2405FPW 24-inch Wide Aspect Flat Panel LCD - Text Legibility for Person in 50s - Advice

Discussion in 'Dell' started by John Smith, Mar 4, 2006.

  1. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    I currently have an excellent 19" Sony LCD - 1280 X 1024. Office
    Applications are fine since you can adjust the screen zoom. However the
    Windows desktop is another story. I would say that I couldn't reduce the
    screen resolution any more. Smaller characters will be just too small. I
    realize there are options: changing the native resolution or screen font,
    but these are very suboptimal and I won't compromise in this manner.

    A few months ago I bought a Gateway 21" wide aspect LCD 1600X1200. I
    couldn't get used to the loss of several inches of screen height. Moroever
    the desktop font was smaller than what I have now. I tolerated it, but I
    ended up sending the monitor back because it was too confining vertically.

    The Dell 2405PW is 24" diagonally and 12.7" inches in screen height which,
    in that dimension, is little larger than my 19" 4x3 conventional aspect
    Sony . So the question is whether I will be able to tolerate the Windows
    desktop, explorer windows etc. w/a 1920 X 1200 resolution on the Dell 2405PW

    I would appreciate general comments, especially by those who have the 2405PW
    .. The goal here is to increase my workspace and have a monitor for viewing
    DVDs w/out going for a large screen TV set.
    John Smith, Mar 4, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Smith

    journey Guest

    Hi, I'm glad you asked! I ordered the 20" wide screen, the 2005FPW,
    and liked it so much that I returned it and got the 2405FPW and I love

    That, along with a dual monitor, has transformed my "computer
    experience". Usually I have the 2405 on portrait mode so I can see a
    whole web page or e-mail or a list of files, and the other monitor
    supplements it.

    It's very readable. I had a 600m laptop with the SXGA+ resolution and
    that was hard to read (even though I wouldn't have chosen anything
    else), but the 2405FPW is great.

    Dell was fine letting me return the 2005FPW, so if the 2405FPW doesn't
    work for you then it's as simple as returning it.

    At first my secondary monitor was a 19" CRT, but when I helped a
    friend place an order recently, I was able to piggy-back on his and
    get a 2001FP monitor for around $300.

    So, my main monitor is thte 2405, at 1200 x 1920 (portrait)
    resolution, and my secondary monitor is the 2001FP at 1600 x 1200.

    I have not used either monitor for viewing movies or playing games, so
    I can't comment on that. For games I think an old CRT may be better
    and have a faster refresh.

    For anything requiring text though, both monitors are very bright,
    sharp, and uniform. I don't use the downstream USB ports on both, or
    the card reader on the 24", but those are other minor features.

    I'm interested in hearing how well it works for viewing DVDs.

    journey, Mar 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Smith

    hrdtd Guest

    A couple of years ago, I decided to upgrade from a 19" CRT which I was
    running at 1280x1024 monitor to a LCD.

    At first I couldn't see any point in buying an LCD of the same size. If
    you're going to upgrade, then why not get something bigger.

    Then I learned about the native resolution for different sizes of LCD
    screens. At that time, the native resolution of most 19" LCD, 1280x1024.

    It seemed tho that as you moved to 20" LCD's all of a sudden the native
    resolution jumped to 1600x1200. Looking at standard text at 1600x1200 was
    simply to hard on my eyes. The text was too small for me.

    I ended up buying a Dell 1901FP Ultrasharp in the end, and I've been
    tickeled to death with it.

    Jump ahead to 2 month ago, I decided it was time to upgrade the monitor

    I looked at the Dell 2000FPW, but realized that because it was a wide-screen
    format, I would actually lose vertical height compared to my 1901FP.

    The 2405FPW seemed to be a better fir for me, would game quite a bit of
    width, and an inch or two in height. The price was OK because you can
    usually find it with a coupon for around $800.

    I was still concerned though, with the size of the text. The 1901FP ran at
    1280x1024, and the bigger 2405FPW runs at 1920x1200 but is an inch or so

    I thought about driving an hour or so to the nearest Dell store to see if I
    could look at an actual 2405FPW to see what the text looked like. In the end
    though, my impatient got the best of me and I just ordered the darn thing
    sight unseen.

