POD {Ò¿Ó} wrote:
> me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
once tried to test me. I ate their liver with some fava
> beans and a nice chianti
>
>> Judging from what I read on this NG as elsewhere, I'm not the only
>> "misguided" soul. Further, in an article in USA TODAY, where the
>> salient features of the two formats were compared side-by-side,
>> Blu-ray had the advantage over HD DVD in only two of nine points--more
>> studios sup****ting it, and more capacity per disc.
>
> Is this on-line? As I'd love to see the 7 points HD-DVD won on...
>
> It's easy in a nut shell, Blu-Ray...More expensive, more space. If USA
> today have come up with 7 technical points, I'd love to see them, as
> no-one has ever pointed them out before... I saw one website that
> listed "Name is easier to remember" as an advantage of HD-DVD
>
I clipped the article from the paper. I'll be happy to scan it and send
it to you. I'm not sure if the rules for the news group would allow me
to post a .gif/.jpg file.
Also, not sure if it is on-line, though you can search USA TODAY's web
site if you wish. The article was in the Friday, Feb. 15 issue, IIRC;
and, the headline for the box-score was "Head-to-head matchup". Seems I
remember it was in the "Money" section of USA TODAY, next to an article
about the Blu-ray/HD DVD format war.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Blu-ray is better. But,
keep in mind that YOUR feelings are just that--opinion. Just as MY
feelings that, for me, HD DVD will suffice, is an opinion. Not gospel,
not irrefutable. Your approach to Blu-ray borders on the uncompromising
zeal of religion--dangerous, when you try to force it on all others.
I'm afraid the Blu-ray camp didn't learn much from the Beta/VHS wars.
Though Beta was definitely superior, Sony made a mistake by keeping the
price too high. JVC, then RCA, came along with VCR's at half the price
of Sony machines. If Blu-ray wants to become the "people's choice",
they're going to have to face up to the economics. That is one of the
primary reasons I chose HD DVD over Blu-ray, in spite of its
then-imminent demise. When I can get the same functionality for a third
of the dollar outlay, as opposed to only incremental quality
differences, you can bet your sweet bippy I'll go for the lower price.
"Oh", you say, "you'll not have any more new titles to choose from now."
No problemo, as "the Arnold" would say; of the approximately 470
titles in HD DVD available from Digital Eyes, only some 20 interest me.
I understand that the list will not be increased. But, given the
small percentage of titles that interest me now, I can wait until
Blu-ray comes down off it's high horse and reduces prices before I
thirst for new material.
As an aside, at the time the Beta/VHS battle was going on, I was using
an even more expensive format--essentially the same as TV stations and
production facilities were using. I had a Sony U-Matic video cassette
recorder. Used 3/4 inch tape, 1 hour max time per cassette. I recorded
many movies on that (at an early cost of $37/cassette) in the early
days. Yes, I paid a premium for that format; but, at the time, it was
the only game in town--1972 time frame.
I also bought one of the early Magnavox Laser disc players--around 1979,
I think. I remember I could only buy discs in 3 cities: Atlanta,
Seattle, and Dallas. Built a sizable collection, most of which I still
have.
So, you see, I, too, am an early adopter, and willing to spend bucks for
the best IF there is a clear advantage to it.
--
Thieves get rich and saints get shot, and God don't answer prayers a lot.
|
