Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LG Flatron 2320A 23" LCD Media Station Reviewed

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the please-send-me-one dept.

Displays 132

Julio writes "TechSpot has taken an in-depth look at LG's Flatron 2320A 23" LCD, you should know however that calling this a monitor would be an understatement, this is a multi-media workstation. The package consists of a 23" widescreen LCD color monitor, and a multi-media station that lets you connect its beautiful flat screen to your PC and a number of devices at the same time (X-Box, etc.). Feel yourself warned though, luxury does come at a cost."

cancel ×

132 comments

wtf (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282381)

wtf

http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282999)

From http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ [gmail-is-too-creepy.com] :

Google is dying: Death by a billion cuts

Presumably you have a Gmail account,
and do not object to Google's policies

But many of us will not send mail to gmail.com ...

Problem 1: Gmail is nearly immortal

Google offers 1 gig of storage, which is many times the storage offered by Yahoo or Hotmail, or other Internet service providers that we know about. The powerful searching encourages account holders to never delete anything. It takes three clicks to put a message into the trash, and more effort to delete this message. It's much easier to "archive" the message, or just leave it in the inbox and let the powerful searching keep track of it. Google admits that even deleted messages will remain on their system, and may also be accessible internally at Google, for an indefinite period of time.

Google has been spinning their original position in press interviews, and with an informal page described as "a few words about privacy and Gmail." When we see fresh material from Google, we check the modification date at the bottom of the terms-of-use page and privacy page for Gmail. If these dates are still April 6 and April 8, we know that nothing has changed. Google can modify these pages too, any way they want and whenever they want, unilaterally. But at least these two pages carry slightly more legal weight than other pages, because Google should attempt to notify users of significant changes in these formal policies.

A new California law, the Online Privacy Protection Act, went into effect on July 1, 2004. Google changed their main privacy policy that same day because the previous version sidestepped important issues and might have been illegal. For the first time in Google's history, the language in their new policy makes it clear that they will be pooling all the information they collect on you from all of their various services. Moreover, they may keep this information indefinitely, and give this information to whomever they wish. All that's required is for Google to "have a good faith belief that access, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public." Google, you may recall, already believes that as a corporation they are utterly incapable of bad faith. Their corporate motto is "Don't be evil," and they even made sure that the Securities and Exchange Commission got this message in Google's IPO filing.

Google's policies are essentially no different than the policies of Microsoft, Yahoo, Alexa and Amazon. However, these others have been spelling out their nasty policies in detail for years now. By way of contrast, we've had email from indignant Google fans who defended Google by using the old privacy language -- but while doing so they arrived at exactly the wrong interpretation of Google's actual position! Now those emails will stop, because Google's position is clear at last. It's amazing how a vague privacy policy, a minimalist browser interface, and an unconventional corporate culture have convinced so many that Google is different on issues that matter.

After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that's needed to force Google to produce a copy. Other countries may even lack this basic protection, and Google's databases are distributed all over the world. Since the Patriot Act was passed, it's unclear whether this ECPA protection is worth much anymore in the U.S., or whether it even applies to email that originates from non-citizens in other countries.

Google's relationships with government officials in all of the dozens of countries where they operate are a mystery, because Google never makes any statements about this. But here's a clue: Google uses the term "governmental request" three times on their terms-of-use page and once on their privacy page. Google's language means that all Gmail account holders have consented to allow Google to show any and all email in their Gmail accounts to any official from any government whatsoever, even when the request is informal or extralegal, at Google's sole discretion. Why should we send email to Gmail accounts under such draconian conditions?

Problem 2: Google's policies do not apply

The phrasing and qualifiers in the Gmail privacy policy are creepy enough, but nothing in any of Google's policies or public statements applies to those of us who don't have Gmail accounts. Google has not even formally stated in their privacy policy that they will not keep a list of keywords scanned from incoming email, and associate these with the incoming email address in their database. They've said that their advertisers won't get personally identifiable information from email, but that doesn't mean that Google won't keep this information for possible future use. Google has never been known to delete any of the data they've collected, since day one. For example, their cookie with the unique ID in it, which expires in 2038, has been tracking all of the search terms you've ever used while searching their main index.

