1600x1200 novelty or necessity?

Mercman572 · #1 07-24-2005, 01:48 PM

seems like now is the time to buy a 2001fp, but that would really be breaking the bank. Does everyone seem to think that they are a MUST or increase your hourly rate when 4 tabling since there is no overlap, or is it just nice to have?

Uglyowl · #2 07-24-2005, 01:49 PM

The amount you will save in misclicks makes it worth it just by itself.

TheHammer24 · #3 07-24-2005, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
seems like now is the time to buy a 2001fp, but that would really be breaking the bank. Does everyone seem to think that they are a MUST or increase your hourly rate when 4 tabling since there is no overlap, or is it just nice to have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most CRT's are adequate. Mine is 17 inches and, when hooked to my laptop, can go to 1600, 1080 resolution which will four table without overlap. Actually, the bottom part of the table on a party skin is unable to be seen; however, all this does is block out the chat box on the bottom two tables.

SackUp · #4 07-24-2005, 01:55 PM

1600 x 1200 is a necessity.

A 2001fp is a luxury.

You can get a nice 19" or larger flatscreen CRT that will do the job just fine. The only problem is it takes up more space. But if space is not a problem just go with the CRT for now until you build a bigger bankroll. Under a $150 can get you a 19" cRT that will be just fine for poker. Look for sales at best buy or circuit city.

Stu Pidasso · #5 07-24-2005, 02:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You can get a nice 19" or larger flatscreen CRT that will do the job just fine. The only problem is it takes up more space. But if space is not a problem just go with the CRT for now until you build a bigger bankroll. Under a $150 can get you a 19" cRT that will be just fine for poker. Look for sales at best buy or circuit city.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a CRT monitor which can fit 9 tables without significant overlap. Anyways, the problem with CRTs is the refresh rate. Stare at them for a while at high resolutions and you go bazonkers.

Stu

Eidal · #6 07-24-2005, 02:03 PM

I can 8+ table just fine with 1200x960 res on my desktop. Those that call it a necessity just aren't trying hard enough =P

Bradyams · #7 07-24-2005, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can 8+ table just fine with 1200x960 res on my desktop. Those that call it a necessity just aren't trying hard enough =P

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever tried 1600x1200 you would wonder how you got along without it. Sure, it's definitely possible, but 1600x1200 makes things sooo much easier.

Mercman572 · #8 07-24-2005, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have a CRT monitor which can fit 9 tables without significant overlap. Anyways, the problem with CRTs is the refresh rate. Stare at them for a while at high resolutions and you go bazonkers.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah this is my problem now on the CRT i have. if I break down and buy an lcd its going to be a 1600x1200 tho

mmbt0ne · #9 07-24-2005, 03:23 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Stare at your avatar for a while at high resolutions and you go bazonkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

housenuts · #10 07-24-2005, 03:52 PM

my suggestion is don't get a 17" with 1600x1200. i've been running one for 9 months now and it hurts my eyes.