<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray vs. Downloading</title> <atom:link href="http://chris.pirillo.com/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://chris.pirillo.com/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/</link> <description>News and Reviews! Geek, Internet Entrepreneur, Hardware Addict, Software Junkie, Book Author, Once TV Show Host, Technology Enthusiast, Shameless Self-Promoter, Tech Conference Coordinator, Early Adopter, Idea Evangelist, Tech Support Blogger, Bootstrapper, Media Personality, Technology Consultant, Thicker Quicker Picker Upper.</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:37:17 -0800</lastBuildDate> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Tom Burkman</title><link>http://chris.pirillo.com/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/comment-page-1/#comment-535593</link> <dc:creator>Tom Burkman</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:30:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/05/18/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/#comment-535593</guid> <description>I think DLing movies will really all depend on how fast the speed of the net grows.The future of HDTV will also require an insane amount of data (by todays standards, im sure a GB was considered insane in the 70s).http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.phpSuper Hi-Vision 7680x4320, like 16 1080p screens jammed together.there will have to be some sort of storage device that makes blue ray look like 5.25&quot; floppies.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think DLing movies will really all depend on how fast the speed of the net grows.</p><p>The future of HDTV will also require an insane amount of data (by todays standards, im sure a GB was considered insane in the 70s).</p><p><a
href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.php" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.php</a></p><p>Super Hi-Vision 7680&#215;4320, like 16 1080p screens jammed together.</p><p>there will have to be some sort of storage device that makes blue ray look like 5.25&#8243; floppies.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Tom Burkman</title><link>http://chris.pirillo.com/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/comment-page-1/#comment-535592</link> <dc:creator>Tom Burkman</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:30:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/05/18/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/#comment-535592</guid> <description>I think DLing movies will really all depend on how fast the speed of the net grows.The future of HDTV will also require an insane amount of data (by todays standards, im sure a GB was considered insane in the 70s).http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.phpSuper Hi-Vision 7680x4320, like 16 1080p screens jammed together.there will have to be some sort of storage device that makes blue ray look like 5.25&quot; floppies.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think DLing movies will really all depend on how fast the speed of the net grows.</p><p>The future of HDTV will also require an insane amount of data (by todays standards, im sure a GB was considered insane in the 70s).</p><p><a
href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.php" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.php</a></p><p>Super Hi-Vision 7680&#215;4320, like 16 1080p screens jammed together.</p><p>there will have to be some sort of storage device that makes blue ray look like 5.25&#8243; floppies.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: LarryO</title><link>http://chris.pirillo.com/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/comment-page-1/#comment-535306</link> <dc:creator>LarryO</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 14:35:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/05/18/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/#comment-535306</guid> <description>I like the idea of downloading but were to store my stuff? umm, dvd? LOL. so I might as well get it on DVD to begin with...I download music and TVShows off iTunes all the time, I think what makes the difference is if I&#039;m going to be watching it often then I &#039;ll download it so I have access to it whenever with no need to look for that DVD.As for HD or Blue-ray...ummm... I&#039;d like to answer with a question. Why do we need or rather they need all that room? do they even use all the room on todays DVDs? and I do believe there is MP4 encoding which I heard it&#039;s just as good if not better quality than the current encoding format.so far I see HD and Blue-ray just a way for them to push some technology we don&#039;t really need.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the idea of downloading but were to store my stuff? umm, dvd? LOL. so I might as well get it on DVD to begin with&#8230;</p><p>I download music and TVShows off iTunes all the time, I think what makes the difference is if I&#8217;m going to be watching it often then I &#8216;ll download it so I have access to it whenever with no need to look for that DVD.</p><p>As for HD or Blue-ray&#8230;ummm&#8230; I&#8217;d like to answer with a question. Why do we need or rather they need all that room? do they even use all the room on todays DVDs? and I do believe there is MP4 encoding which I heard it&#8217;s just as good if not better quality than the current encoding format.</p><p>so far I see HD and Blue-ray just a way for them to push some technology we don&#8217;t really need.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: LarryO</title><link>http://chris.pirillo.com/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/comment-page-1/#comment-535305</link> <dc:creator>LarryO</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 14:35:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/05/18/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/#comment-535305</guid> <description>I like the idea of downloading but were to store my stuff? umm, dvd? LOL. so I might as well get it on DVD to begin with...I download music and TVShows off iTunes all the time, I think what makes the difference is if I&#039;m going to be watching it often then I &#039;ll download it so I have access to it whenever with no need to look for that DVD.As for HD or Blue-ray...ummm... I&#039;d like to answer with a question. Why do we need or rather they need all that room? do they even use all the room on todays DVDs? and I do believe there is MP4 encoding which I heard it&#039;s just as good if not better quality than the current encoding format.so far I see HD and Blue-ray just a way for them to push some technology we don&#039;t really need.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the idea of downloading but were to store my stuff? umm, dvd? LOL. so I might as well get it on DVD to begin with&#8230;</p><p>I download music and TVShows off iTunes all the time, I think what makes the difference is if I&#8217;m going to be watching it often then I &#8216;ll download it so I have access to it whenever with no need to look for that DVD.</p><p>As for HD or Blue-ray&#8230;ummm&#8230; I&#8217;d like to answer with a question. Why do we need or rather they need all that room? do they even use all the room on todays DVDs? and I do believe there is MP4 encoding which I heard it&#8217;s just as good if not better quality than the current encoding format.</p><p>so far I see HD and Blue-ray just a way for them to push some technology we don&#8217;t really need.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bill Sheppard</title><link>http://chris.pirillo.com/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/comment-page-1/#comment-535652</link> <dc:creator>Bill Sheppard</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2007 02:04:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/05/18/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/#comment-535652</guid> <description>Someday downloads will be the way to go, but we&#039;re many years from the point where enough of the population has enough broadband speed to download 1080i/p content in a reasonable way.  Further, many people want the security of owning physical media rather than fearing that a hard drive crash will cost them their collection.While Blu-ray and HD DVD have comparable specs in terms of supported video resolution and codec support, Blu-ray is way ahead in terms of capacity, bandwidth, interactive platform, vendor support, and studio support.  Seven of the eight major studios support Blu-ray, three exclusively.  Only three studios support HD DVD, one exclusively (and they are rumored to be wavering).  In terms of CE support Toshiba is your only option with HD DVD, while with Blu-ray you can choose from Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, Samsung, LG, Philips, and more to come.  Also HD DVD&#039;s interactivity layer, HDi, is much more constrained than Blu-ray&#039;s Java layer (which is generally compatible with OCAP, which the US cable industry has standardized on for future set-top boxes).HD DVD is a short-term way to goose DVD enough to keep IP royalties flowing to the existing DVD technology holders, while Blu-ray started from the premise that existing DVD technology is too constrained for building a new format; hence the much better specs in terms of capacity, bandwidth, burning support, etc.  Microsoft likes HD DVD because the longer the format war persists the more likely neither format wins, thus providing Microsoft a better shot at using the PC and Windows as the centerpiece of the living room, a result few of us will be better of for.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someday downloads will be the way to go, but we&#8217;re many years from the point where enough of the population has enough broadband speed to download 1080i/p content in a reasonable way.  Further, many people want the security of owning physical media rather than fearing that a hard drive crash will cost them their collection.</p><p>While Blu-ray and HD DVD have comparable specs in terms of supported video resolution and codec support, Blu-ray is way ahead in terms of capacity, bandwidth, interactive platform, vendor support, and studio support.  Seven of the eight major studios support Blu-ray, three exclusively.  Only three studios support HD DVD, one exclusively (and they are rumored to be wavering).  In terms of CE support Toshiba is your only option with HD DVD, while with Blu-ray you can choose from Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, Samsung, LG, Philips, and more to come.  Also HD DVD&#8217;s interactivity layer, HDi, is much more constrained than Blu-ray&#8217;s Java layer (which is generally compatible with OCAP, which the US cable industry has standardized on for future set-top boxes).</p><p>HD DVD is a short-term way to goose DVD enough to keep IP royalties flowing to the existing DVD technology holders, while Blu-ray started from the premise that existing DVD technology is too constrained for building a new format; hence the much better specs in terms of capacity, bandwidth, burning support, etc.  Microsoft likes HD DVD because the longer the format war persists the more likely neither format wins, thus providing Microsoft a better shot at using the PC and Windows as the centerpiece of the living room, a result few of us will be better of for.