http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/ Engadget HD Comments for Engadget HD Podcast 125 - 03.04.2009 http://hd.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://hd.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2010 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/Mar 4th 2009 11:08AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/Mar 4th 2009 11:09AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
Has anyone seen any analysis of this?]]>Mar 4th 2009 6:08PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
Where you begin to worry about wireless is (1) latency, which for buffered streaming is irrelevant, and (2) interference, which can cause the wireless connection to slow and/or drop packets.]]>Mar 4th 2009 6:38PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
Incidentally, isn't 802.11b net throughput (11Mb/s) barely faster than full-bitrate DVD video (up to 10Mb/s)?]]>Mar 5th 2009 11:05AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/Mar 5th 2009 11:57AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
model at 7.99 or even 6.99 but they need to increase their streaming offerings from 12%

12,000 movies to about 80% of there 100,000 dvds i don't understand why all back catalog

movies are available already i know is the studios being greedy but it doesn't make sense

because i'm already paying 8.99 or 16.99 to get their movies why not make it streaming only

right now what is the hold up! And second comment is on the lcd vs plasma debate I bought

an lcd because why would i spend money on a product that is very expensive especially in

this bad economy and worry about burn in,energy cost,and to me plasma has a great picture

but not so much that i have to pay extra for it and also plasma weight more than lcd i don't

know but it makes more sense now for me to go lcd also i'm a gamer and lcd is better for it.

GREAT PODCAST I'M A HUGE FAN KEEP IT UP GUYS YOU ROCK ]]>Mar 4th 2009 7:19PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
fee. The subscription model is the best model for viewing your entertainment on a tv because

you can rent as many movies as you want for a fee and if you like the movie then you can

have the option to buy the dvd or blu ray or just rent it's your choice.I personally will never

buy a rent a movie at 3.99 or 5.99 for hd that is ridiculous you can keep a dvd for that price. ]]>Mar 4th 2009 7:27PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
Second, Plasma's burn-in issues are not as prevalent anymore. Weight shouldn't be a problem for you unless you're lugging it around for some reason, and as far as I know, LCD has a blur problem that is still noticable. How does that make it better for gaming? You didn't specify any reasons in your response. ]]>Mar 5th 2009 12:42AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
Being able to selectively render specific elements of the markup returned doesn't make a browser not a browser, that's just a specialized browser. The best parallel for this is probably browsers like those for the blind, that don't render (or render differently) tags that aren't relevant for their audience (images for e.g.). In Boxee's case, it is a browser for the TV it needs to render the markup in a way that can be navigated using a remote. Why shouldn't they be allowed to optimize how the page displays to increase usability?

I don't dispute that Hulu has a legitimate business reason for getting their site off of Boxee (although I think it also has something to do with brand dilution); I just don't think Boxee should care.

It's is a very dangerous path when we (as a larger online community) believe that it's OK for a site to selectively bar browsers that don't align with how they want to do business, or how they want their pages to display.]]>Mar 5th 2009 9:27AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
I think the content providers, thus far, are terrified that people will choose on-demand ad-funded IPTV over real time television. But whatever the reasons, Hulu didn't have much choice, and nobody "blocked" Boxee, via user agent checking or anything else.]]>Mar 5th 2009 10:33AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/Mar 5th 2009 10:33AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/Mar 5th 2009 11:56AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/

Where is your review of the popcorn hour Ben? I haven't forgotten!!! The unboxing was like a month ago!!!!]]>Mar 5th 2009 11:14AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
"I won't miss him, so what if he is twice as good as me. S Video has always resented my domination of security cameras" Composite Video

"I will miss my little analog buddy. I blame that stupid connector" Component Video

"He was my hero, he opened the door for connectors with lots of little pins. I just took it the next level with digital" DVI

"I admire his range, heck I can barely make it to the second floor. But lets be honest here, no digital, no audio, no future. And besides I threw my VHS deck away years ago" HDMI

When VGA was asked to comment all we got was a dirty look and a box of VGA to DVI adapters thrown at us.
]]>Mar 5th 2009 2:28PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/Mar 6th 2009 12:44PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/03/04/engadget-hd-podcast-125-03-04-2009/
Back in the days of Laserdisc and Super VHS, it was certainly the highest quality connection available for home theater video equipment. I recommend checking the Wikipedia entry for S-Video's history. You should also Google 'dot crawl' which is an artifact of composite connections that S-Video is totally immune to. For graphics and particularly video games, that was very important.

Even in the very early days of DVD, few players had component connections. The best picture quality you could get was from an S-Video connection. Indeed, even's Sony original flagship DVP-S3000 DVD player (the one with the sexy motorized front panel) didn't have component outputs.

So show S-Video some love! It more than deserves the respect as the connection of choice in its day.
]]>Mar 12th 2009 2:33PM