People who constantly reach into a pocket to check a smartphone for bits of information will soon have another option: a pair of Google-made glasses that will be able to stream information to the wearer’s eyeballs in real time.
According to several Google employees familiar with the project who asked not to be named, the glasses will go on sale to the public by the end of the year. These people said they are expected “to cost around the price of current smartphones,” or $250 to $600.
The people familiar with the Google glasses said they would be Android-based, and will include a small screen that will sit a few inches from someone’s eye. They will also have a 3G or 4G data connection and a number of sensors including motion and GPS.
The glasses will have a low-resolution built-in camera that will be able to monitor the world in real time and overlay information about locations, surrounding buildings and friends who might be nearby, according to the Google employees. The glasses are not designed to be worn constantly — although Google expects some of the nerdiest users will wear them a lot — but will be more like smartphones, used when needed.
As I noted in a Disruptions column last year, Apple engineers are also exploring wearable computing, but the company is taking a different route, focusing on computers that strap around someone’s wrist.
[via iluvbabyb]
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Kindle Touch vs. Kindle Fire vs. IPad
This past week, I got the Kindle Fire and the Kindle Touch in. My wife and I already both own Apple iPads to compare them to. One thing that jumps out almost immediately to me is that the Kindle Fire is to the iPad what the Mazda Miata is to an Audi A4. When price and small size matter, it’s a better choice, but only if they matter significantly more than functionality. In short: The Kindle Fire and Apple iPad appeal to different users.
To take that analogy a step further, the Kindle Touch is to the Fire what a scooter might be to that Miata. The Kindle Touch is even more limited, but it’s not only a better reader, it’s actually a good complement to people also own an Apple iPad. In the end, I think the Kindle Fire begs for a larger sibling that actually could go head to head against the iPad more evenly.
-- Rob Enderle
*** [10/5/11]
Since Amazon initially released the Kindle in 2007, it has successfully sold more than 18 million. In an attempt to further compete with Apple’s iPad and delve deeper into the tablet wars, and after much hype, last week Amazon debuted the Kindle Fire for $199.
“Kindle Fire brings together all of the things we’ve been working on at Amazon for over 15 years into a single, fully integrated service for customers,” says Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com founder and CEO. “With Kindle Fire, you have instant access to all the content, free storage in the Amazon Cloud, the convenience of Amazon Whisper-sync, our revolutionary cloud-accelerated Web browser, the speed and power of a state-of-the-art dual-core processor, a vibrant touch display with 16 million colors in high resolution, and a light 14.6-ounce design that’s easy to hold with one hand all for only $199. We’re offering premium products, and we’re doing it at non-premium prices.”
The Kindle Fire is the only device that runs the Amazon Silk browser, a “split browser” architecture that accelerates the power of the mobile device hardware by running with Amazon Web Services Cloud. It has a dual-core processor and runs the latest Google Android software, so you can download apps from the Android Market. It also sports a 7-inch color touchscreen display, and you can watch videos from Amazon’s streaming Prime service and play your music from the Amazon Store.
While the Fire is smaller than the iPad’s 10-inch screen and doesn’t have a camera, it is lighter and supports Adobe Flash (a seemingly huge issue everyone keeps bringing up).
***
Shares of Amazon.com (AMZN -1.82%) were down more than 2% Monday afternoon as investors fretted about a report in the New York Times detailing a litany of woes affecting the Kindle Fire. The newspaper likened Amazon's new tablet computer to Ford's Edsel -- one of the biggest flops in the history of corporate America.
As the Times noted, the Kindle Fire is enduring a torrent of negative reviews on the company's website, of all places. This is a huge headache for Amazon, which is counting on the Fire to fuel future growth. "Slightly more than a third of the 4,500 reviewers of the Fire on Amazon have given it mixed to negative reviews, three stars or fewer," according to the newspaper.
My wife and I decided this weekend to buy an iPad. Although it is twice as expensive as the Fire, it is also twice as good. We found the Barnes & Noble (BKS +0.56%) Nook to be inferior to the Fire. Like many consumers, we are not oblivious to price. Quality, though, is important. The iPad, to many minds -- ours included -- is by far the best product.
After reading the Times story, I realized that we made the right decision. One surprising tidbit was that some people found the Kindle Fire's performance as an e-reader to worse than the original Kindle. Amazon, of course, told the Times that fixes were in the works.
