Davidelmo
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 330 (0.05/day)
Processor | Intel i7 920 @4.20Ghz |
---|---|
Motherboard | Gigabyte EX58 UD5 |
Cooling | Titan Fenrir |
Memory | 6Gb Patriot 1600Mhz |
Video Card(s) | ATI HD4870 1Gb |
Storage | 2x250Gb Seagate Barracuda (RAID 0) plus 2B storage |
Display(s) | Samsung 22 inch Widescreen |
Case | Coolermaster HAF 932 |
Audio Device(s) | Auzen Prelude 7.1 |
Power Supply | PCP&P 750W Silencer |
Software | Win7 beta |
haha...
people are always like MY 360 PWNS UR PS3 BEEYOTCH! but i tell them ps3 is better for reasons:
1. i can throw ubuntu on it
2. i can use blu-ray
3. sony's online is free, whereas you gotta pay for xbl
Are you imagining things? Where did anyone say that?
this made my day
now back on topic
saying that blu ray doesn't look any better is like saying my 65" 1080P mitsu DLP looks no better than my uncles 65" 1080i mitsu RP sure joe schmo can't tell but anyone with eyes will say hey 1080p is one hell of alot crisper looking than 1080i now lets apply that to DVD vs BR hmm 480P vs 1080P......i wonder which will be better looking? you know the people that say it looks no better probably sit 15ft back from there 40" 1st gen LCD sets that only do 720P nothing will look any different on those
And guess what? That description represents almost all people who have a TV.
You even admit it yourself - "sure joe schmo can't tell"
Guess what - joe schmo *IS* the average consumer. You can laugh all you want, but joe schmo is the one whose buying habits will force the market.
I swear the literacy rate in this thread is appalling. I did not say there was no difference. I said:
once:
40 inch TV, across the room distance (say 10-15 feet), the difference is barely noticeable.
twice:
that picture quality isn't particularly noticeable to an average person on an average sized TV. On a 40 inch TV at "across the room" distance
No wonder I have to repeat myself so much.