50% of HDTV Owners Don't Use HD 677
Ant writes "Broadband Reports and Techdirt posted The Technology Liberation Front's article that said apparently half of all High Definition Television (HDTV) owners don't actually use the HD capabilities of their set, and nearly a quarter think they are watching high definition video when they actually haven't set it up correctly. Set-top box maker, Scientific Atlanta's survey, noted that HDTV sets will be in approximately 16 million homes across the country by the end of the year."
I believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
It almost makes me want to cry, but I'm still glad they have it, if only for the week or two a year I visit them
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Funny)
Unless you never want to leave "home" again
Re:I believe it (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think HD sports and HD
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Informative)
That's not the fault of PBS.
What you are most likely seeing is the "rainbow effect" of a DLP system.
Unlike LCD, DLP difracts light through a color wheel to create the image. This generally allows the set to produce a much brighter image and higher contrast, but it does also tend to create the effect you are describing.
Some people are very sensitive to DLP rainbows, while other people can't even see them. If you are one of the lucky people who doesn't notice them, then a DLP set is often a good way to go. I've been told that some of the newer DLP sets do a better job of avoiding this problem, but as I'm currently very happy with the projector I have (a Panasonic LCD-based system), I haven't really been shopping around lately.
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
Hockey and soccer are, by far, the worst sports to watch on TV, especially hockey.
In hockey, all the action you really need to see to follow the game is happening away from the puck. If you can't see pretty much the whole rink at once, it just looks like a bunch of guys randomly skating into each other. On a 4:3 standard def broadcast, they need to stay zoomed in relatively close, or the puck simply disapears from view. (They experimented with digitally highlighting it a few years ago, but most people agreed that it looks pretty stupid.) Once you are zoomed in on two or three players, you can't see much of anything else, even where they are relative to the goal.
On HD, you can back up. This, along with the wider screen shape, allows you to show about 2/3 of the rink most of the time. It makes a huge difference. It's still not as good as being at the game (unlike football, where watching the TV broadcast can actually be a better experience than being there), but it's a big step up from what it used to be like.
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Funny)
Are you sure the folder isn't full of receipts and calculations on exactly how much it cost him to raise you for 18 years? I'd be worried about going over there. One of these days he may just present you with a hefty bill and say "Fix it or else..."
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I believe it (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and that's the day he's gonna get transfered to the nursing home that's under investigation by the state.
-Eric
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Funny)
Does it still have the easily-peeled-off manufacturer's information labels on it? You know, the ones most people remove within ten seconds of unpacking the device, but which certain, erm, less technically able persons leave on for the entire lifetime of the product?
(I've seen them on kettles, heaters, tellies, toasters, radios, you name it. Offer to remove one, and the appliance's owner's eyes widen in horror, as if you just suggested stripping all the insulation off the cables and then fitting several kilograms of Semtex to said appliance. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these non-HD HDTVs have such labels present too...)
Re:I believe it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I believe it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Funny)
Not just the info labels... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Funny)
My mother-in-law had a refrigerator deilvered to her house. A few days later, the display screen above the ice maker had developed some bubbles on the surface. She called, had a repair technician out and he said he needed to order a new ice maker panal. He called back in a few days and stated he could not get that part and would get her either a new door or a new frig. Two weeks later, a brand new frig was brought in and swapped out. Two weeks later, the same thing, the same small bubbles in the display. I show up for Thanksgiving dinner and while I am getting some crushed ice, I notice the same bubbles and without even thinking about it, I pull off the plastic protective cover over the clear plastic display and go about me business. While eating she brings up this story to the entire family about having her frig swapped for a defective display and the new one is bad as well. I stated that i was just looking at it and it looked fine. Turns out, she and the "tech" and who knows how many other people she spoke with did not realize that bubbling was the protective cover that was supposed to be removed after initial setup.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Informative)
A few days go by and they deliver it. They hook it up with the old RCA cables (2-audio, 1 video). I say "But hthis is an High Def TV and that's a high-def box, why are you hooking up RCA cables?" He looked at me blankly and said "High Def doesn't require anything special." And before anyone mentions, no they weren't Component cable, just standard RCA.
