Slashdot Mirror


LG Flatron 2320A 23" LCD Media Station Reviewed

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."

132 comments

  1. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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?

    2. Re:Sigh by skrysakj · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

    4. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    6. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    7. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    8. Re:Sigh by Stripe7 · · Score: 1

      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 I consider it out of date and am expecting my Apple 30" LCD in 3-4 weeks.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.

    9. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    10. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    11. Re:Sigh by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Feel yourself warned though, luxury does come at a cost.

      Well it seems like somebody probably got one for free.

    12. Re:Sigh by accelleron · · Score: 1

      can I have the Sony when the Apple comes in?

      --
      Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
  2. Don't call it a monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Don't call it a monitor? by hashish · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is called marketing. The name is everything

    2. Re:Don't call it a monitor? by Nos. · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    3. Re:Don't call it a monitor? by realdpk · · Score: 5, Informative

      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. ;)

    4. Re:Don't call it a monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Don't call it a monitor? by fred911 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:Don't call it a monitor? by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      Yup, you're out to lunch :P

      I just bought a new gaming/development machine, and part of that was a pair of LG L1715S flat panels.

      They're absolutely gorgeous, doing 1280x1024 at 75hz, with a 16ms response time. It's wonderful for playing games on as well, since it gives a really crisp, flat picture, instead of the slightly dull curved one from my old CRT.

    7. Re:Don't call it a monitor? by timts · · Score: 1

      dell has the 30' one at 1280*720 resolution for $1699, I remember...

  3. ho humm... another TV by cdtoad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    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!!!

    --
    when they ban enctryption only criminals wi$21*J *#JF$%!@#$':
  4. and here's the competition... by mn3m05yn3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Beats the heck out of this stuff

    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?

    1. Re:and here's the competition... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:and here's the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The first step in setting up any workstation for any serious work, is informing the window manager of your DPI. In gnome I have done this and if I set a font to be 24pt, it is exactly the same size on screen as it is on the printed page. Just increasing the font size is bad, and not what you want.

      For example. I have an IBM Thinkpad with a 14" 1400x1050 screen (set at 104dpi). Most of my fonts are 10pt, and some are 8pt. Now most people would say 8pt is tiny. But that's only because almost noone correctly sets the DPI when switching to something over 72dpi (the usual default).

      Almost all apps (except a few poorly written ones) work just fine, rendering text at the same size, just using more pixels. Windows apps should do the same but there might be more exceptions with older apps because of less adherence to standards...

      At 108dpi text is very readable (thanks to gorgeous truetype antialiased rendering of Freetype). I even turned off sub-pixel AA because it actually looked better without it. 150dpi would be amazing, and 200... well I can't even imagine.

      But what I really want is a standalone, 17", 1600x1200 native resolution LCD Monitor... WHAT IS SO HARD? 15" laptops can do this. The smallest LCD that can run 1600x1200 is 18.1" and costs nearly $1,000. That's a load of crap.

      I WANT MY DPI!

    3. Re:and here's the competition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, I'd love to have the same thing. I use a Toshiba M200 laptop that is only a 12" screen with 1400x1050 resolution. People look at me like I'm crazy or something, and can't image how I can view it properly!

      Hell, I would like to have a 15" desktop monitor with 1600x1200 resolution. They make these for laptops RIGHT NOW, but can they put one in a stand alone case? NO? WHY NOT?

  5. LMAO by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. a $50 LCD would be more impressive by h00manist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re:a $50 LCD would be more impressive by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:a $50 LCD would be more impressive by catwh0re · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

  7. Shopper.com prices by sometwo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Shopper.com prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry most of whom don't have it in stock

    2. Re:Shopper.com prices by Kogase · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  8. Some Notes on LG by SuperPhly · · Score: 0

    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.

    --
    Sig rhymes with Fig
    1. Re:Some Notes on LG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  9. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I can see all of Anna Nicole Smith!