The parallels to the Edsel, a car brand that flamed out during the 1950s, are hard to avoid. Like the Kindle Fire, Ford Motor's (F -1.63%) Edsel over-promised and under-delivered. The Edsel was hurt by quality problems that earned it the nickname: "Every Day Something Else Leaks." Owners of the Kindle Fire are complaining about the device's lack of an external volume control and the poor placement of the "off" switch, according to the Times.
To take that analogy a step further, the Kindle Touch is to the Fire what a scooter might be to that Miata. The Kindle Touch is even more limited, but it’s not only a better reader, it’s actually a good complement to people also own an Apple iPad. In the end, I think the Kindle Fire begs for a larger sibling that actually could go head to head against the iPad more evenly.
-- Rob Enderle
*** [10/5/11]
Since Amazon initially released the Kindle in 2007, it has successfully sold more than 18 million. In an attempt to further compete with Apple’s iPad and delve deeper into the tablet wars, and after much hype, last week Amazon debuted the Kindle Fire for $199.
“Kindle Fire brings together all of the things we’ve been working on at Amazon for over 15 years into a single, fully integrated service for customers,” says Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com founder and CEO. “With Kindle Fire, you have instant access to all the content, free storage in the Amazon Cloud, the convenience of Amazon Whisper-sync, our revolutionary cloud-accelerated Web browser, the speed and power of a state-of-the-art dual-core processor, a vibrant touch display with 16 million colors in high resolution, and a light 14.6-ounce design that’s easy to hold with one hand all for only $199. We’re offering premium products, and we’re doing it at non-premium prices.”
The Kindle Fire is the only device that runs the Amazon Silk browser, a “split browser” architecture that accelerates the power of the mobile device hardware by running with Amazon Web Services Cloud. It has a dual-core processor and runs the latest Google Android software, so you can download apps from the Android Market. It also sports a 7-inch color touchscreen display, and you can watch videos from Amazon’s streaming Prime service and play your music from the Amazon Store.
While the Fire is smaller than the iPad’s 10-inch screen and doesn’t have a camera, it is lighter and supports Adobe Flash (a seemingly huge issue everyone keeps bringing up).
***
Shares of Amazon.com (AMZN -1.82%) were down more than 2% Monday afternoon as investors fretted about a report in the New York Times detailing a litany of woes affecting the Kindle Fire. The newspaper likened Amazon's new tablet computer to Ford's Edsel -- one of the biggest flops in the history of corporate America.
As the Times noted, the Kindle Fire is enduring a torrent of negative reviews on the company's website, of all places. This is a huge headache for Amazon, which is counting on the Fire to fuel future growth. "Slightly more than a third of the 4,500 reviewers of the Fire on Amazon have given it mixed to negative reviews, three stars or fewer," according to the newspaper.
My wife and I decided this weekend to buy an iPad. Although it is twice as expensive as the Fire, it is also twice as good. We found the Barnes & Noble (BKS +0.56%) Nook to be inferior to the Fire. Like many consumers, we are not oblivious to price. Quality, though, is important. The iPad, to many minds -- ours included -- is by far the best product.
After reading the Times story, I realized that we made the right decision. One surprising tidbit was that some people found the Kindle Fire's performance as an e-reader to worse than the original Kindle. Amazon, of course, told the Times that fixes were in the works.
The parallels to the Edsel, a car brand that flamed out during the 1950s, are hard to avoid. Like the Kindle Fire, Ford Motor's (F -1.63%) Edsel over-promised and under-delivered. The Edsel was hurt by quality problems that earned it the nickname: "Every Day Something Else Leaks." Owners of the Kindle Fire are complaining about the device's lack of an external volume control and the poor placement of the "off" switch, according to the Times.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
hacked?
got an phone call from someone asking about an email I sent them.
Only I didn't send them anything. Not on purpose anyway.
Apparently, my yahoo email has been hacked with a virus or something and send a virus email message to everybody in my contact list.
Here's what might have happened.
Although there is a possibility you were 'hacked', it is far more likely that your address was compromised by one of the powerful spam bot networks. They can also 'spoof' the addresses in the From: area to make it more likely that they will be opened. Remember all those who use the To: or CC: heading rather than BCC: for addresses? Remember all those who forward e-mails with countless addresses still in them? They open all those addresses to spammers - all it takes is one infected computer down the line somewhere! Merely changing your password will not be enough - your account has been seriously compromised, and more of this type of letter will keep happening. Deleting your Contacts list won't help - the addresses have already been harvested. You will not spread any virus unless naive people click a link or even open the mail.
And more..
Hi,somebody is sending emails to my contacts using my email address to which I haven't sent. How can this be? Have I been hacked into? I do have full internet security avg 9,could you please let me know what action to take if any as I find this quite worrying! I have changed my password so far, but that is all.
You should be worried.
I'm not sure that I'd say you've been "hacked into", but my guess is that your email account has indeed been compromised.
The big clue here is that email is being sent from you to contacts in your address book.
What more likely occurred is that your email account has been compromised - meaning that you probably have an on-line email account, free or otherwise, that someone has gained access too. By virtue of doing so they now have access not only to your email, but to your address book as well. It's all too common these days to hear of folks whose accounts have been compromised only to have all their friends get inundated with spam, threats, malicious emails or messages that try to impersonate you and scam your contacts out of money.
How this happened is difficult to say. It could be anything from a weak password that's easy to guess, to your account credentials being sniffed in an open WiFi hotspot, to your simply having shared the account information with someone you should not have.
As I've discussed before, changing your password is important, but it's not nearly enough. You also need to change any and all security related information associated with the stolen account. Why? Because the thief has access to all that too, and he can use that information to steal your account again. And again. And again.
[curse word]
Only I didn't send them anything. Not on purpose anyway.
Apparently, my yahoo email has been hacked with a virus or something and send a virus email message to everybody in my contact list.
Here's what might have happened.
Although there is a possibility you were 'hacked', it is far more likely that your address was compromised by one of the powerful spam bot networks. They can also 'spoof' the addresses in the From: area to make it more likely that they will be opened. Remember all those who use the To: or CC: heading rather than BCC: for addresses? Remember all those who forward e-mails with countless addresses still in them? They open all those addresses to spammers - all it takes is one infected computer down the line somewhere! Merely changing your password will not be enough - your account has been seriously compromised, and more of this type of letter will keep happening. Deleting your Contacts list won't help - the addresses have already been harvested. You will not spread any virus unless naive people click a link or even open the mail.
And more..
Hi,somebody is sending emails to my contacts using my email address to which I haven't sent. How can this be? Have I been hacked into? I do have full internet security avg 9,could you please let me know what action to take if any as I find this quite worrying! I have changed my password so far, but that is all.
You should be worried.
I'm not sure that I'd say you've been "hacked into", but my guess is that your email account has indeed been compromised.
The big clue here is that email is being sent from you to contacts in your address book.
What more likely occurred is that your email account has been compromised - meaning that you probably have an on-line email account, free or otherwise, that someone has gained access too. By virtue of doing so they now have access not only to your email, but to your address book as well. It's all too common these days to hear of folks whose accounts have been compromised only to have all their friends get inundated with spam, threats, malicious emails or messages that try to impersonate you and scam your contacts out of money.
How this happened is difficult to say. It could be anything from a weak password that's easy to guess, to your account credentials being sniffed in an open WiFi hotspot, to your simply having shared the account information with someone you should not have.
As I've discussed before, changing your password is important, but it's not nearly enough. You also need to change any and all security related information associated with the stolen account. Why? Because the thief has access to all that too, and he can use that information to steal your account again. And again. And again.
[curse word]
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Google+
Google finally made its move into social networking with its latest Google+.
It’s basically what many of you want Facebook to be. Or as Google describes on its blog, “We want to make Google better by including you, your relationships and your interests.” And so begins the Google+ project.
Key features are Stream, Circles, Photos and Profile. The Stream is the core part of Google+ and revolves around a Facebook-style newsfeed. Here you can add your friends from your Google Contacts into different groups called Circles. You can share updates with individual Circles or combinations of Circles. So if you posted a picture of your co-workers, you can share it just with your colleagues and not everyone (as you would have to on Facebook).
Next, the Photos section is fairly basic. It pulls the pictures saved in your Picassa Web Albums, and you also can view Photos from your Circles. From your mobile device, you can use the Instant Upload feature to have your photos and videos that you take with your phone automatically uploaded to a private album on Google+. You can then decide with whom you want to share them.
Finally, your personal Profile page replaces your standard Google Profile, and you’ll want to make sure you don’t put anything on there that you don’t want to be public knowledge since it’s searchable on the Web. In addition, the Sparks feature keeps track of your interests, so it sends you stuff it thinks you’re interested in. And Huddle turns all your “conversations” into one simple group chat (as opposed to sending text messages). Conveniently, everyone gets on the same page at once.
