Blu Ray = Doomed??

[quote name='evilmax17']One big advantage is that HD-DVD has "backwards compatibility" built in. They're talking about how you'll be able to buy movies that have a standard DVD version on one side, and the HD-DVD version on the other. This will eliminate consumer confusion by having one SKU, and also won't force consumers to upgrade immediately. Blu-ray faces a slow media-adaptation time, where as HD-DVDs could quickly become the norm (even if most people don't play the HD-DVD side of their movie). Quick saturation of the media = key, and HD-DVD has the theoretical edge.[/QUOTE]

I fail to see how having a double sided disc, one hd and the other standard dvd, will help things. There is no way that that dual format disc is going to run for the same price as a standard dvd. Therefore why would I pay extra to have HD-DVD content that I may never use?
 
It is expensive to put a label on a dual sided disc, you have to either re-arrance the way the data is stored (and have a few square inches of unused surface on the disc), imprint the plastic, or use a hologram.

And you can't have color.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Yes - a HUGE difference. DVDs (480p) look like crap compared to HDTV (1080i). I'd rather watch a movie on HBO than on a DVD because the picture quality is a million times better. Season set will still be sold in multi-disc packages but should look and sound much much better than the current non-HD discs.

I kind of want Sony to win this war because Blu-Ray is supposedly a technologically superior platform.[/QUOTE]

Man, I hate when arguments get technical and people don't know what they're talking about. If a movie was not filmed in HD in the first place then it doesn't matter if it's displayed in HD or not. The fact is the picture technically is not any better, the HD information simply isn't there. So if you have a movie on HBOHD and the same movie on a DVD player, they should both look the same b/c movies aren't filmed in HD yet. The HBO version may look a little crisper b/c you're using component cables on your TV. But technically they're the same.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']Well, yes HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are much larger storage mediums. HD is up to 60 GB and Blu-Ray is up to 200 GB dual layered (I hope I remembered those correctly off the top of my head). But they also provide the means for DVDs to actually be in Hi-Def. Currently progressive scan DVD's only support 480p. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will allow for support of 720p and 1080i/1080p.[/QUOTE]

www.blu-ray.com

How much data can you fit on a Blu-ray disc?

A single-layer disc can fit 23.3GB, 25GB or 27GB.
A dual-layer disc can fit 46.6GB, 50GB or 54GB.

To ensure that the Blu-ray Disc format is easily extendable (future-proof) it also includes support for multi-layer discs, which should allow the storage capacity to be increased to 100GB-200GB (25GB per layer) in the future simply by adding more layers to the discs.

http://www.disctronics.co.uk/technology/hddvd/

An alternative version has been developed by Toshiba and NEC and a specification for the pre-recorded version has been approved by the DVD Forum. The original name was AOD (Advanced Optical Disc). There are three versions in development.

1. HD DVD-ROM discs are pre-recorded and offer a capacity of 15 GB per layer per side, offering capacities up to 30 GB per side or 60 GB per disc. These can be used for distributing HD movies.
2. HD DVD-RW discs are re-writable and can be used to record 20 GB per side for re-writable versions.
3. HD DVD-R discs are write-once recordable discs with a capacity of 15 GB per side.



DVDs are not in HD format now b/c there isn;t enough room on the disk and movies are not filmed with HD cameras yet. The new HD DVD formats allow grater room to hold movies in the HD format, since they take more space.
 
[quote name='Msia']Recently, every single console is always initially sold at a lost in the beginning. The money is in the software sales, not the hardware.[/QUOTE]

Actually, according to an article I read, the only system to really lose money per unit was the Xbox because they bought all their components instead of producing them themselves. As we all know, every link in the chain is another markup.

Sony, Nintendo and Sega always built their own hardware. MS just said 'hey, we have deep pockets, lets just buy someone elses parts'. This raises prices considerably because they have to pay the markup on for the Thompson/Samsung/ect drive and then the rights to use it and all that other legal stuff.


Additionally, the only thing we know about the PS3 price is speculation. Sony held out for the anouncement of the Saturn and then they undercut them with the PS1. I wouldn't be surprised to find this "It'll be a lot" talk from Sony was just in order to falsely boost MS's confidence and to make consumers consider the higher price point.