    1. Re:Finally by Dracoirs · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      what, her boobs? Dude, Trimspa

  10. For 800$... by Phosphor3k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:For 800$... by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:For 800$... by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:For 800$... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    4. Re:For 800$... by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:For 800$... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

    6. Re:For 800$... by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      /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.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    7. Re:For 800$... by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:For 800$... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you can get a ViewSonic NextVision N6 box that works with any VGA monitor, does HDTV stuff [...]

      Anyone looking at this unit should be advised that it doesn't have an HDTV tuner built-in, just a regular TV tuner.

      Other than that, it's a pretty nice unit!

  11. ok lets get this outta the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

  12. It's a monitor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's similar to many of the old 2-D models 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.

    1. Re:It's a monitor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NEeD i SAy THiS:

      IIIIII III III
      II IIIII IIIII II II
      II II II II II II
      II II IIIII IIII IIII
      T R O L L

      yE DAmN TRoLL.

  13. For $1,299... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    1. Re:For $1,299... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:For $1,299... by afidel · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:For $1,299... by mrinella · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:For $1,299... by thogard · · Score: 1

      So I spend a few grand on an LCD that can't support its physical resolution and so get to have something other than a video card guess at color color the pixel should be? No thanks.

    5. Re:For $1,299... by shirai · · Score: 1

      Holy crap. A 20 foot screen for 1300? Sign me up. The 17 foot screen with a complete G5 sounds likewise as awesome.

      Symbol alert. Inches is made with the "Double Quotes" symbols.

      --
      Sunny

      Be my Friend

    6. Re:For $1,299... by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 1

      The Apple displays don't have composite, s-video, tuners, or speakers, making them useless as TVs. I'm in exactly this predicament right now: I want to get a big display that can double as a big monitor and a TV. The problem is that the LCD monitors don't have TV inputs, tuners, speakers, or remotes. The LCD TVs are too low in resolution and not as good at handing lots of different computer resolutions.

      The new Dell W2600 seems to be narrowing this gap, but it is stupidly low resolution (1280x768) for a 26" TV.

  14. a $5 LCD would be extra impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  15. review is a POS by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

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

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:review is a POS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how the fuck can the truth be moderated flamebait.

      are the mods on crack or what?

  16. Low resolution by p3d0 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...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.
    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  17. What, no serial? by JVert · · Score: 1, Funny

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

  18. Re:Julio Franco by beerits · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  19. Go Julio! by Ghostgate · · Score: 1, Funny

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

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

  20. Did I mention this monitor looks amazing? by mokolabs · · Score: 3, Funny

    Um, yeah, you did.

  21. It's really an Apple Cinema Display by moebiusloop8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It's really an Apple Cinema Display by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:It's really an Apple Cinema Display by coolgeek · · Score: 1

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

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    3. Re:It's really an Apple Cinema Display by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Nuh uh, dude! Everybody knows PC hardware is way cheaper than Apple!!!

  22. Re:Julio Franco by Ghostgate · · Score: 1

    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 ;)

  23. Ugh... by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Ugh... by afidel · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

  24. Re:Sigh - WHOIS? by Konowl · · Score: 1

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

  25. A better deal by Hao+Wu · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
    1. Re:A better deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here's a $1000 23" lcd tv/monitor.

  26. 23" Cinema Display - more style, less money by voisine · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

  27. Flat Ron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like a girl named Veronica with small breasts?

  28. $2,500 and no network jack? by Steve_Jobs_HNIC · · Score: 1

    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???

  29. Would this be high enough? by DumbSwede · · Score: 1
    For a mere $6,000 You can get a 22-inch WQUXGA 3840x2400 Viewsonic VP2290b

    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.

    1. Re:Would this be high enough? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      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...

  30. you obviously have never used a larger screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  31. "Media Station" ? by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:"Media Station" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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).

  32. no function button! by Imazalil · · Score: 2, Funny

    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)

  33. DRTFA by Darthmalt · · Score: 1

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

  34. Re:Julio Franco by beerits · · Score: 1

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

  35. Samsung LCD 240T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

  36. flatiron? by trb · · Score: 1

    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.

  37. apple cinematic 23" + sony 23" by yow2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Seems to be the same display technology as two existing displays:

    apple cinematic 23" $1,999
    Sony 23" LCD $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.

