, (+EV)
3) Toss it in the landfill (-EV)

crownjules

02-11-2005, 10:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's amazing that they are able to sell a 4 year old piece of hardware for as much as they do. It says a lot for the quality of the design IMHO. Technology has to be pretty damn good to fall into the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" category.

[/ QUOTE ]

Monitor technology is not nearly as fast moving as the rest of the computer hardware industry. As a result, prices don't shift drastically like they do for something like video cards.

dgoldsmith

02-11-2005, 10:36 AM

I just went to edit my last post here and got an error that it can no longer be edited because the maximum edit time has been exceeded ... its been just over 30 minutes.

Anyone else having edit issues? Guessing this maybe related to the server upgrades.

MicroBob

02-11-2005, 10:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd get concentrate on getting broadband before getting a 2001fp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...yeah...good point.

If I place high enough in the PPM cruise then I'll be DEFINITELY out of this apartment....ordering broadband....and ordering a couple of Dell's or Samsung's or something.

right now I just need to be really budget concious so no extra expenses for me for the time-being.

January slump (and bad play) really kicked my ass....and I've got mucho taxes coming up.

groo

02-11-2005, 01:25 PM

Mikey thanks for asking.....I've been wondering the same thing. Though I'm WAY to new to be a serious 2+2er yet, my 17" crt died just a few days ago and I'm down to an old 15" now....argh.

Having been umemployed the last few months, and with still minimal poker skills, the bankroll I'm building is becoming a nice little (though growing quickly) emergency fund. I find myself wanting/needing to go to 16x12, but saying "geez $550 is alot of money right now".....So I opened the paper this morning and there it was, a 19" crt with 16x12 resolution for $99 (after $50 mail-in rebate).

Half my desk may be gone, but heck...I still have money to eat with /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Besides, I've never been part of the IN crowd....lol

NoTalent

02-11-2005, 01:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
213T > 2001FP. Good choice. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, $900 is > $550, I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it was $800 with the rebate. An extra 1.2" of diagonal screen space doesn't sound like much, but it's fairly significant when you actually see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier this week it was $675 at Dell! /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

TwoShedsJackson

02-11-2005, 01:42 PM

Do these 2001FPs have a decent refresh rate if one wanted to play action games, watch DVDs etc. as well as playing poker?

Benjamin

02-11-2005, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The screen is 1" bigger, it takes up less room, and some CRTs flicker.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a lot more than 1" bigger. A 19" CRT usually has about 17.3" viewable screen. The Dell is a 20" viewable screen. ~3" diagonal increase is huge!

B.

sammy_g

02-11-2005, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I mean I'm obviously going to get one.

[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't cool unless you have 3.

Al P

02-11-2005, 02:05 PM

I bought mine for poker but it rocks the house playing games at 1600x1200 on that huge-ass screen.

And as others have pointed out, your CRT probably has a viewable area of 18" whereas the Dell has 20.1" viewable area so you'd be gaining a full 2" of screen real estate.

SomethingClever

02-11-2005, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why does every multi-tabler have one? I got a 19 inch CRT for 200 dollars, and it does 1600x1200. I assume I am missing something here. Why are they so good?

[/ QUOTE ]

I got this for $20 at a garage sale. 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 900u.

http://www.accurateit.com/images/items/mitsubishi_900u.jpg

Positives: It's flatscreen, does 1600x1200 and higher... pretty easy on the eyes, great picture.

Negatives: It weighs 900 lbs and takes up most of the desk. I have a crappy 17" CRT as my second monitor (where I keep all the background poker programs like Playerview, PT, Winamp, Firefox, etc....)

RollaJ

02-11-2005, 03:10 PM

I have an 18" Viewsonic flat panel. Its great and cost a fortune 2 1/2 years ago......... looking forward to when it breaks so I can replace it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

MicroBob

02-11-2005, 03:18 PM

$20

not too shabby.
You've got GOOT garage-sale skillz!!

crownjules

02-11-2005, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do these 2001FPs have a decent refresh rate if one wanted to play action games, watch DVDs etc. as well as playing poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

16ms. In other words, yes. You don't find much better (or need it).