Think about it. 'I really reallly reaallllly want the PS3. Can I justify $500?'
People will spend all this time convincing themselves they can afford the higher price. Then Sony can come along and say 'hey, its only going to be $300' Not only will consumers that are already set on buying it be relieved, they'll have extra saved money to spent on launch titles. Then there are the people that weren't too sure. Seeing the price $200 lower would most probably sway them.

I don't think Sony will say until the 360 actually launches.

***

HD-Dvd does have the edge because current DVD factories can be used to press them with minor upgrades. For BluRay, they need to make entirely new factories.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Actually, according to an article I read, the only system to really lose money per unit was the Xbox because they bought all their components instead of producing them themselves. As we all know, every link in the chain is another markup.

Sony, Nintendo and Sega always built their own hardware. MS just said 'hey, we have deep pockets, lets just buy someone elses parts'. This raises prices considerably because they have to pay the markup on for the Thompson/Samsung/ect drive and then the rights to use it and all that other legal stuff.


Additionally, the only thing we know about the PS3 price is speculation. Sony held out for the anouncement of the Saturn and then they undercut them with the PS1. I wouldn't be surprised to find this "It'll be a lot" talk from Sony was just in order to falsely boost MS's confidence and to make consumers consider the higher price point.

Think about it. 'I really reallly reaallllly want the PS3. Can I justify $500?'
People will spend all this time convincing themselves they can afford the higher price. Then Sony can come along and say 'hey, its only going to be $300' Not only will consumers that are already set on buying it be relieved, they'll have extra saved money to spent on launch titles. Then there are the people that weren't too sure. Seeing the price $200 lower would most probably sway them.

I don't think Sony will say until the 360 actually launches.[/QUOTE]

Such plans can fail though. Not everyone is as price sensitive as us. In fact, some people might have been expecting it for $500, see it is $300 and say to themselves, "Hmm...I guess it isn't as advanced as I thought it was. The Xbox360 costs more, so I guess it is better."
 
Think about it, a single layer Blu-Ray could hold several seasons of a TV show.

Imagine all of Family Guy (including the movie and all 4 seasons) on one disc!
 
[quote name='Kayden']Actually, according to an article I read, the only system to really lose money per unit was the Xbox because they bought all their components instead of producing them themselves. As we all know, every link in the chain is another markup.

Sony, Nintendo and Sega always built their own hardware. MS just said 'hey, we have deep pockets, lets just buy someone elses parts'. This raises prices considerably because they have to pay the markup on for the Thompson/Samsung/ect drive and then the rights to use it and all that other legal stuff.


Additionally, the only thing we know about the PS3 price is speculation. Sony held out for the anouncement of the Saturn and then they undercut them with the PS1. I wouldn't be surprised to find this "It'll be a lot" talk from Sony was just in order to falsely boost MS's confidence and to make consumers consider the higher price point.

Think about it. 'I really reallly reaallllly want the PS3. Can I justify $500?'
People will spend all this time convincing themselves they can afford the higher price. Then Sony can come along and say 'hey, its only going to be $300' Not only will consumers that are already set on buying it be relieved, they'll have extra saved money to spent on launch titles. Then there are the people that weren't too sure. Seeing the price $200 lower would most probably sway them.

I don't think Sony will say until the 360 actually launches.[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%. I think Sony has been bracing everyone for an expensive system and when they announce the price it will be way less than speculated. To offset the cost, look for Sony to trickle out announcements of features that have been cut from the final system specs...
 
[quote name='javeryh']I agree 100%. I think Sony has been bracing everyone for an expensive system and when they announce the price it will be way less than speculated. To offset the cost, look for Sony to trickle out announcements of features that have been cut from the final system specs...[/QUOTE]
QFT. This happenes every single time.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I agree 100%. I think Sony has been bracing everyone for an expensive system and when they announce the price it will be way less than speculated. To offset the cost, look for Sony to trickle out announcements of features that have been cut from the final system specs...[/QUOTE]

You mean I might lose the ability to chain 2 Flat panel HD-TV's together to watch a single image with their support of dual HDMI inputs? Say it isn't so... :hot:

Worst feature EVAR.
 
It has way too much extra stuff, I wouldn't mind if they cut some of the fat.

It's total overkill, like putting down a dog with a rifle.
 