    1. Re:apple cinematic 23" + sony 23" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 :)

    2. Re:apple cinematic 23" + sony 23" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new Apple Cinema display has the same viewing angle which is 170 degree both directions. This is very good and standard viewing angle.

      Even the Apple Cinema Display has similar spec as compare to the sony's, it has much better color quality. It's designed to work with Mac AND PC out of the box.

      Ergonomics is excellent with this display as you can tilt and move with little effort.

      For PC users, just make sure that your video card has a compatible DVI port. Not all DVI connectors are made the same. The Display has more strict DVI specs that not all vendors product models adhere to.

      http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/displays/CinemaDi splays(30)_0342534UG.pdf

      Here are some cards that users have tried:

      NVidia Geforce4 Ti4600
      MSI Nvidia GeForce FX5200 128 mb
      ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256 AGP

      http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?50@219.6Z 39 a55Cwhe.1@.6899e698

  38. How in the Wide, Wide World of Sports..... by DLR · · Score: 5, Informative

    ....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?

    --
    "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
    1. Re:How in the Wide, Wide World of Sports..... by ravenspear · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:How in the Wide, Wide World of Sports..... by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      Since I'm in the market for a large LCD, I'm actually glad this got sumbmitted. Less because I wanted to know more about this specific model, but because the conversation is has generated has taught me a little about what to look for when I gather the money together to make that leap (I'm leaning towards an Apple 23" but I'm willing to be dissuaded...)

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    3. Re:How in the Wide, Wide World of Sports..... by DLR · · Score: 1

      I agree that the conversation has been good and informative, but the initial article is hardly newsworthy on Slashdot.

      --
      "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
  39. You grow to love the Widescreen aspect ratio by Venotar · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:You grow to love the Widescreen aspect ratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  40. Useless garbage, 25ms response by rufusdufus · · Score: 1, Redundant

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

    1. Re:Useless garbage, 25ms response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite true, since I have a Samsung 191T 19" LCD rated at 25ms response and I play lots of different games; including Battlefield 1942, Unreal Tournament... True, it's noticably not as good as a CRT, but you get used to it. The times you notice is when there's a bright image with areas of black; some ghosting. Also I find rapid movement gives you some blurring, but this is not usually too much of a problem. The size (ie. large but thin) means I'll never go back.

      Of course, if there was a decent large 16ms response LCD... I'd upgrade. :-) This monitor is not it, however. CRT's are pretty much dead, except for hardcore types who really must see all their 100 frames every second (of course, your eyes can't keep up, but perhaps they have evolved faster eye refresh rates).

  41. It even connects with ADC by sabi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  42. 1600x1200 max on DVI? by tokki · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:1600x1200 max on DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Single DVI can be overclocked to 1920x1200. That, or use dual link DVI.

  43. Big freaking deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ooooh aaaah, nice stuff is expensive. Big deal. Typical Slashdot-crap articles.

  44. Re: about your comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You complain that the owner of this site (apparently) posted this story to Slashdot, I wonder isn't he on his right to do so?

    I think the article is a good read.

  45. There are realistic limits by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    IT would be nice to think that everything could be really cheap, but that's just not how it works. Things cost money to produce, many things cost quite a bit. I doubt that you could even get a POS LCD down to the $50 mark when you realise that the manufacturer, distributor and shop all need to make money.

    If you've an idea as to how to make LCDs for a retail price of $50/each, then lets hear it.

  46. Flatron sounds nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...all I have is vacuum-tube Fatron monitor which takes up most of my desk.

  47. What I'm looking for... by killbill! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... is a 17" LCD with DVI-D and S-Video inputs, and =16 ms response time, for under 600 EUR.

    I'm a student and rarely stay more than a year at the same place. I'm considering ditching my PC laptop for a 12" Powerbook + PS2 combo (unless you can find a GTA:SA and a Gran Turismo 4 Mac port), but I've failed to find a suitable monitor for both the PB and the PS2.

    What I don't want:
    having to carry an extra TV set just for the PS2.
    having to bow to the TV licensing fee racket just to play a PS2 game.
    having to use a VGA adapter for the PS2 - unless you know one that does not suck.

