Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Buy an HD-DVD Player

["Jonathan King" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 11/2/07, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Vern Green wrote:
>
> > Well, the big reason I would think for not having two machines sitting
> > in your stereo cabinet. I am not sure how it all works, but there could
> > also be a limit in the number of HDTV inputs you can have on a product,
> > so if you have HDTV and HD-DVD, you would not have HDMI connection for a
> > third product, (though you might still be able to use component
> > connections)
>
> That's a good point about the connectors.  One thing I know:  Ordinary DVD
> looks great.

This is true...but only if you have never seen HD. And, man, do I
*ever* hate the fact that this is true.

> I grew up watching a crappy 13" B&W set that could get four
> channels on a good day.

Let me guess: channels 2, 4, 5, and 7. And for those new-fangled
higher number channels, you could get 38 and 56...maybe.


> We had no cable and no VCR.  It will not be easy
> to convince me that I need HD anything.

"So there we were, looking at four channels in crappy black 'n white
with snow on a screen the size of a postage stamp..and we LIKED it!!"
:-)

> It's amazing that someone would
> pay more than $1000 after taxes to get a device that plays both Blu-ray
> and HD-DVD.

Yeah, that's pretty weird. But trust me: HD resolution really does
have a purpose. Specifically, that purpose for us is to watch NOVA on
Tuesday nights, and also for me to see the Red Sox stomp all over the
Rockies in the recently completed World Series.

>  Either that person has a lot of money to throw around, or he
> (usually 'he') has equated his value as a person with some of the objects
> he possesses.

To spend $1K on something like that, for sure.

> My 7-year-old Sony Trinitron WEGA set has a great picture
> (especially with 16:9 aspect ratio) and that will never change.  So I'm
> going to stick with that set for awhile, probably until it fails.  By then
> it won't be too price to get really nice HD equipment.

Last year, 720p/1080i HD sets fell decisively below $1000, and this
year they can be found for less than $500. This year, the 1080p HD
sets are generally running somewhat above $1000, but they too will go
down. Assuming the dollar doesn't completely crash, by next year those
sets will also have fallen to the ~$500-$1000 level, at which point
your set will be 8 or 9 years old, and I will lay down even odds
you'll get the new HD TV, assuming that Netflix has enough titles in
HD that you decide you want to see. Especially if you find out, like
me, that you don't need or care about cable if you get enough
over-the-air HD channels.

> These companies really screw us with the new technology.  They try to
> manipulate our feelings about it using their advertisements and product
> placement.  Pretty soon you feel like a complete loser because your TV
> "isn't big enough."  Then they get your money.  I'm not that easily
> fooled.

I agree that the "not big enough" ploy is pretty much a pitch to make
you think your man parts are not large enough. But HD really is
substantially better than standard def or your DVDs. I really wish it
weren't true, but it is.

> I do agree though, as I've said before, that if I didn't already have a
> decent TV, I'd buy some kind of HDTV.

I am really proud of you that you are fairly impervious to
manufactured desire. But sooner or later, you will buy that HDTV. And
the next thing you know, you'll be voting for Republicans.

> I also think that $99 for an HD-DVD
> player is a good deal.

Shopping at Wal*Mart is just one step away from pulling the lever for
Senator Coleman, ya know. :-)

jking

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion