I Don't Get It - I'll Wait for the Holodeck

PhilO · Post by **PhilO** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:56 am

As you guys know, I don't get a lot of things. I really don't get all these expensive TVs with various types of technology on all sized screens. I stand in stores sometimes and look at the screens waiting for the difference that will compel me to fork over thousands of dollars.

A friend has a rear projection (now passe?) TV in a small den so that when you sit on the sofa to watch it you can see the pixels.

Our largest TV is a 27" picture tube TV - adequate size, great performance, long lasting and cheap.

I've decided that the next different technology I'll purchase will be the holodeck from Star Trek - you remember, you create your own virtual surround programs fighting Klingons or making love to something or someone...

Maybe it's just like some of us spending hundreds on whistles when the $10 jobs will do just fine...oh well.

Philo

Martin Milner · Post by **Martin Milner** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:12 am

I think my biggest TV is 21", but it may be 24". The durn things don't break often enough to require replacing.

brewerpaul · Post by **brewerpaul** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:20 am

I'm with you Philo-- I don't see all the excitement. Our living room is too small to benefit from a larger TV, which we rarely watch anyway. News and weather are fine on our 27", along with the occasional movie.

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:22 am

brewerpaul wrote:I'm with you Philo-- I don't see all the excitement. Our living room is too small to benefit from a larger TV, which we rarely watch anyway. News and weather are fine on our 27", along with the occasional movie.

Us too, but I must say that I would like a 32 inch screen, or so- it's great for watching sports, which my wife and I watch a lot.

Tom

amar · Post by **amar** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:29 am

hahahah..not me, i got the whole set-up, big wide screen tv, hi-tech wide-screen lcd-beamer, dolbydigital speaker set-up.
am having friends over tomorrow evening, we're gonna see scary/horror dvds.

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:33 am

amar wrote:hahahah..not me, i got the whole set-up, big wide screen tv, hi-tech wide-screen lcd-beamer, dolbydigital speaker set-up.
am having friends over tomorrow evening, we're gonna see scary/horror dvds.

Yeah, but you are an independently wealthy, single, doctor!

Tom

avanutria · Post by **avanutria** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:37 am

My mom bought some huge monster tv (for the time period) in 1989, I think it was about 27" and I remember it cost $1,000 at Lechmere's (plus $70 sales tax!). It was the largest I'd ever seen at that time, and insanely heavy too. I guess our family has always been technogeeks!

Funny to think that that huge tv is now considered an 'adequate' size.

missy · Post by **missy** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:50 am

since I very rarely watch TV, I can't imagine what there is to see that is worth the cost (and space usage) of those HD/Big screen/ techno-whatevers.

As to "history" of TV - my Dad built our first color TV in about 1964 from a Heathkit! Not only was it color (and HUGE) it was UHF and VHF! I can remember him adjusting the color (he always stole the mirror out of my bedroom to do that with) and the rotor on the antenna ("chunk, chunk, chunk.....").
But - we lived right by Voice of America AND the WLW-AM tower when they were using 500,000 watts to broadcast. So we either had lessons in Cuban (from blocking stations) or so much static that you could hardly watch the darn thing.

Dad was a "Ham" too - so we had lots of our own towers and antennas scattered throught the yard.........

Missy

amar · Post by **amar** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:01 am

single, yes, wealthy no.

BillChin · Post by **BillChin** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:03 am

Virtually everyone has a long list of things that he/she think are worth the money, and another long list of things that seem like a waste of money. For big expensive TVs, it is mostly a guy thing, replacing fancy stereos as the cool thing to own. Expensive fancy cars, computers are more guy things, though not every guy indulges. Kitchen remodeling, clothes, shoes tend to be gal things, though with the advent of the metrosexual the line is not so clear.

Regular TVs are dirt cheap. I wonder how they can even pay the shipping and stocking. It would cost an individual more than a regular TV costs to ship one to or from the factory. Plasmas and the like are not that expensive, considering how much interior real estate they save and what THAT costs to rent or purchase, plus the monthly cable bills that most people sign up for. A $1000 annual bill for cable or satellite is common, with $600 being average. About 75% of Americans have cable including about 45% of those living below the government poverty line. In my lists those cable bills seem like a bigger waste of money than an expensive TV. At least with the TV, a person can sell it later. Cable money is gone forever.

I lived for many years with a tiny 2" portable TV. I broke down and bought a 13" for $60. I chose the smaller size because bigger does not mean better when there is a limited space.
+ Bill

ChrisA · Post by **ChrisA** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:30 am

The HDTV's are capable (with digital cable or an HDTV enabled DVD player) of displaying
-vastly- more detail. Normal television resolution is approximately equivalent to a 640x480
computer display (IIRC, 440 scanlines on broadcast, but VHS video tapes only record
220 scanlines. I might be off by a few, but it's in the ballpark.)

Many store displays don't do HDTV justice - they pipe 'regular' TV signal into it, so of
course it looks just like a regular TV... it is!

