First of all, I bought the game.
Second, it runs in a netbook (NC10), but you might be missing some of the lower part of the screen. That is, menu is missing. However you can use ALT F4 for exit game, and then use the resume option.
Third, first four or five screens are self-contained. Later on you have access to wider areas. This means that there are sometimes you need to go back because you missed some useful object.
Fourth, there are some logic puzzles - I hate five-in-a-row.
And last, having a walkthrough in game feels like cheating. However you need to play an arcade game before you open the walkthrough book.

My take on this is that if I can have Pay TV (see major sporting events, ocassional movie) without any of the limitations of monthly charges for something that is usually filled with many adverts, then I am in.

And for the people in the US, please check Sky TV programming and be aware that most of the interesting stuff is in higher tier subscriptions.
http://tv.sky.com/tvlistings

Before we get into more details, let me state some things:
1) Newer features are OPTIONAL, nobody needs to support ALL of them. The device with the least features will be the one dictating which features to use. So keep your equipment for the time being.
2) 4k screens have 4 times the size of 1080p. Does it mean it needs 4 times the bandwith? I do not think so! 4k formats as stated in the press release are half the frame rate of 1080p. And I suppose that at the beginning,4k formats will be in our traditional 24bit format. So, HDMI Bitrate of 1080p@60Hz with 48bit DeepColor = Bitrate of 4k formats. The big difference would be inside the players and TVs, as they need to support 297MHz pixel clocks instead of 148.25MHz ones.
3) With half the refresh rate, are the 4k screens interlaced? I hope NOT. Normally, all refresh rates that around the 30Hz frame rate are interlaced.

And people, just be aware that your media at the moment is only 720p (better than 1080i!) for cable TV and 1080p for BluRay. And in both cases DeepColor does not make you feel anybetter: there is no media that I know that is 30bit, and even worse, your TV might be only 15bit!

And by the way, it would be half year until we see HDMI 1.4 devices (thanks to Silicon Image et al. that create the spec AND create a device at the same time), and three years until HDMI 1.4 is the norm in typical devices.

According to hdmi.org, the 1.4 spec is not out yet. Damn, Engadget, please do an update on the story and get actual facts, not rumours.

Even with 1.3, you are not sure everybody is giving you all the features 1.3 can support. The most offending one is the DeepColor one. You know, knowadays LCDs are either 6bit or 8bit (per channel), bluray discs are 8bit... If there are no sources or displays with either 10bit or 12bit, what is the point?

The second thing is networking. Just imagine you are building a new device, and it can either support networking via WiFi or Ethernet that is widely available, or through fuure HDMI 1.4 devices that support the *optional* feauture? We know what happened with bluray discs and networking, don't we? These optional features are optional, and most of the devices will not support them, citing extra costs for neglible gain.

By the way, did somebody read the press memo from hdmi.org? HDMI in a car? You are kidding me!

The good (and bad) thing about HDMI cables is that they either work or not. So a crappy HDMI cable will get you no picture at all! It all depends on the receiver and transmitter, though. Equalizers, emphasis and de-emphasis circuits do a great job.
As far as I know HDMI audio is limited by HDMI video resolution plus DeepColor choice. Table 7.5 of the HDMI spec (www.hdmi.org) shows that for 720p onwards, you are not limited on the video format anymore (768000 audio frames per second), so I would say that any HDMI 1.2 cable that works with 720p should work with any audio format you choose. So, Gil, please, do not mix video and audio restrictions anymore. Audio format is only limited by receiver and transmitter if you watch anything that is HD (720p onwards)
Thanks for your time.

Sure, if a cable works for you, that is fine. At 4 bucks, I suppose it is not a big deal if it does not work. And as with any digital transmission, it either works or not - no "it works better than" or "I have a clearer picture than" issues.
The big problem I see is with 30ft+ cables (example, you have a projector fixed to the ceiling). That is where you might need better quality cables, although equalizers tend to improve things at the receiver side. Certification is supposed to double check that it actually works with any transmitter and receiver, but you will never know until you actually have the setup.
By the way, Gil, the limiting factor for audio packets on HDMI transmission is not the HDMI cable, it is the video format you choose. That is because video is splitted into active and non-active video, and the video resolution plus DeepColor is the one that sets the how much bandwith is to be used. During the non-active video region, audio is sent. There is a limitation on how much audio data you can send depending on the video format you choose. On Table 7-5 of the HDMI spec (check www.hdmi.org), you can see that for 720p and higher resolution video formats, the bandwith is NOT LIMITING how much audio data you can send, as you can send any High Bit-Rate audio without problems. You could also send 8 channels worth of audio samples at 192kHz (for comparison, CDs are 2ch at 44kHz).
At the end, "better" cables do not give you more features (except for long cables and DeepColor). HDMI 1.2 short cables should work as good as 1.3 ones for most applications I have seen. Newer TVs, players and AVRs can give you newer features.