[quote name='Professor Oreo']You mean I might lose the ability to chain 2 Flat panel HD-TV's together to watch a single image with their support of dual HDMI inputs? Say it isn't so... :hot:

Worst feature EVAR.[/QUOTE]

No sir, that would have been the integrated wireless router + 4 port switch. :lol:
 
[quote name='Tromack']Such plans can fail though. Not everyone is as price sensitive as us. In fact, some people might have been expecting it for $500, see it is $300 and say to themselves, "Hmm...I guess it isn't as advanced as I thought it was. The Xbox360 costs more, so I guess it is better."[/QUOTE]

I think you give stupid people too much credit.
 
Man, I hate when arguments get technical and people don't know what they're talking about. If a movie was not filmed in HD in the first place then it doesn't matter if it's displayed in HD or not. The fact is the picture technically is not any better, the HD information simply isn't there. So if you have a movie on HBOHD and the same movie on a DVD player, they should both look the same b/c movies aren't filmed in HD yet. The HBO version may look a little crisper b/c you're using component cables on your TV. But technically they're the same.
Click to expand...

You mean like you? Its about compression not always about the source. If you look at the Superbit DVDs vs Normal DVDs there is a huge difference in progressive scan. Superbit DVDs are barebones for one reason. Space. There is not enough space on current DVDs to offer a 1:1 compression ratio and truly show the original source material. Look at any disc with a shitload of audio tracks and special features and you'll notice artifacting and banding (If your TV is good enough). Spider-man 2 is the prime example of this, the normal dvd is washed out and has bands all over the place, but the SuperBit is AWESOME. Plus with HD digitial cameras in the hands of the biggest directors, Cameron, Lucas, Tarantino, Rodriguez, Scorsese, and Fincher, its only a matter of time before almost everyone switches over.
 
[quote name='weaponx666']Man, I hate when arguments get technical and people don't know what they're talking about. If a movie was not filmed in HD in the first place then it doesn't matter if it's displayed in HD or not. The fact is the picture technically is not any better, the HD information simply isn't there. So if you have a movie on HBOHD and the same movie on a DVD player, they should both look the same b/c movies aren't filmed in HD yet. The HBO version may look a little crisper b/c you're using component cables on your TV. But technically they're the same.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... this is pretty funny... I know what I see and my Monsters, Inc. DVD looks like total ass on my HDTV but looks amazing when it is broadcast on HBOHD (and every other DVD I own for that matter)... There are also a bunch of old (black and white) TV shows that are constantly shown on the INHD channels and they look unbelievably crisp and I'm pretty sure they didn't have HD cameras when those shows were originally filmed...
 
[quote name='javeryh']I agree 100%. I think Sony has been bracing everyone for an expensive system and when they announce the price it will be way less than speculated. To offset the cost, look for Sony to trickle out announcements of features that have been cut from the final system specs...[/QUOTE]

Sony is bracing everyone for an expensive system because it is going to be expensive. There's no two ways about it, the PS3 will be at least $400. That's without a hard drive which they are already keeping out to cut down on costs. I think people are fooling themselves if they think Sony is going to be able to sell this thing for $300. It contains higher priced hardware than what is in the 360 and we know the 360 is selling for a loss.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']Sony is bracing everyone for an expensive system because it is going to be expensive. There's no two ways about it, the PS3 will be at least $400. That's without a hard drive which they are already keeping out to cut down on costs. I think people are fooling themselves if they think Sony is going to be able to sell this thing for $300. It contains higher priced hardware than what is in the 360 and we know the 360 is selling for a loss.[/QUOTE]

Microsoft's stuff sells at a loss because they can afford to throw money at things with recless abandon. They don't care about profit as much as they do saturation. Can they afford to take a $100 hit to get the console in the door? Most definitely.

However, Sony and Nintendo don't have OS monopolies, so they have to be enginuitive. Not only do they need to put forth a great product, but they need to sell it at cost or better.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Microsoft's stuff sells at a loss because they can afford to throw money at things with recless abandon. They don't care about profit as much as they do saturation. Can they afford to take a $100 hit to get the console in the door? Most definitely.

However, Sony and Nintendo don't have OS monopolies, so they have to be enginuitive. Not only do they need to put forth a great product, but they need to sell it at cost or better.[/QUOTE]
Wow, you have no idea how businesses work, do you?
 
[quote name='Kayden']Microsoft's stuff sells at a loss because they can afford to throw money at things with recless abandon. They don't care about profit as much as they do saturation. Can they afford to take a $100 hit to get the console in the door? Most definitely.

