Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

You do know a 2001fp is around $900 in the UK [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Its not that easy for a low limit player

Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

$900 is a (break even) months worth of bonus whoring, but if money is the issue, as it was with me, go for the 19" CRT. They can be had for $100-$150. 1600x1200 makes ALL the difference.

Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

[ QUOTE ]
You do know a 2001fp is around $900 in the UK [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Its not that easy for a low limit player

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch...whats with the huge price difference?

Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

my old lap-top did 1400x1050 which was surviveable.
my CRT that I attached to it was 1600x1200 which was much better.
my current laptop is 1900x1200 which rocks.


I've done it at the 1200x800 res back in the day as well on my old, old monitor and it sucked.

You just don't get to see all the tables at the same time.

Considering that you can get a CRT that does 1600x1200 for under $200 I would consider going this route.

Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

Any mods that work with stud tables as well?

Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

search for a 21" flat screen crt on ebay. you can get a good 1600x1200 monitor with good refresh rate for $100 after shipping. ive done this and am happy.

Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

i played 4 tables for about 2 years on a CRT 1280x1024. i thought whats the big deal about 1600x1200. i then slowly added a fifth and sixth table. after misclicking too many times and since poker is a game of info, i decided to get the LCD 1600x1200. now i four table on the 1600x1200 with no overlap and put two or three tables on the CRT. saving the roll for a second LCD 1600x1200.

if you use poker for supplemental or a majority of your income, i think the 1600x1200 is worth it. LCD or CRT is up too you depending on finances.

Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

I just went to 2048*1536 and I can't imagine going back to 16*12 even, it's really amazing. Suprised I don't hear about more people here using this.

Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just went to 2048*1536 and I can't imagine going back to 16*12 even, it's really amazing. Suprised I don't hear about more people here using this.

[/ QUOTE ]

B/c you can't 6-table w/o overlap on this. Somewhat overkill I guess.

Re: 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just went to 2048*1536 and I can't imagine going back to 16*12 even, it's really amazing. Suprised I don't hear about more people here using this.

[/ QUOTE ]

B/c you can't 6-table w/o overlap on this. Somewhat overkill I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but the overlap is pretty minimal, 3 fit perfectly vertically covering pretty much only the chat box (which I rarely use anyway), and 2 horizontally leaves room leftover for some smaller apps.

12 tables setup very nicely on my two monitors, now I just need to get a pc that doesn't slow to a crawl w/ over 5 tables going. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]