***
Sure, but can you play Cityville from it? Yes!
It’s basically what many of you want Facebook to be. Or as Google describes on its blog, “We want to make Google better by including you, your relationships and your interests.” And so begins the Google+ project.
Key features are Stream, Circles, Photos and Profile. The Stream is the core part of Google+ and revolves around a Facebook-style newsfeed. Here you can add your friends from your Google Contacts into different groups called Circles. You can share updates with individual Circles or combinations of Circles. So if you posted a picture of your co-workers, you can share it just with your colleagues and not everyone (as you would have to on Facebook).
Next, the Photos section is fairly basic. It pulls the pictures saved in your Picassa Web Albums, and you also can view Photos from your Circles. From your mobile device, you can use the Instant Upload feature to have your photos and videos that you take with your phone automatically uploaded to a private album on Google+. You can then decide with whom you want to share them.
Finally, your personal Profile page replaces your standard Google Profile, and you’ll want to make sure you don’t put anything on there that you don’t want to be public knowledge since it’s searchable on the Web. In addition, the Sparks feature keeps track of your interests, so it sends you stuff it thinks you’re interested in. And Huddle turns all your “conversations” into one simple group chat (as opposed to sending text messages). Conveniently, everyone gets on the same page at once.
***
Sure, but can you play Cityville from it? Yes!
Bob Jones on light bulbs
You’ve no doubt seen MidWeek columnist Jade Moon, in commercials for Hawaiian Electric, selling us on compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs because the incandescent bulbs might go out of existence in 2014, and because with CFs we’ll use less electricity.
Well, only maybe the latter. California utilities spent $550 million subsidizing CFs and discovered that electricity savings fell 73 percent short of what studies had estimated. And CFs contain mercury.
Some of us don’t like the CFs. It’s about the quality of light.
Incandescents give off “warm” light. CFs still do not. That’s because of our eyes. The natural outdoor light we see is actually our brain taking in many colors from our eyes’ receptors and giving us what we perceive as white light.
CFs give us too much blue-end light and not enough red-end. So our brains tell us the light isn’t very “warm.”
But here come LED light emitting diode bulbs. They’re on the right wave length to give us “warm,” but you’re unlikely to pay $30 per bulb. You’re set on the since-1870 technology of the incandescent light bulb.
I’m betting that new light bulbs will get better and the price will come down to about $5. Not too bad if you consider that the latest-invented LED may last 20-plus years and use little electricity.
***
Bob Jones’ “Shedding Some Light On New Bulbs” is valuable, but does need a few tweaks.
First, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs, not CFs) needn’t deliver “too much blue-end light.” The color given off by fluorescent lamps is determined by the mix of RBG (red, blue, green) phosphors. Add more red, and you’ve got warm lamps. Light color is measured by degrees Kelvin (K). Incandescent lamps deliver about 2,800K. You can buy 2,700K CFLs.
Mr. Jones didn’t mention economics. If you have 20 60-watt incandescents in your home burning an average of 1,000 hours a year, you’re paying $372 a year, based on 31 cents per kWh.
(That’s Oahu the Neighbor Islands pay much more.)
Replace the lamps with 15-watt CFLs and you can redirect $279 a year to your family. (By the way, incandescents burn at 450 degrees hot enough to cook steaks. Do we need more heat in our homes?)
Finally, most of Hawaii’s electricity is generated by oil imported largely from countries that don’t like us and are costing us many defense dollars.
If you want to be supporting your family instead of those countries, shift to CFLs or LEDs.
Well, only maybe the latter. California utilities spent $550 million subsidizing CFs and discovered that electricity savings fell 73 percent short of what studies had estimated. And CFs contain mercury.
Some of us don’t like the CFs. It’s about the quality of light.
Incandescents give off “warm” light. CFs still do not. That’s because of our eyes. The natural outdoor light we see is actually our brain taking in many colors from our eyes’ receptors and giving us what we perceive as white light.
CFs give us too much blue-end light and not enough red-end. So our brains tell us the light isn’t very “warm.”
But here come LED light emitting diode bulbs. They’re on the right wave length to give us “warm,” but you’re unlikely to pay $30 per bulb. You’re set on the since-1870 technology of the incandescent light bulb.
I’m betting that new light bulbs will get better and the price will come down to about $5. Not too bad if you consider that the latest-invented LED may last 20-plus years and use little electricity.