Problem 3: A massive potential for abuse

If Google builds a database of keywords associated with email addresses, the potential for abuse is staggering. Google could grow a database that spits out the email addresses of those who used those keywords. How about words such as "box cutters" in the same email as "airline schedules"? Can you think of anyone who might be interested in obtaining a list of email addresses for that particular combination? Or how about "mp3" with "download"? Since the RIAA has sent subpoenas to Internet service providers and universities in an effort to identify copyright abusers, why should we expect Gmail to be off-limits?

Intelligence agencies would love to play with this information. Diagrams that show social networks of people who are inclined toward certain thoughts could be generated. This is one form of "data mining," which is very lucrative now for high-tech firms, such as Google, that contract with federal agencies. Email addresses tied to keywords would be perfect for this. The fact that Google offers so much storage turns Gmail into something that is uniquely dangerous and creepy.

Problem 4: Inappropriate ad matching

We don't use Gmail, but it is safe to assume that the ad matching is no better in Gmail, than it is in news articles that use contextual ad feeds from Google. Here's a screen shot that shows an inappropriate placement of Google ads in a news article. We also read about a lawyer who is experimenting with Gmail. He sent himself a message, and discovered that the law practice footer he uses at the bottom of all of his email triggered an ad for a competing law firm.

Another example is seen in the Google ads at the bottom of this story about Brandon Mayfield. There are two ads. One mentions sexual assault charges (sex has nothing to do with the story), and the other is about anti-terrorism. The entire point of this article, as well as a New York Times piece on May 8, 2004, is that a lawyer has had his career ruined due to overreaction by the FBI, based on disputed evidence. He was arrested as a material witness and his home and office were searched. The NYT (page A12) says that "Mr. Mayfield was arrested before investigators had fully examined his phone records, before they knew if he had ever met with any of the bombing suspects, before they knew if he had ever traveled to Spain or elsewhere overseas. His relatives said he had not been out of the United States for 10 years." The only evidence is a single fingerprint on a plastic bag, and some FBI officials have raised questions about whether this print is a match. While Mr. Mayfield will get his day in court, it appears that Google's ads have already convicted him, and for good measure added some bogus sexual assault charges as well. Would Mr. Mayfield be well-advised to send email to Gmail account holders to plead his case?

Our last example shows three ads fed by Google at the bottom of a Washington Post column titled "Gmail leads way in making ads relevant." The columnist argues that Google's relevant ads improve the web, and therefore she finds nothing objectionable about Gmail. These Google-approved ads offer PageRank for sale, something which only a year ago, Google would have considered high treason. Yes, these ads are "relevant" -- the column is about Google, and the ads are about PageRank. But here's the point: A relevant ad that shows poor judgment is much worse than an irrelevant ad that shows poor judgment. The ads at the bottom of her column disprove her pro-Google arguments. She has no control over this, and is probably not even aware that it happened.

Most writers, even if they are only writing an email message instead of a column in a major newspaper, have more respect for their words than Google does. Don't expect these writers to answer their Gmail.

Esther Dyson, queen of the digerati, gets it wrong

"We're not going to have any choice but to send mail to people >
Transfer interrupted!
il world," says Daniel Brandt, founder of the Google-Watch.org Web site. "And what guarantees do we have that all this won't end up on some bureaucrat's desk at some intelligence agency someday?" But those who support Gmail say such privacy concerns are not Google issues so much as constitutional ones, best addressed to Congress and law-enforcement agencies. "They've got a beef with the wrong person. The problem there is the FBI, not Google," says Dyson. "And in the scheme of things, I'd rather have Google than my employer have access to my personal mail." -- Baltimore Sun, 20 May 2004

The point is this: Some two-thirds of all Google searches come in from outside the U.S., and Gmail will also have a global reach. We're not dealing with only the FBI (and yes, the same privacy advocates who oppose Gmail are dealing with the FBI), but potentially with hundreds of agencies in dozens of countries. Google has no data retention policies, and never comments on their relationships with governments. The problem must be addressed at the source, which is Google. Elitist digerati do a disservice to the entire world when they assume such narrow points of view.

Poll Troll Toll (1)

PollTroll (764214) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282382)

What's better...

Flatrons [calcgames.org]
Sex with a mare [calcgames.org]

Sigh (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282393)

The review sucked and is not worth reading. This guy is obviously trying to just make money off of advertising to a slashdot-sized audience. Do a whois on techspot.com..