    Ordered it on-line using my Dell Preferred acount and selected the 'next
    business day' shipping. I think I ordered it around 3:30pm or so, and it was
    actually delivered less than 24hr's later.

    This monitor is great. The size of the text may be a slight fraction smaller
    than the 1901 at 1280x1024, but I can read it just fine as is without having
    to adjust any settings within Windows to compensate for the higher

    Everything I've thrown at it from normal Microsoft Office apps, to games
    such as HL2, Quake4, Far Cry, Fear, etc all look great. Ive watched a few
    DVD's as well and they look just fine as well, though that's not what I
    bought the monitor for.

    Buy it, you'll never look back.
    hrdtd, Mar 5, 2006
  4. John Smith

    Kevin M Guest

    Most reviews are not recommending the wide screens for desktops. There is
    simply no software to take advantage of the dimensions of the wide screen.
    The images are greatly stretched to accommodate the widescreen which results
    in a poorer image. Avoid the widescreens for now.
    Kevin M, Mar 5, 2006
  5. John Smith

    journey Guest

    This is totally ridiculous. All of my software takes advantage of the
    wide screen, and I have a LOT of software. Imaging, video,
    productivity -- the only thing I would be wary of is games. I don't
    know where you get your information from, but it is totally wrong.

    journey, Mar 5, 2006
  6. John Smith

    Tom Scales Guest

    I agree. Only Internet Explorer is worthless on a widescreen, because the
    image processes are a joke. Use Firefox and all is well.
    Tom Scales, Mar 5, 2006
  7. John Smith

    Clint Guest

    I'd have to agree with the other post. I've had two wide screen laptops,
    and have had no compatibility/display issues. Yeah, most software doesn't
    specifically take advantage of the extra space, but that's the same issue
    going from a 15" CRT to 19" CRT; you've got more screen real estate to work
    with, and the software MAY not maximize the use of it. But that doesn't
    mean you can't tile applications side by side, or whatever you like to do
    with it.

    If you've got some specific examples or actual reviews, I'd be curious to
    read them... I realize that you say that wide screens are not recommended
    for desktops, but I don't see that there would be much of a difference. The
    only thing I can really think of is that the laptop display drivers are set
    up for the right ratio, whereas the deskop drivers are configured for the
    "old" ratios. This should simply be a matter of getting the right drivers
    for the display adapter/monitor, however.

    Clint, Mar 5, 2006
  8. John Smith

    User N Guest

    Horizontal resolution divided by viewable display width and vertical
    resolution divided by viewable display height will give you a pixels
    per length figure which could be compared for the two displays and
    resolutions, giving you a sense of how much larger or smaller objects
    will appear on one vs the other.
    User N, Mar 5, 2006
  9. John Smith

    Kevin M Guest

    I will try my best to find the review I read on this. It was a few weeks
    back, but I'll try and find it.
    Kevin M, Mar 5, 2006
  10. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Thanks User N

    Horizontal resolution divided by viewable display width = X
    Vertical resolution divided by viewable display height = Y

    What do you do w/X and Y to get pixels per length?

    In fact the numbers are as follows:

    Sony 19" diag - 15" W x 12" High 1280 x 1024
    Dell 24" diag - 20.4" W x 12.7" High 1920 x 1200

    What does this translate into per your comparison?

    John Smith, Mar 5, 2006
  11. John Smith

    User N Guest

    First of all I would agree that for alot of people, widescreens aren't the best
    choice. As for stretched images, if one runs with the default 96 DPI setting
    and at native resolution, there should be no image stretching/scaling. Things
    should look fine (albeit too small for many users). Problems crop up when
    people run a display resolution that has an aspect ratio that doesn't match
    that of the panel, which not only brings non-native scaling but also an aspect
    ratio missmatch (need to configure the panel to maintain the correct ratio).
    You can also run into problems if you change the DPI setting. For example,
    Windows may scale some icons and they'll lose quality. Some applications
    will scale their toolbar icons/images and they'll lose quality. If IE is configured
    to scale images (UseHR registry key), it does so with a speedy rather than
    quality algorithm and the images won't look good. Windows Vista is designed
    with high resolution displays and vector graphics in mind, and that should help.
    User N, Mar 5, 2006
  12. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    For what its worth these number come out roughly as follows:

    Sony 19" diag - 15" W x 12" High 1280 x 1024

    Horizontal resolution divided by viewable display width = 85.3
    Vertical resolution divided by viewable display height = 85.3

    Dell 24" diag - 20.4" W x 12.7" High 1920 x 1200

    Horizontal resolution divided by viewable display width = 94.1
    Vertical resolution divided by viewable display height = 94.5

    What does in mean to the naked eye?

    John Smith, Mar 5, 2006
  13. John Smith

    User N Guest

    The units are (system) pixels per inch (of LCD). So a line of 85.3 pixels
    should be roughly an inch on the first display and (do the math) smaller
    on the second.
    User N, Mar 5, 2006
  14. John Smith

    Bob Levine Guest


    As long the video card supports it so will every other modern application.

    Buy the thing. I've got one as my primary and a 20" widescreen as the
    secondary monitor. Both are color calibrated using the GretagMcBeth
    EyeOne Display.

    I'd never got back to anything else.

    Bob Levine, Mar 5, 2006
  15. John Smith

    Bob Levine Guest

    Your entire point could be made about any LCD. Running them at anything
    but native resolution will yield lousy results.

    Bob Levine, Mar 5, 2006
  16. John Smith

    journey Guest

    Hi Bob, yes that's it in the nutshell. Every modern application
    supports it as long as the video card is capable of achieving that

    journey, Mar 5, 2006
  17. John Smith

    journey Guest

    Hi Kevin,

    What you may have seen is an article that says that if it's a
    lower-end video card, it won't have the capability of getting that
    high of a resolution. Most video cards can support the 24" widescreen
    (we'll see how my E1505 does with it's integrated video).

    Dell now has the new 30" widescreen with 2560 x 1600 resolution. I
    don't know how to do the video-card-math, but my guess (and that's all
    it is) is that some integrated or lower-end video cards can't handle
    that. It's the video card, not the application, that would have the

    Anyway, hey -- your post generated a lot of discussion and a lot of
    good info. came out of it as a result.

    journey, Mar 5, 2006
  18. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    I used a formula posted online to recalucluate. That formula takes into
    account the all aspect of both resolutions and the wide screen format.

    Using that I determined the 24" Dell has a PPI of 94 and the 19" Sony LCD
    has a PPI of 86. That seems like it would be significant to the eye. The PPI
    of 94 is in fact almost the exact same as the newly released and highly
    popular 21" Gateway display that is 1600 X 1024.

    There may be other issues, such as whether the outstanding specs of the Dell
    Monitor, contrast, brightness etc.offset the smaller size of the text and
    icons. I know that looking at tiny text on my IPAQ PDA doesn't bother me at
    all. Any other thoughts on this?

    Calculate your diagonal pixel resolution. sqrt(horizRes^2+vertRes^2)

    Example: sqrt(1280px^2+800px^2)=1,509.43698112906px

    The next step is to divide all this by the screen size: diagRes/diagSize
    John Smith, Mar 5, 2006
  19. John Smith

    Pud Knocker Guest

    This question is figured out by using the "pixel pitch" which is stated in
    the specifications.

    A 1907 has a pixel pitch , which is the diameter of each pixel, of 0.294 mm.
    A 2407 has a pixel pitch of 0.270 mm.

    So 0.294 minus 0.270 = 0.024.
    0.024 divided by 0.294 = 8.16%
    So the size of anything will be 8.16% smaller in both width and height on a
    2407 compared to the size it was on a 1907.
    Pud Knocker, Mar 5, 2006
  20. John Smith

    Kevin M Guest

    Thanks, I didn't mean to start an disagreement. I've been looking at LCD
    monitors for myself and there is so many to choose from. From what I've
    read, the Viewsonic is a good choice, but I may look at the new Dell 19" ( I
    think model # is 1907)
    Kevin M, Mar 5, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.