***
Bob Jones’ “Shedding Some Light On New Bulbs” is valuable, but does need a few tweaks.
First, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs, not CFs) needn’t deliver “too much blue-end light.” The color given off by fluorescent lamps is determined by the mix of RBG (red, blue, green) phosphors. Add more red, and you’ve got warm lamps. Light color is measured by degrees Kelvin (K). Incandescent lamps deliver about 2,800K. You can buy 2,700K CFLs.
Mr. Jones didn’t mention economics. If you have 20 60-watt incandescents in your home burning an average of 1,000 hours a year, you’re paying $372 a year, based on 31 cents per kWh.
(That’s Oahu the Neighbor Islands pay much more.)
Replace the lamps with 15-watt CFLs and you can redirect $279 a year to your family. (By the way, incandescents burn at 450 degrees hot enough to cook steaks. Do we need more heat in our homes?)
Finally, most of Hawaii’s electricity is generated by oil imported largely from countries that don’t like us and are costing us many defense dollars.
If you want to be supporting your family instead of those countries, shift to CFLs or LEDs.
Friday, November 11, 2011
6 reasons
The Guy Who's Fixing Your Computer Hates You
Pat posted this on his facebook page. What Pat is really thinking when he's fixing your computer.
Pat posted this on his facebook page. What Pat is really thinking when he's fixing your computer.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
ebay email
I recently tried to update my email address on ebay from hawaiiantel.net to gmail.com. Why because I'm transitioning to gmail online instead of hawaiiantel.net on Outlook Express. For one thing, they don't even make Outlook Express anymore. And I can read gmail from any computer.
So I'm changing my email address from xyz@hawaiiantel.net to xyz@gmail.com. But ebay didn't allow me to change it, saying your "eBay user id cannot be the same as your email address". Well my eBay user id isn't my email address, but it's the same prefix. In fact, it's the same prefix currently. I think I must have opened my account before they instituted this policy.
So the message is incorrect. It should say your "eBay user id cannot be changed to be the same prefix as your email address." (Even though it already is, in my case.)
Why? Apparently to decrease spammers. (But out of all my many online accounts, eBay is the only one with this annoyingly safe policy.)
But here's one workaround if you're changing to a gmail account:
If any of you use gmail or google apps, you can trick this.
for example, put yourusername+ebay@gmail.com
Google mail ignores everything after the plus, so the end result is that it goes to yourusername@gmail.com. Hehe.
Don't know if I'm going to try this yet though, since if I change it to gmail and change my mind, I can't change it back to hawaiiantel.net (or to any of my other email addresses which all have the same prefix.
***
[10/29/11] I guess another way to do it is to create another gmail account and have that account forward to your regular email. For now, I have decided to forward hawaiiantel's emails to my gmail account as I want to transition my regular email over to gmail.
So I'm changing my email address from xyz@hawaiiantel.net to xyz@gmail.com. But ebay didn't allow me to change it, saying your "eBay user id cannot be the same as your email address". Well my eBay user id isn't my email address, but it's the same prefix. In fact, it's the same prefix currently. I think I must have opened my account before they instituted this policy.
So the message is incorrect. It should say your "eBay user id cannot be changed to be the same prefix as your email address." (Even though it already is, in my case.)
Why? Apparently to decrease spammers. (But out of all my many online accounts, eBay is the only one with this annoyingly safe policy.)
But here's one workaround if you're changing to a gmail account:
If any of you use gmail or google apps, you can trick this.
for example, put yourusername+ebay@gmail.com
Google mail ignores everything after the plus, so the end result is that it goes to yourusername@gmail.com. Hehe.
Don't know if I'm going to try this yet though, since if I change it to gmail and change my mind, I can't change it back to hawaiiantel.net (or to any of my other email addresses which all have the same prefix.
***
[10/29/11] I guess another way to do it is to create another gmail account and have that account forward to your regular email. For now, I have decided to forward hawaiiantel's emails to my gmail account as I want to transition my regular email over to gmail.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Trash Inc.
Caught the end of this on CNBC. Looked pretty interesting.
Here's the description from their website.
Garbage. It's everywhere — even in the middle of the oceans — and it's pure gold for companies like Waste Management and Republic Services who dominate this $52 billion-a-year industry. From curbside collection by trucks costing $250,000 each, to per-ton tipping fees at landfills, there's money to be made at every point as more than half of the 250 million tons of trash created in the United States each year reaches its final resting place.