I went out and bought a DVI->HDMI cable and hooked it up myself, then had to go to non-obvious menu to turn on the High Def support.
So, if my cable guy was any indicator, a lot of people are probably not getting Hi Def that ordered it.
HD for dummies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:HD for dummies (Score:3)
Re:HD for dummies (Score:3, Informative)
[from WikiPedia's entry on "Widescreen" [wikipedia.org]]
Re:HD for dummies (Score:5, Informative)
When a movie shot like this gets released on DVD as fullscreen, they actually show you the whole negative (tho I don't know if that's how it's always done, some may be left and right cropped) but sometimes you'll see things you aren't supposed to, like boom mics and such, because in the proper format, widescreen, they aren't seen. This is when a full screen release is referred to as Open Matte rather than Pan and Scan.
Re:HD for dummies (Score:5, Informative)
Great news. (Score:4, Insightful)
With any luck, very few people will be disappointed when HDCP scales their backup copies to SD for them.
The sad reality (Score:4, Funny)
(Goes signing pettitions on website no-one has heard about, writes article read only by other geeks, listens to speeches by well-known geeks in NerdCon.05 etc)
Joe Six Pack : Woah ! This new model is surely better ! There's a new thing written on it : HI-GH-DE-FA-NI-TI-ON. Shiny !
(Buys it. Even if he doesn't know what it means.)
The Industry : Money ! Here I come !
(new technology becomes new standart because everyone is buying it)
The Geek : you suck.
(Cannot use new media in his old linux-powered hybrid E-toaster-coffemachine)
The Geek : you really suck.
(eventually, manage to circumvent the protection scheme because it was designed by a 2 years old. Strangely, HE is the one who gets blamed - because of suputative piracy - and not the boss of the engeneering team - who employed children and even let them do underage drinking while designing the scheme).
The Geek : you really really really suck.
The Industry : Wait, I have more useless, stupid, freedom-crippling, ads-enforcing, shiny technologies to sell !
See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working (Score:5, Funny)
Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working (Score:5, Funny)
Next time I went in
If they didn't give me beer whilst I get my hair cut and my nails done, I wouldn't go there again.
Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working (Score:5, Funny)
I don't even know where to begin making a joke about this.
Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working (Score:4, Funny)
Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working (Score:4, Informative)
Right now Im dead tired but my skin is itchy, I feel too hot in my bed (with a multitude of fans), my balls itch, its too bright, etc. and I just CAN NOT FALL ASLEEP!
I sure hope it's a guy.
Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working (Score:5, Insightful)
Marry her!
Actually for Bars this makes sense (Score:2)
Not set up properly (Score:5, Insightful)
The high definition should be enabled by default. The broadcasts should be in high definition by default.
It's not the customers' fault that they don't use these features, it's the technology and content providers' fault for not making those features seamless.
I've always felt the goal of technology was to become as unintrusive as possible. Making things that "just work" without fiddling or even minimal setup is one way to make technology invisible.
Re:Not set up properly (Score:5, Funny)
MAC users, bleh
Re:Not set up properly (Score:3, Insightful)
If a box is required to descramble the signal, why should it require more than one wire from the wall to the box and one more wire to the television?
These things should be simple that anyone can do it. Blaming confusing technology on the user is useless. The confusing technology is that way because the designers didn't find a way to make it any easier. That is the designers' fault.
Re:Not set up properly (Score:2)
Re:Not set up properly (Score:4, Interesting)
I told him that I couldn't wait until the next generation, or the one after that, when we could get something like ethernet on all the components, each one providing a number of services (audio, video), and each one being capable of receiving a number of services. Then you'd do some dragging and dropping of virtual wires, saying audio from this, goes to these speakers, and this video goes to that monitor/projector.
Jeez.
Re:Not set up properly (Score:2)
A router isn't something you explain to a novice computer user. Why should wireless routers be designed for users who doesn't even know what an IP address is?
Re:Not set up properly (Score:2)
Any idea which size TV they were using? Also, how good was the upconverter (or was there one) for the SD signal? At 20" on Studio monitors (the ones TV stations use) I sometimes have problems telling between HD and SD. It's much easier at the 40"+ range.