Domain Name: TECHSPOT.COM

Administrative Contact:
Franco, Julio (ZBIODSWBEI) julio_francoh@hotmail.com
Kennedy Norte Mz 806 V9
Guayaquil, Guayas N/A
EC
593-4 680702

Re:Sigh (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282407)

Yes. He has NO real photos of it! No benchmarks, nothing. No images of the packaging either, or any detailed shots. It looks like the images were all just ripped from the company's website or something. There aren't even any specs! What kind of review is this?

Re:Sigh (1)

skrysakj (32108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282411)

Costeños.... I wonder why he's hosting a site in English, if he's Ecuadorian.

Re:Sigh (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282414)

I'm bummed at the lack of real photos of the device. It doesn't even look like this guy has seen the thing.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282422)

"In-depth" my ass. I could have written that. This is not a review. It's an advertisement.

LMAO (5, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282426)

You would think the guy would be smarter than to choose the handle "Julio" before pulling this.

Re:LMAO (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282800)

Julio Franco is indeed the 'editor' of said online review site.

slashdot!? (-1, Offtopic)

m0nkey nuts (814495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282589)

i finally registered after a year of reading this site.... wtf is the deal with all of these ads coming to this site, i have become very disgruntled, please come back slashdot of old

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282664)

I guess the more obvious author of the article wasn't tech savy enough for you to claim conspiracy.

Re:Julio Franco (2, Funny)

beerits (87148) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282700)

This guy is amazing. Not only can he hit .300 [go.com] at 46 years old, he some how finds the time to edit a crappy tech website.

Re:Julio Franco (1)

Ghostgate (800445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282743)

Hah, we both got modded offtopic for the same joke at the same time. I thought it was a pretty good joke... I take it the mods are not baseball fans ;)

Re:Julio Franco (1)

beerits (87148) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282990)

Great minds think alike.:) Anyway I still think its funny but I should have known better than to try a sports joke at /.

Re:Julio Franco (0, Offtopic)

Agent__Smith (168715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283800)

I thought it was a dang hilarious joke!!

Go Julio! (1, Funny)

Ghostgate (800445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282719)

Administrative Contact:
Franco, Julio (ZBIODSWBEI) julio_francoh@hotmail.com

Julio Franco is amazing! Still playing baseball [go.com] at age 46, and yet he finds the time to get into home entertainment too??

Re:Sigh - WHOIS? (1)

Konowl (223655) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282766)

That's the best you can do? I found a picture [go.com] of the guy for you.

$2,500 and no network jack? (1)

Steve_Jobs_HNIC (513769) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282831)

ya, the review sucks. He doesn't even crack the case open. Nice box, but come on.... 2,500 for a multimedia station with no network connection???

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282941)

yeah, fucking spammer. julio sucks. bet it's a lameass "review" spread over 10 ad-ridden 10-lines-of-text pages. fucking morons.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282951)

for the fun of it, i'm gonna reload the page some 45234534 times with ads blocked. ha

Re:Sigh (1)

Stripe7 (571267) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283403)

Did not think much of it. I am already running on a SONY 23" monitor. I consider it out of date and am expecting my Apple 30" LCD in 3-4 weeks. The biggest problem I have having is locating a GF6800 Ultra to drive the new monitor.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283428)

You do have a G5 right?

The only video card that can output the signal to power the 30" without looking horrific is the 6800 Ultra DDL, and it only works with the G5.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283504)

I agree this 'review' is just a paid advertisement. My 24.1" LCD monitor, sold by Sun and manuf. by Samsung has been on the market for two years and outshines the puny LG in every way.

Dual inputs with twin sources (VGA/DVI & Composite/S-Video) w/PIP, PBP, USB (4 ports), etc. - 16.9...on and on Samsung's branded 24.1" comes with speakers if needed.

Don't call it a monitor? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282394)

How about we call it a TV? OK, a tv plus a breakout box that can do some cool stuff. Sounds better than the MediaMVP, but not that much.