At a cost of $1 million per acre to construct, operate and ultimately close in an environmentally feasible method, modern landfills are technological marvels — a far cry from the town dump that still resonates in most people's perceptions. Not only do they make money for their owners, they add millions to the economic wellbeing of the towns that house them. Technologies, such as Landfill Natural Gas and Waste To Energy, are giving garbage a second life, turning trash into power sources and helping to solve mounting problems. It's particularly important in places like Hawaii, where disposal space is an issue, and in China, where land and energy are needed and trash is plentiful.
One sure thing about the garbage business: it's always picking up.
And the program is available at the website as well.
Here's the description from their website.
Garbage. It's everywhere — even in the middle of the oceans — and it's pure gold for companies like Waste Management and Republic Services who dominate this $52 billion-a-year industry. From curbside collection by trucks costing $250,000 each, to per-ton tipping fees at landfills, there's money to be made at every point as more than half of the 250 million tons of trash created in the United States each year reaches its final resting place.
At a cost of $1 million per acre to construct, operate and ultimately close in an environmentally feasible method, modern landfills are technological marvels — a far cry from the town dump that still resonates in most people's perceptions. Not only do they make money for their owners, they add millions to the economic wellbeing of the towns that house them. Technologies, such as Landfill Natural Gas and Waste To Energy, are giving garbage a second life, turning trash into power sources and helping to solve mounting problems. It's particularly important in places like Hawaii, where disposal space is an issue, and in China, where land and energy are needed and trash is plentiful.
One sure thing about the garbage business: it's always picking up.
And the program is available at the website as well.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
internet on your TV (or TV over your internet)
I've (and you) have been bombarded by Roku ads while browsing in the last couple of weeks.
I had been considering buying a laptop to hook up to my Panasonic Plasma TV, but Roku may be the cheaper way to go.
Roku is a device that allows you to access Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Video, and more and view the content on your TV. It's small and cheap and apparently works fairly well. However it's not the full internet (no web browser, no youtube yet). Reviews have generally been positive.
Another option is Google TV. This doesn't seem as readily available. And is available only on select Sony TVs, Sony Blu-Ray players, or via the Logitech Revue box. The Logitech Revue looks a little more clunky than the Roku but apparently allows you to access the whole internet and includes a keyboard. Here's a review. Ah, not quite everything. No Hulu. Or ABC or CBS.
Another competing device is Apple TV (see end of Roku review). Looks pretty good, but no Hulu Plus (not sure why).
[10/24/11] How about the boxee? And others!
Will these replace my subscription to my cable TV. Not for me. No ESPN is the main bugaboo. But if you just want to watch movies or TV, I could live w/o paying the $90 per month that Oceanic charges for my HD Entertainment Pack and DVR.
Maybe PlayOn will work? But apparently it streams from the internet, so it's doubtful they would stream live games. Apparently you can watch ESPN, but you have to be a Time Warner subscriber already. So what's the point?
[10/24/11] And apparently you can't watch Hulu, only Hulu Plus, on the Roku (and I assume on any of the other devices too).
[12/27/11] Tried out the Roku which was set up at Best Buy yesterday. It occassionally pauses for a significant amount of time, I assume due to internet traffic and/or buffering. But once it gets going, it's not bad. For one thing, you get free Three Stooges episodes at crackle (though I got em all now on dvd). And also kdrama (korean dramas) which are apparently normally only available as an apple app. Then I went over to Costco and saw it selling there for like 15 bucks cheaper. The Blu-Ray players are getting cheaper too. Like in the $60 range now.
[6/11/12] Here's JDoyle32's setup. He cancelled his cable in 2008.
[6/18/12] What's the difference between Roku LT and Roku HD? Not much (aside from 10 bucks).
[12/28/13] Another difference, according to erikvines, is the the LT has 256MB flash memory while the HD has 2GB. But according to wikipedia, both the LT and HD have 256 MiB.
[12/11/12] Ah, here's a difference between the Roku 2 and the older Roku boxes. The Roku 2 supports closed caption on Netflx.
[12/11/12] Ah, apparently Roku LT supports closed caption too. How about my Roku HD? maybe, since it's a "new" Roku. Nope. So there's another difference between the LT and HD.
[6/20/12] A nice review of the Roku 2 XS (which I saw at Costco for 79.99).
[10/31/12] Here's a Roku-like device (I think this was the one I saw in a Best Buy ad some months ago) called NeoTV from Netgear. One advantage: native youtube access. One disadvantage: connects only via HDMI. And currently only $39 online from Dell. Gets mixed reviews on Amazon. The Roku gets better reviews on Amazon and is the same price as from roku.com.