Re:Not set up properly (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what the fuck any of that means, this whole article is a mystery to me. HDMI? DVI? WTF? No wonder no-one can set it up properly. I thought the whole point of technology was that it made things easier? All you TV geeks should learn some things about user friendliness from Apple/Google.
There's nothing easy about learning ten thousand acronyms and five hundred cables. If the people who made TVs made kettles you'd need twelve different cables and a degree in water-boiling technology just to make a cup of tea.
Seriously, this is the kind of shit we need to teach in schools that we aren't. Setting up standard A/V equipment is a skill people need to have, and only geeky people ever learn it properly.
Standard? I thought we were talking about HDTV? That's not standard by any stretch of the imagination. I don't see why you can't just plug the TV into the power socket, plug in the aerial and switch on. That should be it. It's not the users fault that the manufacturers insist in making things as convoluted as possible.
If you need schools to teach people how to set up TVs then they're clearly too complicated.
There was actually another study recently, don't know how good it was, that showed that people couldn't tell which TVs were HD and which ones were not. Someone should test that a bit more and see if it's because of bad eyesight or whatever.
Or maybe HDTV is just overrated by TV manufacturers who want to scam people out of thousands of pounds for unwanted technologies. My TV is 14", I doubt I'd get much of a better viewing experience with a slightly higher resolution. We're not all dot-com millionaires with 50" plasma screens on the walls of our penthouse apartments.
Re:Not set up properly (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is in charge of switching all of the clocks in the house and car during daylight savings changes. "Is this the one where you hold the button for 5 seconds, or do I have to hit it twice real fast?" that's my question. Honestly, if it were up to me, I would just wait 6 months until the clock was right again- or I would just unplug it at exactly midnight.
The REAL geek solution is to have clocks that synchonize themselves. (Computers/cell phones)
On the other hand, my cable TV system is just too damn complicated. I've got a Moxie system (don't know who makes it...don't care it's a cable box and DVR in High-Def). It works well, but there are a lot of things that take too long to do. Not that it was designed poorly, but it just does A LOT of stuff. I let my daughter take care of that. She cares enough about it to actually make it work, so does my wife.
I'm the idiot who has to give up the remote control, because I fuck it up each time. There are so damn many buttons, that I can never find things like 'info' or 'back'. So I end up watching a lot of fashion, and decorating shows, or whatever my wife or daughter want to watch.
Oh well...if I really cared enough, I could figure this stuff out. But I spend my whole work day figuring technical stuff out, and by the time I come home I don't want to do it anymore.
And no, I NEVER read the manual, or any on-screen instructions. Not because I feel I am too smart, or just above such things. Just because I really don't care if I get to use every feature...
On the other hand though- I've got a fairly complex camera, and I know how to use every feature of that. I've memorized just about every menu. Because I want to use it. I've made my choices on what I find important, and what I'm willing to ignore. You have to do that in today's world when we are surrounded by so much tech.
So I can understand people who just don't want to learn new things. It isn't always stupidity...maybe they just have other stuff going on in their head.
Re:Not set up properly (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm about the same age, and I will concur with this statement.
Overall, I have been very disappointed in much of today's technology recently, something like the past 10 years or so.
It kills me that in 2005, I still have to be a complete geek and know bunches of stuff just to get things like surround sound (which I gave up on) and HDTV to work correctly.
Surround sound was screwed
Re:Not set up properly (Score:3, Interesting)
Where? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which country? Mongolia... Peru... Turkmenistan?
Re:Where? (Score:3, Funny)
Let me guess (Score:5, Funny)
| HDTV. |
\ Want more?
\ ____
\ / __ \
\ O| |O|
|| | |
|| | |
|| |
|___/
Re:Let me guess (Score:4, Funny)
Hey! It looks like you're trying to change the channel!
Re:Let me guess (Score:3, Funny)
It's because there's nothing on! (Score:5, Insightful)
MOST of it is just stretched to fit and looks like crap.
I have a friend that has a HDTV and satellite and there's a demo channel that plays some very impressive demos, they blow your mind. When you switch from that to other "HD" channels you can tell that the content was not filmed in HD..
What's the point of having an HDTV?? There's just not enough content out there to warrant dropping the bucks on the bling. It's status and ego. As for usability, it's not very usable. Not yet anyway..