Re:Don't call it a monitor? (1, Insightful)

hashish (62254) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282466)

It is called marketing. The name is everything

Re:Don't call it a monitor? (3, Interesting)

Nos. (179609) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282478)

True, but the one thing I see here is the 60Hz refresh... isn't that a little high for most normal LCD monitors? A friend bought an LCD and he's a big gamer. He really regrets his purchase... its just not good for gaming since they're not as "fast" as a good old CRT. Isn't this true for most (all?) LCDs? Or am I just out to lunch?

Re:Don't call it a monitor? (5, Informative)

realdpk (116490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282517)

It's not the refresh rate, it's the pixel response time. Some LCDs are really bad for gaming (look at older laptops for good examples), while some are great. Look for ones with a rating of 20ms or lower and you should not see any blurring.

Btw, most LCDs do run at "60Hz", but not every pixel needs to be toggled every cycle, so it's not exactly the best way to measure them. Other than ms, I'm not sure what they use now. Maybe we should have some sort of "number of pixel changes per second per pixel" or something. ;)

Re:Don't call it a monitor? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282764)

True, but the one thing I see here is the 60Hz refresh... isn't that a little high for most normal LCD monitors? A friend bought an LCD and he's a big gamer. He really regrets his purchase... its just not good for gaming since they're not as "fast" as a good old CRT. Isn't this true for most (all?) LCDs? Or am I just out to lunch?

There's two different (albeit related) functions here. The refresh rate of a CRT is how many times a second the entire fieldcan be refreshed. usually goes from 60 to 120 or more times a second.

The response time is a measure of how quickly a pixel can, once asked to change, actually change. You might have a 100Hz refresh rate, but if a pixel is slow and can only change at 5Hz for example, then before the pixel has gone from say white to black it may already be asked to go to another colour, so the 'black' point is never reached, and it effectively looks like there's a shadow of the previous image on fast moving parts of the screen.

CRT phosphors used to have similar problems with persistence - low persistence (high speed) phosphors were more expensive. This left a small advantage though, in that a 55Hz display could look perfectly viewable with a slow persist phosphor, as it would never flicker. Nowadays the phosphors are all so quick & sharp that their persist time isn't worth measuring - everything is good enough.

It's a monitor! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282518)

It's similar to many of the old 2-D models [google.com] still available, but inventories have been stretched awfully thin.

I'd love to see what one of these looks like on the inside, once you open it up.

Re:Don't call it a monitor? (2, Insightful)

fred911 (83970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282918)

No. TV's have tuners. No tuner here.

ATTENTION GNAA MEMBERS!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282395)

I'd like to make a suggestion that you have timecop running for the U.S. presidency and flood Slashdot with political ads and announcements for his campaign. Thanks.

Vote for the GNAA party!

Re:ATTENTION GNAA MEMBERS!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282428)

and die

Re:ATTENTION GNAA MEMBERS!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282645)

I am very, very disappointed in the GNAA. Your recent trolling efforts have been "not up to standard", let's just say. I have every confidence that you will be able to execute a full turnaround and get things back on track within the next two weeks.

We're counting on you!

ho humm... another TV (0, Offtopic)

cdtoad (14065) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282413)

Why do the televions keep getting better and better but there's still nothing ON?!?! I have a 30 hr tivo and haven't had more than 2 hrs on it in over a year!!!

and here's the competition... (2, Interesting)

mn3m05yn3 (772460) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282416)

Beats the heck out of this stuff [techforless.com]

Why has it taken so long to get decent pixel depth on LCD monitors when it's been available in laptops for some time now?

Re:and here's the competition... (3, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282756)

Laptops have affordable 125 and 150 dpi screens now too. 125dpi has been available for two years now, 150dpi was just released a couple months now.

The only desktop displays above 100dpi are IBM's and Viewsonic's 200dpi displays (I kid you not, 23" 4:3 displays with 4k x 3k pixels) running for over $6000 now.

Unfortunately, the current limitation with a lot of software is that they don't scale with DPI so well, you increase the font size to compensate for the resolution increase, and the text doesn't fit boxes so well. I'd like to see a display that is as crisp as a laser printout, I figure 300dpi is a pretty good target.

a $50 LCD would be more impressive (5, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282432)

it's an awesome monitor. some people will buy it.

having moved to brazil, the perspective for everything changed.

i see from here a vast need for lower costing, not higher featured, everything.

