|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 07/06/06 03:56
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:15:24 -0000, Doug Jacobs
<djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> Gave us:
>In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
>
>> >So, why no Blu-Ray instead of HD-DVD?
>
>> Have you even been reading this group, you total retard?
>> Did you star in the film "Total Retard"?
>
>> I just said a day or so ago that I would buy a BluTurd player
>> *after* THEY release their El Cheapo CRAP models. If it is so great,
>> even THAT model should beat out my HD DVD player.
>
>And you still haven't answered my question, despite scattering your
>response to me over 3 different posts. Why do you do that?
Gonna play netkopp now?
>
>Anyways. You admit that both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD both provide a vastly
>superior picture than what DVD can do today.
No shit. One of them actually does it with consistency.
> Given that, why did you
>choose HD-DVD *FIRST*?
I am not real big on Sony's philosophy. The retarded bastards
should have gotten on board with Toshiba... BUT NOOOOOOOoooo...
They are too fucking B.Gatesesque. DRM rootkit and all. Fuck Sony.
> Furthermore, what's with your obsession about
>calling Blu-Ray "BluTurd"?
It isn't an obsession. It doesn't work, so in common lingo, it is a
turd. Hence the all too appropriate moniker.
> Were you beaten as a child by some guy named
>Ray who loved wearing blue suits?
You're a goddamned retard, boy.
> It's immature
No... YOU are immature.
> and certainly gives the
>impression that you consider HD-DVD superior in some way to Blu-Ray
It is. IT works, and BluTurd doesn't.
> - but
>you haven't said why.
Sure I did. FUNCTION. One FUNCTIONS... One DOES NOT.
Got clue?
>Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD can be used to store high quality audio and HD
>video.
Yes, but only one seems to be doing it successfully.
> The only difference is that one
One works, and the other is stalled in the gate.
> medium has slightly more storage
>space than the other.
It has abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with storage capacity.
> But in terms of A/V, that's mostly moot.
Mostly? Get a clue.
> So long
>as both can contain an entire movie, a dozen extra gigabytes here or there
>isn't going to make a difference.
No shit. It did, however, cause the failure of one medium in their
zeal to top the other.
>But it obviously makes a difference to you, yet you don't - won't -
>explain why.
I guess that you just don't know how to fucking read, or cannot
comprehend what you read.
>As for your comment that the market can support both formats, I have to
>again disagree.
Yes, but you ain't real bright, son (Foghorn Leghorn inflection)
> Yes, the market does support both DVD-R and DVD+R - but
>why?
That is such a retarded example, I am not even going to address it.
> They both do the exact same thing, and have virtually the same
>amount of storage. Yet because the industry couldn't agree on one
>standard, adoption of this technology was slowed quite a bit.
Actually their concept and design timelines were separated.
> Even now
>it's rather confusing.
Not for some of us.
> Some players handle +R better than -R, for
>instance - and for no good reason. There's no advantage to +R over -R or
>vice-versa so you'd think they'd be interchangable...but they aren't! And
>the same thing could happen to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.
You are just spittin' out words to see where they splatter.
>The same goes for blu-ray vs. hd-dvd. Yes, you *could* make a player
>capable of handling both formats
Count on it being the case.
> - but then I still have to ask: why two
>formats?
Ask the retards at Sony.
> They support the same content, it's just written differentally.
>No one - not you, not the technology journalists, not even the companies
>themselves - has been able to explain why one format is better than the
>other for the purpose of HD video storage.
IF they both functioned they would both be viable. Since only one
functions, the reason why it is better than the other is obvious.
> And in the meantime, the
>adoption of either new format is going to be slow because no wise
>consumer is going to want to find out he's just spent hudreds or thousands
>of dollars on hardware and a media format that's going to be declared
>"dead" with in a few years.
They will both last well over a decade.
>As for your pathetic comparison of Blu-Ray/HD-DVD to religion, please.
What?
>These are totally separate issues. First off, most people only choose
>one religion, so it's OK that there are many, even though many are
>contradictory/conflicting with one another.
Dude, you couldn't teach an airy turd to float, much less give life
lessons in Usenet. Get off your soapbox.
> With Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, if you
>choose only one format, you'll lose out on the titles released by the
>studios that don't support that format.
They will all eventually press all three standards.
> This means you'll either have to
>buy 2 separate devices - that do essentially the same thing. Or you could
>buy a multi-format player - which will cost more than a single format
>player simply due to the added complexities of having 2 or more laser
>assemblies inside.
Wrong. Same laser light wavelength... same laser. They are
already ALL dual laser just to provide continued compatibility with
standard DVD and CD playback.
> Yes, I suppose the studios could just start producing
>2 separate versions of all their titles - one for Blu-Ray, and one for
>HD-DVD.
Suppose? Try count on it. With "count" being the key word. Money
is money, and the master is the same for both.
> But again, I have to ask...WHY TWO FORMATS?
Why ask here. Get your ass onto the "contact us" link over on the
Sony page and ask those retarded twits.
> In this case, this
>will make it much more difficult and expensive to manufacture.
Cost of manufacture won't differ one iota. An optical disc reader
is an optical disk reader is an optical disk reader... period.
> Not only
>doesn't this benefit the consumer, it doesn't benefit the studios!
The studios and the hardware makers are twit separate entities in
most cases. Yet more proof that Sony's move was retarded.
>It seems the industry expects the consumers to make the choice between
>Blu-Ray and HD-DVD when they haven't considered the third option -
You haven't a clue as to what they have and have not considered.
>consumers ignore both formats and simply leapfrog to the
>next-next-generation which I guarantee will debut only after it's
>format-wars have finished.
There is no "next generation". 1080 IS the final resolution for us
for at least two decades.
You think players are hard to manufacture? Try making a display
that renders at the level that some twit claimed was the next one in
the pipe (ONE manufacturer "set" the next "standard" BULLSHIT)
>But you're certainly free to jump in now.
Oh.. do I have the permission of a technology wussy?
> I don't think it was a wise
>choice, and I've explained why.
Good for you. I am sure there are several; other areas in life in
which you are less than informed on.
> If this somehow bruised your overly
>sensitive ego, I apologize but I stand by my statements.
Whatever. I'm sure my brash responses will yield yet another set of
"why did you ave to talk to me that way" craptoids. It must have been
that stupid "beaten as a child" bullshit. Are you in this thread from
the wrestling group?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|