I plan to wait a few years and use what I have until it breaks beyond my ability to repair it. By then HD content may have taken off and the price of the sets will be much more affordable.
But for now, I can go to Wally World and pick up a nice 27" CRT set with multiple inputs for $150 that will last me 10 years or more.
My recommendation is to wait a while before jumping onboard the HDTV bandwagon.
Save your bucks and let the tech improve and prices to come down.
Re:It's because there's nothing on! (Score:2)
Not to mention the DRM BS that will soon come as standard.
Re:It's because there's nothing on! (Score:2)
Re:It's because there's nothing on! (Score:3, Interesting)
It's so you can be 'future-proof' - yes, you can spend a silly amount of money making sure that the silly amount of money you just spent won't (necessarily) be completely wasted when HDTV becomes more common. Alternatively, you can buy a cheap telly now, and another cheap (but HDTV) telly in a couple of years -
Re:It's because there's nothing on! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Poor Quality HD (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if the content is HD if the cable/sat provider uses a crappy codec (or crappy codec settings).
I watched "The Triangle" on sci-fi earlier
Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:5, Interesting)
fork out huge wads of cash on a new set? Perhaps its different in
the USA with NTSC but here in the UK we have the PAL system which does
a nice 625 lines per picture and a good PAL set does an extremely
good picture. Sure , HDTV would be better , but $3000 worth better?
I'm not convinced and neither is my wallet.
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:2)
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:2)
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:5, Insightful)
fork out huge wads of cash on a new set?
Personally, I would have to say no. I really don't care about HDTV.
Now I'm a classic geek. I like my tech. I like what works. I like what's practical. I don't like chrome and cruft, and I'm generally able to tell an overpriced, overhyped product from a reasonable, practical one.
This isn't an innate talent or state of being. I've been burned by the gaming industry too many times in my youth and as a result have developed a healty skepticism when it comes to flashy new tech.
I've seen HDTV. It looks better, but I really don't care very much. I might like the view better, but I'm not paying current prices for it. I'm still quite happy with my old CRT's resolution. That is, when I'm even watching it anymore.
For me, HDTV is a solution looking for a problem. A very expensive one at that.
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:5, Interesting)
Still, HDTV is coming to the UK. Lots of TVs are tagging themselves as "HDTV Ready" though what that means is highly questionable. There are a lot of different HDTV resolutions and progressive & interlaced modes to choose from. The labelling is confusing as hell and I would be extremely wary of buying a TV now when there is nothing to test it against. I truly expect some chumps will buy their HDTV now and the warranty will have expired before they discover what the quality is truly like. On top of that Sky are touting some HDTV channels but where is the pricing for them? When is the service and the HDTV rolling out? How many channels are there? When will Sky+ go HDTV? I wouldn't put it past Sky to bend the early adopters over and rape them for every penny they have. The only other use for HDTV at present is the XBox 360 and next year the PS3. That hardly seems worth it either.
Better to wait a few years until there is a market and channels that actually justify the price of these things.
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:3, Interesting)
However, for a truly wasted opportunity look at UK DAB radio. The bitrates are soo po
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:2)
probably never be one. The USA is going its own way and apart from
europe and canada and (I think) a couple of far eastern countries
no one seems to care about DAB. Which is why most DAB radios are
cottage industry homebrew company jobs. When I can go into an electrical
shop and see reams of DAB tuners by Sony, Pioneer, Technics etc then
we'll know DAB has really arrived. However the imminent arrival of
Digital Radio Mondiale (or digital AM for the
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:2)
Unfortunately even thats not true , at least not in the UK. There are
actually more stations (if you include surrounding county stations)
on FM here in London than there are on DAB.
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:2)
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:2)
You'll get better resolution, but with 720p HD you don't see pieces of dust.
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:2)
Couldn't agree more. PAL looks fine (if you have a half way decent signal). Since TV's are only maybe 50" tops (for most people) and you generally sit a decent distance from them I don't see a lot to be gained by HDTV. For me, and maybe I'm in the minority, the content is a lot more important than the quality of the picture. Yes I like to be able to make out what is going on but a good story / show is 1*10^6 times more important than a good picture.
