Technology catch-all thread

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm 30, went to college from 2000-2004. I'll never forget my freshman year, my school (Illinois Wesleyan) had a bunch of T1 lines newly installed. Everyone and their mother was downloading everything possible on their computers. The good old days of Napster and Limewire. How I miss thee.

[Y2HH]

I'm 30, went to college from 2000-2004. I'll never forget my freshman year, my school (Illinois Wesleyan) had a bunch of T1 lines newly installed. Everyone and their mother was downloading everything possible on their computers. The good old days of Napster and Limewire. How I miss thee.

 

Those days still exist, you just have to know where to look.

[Jenksismyhero]

Those days still exist, you just have to know where to look.

 

Well sure, but without the legal ramifications of getting caught. Near the end of my freshman year we had a frat house that was visited by the FBI (in f***ing bloomington, IL) because they were basically one of the world leaders in distributing bootleg movies. Needless to say the T1 lines became heavily restricted after that.

[Y2HH]

Well sure, but without the legal ramifications of getting caught. Near the end of my freshman year we had a frat house that was visited by the FBI (in f***ing bloomington, IL) because they were basically one of the world leaders in distributing bootleg movies. Needless to say the T1 lines became heavily restricted after that.

 

Not quite...

 

Nobody gets in trouble for downloading, nearly impossible to convict on that...you get in trouble for uploading. So don't.

[RockRaines]

"Get off my lawn!!!"

 

I guess a lot changes in four years. I can't remember anyone at U of I in the dorms not having a PC/laptop and cellphone. I'm sure there were some that didn't, but that would have been few and far between.

My freshman year (99) we all had computers and they had just installed t1's in our dorm. MP3's had JUST come out and we were downloading from FTP sites. I was the only one I knew with a cell phone.

 

BY the time I left we were texting, facebook was about to come out, ipods were around and everyone knew how to download music.

 

Oh and as a freshman we had to use a confusing telephone system to book our classes with no confirmation whatsoever, by my soph/junior year it was online with instant feedback on which classes were full.

Edited September 28, 2012 by RockRaines

[Iwritecode]

But throughout my childhood my family limited ourselves, we didn't go out to eat much, we only bought clothes at Kohl's and even then it was infrequent (hand me downs where we could),

 

I've never really considered Kohl's to be a cheap place to get clothes. When I was a kid it was Kmart. As well as Salvation Army and garage sales.

[G&T]

I'm 30, went to college from 2000-2004. I'll never forget my freshman year, my school (Illinois Wesleyan) had a bunch of T1 lines newly installed. Everyone and their mother was downloading everything possible on their computers. The good old days of Napster and Limewire. How I miss thee.

 

I remember the same. Except we had rate limits so we just got up before class, started the download and it would be done eventually. It was still faster than dial up which was all I knew to that point.

[chw42]

The Samsung Galaxy Note II will have a really cool multi-tasking feature, where you can drag and drop an application to a portion of the screen and use two apps at the same time (much like the Aero Snap feature in Windows, which IMO is one of the best features in Windows).

 

The Galaxy Note 10.1 did this, but it was limited to something like 5 Samsung apps. It appears that the Note II allows any app to do this. There is also a jailbreak iOS app that does something similar called Quasar, but app is a pain in the ass to use since you have to resize the windows yourself (kinda defeats the point).

 

(shown at 2 minute mark).

 

[Quin]

The Samsung Galaxy Note II will have a really cool multi-tasking feature, where you can drag and drop an application to a portion of the screen and use two apps at the same time (much like the Aero Snap feature in Windows, which IMO is one of the best features in Windows).

 

The Galaxy Note 10.1 did this, but it was limited to something like 5 Samsung apps. It appears that the Note II allows any app to do this. There is also a jailbreak iOS app that does something similar called Quasar, but app is a pain in the ass to use since you have to resize the windows yourself (kinda defeats the point).

 

(shown at 2 minute mark).

 

Aero Snap is f***ing awesome.

[justBLAZE]

Anyone wanna talk TVs?

 

LED / Plasma / DLP, Refresh rates, smart TV etc.

 

Doing this research for my family. They're in the market for two TVs, 55" and 60". I personally like the Samsungs, anyone?

[chw42]

Anyone wanna talk TVs?

 

LED / Plasma / DLP, Refresh rates, smart TV etc.

 

Doing this research for my family. They're in the market for two TVs, 55" and 60". I personally like the Samsungs, anyone?

 

Samsung and Sharp are both top tier.

 

Vizio I think, gives the best value (at least this was what I thought when I was looking at TVs a year or two ago).

[Quin]

Samsung > Others

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Yeah, I'd say Vizio is the best value TV out there. Mid-to-upper-tier quality for low-tier price.

[justBLAZE]

Thanks guys. Do you know if it's worth spending the extra buck for 240Hz vs 120Hz ?

 

I take 120Hz is a must have in the HDTV / Blue Ray world?

[Y2HH]

Thanks guys. Do you know if it's worth spending the extra buck for 240Hz vs 120Hz ?

 

I take 120Hz is a must have in the HDTV / Blue Ray world?

 

It depends, this is mostly personal preference. I feel it looks great for cartoons, but makes movies look fake/terrible and very easy to spot flaws.