However, Sony and Nintendo don't have OS monopolies, so they have to be enginuitive. Not only do they need to put forth a great product, but they need to sell it at cost or better.[/QUOTE]
MS cant do this forever. They already did cut projects that turn out to be unprofitable. While they did take a lost with Xbox to build up a fanbase, it is unlikey they are willing to do the same with X360.
 
Looks like the high definition format war may be drawing to a close, with Sony and Blu-ray being the eventual victor (BusinessWeek article)

With Warner pledging support of the Blu-ray standard, five of the six major movie studios have made a commitment to this format (Universal is the only one who hasn't made an announcement on Blu-ray).

Intel and Microsoft may have tremendous clout in the PC world, but they weren't in a position to affect, much less sway the pendulum in their favour where storage formats are concerned. This was never about them; the outcome would be decided by the movie studios, who have an $18 billion-a-year U.S. DVD market to protect.

IDG News Service is reporting that Intel may support Blu-ray if its supporters will allow the copying of content from discs onto home multimedia servers. Blu-ray backers may explore this option, but are certainly under no obligation to implement it. Remember: when Intel and Microsoft pledged their support for HD-DVD, they became part of the promotions group, not the standards group (which is responsible for defining and adopting audio and video codecs, etc.)
 
Blue-Ray looks like its going to win simply because of more support from the industry. Sony is almost as big than MS and Intel combined, OP, so that point doesn't really matter. It comes down to who is going to make the actual products with it, and it appears more are liking Blue-Ray for whatever reasons (storage and security features, I would guess).
 
WTF is up with all the misinformation in this thread?

Movies aren't "filmed in HD?" Huh?!

Hello people, MOVIES that you see on the big screen are shot on 35 mm FILM, which has FIVE TIMES the resolution of current HDTV broadcast resolution. The HD transfer is a DOWNCONVERT from the film source.

Anything shot on film can be transferred to HD because film possesses a much greater resolution than HDTV.

The format war is over..Studios are migrating to Blu-Ray. HD-DVD will throw in the towel any day now.
 
[quote name='gsr']WTF is up with all the misinformation in this thread?

Movies aren't "filmed in HD?" Huh?!

Hello people, MOVIES that you see on the big screen are shot on 35 mm FILM, which has FIVE TIMES the resolution of current HDTV broadcast resolution. The HD transfer is a DOWNCONVERT from the film source.

Anything shot on film can be transferred to HD because film possesses a much greater resolution than HDTV.

The format war is over..Studios are migrating to Blu-Ray. HD-DVD will throw in the towel any day now.[/QUOTE]

Excellent. That's what I thought.
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']You mean like you? Its about compression not always about the source. If you look at the Superbit DVDs vs Normal DVDs there is a huge difference in progressive scan. Superbit DVDs are barebones for one reason. Space. There is not enough space on current DVDs to offer a 1:1 compression ratio and truly show the original source material. Look at any disc with a shitload of audio tracks and special features and you'll notice artifacting and banding (If your TV is good enough). Spider-man 2 is the prime example of this, the normal dvd is washed out and has bands all over the place, but the SuperBit is AWESOME. Plus with HD digitial cameras in the hands of the biggest directors, Cameron, Lucas, Tarantino, Rodriguez, Scorsese, and Fincher, its only a matter of time before almost everyone switches over.[/QUOTE]

here we go, u must know it all.
 
[quote name='gsr']WTF is up with all the misinformation in this thread?

Movies aren't "filmed in HD?" Huh?!

Hello people, MOVIES that you see on the big screen are shot on 35 mm FILM, which has FIVE TIMES the resolution of current HDTV broadcast resolution. The HD transfer is a DOWNCONVERT from the film source.

Anything shot on film can be transferred to HD because film possesses a much greater resolution than HDTV.

The format war is over..Studios are migrating to Blu-Ray. HD-DVD will throw in the towel any day now.[/QUOTE]

What are TV shows "filmed" with then, and why do they need to use special HD cameras? And why do some programs advertised say "Filmed in HD"?
 
[quote name='gsr']WTF is up with all the misinformation in this thread?

Movies aren't "filmed in HD?" Huh?!

Hello people, MOVIES that you see on the big screen are shot on 35 mm FILM, which has FIVE TIMES the resolution of current HDTV broadcast resolution. The HD transfer is a DOWNCONVERT from the film source.

Anything shot on film can be transferred to HD because film possesses a much greater resolution than HDTV.