YMMV, my 2 cents, etc

a $5 LCD would be extra impressive (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282635)

Having moved to Africa the perspective for everything changed

Unlike Brazil where you could use a normal monitor that already costs less than $50 the lack of desk space in Africa makes a sub $10 LCD a necessity

Re:a $50 LCD would be more impressive (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282884)

Unfortunately, for something like LCD, I imagine it will be a while before one can get $50 LCD monitor unless it was tiny, think the add-on to the PSOne, which currently does retail for $50.

Extra features are often cheap to add, so it allows these companies to keep the prices high. They don't want to get into the low cost business any sooner than they have to, the margins are much smaller and they want to maximize the return on investment too. This will gradually change as more players enter the market, but the upstarts probably don't want to undercut the competition too much, because they have to pay back their costs too.

This is part of the reason why you get better features sooner than you'd get a price drop.

Re:a $50 LCD would be more impressive (2, Informative)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282946)

More features are usually just a mechanism to offset how expensive the main portion of the product is.
The reality is, if you strip most products down to their bare-bones functionality they'll cost about the same price.

Extra features allow the consumer to think that the price is the result of the combined total, when we all know quite well that the speakers and other features are probably crap.

They also provide a point of competitive difference, this screen is quite poor quality for 23" inches, a 23" Apple display dwarfs it's quality. So some lame consumer can think that this screen is better because it features some speakers and other crap that you most likely already have separate products for.

Shopper.com prices (2, Interesting)

sometwo (53041) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282451)

Here's a price comparison among different vendors, non of whom have it in stock http://shopper.cnet.com/LG_Flatron_L2320A_-_flat_p anel_display_-_TFT_-_23/4014-3174_9-30536226.html [cnet.com]

Re:Shopper.com prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282463)

sorry most of whom don't have it in stock

Re:Shopper.com prices (5, Insightful)

Kogase (811902) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282901)

I think it's about time for anyone with a link in their sig to a pyramid scheme to get modded down without mercy.

Some Notes on LG (1)

SuperPhly (800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282459)

This is a korean company that I am a HUGE fan of. I had a phone of theirs about 4 years ago and I tell ya, better quality, better software, logical thought is put into all their products. I absolutely LOVE LG. I hate to be a fanboy to a company but after buying some of their products, I cant help but be a fan.

Re:Some Notes on LG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282558)

certainly better than the crap they use to turn out as goldstar. anyone remember the crap tv's?

Finally (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282476)

I can see all of Anna Nicole Smith!

Re:Finally (0, Offtopic)

Dracoirs (700803) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282663)

what, her boobs? Dude, Trimspa [trimspa.com]

For 800$... (5, Insightful)

Phosphor3k (542747) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282501)

You can get a 20" dell 2100FP that has 4 inputs with one button switching between them(1 DVI, 1 VGA, 1 s-video and 1 composite) AND it supports PIP. Seems like a better price/performance ratio to me. Though that thing that Julio is pimping is widescreen, still doesnt seem worth it.

Re:For 800$... (1)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282554)

I used this screen at work. It's beautiful. 1600x1200 resolution and it's very crisp. It also has a great viewing angle so it doesn't turn black when you're not looking dead on. I have a similar display on my dell laptop, though much smaller. It also can rotate 90 degrees if you like to work vertically.

Oh, and no I am not going to get a domain and link this review to it.

Re:For 800$... (1)

Rew190 (138940) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282620)

At this stage of the game though, LCDs with bad viewing angles are simply shitty LCDs. Not really a selling point anymore, more of something you should expect.

For $1,299... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282592)

you can get a 20' mac screen
or a 17' screen with a complete G5 included...
http://store.apple.com/
Seems like a better deal to me

Re:For $1,299... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282761)

The Apple equivalent is their 23" monitor which is $2000 but has a different feature set (e.g. no big-ass speakers and remote). The resolution of both monitors is 1920 x 1200, but BEWARE... the LG only gets that resolution if you use the analog input (according to the specs in the review). Its resolution with digital is 1600 x 1200.

Re:For $1,299... (1, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282945)

That's because the Apple Cinema Display 23" has Dual link, which requires a compatible video card. Without dual link DVI maxes at 1600*1200 digital because that's all the bandwidth there is. Overall I'd say the Apple display is a better bet since it's cheaper and supports Dual link, use it with real speakers and controll the inputs with remotes.