 

Also, those refresh rates only apply to non plasma screens. While plasma has been somewhat replaced by LED/LCD as of late, Plasma is the most mature of the technologies, it's downside is that it uses more electricity. But IMO, a properly calibrated plasma screen looks amazing.

 

I also think Samsung makes the best televisions.

[iamshack]

Blaze, go to cnet.com and read their reviews.

 

For Plasma, it is tough to beat Panasonic and Pioneer.

Sharp is the king of the LED.

Samsung does everything fairly well...

[Soxbadger]

So I got the SGIII, the Iphone was just smaller and didnt really wow me.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

In my drunk opoinion i would sayt eh big 4 in TVS is Samsung, Sharp, LG, and Sony. Those, IMO, are top of the line.

[flippedoutpunk]

In regards TVs, unless you REALLY need to invest in one right this instant, I would wait until the new 4k/8k television technology becomes less pricey. Those sets absolutely poop on anything that is out right now.

 

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57364...tion-explained/

[Y2HH]

In regards TVs, unless you REALLY need to invest in one right this instant, I would wait until the new 4k/8k television technology becomes less pricey. Those sets absolutely poop on anything that is out right now.

 

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57364...tion-explained/

 

First, TV's aren't an "investment"...they're an entertainment purchase.

 

Second, and more importantly, nothing supports 4k/8k, and for the foreseeable future, nothing will. And when I say foreseeable future, I mean at *least* 5 years, so people looking to purchase a TV need not wait on these. While the hardware may be ready, the software/media is non existent for these. They will be this generations Laserdisc. The content delivery infrastructure required for this technology for most people isn't a reality, and this alone will prevent widespread adoption.

 

BluRays max out at 1080p -- 4k/8k TV's are, respectively 2000+p/4000+p. A single movie would take up almost 200gigs on 4k and almost 600gigs on 8k (and if your talking uncompressed, your now into the terabyte range for both)**. The bandwidth to transmit wirelessly would require 802.11ac, which isn't even available yet. The physical media to even purchase movies that support this resolution doesn't exist, and downloading them is out of the question since 2 movies would essentially get you kicked off of whatever internet provider you use from sheer bandwidth abuse.

 

Also, there is the fact that the majority of people cannot discern the difference in 720p vs 1080p, and those people sure as hell wouldn't be able to differentiate between 1080p and 4k.

 

This is mostly hype/overkill tech, especially for the home user, reserved for the richest videophiles that swear they can tell the difference while being unable to point out a single difference when you ask them too. Without a screen the size they use in movie theaters, there is no need for resolution this high, it's superseding the sheer space requirement to make it useful.

 

For people that want to buy a 200" television, fine...but I don't see too many people looking to buy 200 inch screens anytime soon.

 

It's the same as cell phone providers starting to make 1080p 'screens', when anything less than 50" negates the need for 1080p, as a person cannot see the difference in 720p/1080p unless a screen size is > than 50". Manufacturers will say you can...tests have shown that people cannot. Keep in mind manufacturers will also tell you a 1000$ hdmi cable is better than the 10$ one***, too. Oh, and it isn't.

 

** http://www.techradar.com/us/news/televisio...lace-hd-1065703

 

*** Thanks to SS below for this reminder.

 

EDIT: The data use is even beyond what I estimated (from the article above): "On the basis that three hours of 4K video takes up 3.16TB, this would be 212 standard 25GB Blu-rays – although the quality of image and amount of Blu-rays used all comes down to the amount of compression applied."

Edited October 1, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Oh sure and next you'll tell me that you can't see the difference between a $10 cable and this clearly superior $300 HDMI cable!

[Y2HH]

Oh sure and next you'll tell me that you can't see the difference between a $10 cable and this clearly superior $300 HDMI cable!

 

I cannot tell you how often I've had this conversation trying to convince people there is no difference in HDMI cables...and you wouldn't believe how adamant they are that it makes a difference.

[StrangeSox]

I cannot tell you how often I've had this conversation trying to convince people there is no difference in HDMI cables...and you wouldn't believe how adamant they are that it makes a difference.

 

I read a pretty in-depth review and test of some HDMI cables a few months ago but I can't find the link now. If you have a long run, say 50+ feet, it can make a difference. It's a digital signal, but you can still get bit errors if you have poor connectors or long lengths. But for most cases, where you've got a 1-2m cable going from your cable box to your TV all on the same stand, the $1 cable on Amazon will work just fine.

 

As bad as the video cables are, nothing will ever come close to the lunacy of "audiophile" cables.

Edited October 1, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I read a pretty in-depth review and test of some HDMI cables a few months ago but I can't find the link now. If you have a long run, say 50+ feet, it can make a difference. It's a digital signal, but you can still get bit errors if you have poor connectors or long lengths. But for most cases, where you've got a 1-2m cable going from your cable box to your TV all on the same stand, the $1 cable on Amazon will work just fine.

 

As bad as the video cables are, nothing will ever come close to the lunacy of "audiophile" cables.

 

They're both pretty bad...and essentially, that high-end industry was created specifically for suckers with money.

[StrangeSox]

Here's that HDMI cable test I saw earlier:

 

http://gizmodo.com/266616/the-truth-about-...dgetsfieldnotes

http://gizmodo.com/268788/the-truth-about-...-keep-upusually

http://gizmodo.com/282725/the-truth-about-...finale-part-iii

Edited October 1, 2012 by StrangeSox