EDIT: Just appending to say LCDs are not as desirable as CRTs to gamers as they usually lack the color depth that CRTs possess (darks are not usually as dark as they should be). The same is true of the 2001FP, but its much better than most LCDs.

SomethingClever

02-11-2005, 05:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
$20

not too shabby.
You've got GOOT garage-sale skillz!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You should see my TV. I sold the 19" Sony I'd had since 8th grade for $35. It was badly magnetized and the coaxial input didn't work.

Then I got a 32" JVC in perfect condition from some rich lady up in the burbs for $20.

PWND!!!!!!!!!

freakintemp

02-11-2005, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do these 2001FPs have a decent refresh rate if one wanted to play action games, watch DVDs etc. as well as playing poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

16ms. In other words, yes. You don't find much better (or need it).

EDIT: Just appending to say LCDs are not as desirable as CRTs to gamers as they usually lack the color depth that CRTs possess (darks are not usually as dark as they should be). The same is true of the 2001FP, but its much better than most LCDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

A number of new smaller LCDs are coming out w/ refresh rates under 10ms. The viewsonics I'm using right now at work (yeah, they gave me multi-mon) are 8.5ms. Some people are crazy with their specifications and say that they can't play games on a 16ms, just like they can't play FPS on teh internet on less than an OC-48. I doubt the average person will have a problem w/ games or DVDs. But Buster might find something lacking... he's picky like that.

Freakin(temp)

Muisyle

02-11-2005, 06:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do these 2001FPs have a decent refresh rate if one wanted to play action games, watch DVDs etc. as well as playing poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

16ms. In other words, yes. You don't find much better (or need it).

EDIT: Just appending to say LCDs are not as desirable as CRTs to gamers as they usually lack the color depth that CRTs possess (darks are not usually as dark as they should be). The same is true of the 2001FP, but its much better than most LCDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

A number of new smaller LCDs are coming out w/ refresh rates under 10ms. The viewsonics I'm using right now at work (yeah, they gave me multi-mon) are 8.5ms. Some people are crazy with their specifications and say that they can't play games on a 16ms, just like they can't play FPS on teh internet on less than an OC-48. I doubt the average person will have a problem w/ games or DVDs. But Buster might find something lacking... he's picky like that.

Freakin(temp)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah there are smaller monitors with faster response times... but they're just that, smaller.

The point of the 2001fp isn't that it's the greatest monitor ever. It's that it provides a pretty amazing all-inclusive LCD for a pretty cheap price. True, you can get a CRT for much cheaper... but it's a CRT. It will weigh 70 pounds, take up a huge desk footprint, and likely have a smaller viewable size. A single CRT wouldn't even fit on my "desk," but I've got 2 2001fp's here.

For under $600 you get a 20 inch, 1600x1200 LCD, with 16 ms response time, with a nice screen (same panel as the Apple Cinema displays), tons of input options (analog, DVI, S-vid, composite), a really nice counterweighted stand with adjustable height and tilt, PIP, and a USB hub.

And for those of you wanting the next big thing, dell is about to release the 2405fp, a 24 inch LCD with 1900x1200 resolution. It will probably retail around $1200.

freakintemp

02-11-2005, 06:34 PM

*jaw drops*

droolie

02-11-2005, 06:35 PM

I have a 19" CRT that does 1600 x 1200 as my second monitor and only use it to surf the net when I'm four tabling on the 2001fp. There is no question the 2001fp is easier on my eyes. I prefer gaming on my 2001fp too. Even though the black isn't as black as the CRT black, it's still a better picture with crisper resolution.

Muisyle

02-11-2005, 06:45 PM

$1200 is really just a (optemistic) guess. $1500 is probably more realistic. However, there is no question that the dell will undercut the 243T, which dell has for sale right now at $1799. So I'm thinking $1500 msrp, with some special grand release coupons will make it $1200ish.

Wahoo91

02-11-2005, 07:48 PM

Can you game on the LCDs? I thought you couldn't so I have never even thought about changing out of my Viewsonic P95f CRT.

daryn

02-11-2005, 08:37 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I am probably the only "serious" 2+2'er who actually doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]

nah. i use a laptop w/ 1280x800. overlap baby.