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bill Sheppard</title><link>http://chris.pirillo.com/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/comment-page-1/#comment-535653</link> <dc:creator>Bill Sheppard</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2007 02:04:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/05/18/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/#comment-535653</guid> <description>Someday downloads will be the way to go, but we&#039;re many years from the point where enough of the population has enough broadband speed to download 1080i/p content in a reasonable way.  Further, many people want the security of owning physical media rather than fearing that a hard drive crash will cost them their collection.While Blu-ray and HD DVD have comparable specs in terms of supported video resolution and codec support, Blu-ray is way ahead in terms of capacity, bandwidth, interactive platform, vendor support, and studio support.  Seven of the eight major studios support Blu-ray, three exclusively.  Only three studios support HD DVD, one exclusively (and they are rumored to be wavering).  In terms of CE support Toshiba is your only option with HD DVD, while with Blu-ray you can choose from Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, Samsung, LG, Philips, and more to come.  Also HD DVD&#039;s interactivity layer, HDi, is much more constrained than Blu-ray&#039;s Java layer (which is generally compatible with OCAP, which the US cable industry has standardized on for future set-top boxes).HD DVD is a short-term way to goose DVD enough to keep IP royalties flowing to the existing DVD technology holders, while Blu-ray started from the premise that existing DVD technology is too constrained for building a new format; hence the much better specs in terms of capacity, bandwidth, burning support, etc.  Microsoft likes HD DVD because the longer the format war persists the more likely neither format wins, thus providing Microsoft a better shot at using the PC and Windows as the centerpiece of the living room, a result few of us will be better of for.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someday downloads will be the way to go, but we&#8217;re many years from the point where enough of the population has enough broadband speed to download 1080i/p content in a reasonable way.  Further, many people want the security of owning physical media rather than fearing that a hard drive crash will cost them their collection.</p><p>While Blu-ray and HD DVD have comparable specs in terms of supported video resolution and codec support, Blu-ray is way ahead in terms of capacity, bandwidth, interactive platform, vendor support, and studio support.  Seven of the eight major studios support Blu-ray, three exclusively.  Only three studios support HD DVD, one exclusively (and they are rumored to be wavering).  In terms of CE support Toshiba is your only option with HD DVD, while with Blu-ray you can choose from Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, Samsung, LG, Philips, and more to come.  Also HD DVD&#8217;s interactivity layer, HDi, is much more constrained than Blu-ray&#8217;s Java layer (which is generally compatible with OCAP, which the US cable industry has standardized on for future set-top boxes).</p><p>HD DVD is a short-term way to goose DVD enough to keep IP royalties flowing to the existing DVD technology holders, while Blu-ray started from the premise that existing DVD technology is too constrained for building a new format; hence the much better specs in terms of capacity, bandwidth, burning support, etc.  Microsoft likes HD DVD because the longer the format war persists the more likely neither format wins, thus providing Microsoft a better shot at using the PC and Windows as the centerpiece of the living room, a result few of us will be better of for.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Rich</title><link>http://chris.pirillo.com/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/comment-page-1/#comment-535780</link> <dc:creator>Rich</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2007 00:50:11 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/05/18/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-vs-downloading/#comment-535780</guid> <description>I switched from cassettes to CDs because my favorite tapes would wear out pretty quickly.  I could also hear the difference between tapes and CDs, but tapes sounded good enough to me.  I can see the difference between HD and DVD, but DVD&#039;s good enough, and HD is no more durable.  I don&#039;t see a compelling reason for me to move to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.  I probably will ditch DVDs for downloading some day, though.  That has convenience going for it.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I switched from cassettes to CDs because my favorite tapes would wear out pretty quickly.  I could also hear the difference between tapes and CDs, but tapes sounded good enough to me.  I can see the difference between HD and DVD, but DVD&#8217;s good enough, and HD is no more durable.  I don&#8217;t see a compelling reason for me to move to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.  I probably will ditch DVDs for downloading some day, though.  That has convenience going for it.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss><!--
This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache:

W3 Total Cache improves the user experience of your blog by caching
frequent operations, reducing the weight of various files and providing
transparent content delivery network integration.

Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using memcached
Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 12/28 queries in 0.138 seconds using memcached
Content Delivery Network via maxcdn.chris.pirillo.com

Served from: 192.168.20.62 @ 2009-11-25 01:35:53 -->