The format war is over..Studios are migrating to Blu-Ray. HD-DVD will throw in the towel any day now.[/QUOTE]

Thank you!


[quote name='weaponx666']What are TV shows "filmed" with then, and why do they need to use special HD cameras? And why do some programs advertised say "Filmed in HD"?[/QUOTE]


Film is not digital. I don't know what filmed in HD means, but I would guess that it means they used digital cameras capable of recording in HD. Those special HD cameras I believe are just digital cameras, not film cameras, capable of recording in HD also.

gsr is right about the film though. It is much greater resolution then anything we mere consumers see right now. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I believe in computer graphics class we were told film was something like 4000x2000 or upto 20 million pixels (20 megapixels). I could be wrong though, so don't take this as 100% factual.
 
[quote name='b3b0p']Film is not digital. I don't know what filmed in HD means, but I would guess that it means they used digital cameras capable of recording in HD. Those special HD cameras I believe are just digital cameras, not film cameras, capable of recording in HD also.

gsr is right about the film though. It is much greater resolution then anything we mere consumers see right now. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I believe in computer graphics class we were told film was something like 4000x2000 or upto 20 million pixels (20 megapixels). I could be wrong though, so don't take this as 100% factual.[/QUOTE]

That does make sense, I had never thought of that. Why isn't there much more HD content available then? They always show the same 5 movies on HD Movies. Why aren't more TV shows in HD format? It's turbo annoying to have a nice TV and have to watch garbage on it.
 
[quote name='gsr']WTF is up with all the misinformation in this thread?

Movies aren't "filmed in HD?" Huh?!

Hello people, MOVIES that you see on the big screen are shot on 35 mm FILM, which has FIVE TIMES the resolution of current HDTV broadcast resolution. The HD transfer is a DOWNCONVERT from the film source.

Anything shot on film can be transferred to HD because film possesses a much greater resolution than HDTV.

The format war is over..Studios are migrating to Blu-Ray. HD-DVD will throw in the towel any day now.[/QUOTE]

Why do movies look like ass at the theater then?
 
.

As for who will win? I don't know. But HD-DVD's release date has been delayed past Christmas... so it just lost a major advantage (early release) over Blu-Ray. (Aside- on the other hand, Beta was released first too... didn't win the war.)



I think the deciding factor will be - Which can hold more time? VHS won because it could record 2 hours (not counting later improvements) where Beta was only 1 hour. People wanted to record 2-hour movies, which Beta could not do. Even later with more speeds, Beta was still limited to only 4 hours, while VHS could do 9.

So I think the winner will be the one that can hold more time per disc. That would be Blu-Ray.

troy
 
Add one more hit against HD-DVD:

Warner Bros is now going to make films for Blu-Ray (on top of their committment to make films for Hd-dvd!

That means that 5 of the 6 major film studios are pledging support for Blu-Ray versus only 3 that are going to HD-DVD.
 
[quote name='Tromack']Well, Beta was the far greater format, they just didn't have the support of the industry.[/QUOTE]

Its not because they didn't have the support, sony sucks, and did not want to license out the technology. They tried to be greedy and it back fired.
 
But wasn't beta suppose to be more superior then VHS and we all pretty much use VHS today. Maybe price has something to do with it.
 
I already told you the reason: VHS won because it could record 2 hours (not counting later improvements) where Beta was only 1 hour. Beta was released first, and had the most sales, but once VHS came out, VHS won the love of the public.

Even later with more speeds, Beta was still limited to only 4 hours, while VHS could do 9, so VHS was the one picked by customers. The same will be true with HDTV discs - the one that can hold the most time, will be the one that Mr. & Mrs. Clueless Customer buys. (And that would be Blu-ray.)

.
.
.

SOME tv shows, like the old Star Trek, are stored in ultra-hi-resolution film format. (Think 1 million x 1 million resolution).

More recent shows like Next Generation are videotaped (think 550x425) i.e. low-res

And finally current shows like Enterprise, were filmed in HD Video (~1500 x 1024).

So to summarize - you have three different levels of quality - Old lo-res video (tng), hi-res HD video (enterprise), and ultra-ultra-hi-res film (original star trek).
troy
 
[quote name='weaponx666']What are TV shows "filmed" with then, and why do they need to use special HD cameras? And why do some programs advertised say "Filmed in HD"?[/QUOTE]

I don't know of any shows that say "filmed with HD."

I have seen the graphic that says "In HDTV where available."

