I haven't used any of the 21-inch Studio displays, but I have definitely seen them flow through surplus, and almost bought one too, except for the fact that they are patently gargantuan, and by this time they were old enough that they would not have held a calibration for more than about four minutes, and most of the ones I saw seemed to have broken stands.
In high school, the yearbook lab had at least one 17-inch Studio Display and I always thought it was gorgeous. (This was when 17-inch CRTs were set in my mind as the default computer display. At the time I was formulating plans to buy a Mac Pro and hook an old 17-inch CRT to it. We can attribute this to being young and woefully uninformed.) Because I was the only one using that particular station most of the time, I ended up running the display at something awesome like 1600x1200, 72 or 85Hz. I was always impressed that it could handle that res at that frequency, because my home monitors tended to top out at 1280x1024x60Hz. I don't remember if the Studio 17 officially supported that resolution, but it worked on our machine. (I was using it with a blue/white G3, probably a /350 or /400.) I wonder how high the Studio 21 would go if you asked it nicely.
Welcome to the world of million pixel bliss with true black, LCDs suck, no black black, except at the very high end. You'll love browsing on a 4:3 aspect ratio as opposed to that Wide aspect LCD as well.
What counts as true black? My UltraSharp from 2008 and my other Dell LCD from a few years later have no problems generating pretty true blacks, and these weren't too terribly expensive.
Incidentally, I've found that web sites are getting wider by the day, it's one of the modern design trends that does actually bother me. Using a 20/21-inch display will just be nice because you can get to 1600px wide and still have room for stuff on the side. 1280 or 1366 is the minimum width I'd really want for browsing these days, woefully.
I lusted after one of those 24" widescreen SONY CRTS
Oh man, the FDTrin. Those are nice because their official max resolution is slightly higher than most 24-inch LCD displays, at something like 2304x1440. In 2001, the GDM-FW900 reviewed very well against various flat-panel displays (which may or may not have included ones like the UltraSharp 1901FP and 2001FP), but that was the point at which 17-inch CRT was still definitely the default computer monitor, and when almost every LCD was incredibly expensive, leading people who wanted LCDs to purchase small or low end displays. My mother bought an LCD display in 2001 or 2002, and the one we could afford was definitely a 14-incher at 1024x768 from an off-brand whose colors went wonky before too long in its life.
