Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays

LG Flatron 2320A 23" LCD Media Station Reviewed 132

Posted by timothy from the please-send-me-one dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LG Flatron 2320A 23" LCD Media Station Reviewed More

LG Flatron 2320A 23" LCD Media Station Reviewed

Comments Filter:

  • Sigh (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:14PM (#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 (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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?
    • Costeños.... I wonder why he's hosting a site in English, if he's Ecuadorian.

    • Re:Sigh (Score:1, Interesting)

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

    • LMAO (Score:5, Funny)

      by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:19PM (#10282426)
      You would think the guy would be smarter than to choose the handle "Julio" before pulling this.
    • 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.

    • Go Julio! (Score:1, Funny)

      by Ghostgate ( 800445 )

      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??

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

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

      Well it seems like somebody probably got one for free.

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

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.
    • It is called marketing. The name is everything
    • 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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by realdpk ( 116490 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:35PM (#10282517) Homepage Journal
        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? (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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
      • 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 [ebuyer.com] 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.
    • No. TV's have tuners. No tuner here.
    • dell has the 30' one at 1280*720 resolution for $1699, I remember...
  • 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... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:28PM (#10282756) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re:and here's the competition... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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 s

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

    by h00manist ( 800926 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:20PM (#10282432) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:59PM (#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
    • 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,
    • 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" App

    • 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.

  • Shopper.com prices (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sometwo ( 53041 )
    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]

  • Finally (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can see all of Anna Nicole Smith!

  • For 800$... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phosphor3k ( 542747 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:32PM (#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.
    • 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.
      • 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... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:51PM (#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... (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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... (Score:2, Informative)

          by afidel ( 530433 )
          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... (Score:2, Informative)

            by mrinella ( 548257 ) *
            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.
        • 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.
      • 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.
      • 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

    • Re:For 800$... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mattintosh ( 758112 )
      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]
    • /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.
    • 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... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:32PM (#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...

  • Low resolution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by p3d0 ( 42270 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:09PM (#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.
    • 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.

      • 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...

      • ... 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

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

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

    by mokolabs ( 530326 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:20PM (#10282722) Homepage
    Um, yeah, you did.

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

    by moebiusloop8 ( 459074 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:24PM (#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.

    • It even connects with ADC (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sabi ( 721 ) on Saturday September 18, 2004 @02:06AM (#10283578) Homepage
      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.
    • Funny how the peecee version is some $400 more expensive than the Apple monitor.

  • Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:26PM (#10282747) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.

  • A better deal (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hao Wu ( 652581 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:31PM (#10282770) Homepage
    For 3 inches less you can get one with a computer inside, and you save ~$500: iMac [apple.com]

  • 23" Cinema Display - more style, less money (Score:5, Informative)

    by voisine ( 153062 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:32PM (#10282777)
    http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html

    Exact same lcd panel in a much cooler case for a few hundred less.
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • WOW One of the first times I can tell people DON'T RTFA

  • flatiron? (Score:2)

    by trb ( 8509 )
    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" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by yow2000 ( 763256 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:33PM (#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.

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

    by DLR ( 18892 ) <dlrosenthal AT gmail DOT com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:57PM (#10283131) Journal
    ....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?
  • This thing is speced at 25ms response [superwarehouse.com] time. Games and intensive graphics animation would be a complete blure on this thing.
  • 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 t

  • What I'm looking for... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by killbill! ( 154539 ) on Saturday September 18, 2004 @05:20AM (#10284054) Homepage
    ... 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?
  • 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 scree
  • I just got a large Sony LCD [jimlynch.com] 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.

    • 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"+ l
  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Close