[11/13/12] lifehacker's guide to watching TV shows and movies on the internet (without cable)
[3/5/13] Here's another article from DailyFinance (from two years ago)
[11/28/12] Hey, gave in to the black friday frenzy and picked up a roku at Best Buy on Saturday. Good deal. It's the Roku HD, normally $59.99, but on sale for only $39.99 (plus tax).
Spent a couple of days browsing channels. And some channels are pretty quirky. It ain't live TV. There's only a few live channels. Not much in sports. It allows you to look at your facebook photos and videos on TV. No hulu, no youtube. But then I came across this channel VideoBuzz. It allows you to access your youtube videos sometimes even better than youtube. The search function brings up some playlists that I couldn't find on the youtube site (or I don't know how to find playlists on youtube). This alone probably makes this investment worthwhile as there's a lot of videos available youtube (temporarily anyway as the legality of some these are questionable). Even VideoBuzz might be of questionable legality as Google has taken away youtube access from roku before. It's kind of like a pirate NetFlix.
[12/25/12] looking up tablets, I went from this page to this page to this page to this page where I came across Aereo. What's this? It's a service in New York which allows you to watch the major network TV channels over the internet without cable or an antenna. This would seem to be the future. But they're getting hit by lawsuit after lawsuit. So maybe not.
[4/1/13] In a blow to major TV broadcasters, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that startup Aereo can continue to stream live local TV through its website and app.
Consumer groups applauded the decision because it ushers in greater flexibility in choosing TV shows without paying a hefty cable bill. However it also signals that more legal fights will likely be waged by broadcasters eager to hold on to advertising revenues and retransmission fees that cable companies pay to carry their channels.
Backed by Barry Diller's IAC Interactive, Aereo enables subscribers to stream live broadcast content from local stations - including the networks, public television and Spanish language channels - on their desktop computer, tablet or smartphone.
[1/30/13] Lifehacker reviews and compares Apple TV, Google TV, Roku, Boxee, WD TV Live. [The reviewer actually likes his homebrew XBMC the best.]
And a comparison between Roku and WD TV Live (which Libert has). The main advantage of WD Live is you can play media files on a usb drive. One error, this review seems to think that roku supports youtube. [and there's this report that WD is blocking youtube videos]
[8/29/13] Disney added to Apple TV lineup. Roku has that already. But I see they previously added ESPN. So that might be reason no. 2 for Apple TV. The ability to stream (AirPlay) from your ipad or itune to TV plus ESPN.
Hmm.. Chromecast can now do that too, but no ESPN yet. Not on Roku either.
[10/12/13] which streaming device is right for you?
[2/13/14] Another article comparing the Roku, Apple TV, Chromecast. [and previously posted on my What's On Roku post: Here's a smackdown between the Chromecast, Roku 3, Apple TV. Notable is that Netflix takes longer to load on the Apple TV.]
I had been considering buying a laptop to hook up to my Panasonic Plasma TV, but Roku may be the cheaper way to go.
Roku is a device that allows you to access Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Video, and more and view the content on your TV. It's small and cheap and apparently works fairly well. However it's not the full internet (no web browser, no youtube yet). Reviews have generally been positive.
Another option is Google TV. This doesn't seem as readily available. And is available only on select Sony TVs, Sony Blu-Ray players, or via the Logitech Revue box. The Logitech Revue looks a little more clunky than the Roku but apparently allows you to access the whole internet and includes a keyboard. Here's a review. Ah, not quite everything. No Hulu. Or ABC or CBS.
Another competing device is Apple TV (see end of Roku review). Looks pretty good, but no Hulu Plus (not sure why).
[10/24/11] How about the boxee? And others!
Will these replace my subscription to my cable TV. Not for me. No ESPN is the main bugaboo. But if you just want to watch movies or TV, I could live w/o paying the $90 per month that Oceanic charges for my HD Entertainment Pack and DVR.
Maybe PlayOn will work? But apparently it streams from the internet, so it's doubtful they would stream live games. Apparently you can watch ESPN, but you have to be a Time Warner subscriber already. So what's the point?
[10/24/11] And apparently you can't watch Hulu, only Hulu Plus, on the Roku (and I assume on any of the other devices too).