Re:For $1,299... (2, Informative)

mrinella (548257) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283016)

The 23" is only single link. I have one and it worked fine with my old Geforce2MX before the G5 came. Apple's tech specs also show it as requiring only a full single link. Its the 30" that requires dual link.

Re:For 800$... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282679)

800$ is way to much, watch sites like FatWallet and techbargins and you can get it for as low as 689$, what I paid.

Re:For 800$... (2, Interesting)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282688)

For under $200, you can get a ViewSonic NextVision N6 box that works with any VGA monitor, does HDTV stuff, has PIP with audio selection, has VGA passthru and switching, S-Video, composite, component, and supports up to 1280x1024 resolution.

It has a shitty remote, though.

Linky. [viewsonic.com]

Re:For 800$... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282789)

Question, why is widescreen a desirable feature in a monitor? If I didn't watch movies on it, then wouldn't 4:3 be better?

You grow to love the Widescreen aspect ratio (1)

Venotar (233363) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283218)

That was my initial thought when I went laptop shopping a few months ago. All the laptops with nice, large screens are now widescreen.

You'd be surprised at how nice widescreen is, though. At work, on my 1600X1200 LCD, I can run two browsers side by side by shrinking the width of one window slightly; but I'm out of luck if I want to run an IM window, a monitoring window, an xterm, or show portions of my desktop (for gdesklets) at the same time. With the 1900X1200, you can run two 800X1200 windows side by side and still have room for either some desktop space, an IM window, or gkrellm. This gets VERY addictive.

Re:You grow to love the Widescreen aspect ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283531)

I'm not surprised that 1900x1200 is better than 1600x1200. A better comparison would be 1680x1050 vs 1600x1200.

Re:For 800$... (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283170)

/me is quite happy with my $500 19" Neovo display. So happy in fact, that I got 2 of them :-)

I'd rather have _all_ my monitors be cheap LCDs than mess with CRTs. Still 1 CRT left though.

Re:For 800$... (1)

gozu (541069) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283548)

Owner of a dell 2001fp here. I am poor and just could not afford to spend 800 bucks on a monitor. I did it anyways and God i love this thing. I know a few people who bought it and they all love it. You just can't beat the price/performance.

Now this LG makes me horny but for $2500? forget it. it's about a thousand dollars too expensive for what it offers. (No DVI for resolutions over 1600x1200? unacceptable!) And yes, i know it's a limitation of DVI and not the monitor itself, still. unacceptable.

ok lets get this outta the way... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282504)

1.) imagine a bewolf cluster of these...
2.) mmmm life sized porn
3.) Generally the problem is that the TV signal is not worth watching.
4.2)Slashdot : Commercials for nerds, it's money that matters.
8. Yes, I should probably learn to count.
2.) Gamers, what about reviewers of *ahem* adult entertainment material?
Laugh, your boss is behind you...

Who next? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282519)

who should GW go after next?

GNAA [calcgames.org]
North Korea [calcgames.org]
Canada [calcgames.org]

review is a POS (0, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282662)

the moron never once mentions ghosting which is the most important aspect of lcd's for games. what a retard..

Re:review is a POS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282983)

how the fuck can the truth be moderated flamebait.

are the mods on crack or what?

Low resolution (2, Interesting)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282676)

...the unit offers a max resolution of 1920 x 1200...
That's all? My laptop screen does 1400x1050 and it's a 14-inch. From a 23-inch I would expect 2300x1725.

Would this be high enough? (1)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282838)

For a mere $6,000 You can get a 22-inch WQUXGA 3840x2400 Viewsonic VP2290b [google.com]

The reason for 1920 x 1200 (or even multiples thereof) is it will do full HDTV with no resizing or interpolation (best viewing) assuming you set it for proper letterboxing to 1920 x 1080 in HDTV mode.

I assume in the not too distant future WQUXGA will be sub $1000 and common. Fonts are hard to read already at WUXGA. Above this (for now) this stuff is more for digital photography and medical imaging.

But I still want one.

Re:Would this be high enough? (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283610)

For such high resolutions, you need really good handling in the GUI.
The GUI should understand that the display has a high number of dots per inch, and thus use more dots to display an object of the same size.
This is not limited to fonts, but should also include other GUI elements.