    What I want:
    a 17" LCD. Size matters, especially in dorms and when you're moving often.
    a decent response time to play.
    DVI input.
    price tag in the 500-600 EUR range.

    I have found LCDs with an S-Video input, but no DVI-D input. And their response times sucked more often than not. Am I stuck to the PC? I bet the first manufacturer to solve this problem would attract a lot of students. ;)
    Or do you know about an alternative that I might have missed?

    1. Re:What I'm looking for... by carwyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you need is an upscanner, this converts the interlaced picture you get from the PS2 into something your standard LCD/CRT can display.

      Take a look at these.

      The quality of most of the ones on there that I've seen generally beats the pants off most smallish TVs.

    2. Re:What I'm looking for... by killbill! · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply... the price tag of the video scaling ones is pretty hefty, though. :(

      Off to sell a liver so I can afford them! ;p

    3. Re:What I'm looking for... by pronobozo · · Score: 1

      I jstu bought a 19 inch lcd for $378 EUR 599canadian http://www.canadacomputers.com/monitors.html#lcd

      --
      ------
      insert sig here,here, and here
    4. Re:What I'm looking for... by carwyn · · Score: 1

      For a PS2 on an LCD the AVT-3300 should be fine.

  48. OT: *GA acronyms by ansible · · Score: 1

    ... WQUXGA ...

    OK, I learned what CGA, EGA, VGA, and SVGA meant. I started to to get a little fuzzy starting with SVGA and XGA. And anything beyond SXGA is pure fog to me.

    And now we're up to WQUXGA? Ack. Who or what industry consortium is thinking these up?

    I'm glad people like DumbSwede are also mentioning the actual resolution as well. But isn't that a sign that the acronyms have now become nearly useless?

    Becuase, at the end of the day, all I care about is the actual resolution (in pixels), the size, and the contrast ratio. XSVUQGA doesn't tell me anything. (*)

    (*) Yes, I made that up, but someone will pick a resolution for it sooner or later.

    1. Re:OT: *GA acronyms by Boarder2 · · Score: 1

      I belive that UXGA is the same as saying "1600x1200", W means widescreen, and Q means Quad. However I agree with you and wish they'd just use numbers, don't they know that the masses like numbers anyway? Look at the GHz race.

  49. Widescreen browsing by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

    IMO widescreen browsing is a waste. Most web pages are limited in how much screen real estate they will use. A 1900 pixel wide web browser window will be 50% blank much of the time.

    I recently got a fancy Dell flatscreen display. You can physically rotate it 90 degrees to portrait mode. This is perfect for web browsing. Web pages are tall and narrow. I can see an entire Slashdot or Google News page at a glance.

    For watching movies, and maybe some games, widescreen is nice. But for web browsing, tall screen is the way to go.

  50. Large LCDs are great by JimLynch · · Score: 1
    I just got a large Sony LCD and it's terrific. Cost me a mint but it's well worth it. It's very hard to use a smaller CRT or LCD now.

    Considering how much time we all spend in front of our monitors, it's worth spending a few extra bucks for the comfort and space of a nice LCD for sure.

    --

    Jim Lynch

    Tech Analyst and Community Manager

    1. Re:Large LCDs are great by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Still using my 22" NEC blat-screen (not flat panel) CRT, it works great, pictures are crisp and vibrant, and I have yet to see a flat panel with a better picture quality...

      Now for the down side, it's heavy as f*(K... I hate moving, have had to move it like 4 times in the past 4 years or so, since I got it, it was a mint back then, close to the same as this LG is now... but hey, I wanted size, and quality, so I pay for it in desk real-estate... a good sturdy desk is a must

      but have been eying the 20"+ lcds for a potential replacement but not familiar with what brands are better, etc.. and the displays at most stores are split through so many screens you don't get a good idea of if/how good they are.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  51. This screen is so old by MDT48 · · Score: 1

    This monitor was reviewed over a year ago here. Not sure why this site is only reviewing it now, but things have surely moved on a bit since then. http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=19