Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'd not buy a LG monitor

beko.famkos.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: I'd not buy a LG monitor

#81

Post by inigyou »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #14
Graziano_M wrote: post #6

I decided I would never buy an LG monitor after mine broke and I had it shipped back three times for diag and repair. Each time it broke again soon after. They finally agreed to RMA it, but that didn’t mean a new replacement, it meant a refund, and not even for the whole price I had paid. Unfortunately the price had gone up a few hundred dollars since then, so I couldn’t even buy a replacement. This basically means t…

> I decided I would never buy an LG monitor after mine broke ... Sheesh it's bad luck. I've got an ultra-wide 38" LG monitor since 2017. Nearly 10 years and that thing is used daily and still running strong.

10 years is a long time to enshittify.

Re: I'd not buy a LG monitor

#82

Post by soraminazuki »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #22
beardyw wrote: post #5

Whilst it's preaching to the choir, I would attribute 50% of the blame to Microsoft. Loading any old thing and running it is not very responsible.

50% is a bit much. People do expect their hardware to just work. That means installing drivers and the like. And the act here is so egregious that I can't imagine being an LG engineer and living with the shame of being so incredibly despicable. I'm disappointed with Microsoft, I'm incensed at LG.

> People do expect their hardware to just work. That means installing drivers and the like.

A display, of all things, shouldn't require installing anything to make it "just work." It just needs speak standardized protocols over standardized cables. That should require no more than generic drivers shipped with the operating system.

Re: I'd not buy a LG monitor

#83

Post by shermozle »

miladyincontrol wrote: post #7
beardyw wrote: post #5

Whilst it's preaching to the choir, I would attribute 50% of the blame to Microsoft. Loading any old thing and running it is not very responsible.

I'd argue closer 75%. Vendor abuse of this is hardly restricted to monitors, even if this is one of the more egregious cases.

Microsoft started this really. In Windows 95, they built a filing system so that applications went in specific folders in the Start menu. MS Office installed all its icons in the root of the Start menu, because self-importance. Can't expect everyone else to respect the conventions after that.

Re: I'd not buy a LG monitor

#84

Post by xquce »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #61
beardyw wrote: post #5

Whilst it's preaching to the choir, I would attribute 50% of the blame to Microsoft. Loading any old thing and running it is not very responsible.

The difference is you can remove the LG adware without any serious downsides. Removing auto-installing drivers would have serious downsides for the average person (meaning not cyberspace experts on forums such as this).

Surely Microsoft have the expertise and resources to make a platform of driver signing that separate addon software and basic driver needs? Why should a USB headset plugged in be allowed to auto install audio software, recording software, antivirus software and adware, and not even from the device itself but fetch it from Windows Update platform) without the users consent? Surely it would just install the needed audio driver to pass sound as signed by Microsoft, with an option for the rest?

The proposed solution to this huge issue in windows isn't to let average users fend for themselves, no one is arguing that.

Re: I'd not buy a LG monitor

#85

Post by kotaKat »

beardyw wrote: post #5

Whilst it's preaching to the choir, I would attribute 50% of the blame to Microsoft. Loading any old thing and running it is not very responsible.

Over/under on the use of coinstallers as a mechanism with a "special" USB stick with a certain VID/PID pair to download a Microsoft-sanctioned "break into this machine" driver?

... to maybe go with that Yellowkey Bitlocker bypass?

Tinfoil hats, I know.

Re: I'd not buy a LG monitor

#86

Post by IshKebab »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #44
rlam2x51 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about DELL? The Dell UltraSharp lineup seems to be pretty solid. I am planning to get one once my LG Monitor dies.

I work at an e-waste recycling company. We get Dell monitors all the time. Their basic office monitors seem fine (~24" 1080p), but all our clients are too cheap to go for the more expensive models.

That's because Dell monitors are extremely popular with businesses.

Re: I'd not buy a LG monitor

#87

Post by BobBagwill »

eviks wrote: post #67
ThrowawayB7 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft doesn't police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is negligent! " Microsoft does police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is an evil monopolist! "

You forgot the 3rd current option: Microsoft does police HIV, but does it poorly -> "MS is a negligent evil monopolist"

No, policing viruses is McAfee's job. :-)

Re: I'd not buy a LG monitor

#88

Post by willismichael »

stavros wrote: post #70
ThrowawayB7 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft doesn't police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is negligent! " Microsoft does police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is an evil monopolist! "

There's also the option of "MS asks you if you want to run stuff your monitor wants to run". It's not that hard. The fault here is definitely LG's, though.

  [x] Yes
  [ ] Remind me later

Re: I'd not buy a LG monitor

#89

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

RetroTechie wrote: post #36
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% is a bit much. People do expect their hardware to just work. That means installing drivers and the like. And the act here is so egregious that I can't imagine being an LG engineer and living with the shame of being so incredibly despicable. I'm disappointed with Microsoft, I'm incensed at LG.

What part of "software needed to control a peripheral" could POSSIBLY be defined as: "software that shows you ads, and/or uploads private data to vendor without even asking for consent"?

Be glad they are not mining for crypto on baked in chips with the power they draw freely.. and have some logic to circumvent power drawing measurements.
Post reply on HN