Unfortunately, many sizes have historically been specified in "pixels". This means trouble when you get a high resolution screen, use "large fonts", and then view HTML pages...

you obviously have never used a larger screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282840)

you place larger screens farther away from your eye. if you had a 23" at 2300x1725, you'd be switching resolution to lower settings just to be able to see anything, which sort of defeats the better res in the first place.

fellow geeks (-1, Offtopic)

strapon (718616) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282687)

From one geek to another. Help out a fellow geek and register for a free ipod. Click on the link below to get a free ipod. http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=9272 606

What, no serial? (1, Funny)

JVert (578547) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282689)

All this talk about 232 and no serial port? I'm calling the ftc..

Did I mention this monitor looks amazing? (3, Funny)

mokolabs (530326) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282722)

Um, yeah, you did.

It's really an Apple Cinema Display (3, Interesting)

moebiusloop8 (459074) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282736)

LG is the OEM manufacturer for Apple's LCD displays, so this is the same as the 23 inch cinema display, just check the specs.

Re:It's really an Apple Cinema Display (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282885)

Just for the record not exactly, Samsung makes their laptop displays.

It even connects with ADC (4, Insightful)

sabi (721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283578)

Well, actually, it seems to be the _old_ 23" Apple Cinema Display, connection-wise (it may use the same LCD panel as the newer one, or not; the two have different specifications). The power/data cable that connects the "media station" to the display is nothing else but the Apple Display Connector - you can see it at the top of the pictures; it looks like a DVI-I connector with six additional pins: two for power (DVI already provides power, just not enough), three for USB, and another (not sure whether Apple's "LED" or "Soft Power" = DVI's "Hot Plug Detect"). Apple's latest displays went back to using DVI directly, with separate USB/FireWire connections.

Pretty cool that LG is reusing the stuff they developed for Apple, though.

Re:It's really an Apple Cinema Display (1)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283614)

Funny how the peecee version is some $400 more expensive than the Apple monitor.

Ugh... (4, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282747)

Agree with the other comments that the review isn't worth reading.

I certainly believe that at this price point, LG is going to make an excellent display. They are a reputable company.

However, the reviewer has no clue what he's talking about.

He's obviously never used an LCD panel before, as all he compares the monitor to is 'his old crt'. He notes that colors seem a bit faded compared to a CRT, which IMO, is simply the result of using the wrong ICC profile, though I will agree that the gamma / color range of an LCD panel is often not as good as that of a CRT (especially a high-end CRT, though those will cost you about as much as this beast would)

That being said, it's cool, I like it, and if I were looking for the world's most expensive 23" TV and could actually afford it, I'd buy it. From the review, it looked like you could hook 3 PCs + a number of AV components to it. It's a nice substitute for a KVM for people like me who use a mac, but keep a PC hooked up for the few programs I run that aren't Mac-native.

Still.... it's expensive... a point he doesn't really cover in the review. But, yes, I also believe that this product is probably the best in its class just by looking at the feature list.

Re:Ugh... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282976)

Huh, a Sony Trinitron 21" Trinitron display goes for around $800 retail, about 1/3rd the price of this display. It's probably twice as bright and has about 10x the contrast ratio. LCD's are great where space is limited or weight is a problem but there's still no way for LCD or plasma to beat a big piece of glass =) Besides the Apple 23" Cinema display supports full native resolution using digital DVI if you have a Dual link card so this unit is not best in class.

Re:Ugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283663)

Huh? This LG has a DVI input, in fact it has two of them. In addition to SVideo, VGA, component and RCA.

The state of LCDs have advanced a little bit in terms of technology since you last checked them out 10 years ago. They're actually usable now. I play RTCW, Doom 3, Quake 3, Fallout and many other games on mine (Viewsonic VX800) all the time, and it looks just fine. Elsewhere (at work and on my other, non-primary computers) I use 20" Sony Trinitrons and Samsung Syncmasters 9xx, and frankly, I'll take the LCD anytime.

A better deal (5, Informative)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282770)

For 3 inches less you can get one with a computer inside, and you save ~$500: iMac [apple.com]

Re:A better deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283194)

here's a $1000 [walmart.com] 23" lcd tv/monitor.

23" Cinema Display - more style, less money (4, Informative)

voisine (153062) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282777)

http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html

Exact same lcd panel in a much cooler case for a few hundred less.

