• latest news
  • Car tech
  • Cell phones and smartphones
  • Computers and hardware
  • Digital photo and video
  • Gadgets
  • Gaming
  • Green tech
  • Home theater
  • MP3 and portable video players
  • Televisions
• awards
  • Best of CES
  • People's voice
• video
• photos

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 109

My comments

• I actually played on some 3D-capable PS3s at the CEATEC show in Japan about a month ago. The experience was very enjoyable- not too disimilar to the kind of viuals you can see in 3D movies these days, and using the same, polarised glasses. Is it true 3D? I'd have to say no, but it does make the game more immersive, just as surround sound does with soundtracks without ever really producing '3D sound'. I didn't notice any reduction in framerate or detail involved.
  
  I was left with the impression that this is definitely a good thing for gaming, where the whole notion of 3D is an effect from the beginning. Whether it gives a headache after a while or not, I don't know until I try it for longer. It is less likely to than the annoying 'shutter glasses' as there is nothing flipping around in front of you. As many say, there does need to be an agreed standard which if Blu-Ray/SACD etc are anything to go by will be a battle rather than an intelligent agreement, though with all their investments I think Sony will win. Maybe a standard by 2012?
  
  Read more about CEATEC here- http://perfectfutures.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2C9A25FD67FBDC82!4259.entry In reply to: "PS3 to go 3D by 2011"

  November 21, 2009

  0 replies

• From what I heard (and have advised others!) the center should match the fronts in size and timbre as much as possible. Then, if you're going to get into multi-channel music, your surrounds should match the fronts as much as possible too. This all falls through a bit for me as my center is smaller than the fronts, designed to fit in the AV rack as it is and my surrounds are smaller (but still pretty substantial bookshelfs. Fortunately for me a good sub brings it all together.
  
  But reading this article and I am thinking that a great center and sub may well be good for movies, letting the fronts work as surrounds. The problem is such a system is going to be pretty much unusable for music unless you like the center approach (something Prologic IIx Music was designed to get over). Also where do you put this massive center- on the floor? I'm not sure it could work for me, especially with the all-important wife acceptance factor! A more attractive idea is the one in the comments of cutting out the center completely- for me that would emphasise my tower fronts which could be perfect- so I'll be trying it out tonight for sure.
  
  As for amplification/source- I can only say that with my elcheapo desktop speaker when I added a miniature preamp to the mix (really designed for headphones, but I connect it to the speakers too), the difference really is night and day. Way more mids, a much more vibrant sound. It is one thing that makes me want to upgrade my reciever all the more. In reply to: "Home theater speaker buying tips"

  July 20, 2009

  0 replies

• Good deal but remember these PC LCDs aren't as good at video as a regular HDTV. I get a very sharp picture but poor black levels. As a second screen, though... In reply to: "Get a 25-inch, 1080p LCD monitor for $199.99"

  July 20, 2009

  0 replies

• The great thing about Blu Ray is it exists. You slot it in the machine and it plays- better than a digital download could be now (being 1080p, lossless audio). In theory dowloads arew the future, just as in theory holographic medium is the way forwards... but the whole point of entertainment is the realisation not the mere idea. I watch blu ray and I love it, my home theatre was in fat set up with it in mind. In answer to the question, I rent more than I buy, just as I did with DVD. In reply to: "Blu-ray sales up 91 percent in first half of 2009"

  July 17, 2009

  0 replies

• It's a bit like the world of laptops... not only are they milking upgrades so that they can have significant ones for the future, they also don't want to peeve off too much those who have invested in one as a long-term commitment. It does make for a much more attractive package for someone buying into it- having a decent, AF camera will help, too (though probably not the 'digital compass'). Anyone with a 3G though doesn't have to upgrade just yet... so iPhones are good for 2 years, not just one. In reply to: "Where does the iPhone 3G S get its speed?"

