Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is there a decent widescreen 17" monitor out there? Any suggestions?

B

BillHarrison

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 25, 2003
332
0
After some searching, all I could find were "LCD Tv's" which could be used as monitors. I found a couple DATED samsungs that are 17" widescreen. Anything modern? 20" is a bit overkill for me, but thats my next consideration. I love the apple displays, but something in me just says no when it comes to spending all that extra dough for the design, as the panel is common with the much cheaper dell 20".

Definitely want a widescreen, 17" to 20", any suggestions?

PS, prefer dvi, im on a mini.

Bill
 
Many of us are facing similar decisions.

The whole subject of "what is a good monitor?"

leaves many of us wondering how that will be answered this coming year.

I've had such great luck with this old 1998 17" Sony Multiscan 200ES,
so it's really hard for me to decide.

My prefernce goes to 23" Apple or the 24" Dell HD displays,
but that's because viewing 2 full pages is something I appreciate.
I certainly don't NEED a display that large, but I'm going to be spending
many hours viewing this display, so I'm not going to settle for less than I want.

Sony's Xbrite screens seem to have a sharper or crisper image to me than most other flat screens, but they aren't offering a competitive display
at the moment over 19".

They DO however offer a very nice 17" WS model.
 
IF you go to sharps website and look in the refurbished section they have 17" Wide Screen LCDs with built in TV tuners for $299.
 
I'm assuming since you want such a small size, movie viewing, design, video editing, writing, wepage viewing and multitasking are of no importance to you: if this statement is true, why widescreen?
If you want a 17" monitor, you are in luck. There are very many good ones. A sumsung syncmaster 17p (I believe that's the name) is a very nice monitor that would even complement the looks of your fashionable mini computer. If any of the above listed things are important than I would recommend a 20" monitor. I recently upgraded from a 17" apple flatscreen CRT to a 20" widescreen Dell and the difference is unbelievable. I was really disconcerted by the size at first, but now it really does make using the computer that much more enjoyable and functional. Also, many monitors 20" and over come with nice multimedia functions: mine has many different imputs along with Picture in picture. I can quickly switch between different imput sources like PC, mac and videogame system. Lastly, check CNET, their reviews are very honest and helpful.
 
supergod said:
I'm assuming since you want such a small size, movie viewing, design, video editing, writing, wepage viewing and multitasking are of no importance to you: if this statement is true, why widescreen?
If you want a 17" monitor, you are in luck. There are very many good ones. A sumsung syncmaster 17p (I believe that's the name) is a very nice monitor that would even complement the looks of your fashionable mini computer. If any of the above listed things are important than I would recommend a 20" monitor. I recently upgraded from a 17" apple flatscreen CRT to a 20" widescreen Dell and the difference is unbelievable. I was really disconcerted by the size at first, but now it really does make using the computer that much more enjoyable and functional. Also, many monitors 20" and over come with nice multimedia functions: mine has many different imputs along with Picture in picture. I can quickly switch between different imput sources like PC, mac and videogame system. Lastly, check CNET, their reviews are very honest and helpful.
Click to expand...

The 20" dell widescreen is the choice i would go with over 17". I do not watch movies on my monitor, however, i might on my bedroom. I am currently doing some moving stuff around. I am a long term pc guy, and really want to make a full on mac switch. So far, there are a few things holding me back, but I am very hopeful apple is working on these. Till then, I am making due.

The apple 20" is gorgeous, but i cant imagine its worth the premium over the dell 20"

Perhaps thats what I will go with, and call it a day... the prices when on sale have been outstanding!
 
I think that sony had a 17" widescreen that even had component, svid, and composite inputs, but they might have discontinued it.
 
I think all the current 17" widescreen LCDs you can buy are crippled, though, by a silly resolution of 1280x768. That's basically taking a standard 17" LCD and chopping off 1/3 of the bottom. Apple's 17" LCDs have a 1440x900 resolution, which is wider but not as tall as the standard 1280x1024 resolution used by 17" LCDs.

I'd suggest jumping to a 20" and looking for a good deal on one. There's a Dell 20" Widescreen, the 2005fpw, for as little as $400-$500 if you look around enough for deals. Even full retail is a couple hundred less than the Apple display.
 
With 19" dropping and 17" getting cheap i would get a full 17" or 19". I just bought my 2nd NEC and am very happy with it. no dead pixels. :) I can understand some needing 20 but 19" are about half the price. you pay a lot more for that 1 ".
 
Dont Hurt Me said:
With 19" dropping and 17" getting cheap i would get a full 17" or 19". I just bought my 2nd NEC and am very happy with it. no dead pixels. :) I can understand some needing 20 but 19" are about half the price. you pay a lot more for that 1 ".
Click to expand...


The only problem with 19" is that nearly all of them are still 1280x1024, which is much too small (large?) a resolution for the size. That's what you are paying for.
 
I'm also in the same situation. I've been looking at the Dell 1704FPV and I was wondering if anyone has any experience with it. Seems like it is a good deal, and it's gotten good reviews from PC reviews. Anyone have an opinion on it. It's under $300 which great for my budget.
 
That Dell is probably pretty good. But I think you can do better on style and price.

Acer makes excellent LCD monitors. This one is cheaper than the Dell and I think it looks better. Plus it uses DVI, just like the Dell. Also, the Dell has a fairly bad 25ms response time. That Acer has a much faster 12ms response time, so you won't see nearly as much ghosting.
 
Yeah, ms = milliseconds. So 25ms means the screen takes twice as long to refresh as a 12ms screen, which means it'll cause more ghosting. Most cheap LCDs these days have a 12-16ms response time, with a few stragglers *cough*Dell*cough* still at 25ms and a few high-end, expensive displays boasting 8ms times. If you look closely at the specs listed at NewEgg's site, you'll see that 12ms displays generally don't really cost any more than 16ms ones; they're just distributed throughout the listing of displays. So you may as well pick out one with the slightly faster refresh time.
 
AstroManLuca said:
I think all the current 17" widescreen LCDs you can buy are crippled, though, by a silly resolution of 1280x768. That's basically taking a standard 17" LCD and chopping off 1/3 of the bottom. Apple's 17" LCDs have a 1440x900 resolution, which is wider but not as tall as the standard 1280x1024 resolution used by 17" LCDs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've noticed that too. I tried to point it out on a different forum, but nobody seemed to understand what I was saying :eek:
 
Now that I understand response time, which of the major brands makes a good 17 in.. Although that Acer looks like a good deal, I don't think it would have good retail value. I'm buy this monitor for my Powerbook, and I'm not sure how much I would use it. If I decide it was a stupid buy then I want to be able to get out of it, without losing most of the investment.

Edit: Also is there a way to search for LCDs with USB ports.
 
macbaseball, I had an acer lcd and loved it. It was very nice and sharp, bright too. It got great results for gaming as well. I also recommend NEC.
 
Thanks, after looking for about two hours, I've pretty much decided that the Acer is the best deal. I also liked the Viewsonic with 8 ms response time, but after reading some of the reviews it seems that the 8 ms isn't that great for the higher price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back