Flat Ron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10282808)

Like a girl named Veronica with small breasts?

"Media Station" ? (1)

sirReal.83. (671912) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282881)

Cool, this "monitor" I just bought (Dell 2001FP if anyone cares) is actually a "Media Station" just like this one! Apparently all it takes to earn that status are multiple inputs (S-SUB, DVI-D, Composite, S-Video) and a couple USB ports. Check and check.

Oh shit, mine didn't come with a big hulking box with its own fan. Or a remote to turn it off. Did you see that the VCR buttons only work with LG VCRs? Watch me sob in the corner, for I have buyer's remorse.

Re:"Media Station" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283367)

Yup I really like the 2001FP. I have 2 making a great 3200x1200 desktop. My wife, on the otherhand, is less happy. But I can get lots of work done (or run a movie on one, try working on the other).

no function button! (2, Funny)

Imazalil (553163) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282939)

Wow, it even has a 'no function' button on the remote, these guys thought of everything!

(page 2 of the article, on the diagram of the remote)

DRTFA (1)

Darthmalt (775250) | more than 9 years ago | (#10282948)

WOW One of the first times I can tell people DON'T RTFA

Samsung LCD 240T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283034)

i've samsung 240T. 24" 1920x1200
i've bought it on ebay for $2k

it cost less and offers much better pixel response time.

http://www.samsungusa.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b 2c _product_detail.jsp?eUser=&prod_id=NB24BSAB&selTab =Specifications

PS: you definitely need good NVIDIA DVI card.
analog input works bad, only DVI can produce stable picture, actually the same apply for almost any 1600x1200 monitors

flatiron? (1)

trb (8509) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283038)

i read the slashdot story, i read the linked story, and i read the name as flatiron. i figured, hmmm, what a weirdly retro name for an lcd.

apple cinematic 23" + sony 23" (4, Interesting)

yow2000 (763256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283043)

Seems to be the same display technology as two existing displays:

apple cinematic 23" [apple.com] $1,999
Sony 23" LCD [digitalconnection.com] $2,429

BTW: the resolution (1920x1200) is enough for HDTV.

I'm using the Apple 23" to type this. The real estate is great, but I miss the viewing angle of a CRT - viewing angle begins to matter when the display is that wide.

why was parent modded down? (-1, Offtopic)

yow2000 (763256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283412)

why was this modded down to -1?

Especially after it was modded interesting, to +3

That's weird.

Re:apple cinematic 23" + sony 23" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283814)

Are you using the new apple display or the older one? (pre-july)
I got my new 23" cinema display last week and I am amazed at how good the viewing angle is. (not to mention having almost perfect gamma calibration out of the box :)

How in the Wide, Wide World of Sports..... (5, Informative)

DLR (18892) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283131)

....did this POS qualify for an article? I've seen more informative, less self-serving tripe lining the cat litter pan. I've submitted better to /. only to have it rejected and pop up 2 days later when someone else submitted it. Excuse me?

Re:How in the Wide, Wide World of Sports..... (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283579)

It depends on who sees it. I submitted one article that was rejected by michael but were later posted by timothy for example.

back in my day (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283141)

we used monocrome 12" CRT screens and thats the way we liked it

Useless garbage, 25ms response (1, Redundant)

rufusdufus (450462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283500)

This thing is speced at 25ms response [superwarehouse.com] time. Games and intensive graphics animation would be a complete blure on this thing.

1600x1200 max on DVI? (1)

tokki (604363) | more than 9 years ago | (#10283599)

Did anyone notice they said the max resolution on DVI was 1600x1200 and not 1920x1200, thereby either wasting space or haveing a 4:3 image stretched? DVI is really the only way to go with a high end monitor like that, especially at that resolution. Analog-ing it would almost be a waste.

I didn't see any special clarification on the LG website specs, I wonder if he got it wrong or that monitor is really crippled that way.

I've got a Samsung 213t 21 inch LCD, and I love it. I have an LG fridge, and I love that too.

mod DowN (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283670)

FreeBSD had long sales and so on, sudd3n and More. If you feel

Big freaking deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10283684)

ooooh aaaah, nice stuff is expensive. Big deal. Typical Slashdot-crap articles.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...