I don't want next gen DVD either. I can't see anything wr
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:2)
Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV (Score:2)
My HDTV was purchased for DVDs (Score:3, Insightful)
Once all sets come with it built in then perhaps people will use it.
Re:My HDTV was purchased for DVDs (Score:5, Informative)
Except DVDs aren't HD - you could get identical quality out of your DVDs with a standard definition 16:9 screen...
Re:My HDTV was purchased for DVDs (Score:2)
http://www.oppodigital.com/ [oppodigital.com]
and it upsamples quite nicely! DivX/Xvid compliant, Pal->NTSC or NTSC->PAL, DVI output (plus comes with the cables)
Best $250 Cdn I spent in a long time after I bought my Sammy DLP.
Re:My HDTV was purchased for DVDs (Score:2, Interesting)
When I first bought the TV, I tried HD programming for about two weeks. I was disappointed in the lack of true HD content as well as the heavy compression that was being used on the SD channels. I called to cancel not only the HD package, but digital cable completely. I switched to the basic analog p
Not interested (Score:2)
On a similar note, however, if you want to sell HDTV then you have to SHOW a difference. Most of the LCD-panel TV's in my local electrical stores (even the largest retailers) only ever show a picture which seems to b
Re:Not interested (Score:2)
I don't doubt it.. (Score:5, Funny)
Fast forward two years- I find out he's shopping for a DVR. He's sold on one that will let him record directly to DVDs, but in standard definition. I asked him why the hell he would want to waste a perfectly good DVD on crap like that, and he told me it's because his VCR is starting to flake out.
I say, "VCR? What VCR? (I run downstairs to find 50+ VCR tapes of recorded standard-def movies with commercials, meaning he taped them off network television) What the fu- ahh, nevermind. Yeah, get the DVR with a DVD burner. I'll grab you a 500-pack of blanks for Christmas."
Some folks just don't care enough to change how they enjoy life.. even when their asshole childen, like me, threaten them. Well... that means it's time to play hardball.
f'in DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Depending on consumers to do anything right is idiotic. It's why they're so easy to sell to in the first place.
Re:f'in DUH! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:f'in DUH! (Score:2)
I know, that's not the TV you're talking about, but it's nice to see them making good use of a fairly new technology.
It's great when the airport display systems crash - I have a few pictures of a Win2000 login screen on an airport display. I also snapped a pic of a large Sony PSP billboard in NY that has a working d
The Blind Will Wait Many Years (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason I'd update to a HD tv set is if every channel in my digital cable package (400+) required HD to watch. As long as there is a large cable package that does not require HD I will use that. I refuse to go drop several hundred dollars, if not much more, for a HD set.
Remember when CD's first came out and having a cd player was the new rave? Yea well I was the guy still buying cassettes, and hunting them down as stores kept keeping their cassette isle smaller and smaller. Remember when DVD's went mainstream? I kept using VHS, it was cheaper and I already had my favorite stuff on VHS.
Oh and, I don't want to start a flame thing but this is my opinion, I dislike Wide Screen. I know WS shows more picture per screen and is a slightly higher quality, I know this is the current standard for filming shit and has been for a few years. I can take a screen shot from Lord of the Ring's comparisons and I hate how the heads are "cut off". Sure it's stretching the image to fit my screen, and in WS you gain more length wise than you do height but if I can see the full persons head and shit in the frame vs say, some extra scenery footage I'd take the full head shots any day.
The real radical opinion is, well, I paid for a 35 inch screen. Using WS I am "gaining" extra footage on the sides but at the same time I'm losing over 5+ inches from the top and bottom. That's like a rather large percentage of 35 being wasted by black blank space not being used. Maybe tv's grow on tree's for some people but not everyone can afford to drop $200-300 for a nice sized tv. (Not that it destroys the tv or anything but if I pay for 35 inch I want all 35 inches to be used).
Re:The Blind Will Wait Many Years (Score:2)
Re:The Blind Will Wait Many Years (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't surprise me at all (Score:2)
I'd say HD matters only in a small segment of the content, mostly movies - science fiction, fantasy and history. If you happen to not like those, you probably don't benefit from HD a lot.
Re:Doesn't surprise me at all (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, you're a creepy dude. Really, really creepy.