Muisyle

02-14-2005, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]

And for those of you wanting the next big thing, dell is about to release the 2405fp, a 24 inch LCD with 1900x1200 resolution. It will probably retail around $1200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Godamn I'm good.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=2005021400518 9&newsLang=en

Technical specifications of the Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW include:
-- Native Resolution: 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA+) @ 60Hz(b)
-- Response Time (typical): 12ms grey-to-grey(c), 16ms
black-to-white
-- Contrast Ratio: 1,000:1
-- Brightness (typical): 500 nits
-- Aspect Ratio: 16:10
-- Number of Colors: 16.7 Million
-- Horizontal/Vertical Viewing Angle (typical): +/-89 degrees
-- Lift distance: 3.5 inches
-- Tilt angle: -5 to +20 degrees
-- Swivel: 90 degrees (45 degrees left and right)
-- Memory Card Formats Supported: CompactFlash I/II, Secure
Digital (SD), Mini SD, MultiMedia Card, SmartMedia, Memory
Stick, Memory Stick Pro, IBM Microdrive
-- Inputs: Analog (VGA)/Digital
(DVI)(e)/S-Video/Composite/Component
-- Dimensions (HxWxD): 21.5" x 22.0" x 9.0"
-- Weight: 29.1 lb.

$1199, available next month.

Freakin

02-14-2005, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Godamn I'm good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those were my exact thoughts when I saw the debut price... Except that I didn't remember your name, and didn't want to dig up an old post to find out. My exact thought process was "Man, that guy from the 2001fp thread was dead on."

Freakin

OrangeHeat

02-14-2005, 04:36 PM

Nothing special other than desk space. My CRT takes up triple the room that my 2001FP does.

Of course I can't make good use of the desk space until I get a second 2001FP.......would be weird to have one screen offset a foot and a half from the other.

Orange

Prelude008

02-15-2005, 03:38 PM

Hi,

I have been looking to get a monitor that would let me multi-table with no overlap on a budget. I just found and bought a Dell Triniton 2125 21" monitor (open box for 229). It is a CRT with a flat front screen. I like it EXCEPT for the size. It is HUGE, takes up most of my dining room table (notice I didn't say desk), and is very very HEAVY. For you LCD Flat Panelers, is it reasonable to get a LCD flat panel monitor (1200x1600) on a budget for no more than 450 (used is fine)? If so, what are your suggestions?

Since my only use of this monitor would be to 4 table poker, I can't justify or fit a more expensive monitor into my budget at this time. I am also weighing whether the "saved" space is worth and extra $300.
Thanks.

crownjules

02-15-2005, 03:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And for those of you wanting the next big thing, dell is about to release the 2405fp, a 24 inch LCD with 1900x1200 resolution. It will probably retail around $1200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Godamn I'm good.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=2005021400518 9&newsLang=en

Technical specifications of the Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW include:
-- Native Resolution: 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA+) @ 60Hz(b)
-- Response Time (typical): 12ms grey-to-grey(c), 16ms
black-to-white
-- Contrast Ratio: 1,000:1
-- Brightness (typical): 500 nits
-- Aspect Ratio: 16:10
-- Number of Colors: 16.7 Million
-- Horizontal/Vertical Viewing Angle (typical): +/-89 degrees
-- Lift distance: 3.5 inches
-- Tilt angle: -5 to +20 degrees
-- Swivel: 90 degrees (45 degrees left and right)
-- Memory Card Formats Supported: CompactFlash I/II, Secure
Digital (SD), Mini SD, MultiMedia Card, SmartMedia, Memory
Stick, Memory Stick Pro, IBM Microdrive
-- Inputs: Analog (VGA)/Digital
(DVI)(e)/S-Video/Composite/Component
-- Dimensions (HxWxD): 21.5" x 22.0" x 9.0"
-- Weight: 29.1 lb.

$1199, available next month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I think I'm going to hold off purchasing the 2001FP and wait and save until this baby hits the market. It'd be great to play Doom3 and HL2 and watch DVDs on this (especially with my new Logitech Z-3500 surround speakers).