|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 06/08/06 17:15
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:41:17 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> 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.
Micheal Jackson is completely tangential to the discussion though. He
didn't have "industry backing," there weren't multiple music labels pushing
Micheal Jackson, he was signed to specific contracts. He's not a delivery
format either, he's a creator of content for formats. Also, in his time,
Micheal Jackson was exceedingly popular in the mainstream and a huge
revenue maker. You couldn't have picked an anology less applicable to the
discussion if you tried.
And if your point was that just because a format is backed by a majority of
the industry doesn't mean it will ultimately succeed, remember that it was
you who was originally trying to make the argument otherwise:
> It is already happening, and is easily evidenced by the fact that
> the digitization folks are gearing up to give us libraries of HD DVD
> titles.
>>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.
You're right here, not answering the relevent points with anything remotely
like coherent responses.
>> 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".
That was USB 1.0 and 1.1. The main revision to USB 2.0 was the drastic
increase in speed. As of now, USB 2.0 has a theoretical maximum of 480
Mbit/s, while Firewire has a theoretical maximum of 400Mbit/s.
Also, as seen from these tests, while Firewire is still faster, USB 2.0 is
very much "near as fast."
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/usb20vsfirewire/
If you can give a rationale for USB bumping up its transfer speed from
12Mbit/s to 480Mbit/s that doesn't concern connecting high-speed devices
that are the domain of Firwire, I'm all ears.
>>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.
True, you *can*, but it marks you as a hypocrite. It shows you don't
actually believe anything other than what will support your argument at the
time.
>>> 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.
http://audiotools.com/dat.html
"Digital Audio Tape (hereafter DAT) is a recordable audio format
conceived by the Japanese conglomerate Sony in the mid 80's with the
intention to replace the venerable compact cassette."
http://aroundcny.com/Technofile/texts/newtapeformats91.html
"The format that was designed to replace the regular cassette is not
selling as well as its backers had hoped. This format, called DAT (for
digital audio tape), was introduced in Japan a few years ago and arrived
in North America within the past year."
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part7/
"DAT had a short-lived consumer presence, but never 'made it'."
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_4_2/sonydat.html
"Many professional operations have used the popular Sony consumer
DAT decks due to their lower cost and easy availability."
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|