OT: Technology and Geek Stuff Thread

[unknown lions fan]

KC, today's Hi-def rear projection sets are much different than the RP's of old. Angles and glare are much less of a problem. Plasma, of course, isn't projection at all, it's direct view.

I haven't seen a ceiling or tabletop projector that I've really thought would be better than a TV. They need a darker room to look good.

[LightninBoy]

Does anyone own one of those 96"-100" HD projector thingamabobs.
I've been looking at them and they're actually cheaper then 42" plasma or LCD's.

I just know there are some drawbacks to rear projections, glare, bad angles etc. Am wondering if there is drawbacks to these? How is the picture ?

I have a front projector targetting a 90" screen. The picture is fantastic. From a cost/benefit perspective I recommend everyone at least evaluate this as an option if you are considering a 60" + screen.

If its a front projector like mine, you need to have the right kind of room. You can watch comfortably with the lights on, but you really need to turn the lights off and shut the blinds to get the best picture. Rear projection wouldn't have the same issue in theory, but I haven't had any experiences with that.

[unknown lions fan]

Is it your primary TV Lightning? I could see where it would be cool for movies once in a while, but I wouldn't like to have to make the room dark all the time.

I read that 103" or so is believed to be as standard as the 55" today in the not-too-distant future.

[LightninBoy]

Is it your primary TV Lightning? I could see where it would be cool for movies once in a while, but I wouldn't like to have to make the room dark all the time.

It is not the primary TV. Its in an HT room. And you are right - I wouldn't go front projector unless you could control the lighting. Rear projector though is another matter and shouldn't, in theory, be as sensitive.

Oh and ...

My philosophy (and I'm not saying this works for everyone) is that I put all the money in the HT room for uncompromised picture and sound. Every other TV and stereo is second rate at best. So even though the family primary TV is "just" a midrange 40" LCD with a cheap HTIB its more than adequate for watching cartoons, Lost, and MythBusters.

[Masspartan]

I wish I knew what a HTIB was .... sigh.

[-Deborah-]

Google is your friend.

Home Theater In (a) Box

[DeanUK]

I wish I knew what a HTIB was .... sigh.

I got stuck at HT ! Hypertension?!!:-)

Thanks Debs I'm now informed!

[unknown lions fan]

I don't get "texting."

At the risk of sounding like a stick-in-the-mud that complains about everything new and different, I often wonder - what's the attraction?

It takes 30 keystrokes on a tiny pad to get out a 10-word note, and then you pay to send it, and the other person pays to receive it.

Viewed from a bandwidth perspective, a text message would be a flea on an elephants back, if that elephant were a voice call. So you're paying extra to use nearly zero network resources, when you have hundreds of minutes of voice conversation per month without extra charges...and somehow, it's still worth it.

Now, I understand that there are packages you can buy that include so many text messages per month, but why? Does your ISP charge you extra for e-mail, or charge for a package of so many e-mails per month? No, because e-mail is a pittance in bandwidth compared to your browsing and downloading.

Texting is a slow, cumbersome, inefficient means of communication. And it's very popular. Am I missing something? Is there some kind of "cool" factor that I'm not in on? I don't get it...

[Panoptes]

I don't get "texting."

At the risk of sounding like a stick-in-the-mud that complains about everything new and different, I often wonder - what's the attraction?

It takes 30 keystrokes on a tiny pad to get out a 10-word note, and then you pay to send it, and the other person pays to receive it.

Viewed from a bandwidth perspective, a text message would be a flea on an elephants back, if that elephant were a voice call. So you're paying extra to use nearly zero network resources, when you have hundreds of minutes of voice conversation per month without extra charges...and somehow, it's still worth it.

Now, I understand that there are packages you can buy that include so many text messages per month, but why? Does your ISP charge you extra for e-mail, or charge for a package of so many e-mails per month? No, because e-mail is a pittance in bandwidth compared to your browsing and downloading.

Texting is a slow, cumbersome, inefficient means of communication. And it's very popular. Am I missing something? Is there some kind of "cool" factor that I'm not in on? I don't get it...

Its the next gen lemming affect

I refuse to play the game.

I'm still using a pre-paid cell phone that is on hand for rare emergencies. Since I have a phone in my ear all day and a computer in my face all day.........the last thing I want to do off the clock is answer a phone call or reply to an email aka text message.

[King Cole]

school kids are doing 90% of the texting because they can hid the phone under the desk while in class! After my son and daughter told me this was going on in their school I turned off all texts

[unknown lions fan]

Yeah, that's one use I could see for it - passing notes in class.

[-Deborah-]

I think the cool factor is being able to "IM" someone without being on a computer. I've rarely used it.

[mazenblue07]

Yeah, that's one use I could see for it - passing notes in class.

Don't we wish we could've did that.

[Panoptes]

Yeah, that's one use I could see for it - passing notes in class.

And apparently pictures of their private parts.

[DeanUK]

I think the UK sends more texts per head than anywhere else in the world (Nearly all of them teenagers!!). I'm only on pay as you go so I won't waste my money on texts. Besides my broadband provider lets me send 50 text messages free per month via the net.