  June 13, 2009

  0 replies

• I'd like to do this straight off just to have the longer battery life... but at 6 months old, the warranty means more to me. In reply to: "Replace your iPhone 3G battery for $6"

  June 2, 2009

  0 replies

• PS3 was basically ahead of it's time. I'd have to agree that the price was the main obstical and remains it. People are naieve if they think it isn't the 'root of all evil' for the PS3. I mean starting at about $600!? $400 is also way more than mpst 'kids' can afford and puts it into competition with budget PCs, etc. The 360 is badly designed in a few ways- the breakdowns, the link with HD-DVD. But it has escaped the worse stigma of 'too expensive'. Sony's only hope is the Blu-Ray link, to madly publicise that. There is still a chance there, as untold millions of potential viewers remain out there. The programmers will then just follow the market. Yet here too remains a problem... how many actually have the HDTV to play it on? In reply to: "Sony: PS3 is hard to develop for--on purpose"

  March 3, 2009

  0 replies

• This is putting it all pretty accurately. A console is not just for technology bragging rights. They are ALL about market share, as developers are writing for them the same way Hollywood writes for the big screen. Their first problem was the high price. Then you hve the elitist image this creates. Then the difficulty to develop for it becomes a big issue, as the lack of realistic returns means the effort is questionable at best.
  
  I really wanted it to succeed- it is a much better deal than a 360 as an all-round entertainment machine. Yet in this respect it is even now ahead of it's time. Whilst in gaming it lags behind the 360, whiuch can easily port to and from PCs. PCs- they are where HD gaming has been for decades, which is only now coming into the average home. Like it or not, Microsoft's first person shooter-based model is the right one, as it is the genre that is best adapted to HD graphics, intense storylines and internet play.
  
  It did, however, make Blu-ray a success and if tht becomes more of a standard, there could be some hope on the horizon (along with another price-cut, it is still too expensive for many.) In reply to: "Sony: PS3 is hard to develop for--on purpose"

  March 2, 2009

  0 replies

• Cell was yet another muddled attempt at 'trend creation' by Sony and it ended up with an architecture that they should be apologising for, but instead you get attempts at 'spin' like this. Of course, if cell was everywhere it would be more worth developing techniques to develop for- but it's not, it is a niche product. My own view is that it was developed more with playback of Blu-ray than games in mind, as the multi-core archetecture excels here. If you see this, you will see what Sony's real strategy was- and if it hasn't succeeded, that doesn't mean it wasn't one that had merits at the time (though I see this is arguable).
  
  They hoped that Plystation was already so etablished that everyone would get one, that the extra cost (which is still there, relative to the other consoles) would be a willing sacrifice by the gamers... yet why would they? Why would developers relearn everything, when other cpus, more conventional, are so much easier to work with?
  
  I just love my PS3, but more for the multimedia. It is too bad it didn't catch on more widely, though I suppose if Blu-ray does there is still some hope, as it is probably the best Blu-ray platyer in terms of value on the market. I just think they did mess up with the exotic CPU, low memory and weaker graphics card mix. It should have been a more open platform, attracting thousands of titles, the good ones floating to the surface. As consoles are designed to be ubiquitous- this is the measure of their success. In reply to: "Sony: PS3 is hard to develop for--on purpose"

  March 2, 2009

  0 replies

• The Mac 'netbook' will probably be a touch-screen, SSD, app-store-compatible device something like a big, keyboard-equiped iPhone. It certainly won't be based around the keyboard, though, rather the screen itself (who knows, maybe it will only have a 'soft keyboard' on the screen.
  
  Apps will be written to scale for it, and many new ones will emerge, depending on it's popularity, which we can only guess now. Yet the app store will be a great draw-card, promising endless innovation. It will also have a possibly quad-core cpu specially designed for it, that will be great for multi-media and multi-tasking, though not so great for anything heavy-duty- which most users will never notice, anyway.
  
  Apple does think ahead of the times- so long as they have various price-points as do the Macbook/Macbook pros, this could be a hit- if it in fact ever exists beyond my imagination... In reply to: "Why Apple must do a Netbook now"

  March 2, 2009

  0 replies