Tuners and televisions? (Score:3, Insightful)
cuban says no bandwidth, no content (Score:5, Informative)
"Over the past 5 years, bandwidth to the home has grown from 300k for broadband to 5mbs, and in some cases even 10mbs. But that bandwidth is not dedicated per user. That bandwidth is shared. The number of users sharing that bandwidth has increased even faster than the size of the pipe. Thats not going to change...the amount of bandwidth required to transmit an HDTV show vs the amount of bandwidth required to transmit a DVD quality show is about 8mbs to 1mbs...For broadcast it takes 2 to 3mbs to transmit a standard definition show, and 10mbs to transmit an HDTV, non sports program at quality that is equal to what is available from over the air HDTV broadcasters like CBS and NBC.
Which leads to point. Bandwidth to the home is not expanding as fast as the bandwidth required to transmit content.
What makes a program worthless in High Definition ? If it was shot or mastered on tape. Shows from the 1980s, 1990s, and even some shows today, are shot using standard definition tape. Why is it worthless ? Because standard definition video doesnt have enough resolution to look good in high definition. To up convert it to HD would be like upconverting music from mono to 5.1 Surround Sound. You can fake it and improve it a little, but when compared to music captured in Surround Sound or even stereo, its obviously inferior.
If you go through the schedules of many cable networks, some are made up completely or substantially of shows shot or mastered on tape. The networks that are full of music videos from the past 20 years. Networks with comedies from the 1980s and 90s. Science Fiction created for syndicated TV (Most primetime scifi was shot on Film and then HD). THere is nothing their owners or licensors can do to make them look good in HD. I dont think they will even try. "
Rest here [blogmaverick.com]
Just ordered one (Score:2)
Doesn't surprise me either (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, it still sounds a little better than two speakers due to the number of speakers, even though they're all pumping out the same signal. I imagine a similar thing applies to HDTV - even if the resolution is no higher, the mere fact that HDTVs are newer, clearer and have great contrast will probably mean the picture looks n
Public intelligence... (Score:2, Funny)
One of my girlfriend's friends hasn't got a DVD player yet, but bought DVDs and got me to copy them to VHS tape. When I asked why she didn't just buy them on VHS, she said that she wanted to watch them in DVD quality!
I'm suprised 50% actually have HD (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst is ESPN HD, 90% of the stuff they show on that channel is standard def, and just to rub it in your face the fill up the rest of the 16x9 screen with banners proclaiming ESPN HD! It's such a rip off. On the DirecTV HD package only 2 channels broadcast in HD more than half the time, Discovery HD and HDNET, Unfortunately, I'd say 50% of Discovery HD's programming from what I've seen is pictures of birds and flowers, no actual content, just a glorified screen saver.
In short, I'm suprised 50% of HDTV owners are actually wasting their money for a few channels that once in a while broadcast HD shows. Bring the content to HD, and more people will subscribe... Of course the networks won't have that, cause they're afraid of piracy, so until all the TVs are locked down there won't be any content....
I still feel my TVs were worth the money just for watching movies, with a good DVD player, good surround sound, good cables everywhere, watching a movie in my basement is just as engaging as watching it at the theater.. and I don't have to worry about gum stuck to my shoes or the inevitable jerk in the row behind me that refuses to shut up (or that brought his 1 year old to a 10pm showing, and wonders why the kid won't stop screaming).
I haven't bought one and I can tell you why... (Score:2)
Limited HD content today = limited use for HD TV.. (Score:2)
I use my HDTV for the 16:9 aspect it offers and I hope that BD-/HD-DVDs will be available soon.
it's the show that counts not the number of pixels (Score:3, Interesting)
People are stupid salesmen are smart (Score:3, Funny)
Fark called... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No Surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Surprise (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No Surprise (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Large LCD users (Score:2)
My Cow-orker is queen of the hill (Score:5, Funny)
Get some glasses, cow!
Re:Here are more interesting facts (Score:2)
Web based email is a great thing, but Hotmail really stinks. I can't even use it anymore. You can't open a mail message in a new window, and when you click the 'back' button to go to your inbox, it takes forever for the page to refresh.
Now you can't just type in your username to login - you must type your full "user@hotmail.com" which is another inconvenience.