|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 06/08/06 02:41
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 06:19:41 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:37:35 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:52:23 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>>
>>>In fact, if just looking at the number of "digitization folks" releasing or
>>>planning to release titles in the two formats, Blu-Ray has more folks
>>>backing it than HD-DVD does.
>>
>> So did Michael Jackson... at one time.
>
>People were backing Micheal Jackson as a HD video format? I know the man's
>versitile and all.....
HAD INDUSTRY BACKING.... you retard.
>
>Splitting your replies across multiple posts doesn't hide the fact that you
>don't have very good responses to most of my points.
Why does your retarded ass cry "hiding" when I am clearly NOT
hiding. I am right here, asshole.
> It also doesn't hide
>that you didn't respond to some of my points *at all*
>
>For example, you didn't reply to this:
>> USB 2.0 was clearly designed with the intention of moving in on Firewire's
>> established turf at the time, that of high-speed connectivity.
USB was designed with the capacity for connecting many tens of items
onto it without the need for interrupts. Since THEY (the designers)
already KNEW that it was nowhere near as fast as FW, THEY were in no
way attempting to "move in on it".
>> Also, All
>> the articles about the creation of Firewire state that it was always
>> intended for PC use, in addition to uses in other devices.
>
>
>Or this:
>> >
>> > The technology differences was not in how one would write to either
>> > (a simple laser), but in how they are manufactured.
>>
>> Isn't the technology difference between Blu-Ray and HD DVD primarily in how
>> they are manufactured? After all, they use the same video and audio
>> codecs, same copy protections schemes, show the same resolution video. It's
>> primarily the way the discs are manufactured that makes the difference.
>
>
>And you *still* haven't responded to this:
>> > [DVD+R and DVD-R have] two different purposes.
>> >>
>> >>And what, pray tell, are the different purposes between DVD-R and DVD+R?
>
>
>And how about this nugget?
>> > Yes, but DCC had no hope of beating it. DAT was used a lot for PC
>> > backups of data, regardless of what the initial design was about,
>>
>> Wait, weren't you just talking about how initial design is important,
>> "regardless of how it ended up getting utilized"? You cant just disregard
>> the eventual implementation in favor of initial design one moment, then
>> disregard initial design in favor of eventual implementation the next.
I can do whatever the fuck I want to do.
>> In regards to home audio, calling Digital *Audio* Tape, and Digital Compact
>> Cassette competing formats is perfectly applicable.
Funny... I do not remeber seeing it in stores.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|