Most scripted programming like Lost, Alias, CSI, Smallville etc etc. are shot on 35 mm FILM. Like I said before, film has a higher res than HDTV, so they simply do a downconvert for broadcast purposes. Film also provides a gritty, grainy look for shows that need it. Fox shoots its shows 16 mm(still higher res than HDTV), because they're cheap about their presentations, plus most of their shows are staring cancellation in the face before they air.

Shows that don't need a special look, or are looking to cut costs are shot with HD Video(1080p maximum). Live events are also shot with HD Video.

If you want to know what shows are shot with what type of film or HD video, google is your friend.

[quote name='weaponx666']Why do movies look like ass at the theater then?[/QUOTE]

The poster below you answered this question. This is another reason box office sales are slumping. A properly calibrated HDTV could give you better picture with DVD than a theater does with a film print.

[quote name='weaponx666']That does make sense, I had never thought of that. Why isn't there much more HD content available then? They always show the same 5 movies on HD Movies. Why aren't more TV shows in HD format? It's turbo annoying to have a nice TV and have to watch garbage on it.[/QUOTE]

There IS plenty of HD content. What are you watching?

ALL the tv shows I watch during primetime on the networks are in HD.

What is HD Movies? HDNet Movies? The channel is run by Mark Cuban. It is meant to be a simple alternative to cropped, butchered up HD channels like HBO and Starz that like to alter the aspect ratio of their movies. They signed a 200 picture deal with Sony and they're premiere one film out of those 200 each week. They also have access to Miramax films as well as other films. Sure they repeat stuff, but who doesn't? The fact that they show movies unaltered and uncut makes it more than worth my money.

I have a nice TV and have been enjoying all the HD content over the last 3 years, and I'm not even a football fan.
 
Has anybody heard more news about the EVD from China?

I'd rather use that than Blu-Ray, since even the toys from the dollar tree last longer than Sony products. I'm not a huge fan of Philips, either.
 
[quote name='irrossistable']Has anybody heard more news about the EVD from China?

I'd rather use that than Blu-Ray, since even the toys from the dollar tree last longer than Sony products. I'm not a huge fan of Philips, either.[/QUOTE]

I heard about the EVD. Sounds like a long shot, but it may become a second standard (along with the winner between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) simply because of the potential size of the Chinese market.
 
What's EVD?



I don't get why people say Sony makes junk. I've got a 1985 VCR & 1989 Walkman, and both still work flawlessly.

Vice-versa, my Microsoft XP can't even play a 5-yr-old Win98 game. Pathetic.

troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']What's EVD?

I don't get why people say Sony makes junk. I've got a 1985 VCR & 1989 Walkman, and both still work flawlessly.

Vice-versa, my Microsoft XP can't even play a 5-yr-old Win98 game. Pathetic.

troy[/QUOTE]
Enhanced Versatile Disc. Like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, it was supposed to be the successor to DVD's. I believe they started developing it because DVD and MPEG licenses were so high. It had backing from the government and was developed by some Chinese company, as well as On2. I think On2 had a dispute about the money, but I've not heard anything in quite awhile.

Personal experiences. Their CD Burner died on me after only a year and a half or so (and I didn't use it that much), their portable CD players are overpriced crap (but my Magnavox wasn't bad for it's price, so 1 point for Philips), their MP3 players are a joke, and they make crap headphones. Hitachi also overprices things, another strike against Blu-Ray.

The only portable cassette player I've had a problem with was made by Koss. But it was Koss, so I blame myself for that.

Toshiba and NEC I have nothing bad to say about. I believe Toshiba was at the head of DVD development, to which Sony and Philips gave up (and they even had to mess up the DVD a little, imagine what it'd be like if they did the whole thing). NEC makes cheap and good products. That's why I'm loving HDDVD.

I play a lot of older computer games and even back to 3.1 & 95 I've only had one problem (Arcade Action). Did you ever use that "Run for optimal compatability with Windows *" thing? I never noticed much of an effect, but it might help.
 
I guess I'm just lucky, because my stuff never seems to die. Just last week my parents gave me an old Sony TV. The thing is so old that it still has woodgrain, and you have to "tune" the UHF like a radio. 30+ years old and still works great.



I wonder why it is that some people have the exact opposite experience? (i.e. stuff dying young) Could it be bad electricity? Dusty homes?



How does consumer reports rank Sony?
troy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top