There is one thing that is not mentioned in the article. One of the new optional features of HDMI 1.3 is the support of automatic lip-sync correction. This means that the player, the AVR and the TV can communicate between each other so that audio and video are in sync. You might not know, but most of LCD TVs have a 300ms delay because of all the tricks they need to perform nowadays. Those 300ms can be noticeable - just check what people have to say about "input lag". What lip-sync actually does is inserting a delay to the audio so that the video is in sync - at least that is what the HDMI spec says. Prior to that, people had to do this manually. If you do not believe me that this is a big issue, just check how many warnings appear in games like Rock Band.
The bad thing: your TV, your AVR and your source need to communicate properly. You just need to check all the devices before buying them.

As your source of information, I have read the HDMI spec since version 1.2. It is not the most entertaining thing to read, but it is the thing you must do if you are involved in HDMI transmitters and receivers.
So let's talk about cables. The main difference is speed that the cable needs to support. The main trouble with HDMI cables is if their impedance do not match the 50 Ohm. If impedances are not matched, reflections occur and can disturb the bit stream sent. The higher the bit rate, the more difficult it is to achieve a case that is close to ideal.
Prior to 1.3, DeepColor did not exist, so only 24bit video could be transferred in 4:4:4 format (or 36bit in 4:2:2 mode). This means that the max throughput is at 1080p, so the cable needs to support a bitrate of 1425MHz per channel.
Now, for 1.3 (the a version is mostly a change in the compliance test) and DeepColor (that is optional!), cables need to support 48bit video, meaning twice the bitrate, 2850MHz per channel. As you can see, cables catalogued for version 1.3 supporting DeepColor need to be better built for the same distance.
What do those numbers mean to you? Nothing, as DeepColor is something you should not be worried about. As far as I know, most LCD screens support either 15bit or 24bit pixel representation (6bit or 8bit per channel), meaning that is the weakest link in your viewing experience. DVDs and BluRays only support 24bit colors, so you can only really get more colors at the source if you have some sort of processing.
But, generally speaking, TVs usually have a 30bit or 36bit processing chain. Why then do they need such level of precision if they are going to represent those in a 24bit format? That is because of the accumulated error due to arithmetic operations. Typical operations that you might need to be aware of are YPbPr to RGB conversion, and brightness and contrast correction. Let's say that if you have a +/-1 error at 10bit during those operations, when you truncate it to 8bit, you will not notice. If you have the same error at 8bit, a TV with a 24bit panel should be able to reproduce it. Having more data at the input can usually mean a better pixel representation. Still, I would bet on the fact that most people do not care of a deviation of 1 in the pixel representation.
If you have an HDMI 1.3 with DeepColor TV, you could try to turn it on and off from the DVD or BluRay player (sorry, PS3 folks, that is something that you can not select on a PS3). If you can see the difference, tell me, because then I need to go to the optician again.

Last time I checked, I heard somebody telling me the iPods in Europe have fairly low volume compared with other makes (I believe this is due to a French law, as far as I got from iRiver firmwares). And also the headphones that come with almost every portable audio device, so that you can hear lots of ambient sound that you would prefer not to. Ok, lets say almost every make does include cheap headphones. And if people are not in the move, they are happy enough with notebook speakers or 10EUR ones.
This means, if you cannot hear it properly, how can you differentiate between good and bad quality in the encoder? We live in a noisy enviroinment after all (damn you, city dwellers).

Do you know what is madness? IT in my microchip development company is fully running RHEL3 on most of the computers (kernel 2.4 from 2003!). They are just thinking about RHEL4 now that some software vendors (Cadence, Mentor Graphics, Synopsys, you name it!) do not support RHEL3 anymore. Even so, there are people still using Solaris 8 on SPARCs because of commercial software that has not been updated in at least 10 years! At the end, it all depends on the software.

Does that mean that RHEL4 or RHEL5 are some sort of crap like Vista? No, it is just that if it is not broken, do not fix/upgrade it!

Another topic that people do not tell you about a lot is that applications gained a lot in the move from Windows 98 into Windows XP (skipping ME!). Example: You cannot use .NET on Windows98. Do you know how many developers are out there using .NET? I would say a lot! So if you make a program in .NET it will only work on Windows 2000/XP/Vista. Is there anything out there that is Vista only? I am afraid not.

And as for the third item here, you use the OS that best suits your set of hardware and software. Most people are happy with MS Office, I am not. When software vendors began to migrate their programs from Solaris/SPARC into Linux/amd64, everybody rejoiced, as you can literally now buy computers from anywhere instead of some expensive lad with prices as high as the sun.

So, at the end you have your set of software, and that limits your OS selection. And remember that before XP, people were using happily MS Office 97. I wonder what pushed them to move to newer versions of MS Office.