And, of course, if you only have a VCR, or if you don't watch anything except the news...
Well, then if you got an HDTV at home it would still look like regular TV, because the signal
would still be regular TV.

Only if you're interested in watching movies with spectacular cinemetography is it really
worthwhile to get HDTV.

Size is another issue altogether... if your living room only lets you sit 5 feet from the TV
(in my case, actually, it might be 8 feet), anything of 30 inches is probably a waste. OTOH,
if you have a living room that puts most cathedrals to shame, a 30 inch TV from 30 feet
away is going to look pretty tiny, so maybe the size is worth it.

Flat panel displays have a couple advantages and disadvantages... they take up less space,
and they 'glow' rather than 'blink'... Regular CRT televisions are flickering at 60Hz (in the US,
50 or 55 elsewhere). It's difficult to see the flicker, although if you look out of the corner of your eye, you may be able to, but it definitely causes eyestrain. This is the source of getting a headache from watching too much TV. (Okay, being sedentary for 6 hours is also bad for blood flow and may be a contributing factor. This is why you should get up and go to the
next room to play a couple of tunes during every commercial...

) Personally, since I'm in
front of a computer screen all day, I really prefer as many screens as possible to be LCD
flat panels. It makes a huge difference to me. For someone not in front of a screen more
than a couple hours a day... it may not matter.

All of which is a long, technical way of saying, "It all depends on what you want."
Beauty is in the eye of the storm, or something.

Feadan · Post by **Feadan** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:43 am

What Chris said.... And another advantage to LCD screens is they use far less electricity than a CRT.

Cheers,
David

PhilO · Post by **PhilO** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:46 am

ChrisA wrote:The HDTV's are capable (with digital cable or an HDTV enabled DVD player) of displaying
-vastly- more detail. Normal television resolution is approximately equivalent to a 640x480
computer display (IIRC, 440 scanlines on broadcast, but VHS video tapes only record
220 scanlines. I might be off by a few, but it's in the ballpark.)

Many store displays don't do HDTV justice - they pipe 'regular' TV signal into it, so of
course it looks just like a regular TV... it is!

And, of course, if you only have a VCR, or if you don't watch anything except the news...
Well, then if you got an HDTV at home it would still look like regular TV, because the signal
would still be regular TV.

Only if you're interested in watching movies with spectacular cinemetography is it really
worthwhile to get HDTV.

Size is another issue altogether... if your living room only lets you sit 5 feet from the TV
(in my case, actually, it might be 8 feet), anything of 30 inches is probably a waste. OTOH,
if you have a living room that puts most cathedrals to shame, a 30 inch TV from 30 feet
away is going to look pretty tiny, so maybe the size is worth it.

Flat panel displays have a couple advantages and disadvantages... they take up less space,
and they 'glow' rather than 'blink'... Regular CRT televisions are flickering at 60Hz (in the US,
50 or 55 elsewhere). It's difficult to see the flicker, although if you look out of the corner of your eye, you may be able to, but it definitely causes eyestrain. This is the source of getting a headache from watching too much TV. (Okay, being sedentary for 6 hours is also bad for blood flow and may be a contributing factor. This is why you should get up and go to the
next room to play a couple of tunes during every commercial... ) Personally, since I'm in
front of a computer screen all day, I really prefer as many screens as possible to be LCD
flat panels. It makes a huge difference to me. For someone not in front of a screen more
than a couple hours a day... it may not matter.

All of which is a long, technical way of saying, "It all depends on what you want."
Beauty is in the eye of the storm, or something.

Chris - You don't keep a whistle with you while watching TV? You actually have to get up and go into a different room...I'm shocked and chagrined...

And we all know Amar is simply evil....thank goodness he doesn't already have the holodeck...

Philo

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:52 am

A holodeck is a very dangerous thing, PhilO.

For one thing, it's very easy to forget that it's not real, and for example, fall in love with one of the simulations. It happened to Riker, Geordi, and darn near happened to Piccard too!

Also, it's sometimes very hard to tell when one of the simulations gets so sophisticated that it becomes alive, as did Professor Moriarty, for example.

Not to mention the many weird ways that the holodeck can interact with other dimensions of existence, or serve as a portal for beings from other dimensions to interact with ours.

The only things that have caused more problems than the holodeck have been the original transporter, and Geordi's "visor".

PhilO · Post by **PhilO** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:17 pm

glauber wrote:A holodeck is a very dangerous thing, PhilO.

For one thing, it's very easy to forget that it's not real, and for example, fall in love with one of the simulations. It happened to Riker, Geordi, and darn near happened to Piccard too!

Also, it's sometimes very hard to tell when one of the simulations gets so sophisticated that it becomes alive, as did Professor Moriarty, for example.

Not to mention the many weird ways that the holodeck can interact with other dimensions of existence, or serve as a portal for beings from other dimensions to interact with ours.

The only things that have caused more problems than the holodeck have been the original transporter, and Geordi's "visor".

Me no care; me wants it!

Philo