[12/27/11] Tried out the Roku which was set up at Best Buy yesterday. It occassionally pauses for a significant amount of time, I assume due to internet traffic and/or buffering. But once it gets going, it's not bad. For one thing, you get free Three Stooges episodes at crackle (though I got em all now on dvd). And also kdrama (korean dramas) which are apparently normally only available as an apple app. Then I went over to Costco and saw it selling there for like 15 bucks cheaper. The Blu-Ray players are getting cheaper too. Like in the $60 range now.
[6/11/12] Here's JDoyle32's setup. He cancelled his cable in 2008.
[6/18/12] What's the difference between Roku LT and Roku HD? Not much (aside from 10 bucks).
[12/28/13] Another difference, according to erikvines, is the the LT has 256MB flash memory while the HD has 2GB. But according to wikipedia, both the LT and HD have 256 MiB.
[12/11/12] Ah, here's a difference between the Roku 2 and the older Roku boxes. The Roku 2 supports closed caption on Netflx.
[12/11/12] Ah, apparently Roku LT supports closed caption too. How about my Roku HD? maybe, since it's a "new" Roku. Nope. So there's another difference between the LT and HD.
[6/20/12] A nice review of the Roku 2 XS (which I saw at Costco for 79.99).
[10/31/12] Here's a Roku-like device (I think this was the one I saw in a Best Buy ad some months ago) called NeoTV from Netgear. One advantage: native youtube access. One disadvantage: connects only via HDMI. And currently only $39 online from Dell. Gets mixed reviews on Amazon. The Roku gets better reviews on Amazon and is the same price as from roku.com.
[11/13/12] lifehacker's guide to watching TV shows and movies on the internet (without cable)
[3/5/13] Here's another article from DailyFinance (from two years ago)
[11/28/12] Hey, gave in to the black friday frenzy and picked up a roku at Best Buy on Saturday. Good deal. It's the Roku HD, normally $59.99, but on sale for only $39.99 (plus tax).
Spent a couple of days browsing channels. And some channels are pretty quirky. It ain't live TV. There's only a few live channels. Not much in sports. It allows you to look at your facebook photos and videos on TV. No hulu, no youtube. But then I came across this channel VideoBuzz. It allows you to access your youtube videos sometimes even better than youtube. The search function brings up some playlists that I couldn't find on the youtube site (or I don't know how to find playlists on youtube). This alone probably makes this investment worthwhile as there's a lot of videos available youtube (temporarily anyway as the legality of some these are questionable). Even VideoBuzz might be of questionable legality as Google has taken away youtube access from roku before. It's kind of like a pirate NetFlix.
[12/25/12] looking up tablets, I went from this page to this page to this page to this page where I came across Aereo. What's this? It's a service in New York which allows you to watch the major network TV channels over the internet without cable or an antenna. This would seem to be the future. But they're getting hit by lawsuit after lawsuit. So maybe not.
[4/1/13] In a blow to major TV broadcasters, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that startup Aereo can continue to stream live local TV through its website and app.
Consumer groups applauded the decision because it ushers in greater flexibility in choosing TV shows without paying a hefty cable bill. However it also signals that more legal fights will likely be waged by broadcasters eager to hold on to advertising revenues and retransmission fees that cable companies pay to carry their channels.
Backed by Barry Diller's IAC Interactive, Aereo enables subscribers to stream live broadcast content from local stations - including the networks, public television and Spanish language channels - on their desktop computer, tablet or smartphone.
[1/30/13] Lifehacker reviews and compares Apple TV, Google TV, Roku, Boxee, WD TV Live. [The reviewer actually likes his homebrew XBMC the best.]
And a comparison between Roku and WD TV Live (which Libert has). The main advantage of WD Live is you can play media files on a usb drive. One error, this review seems to think that roku supports youtube. [and there's this report that WD is blocking youtube videos]
[8/29/13] Disney added to Apple TV lineup. Roku has that already. But I see they previously added ESPN. So that might be reason no. 2 for Apple TV. The ability to stream (AirPlay) from your ipad or itune to TV plus ESPN.
Hmm.. Chromecast can now do that too, but no ESPN yet. Not on Roku either.
[10/12/13] which streaming device is right for you?
[2/13/14] Another article comparing the Roku, Apple TV, Chromecast. [and previously posted on my What's On Roku post: Here's a smackdown between the Chromecast, Roku 3, Apple TV. Notable is that Netflix takes longer to load on the Apple TV.]
Thursday, October 13, 2011
hiding a page from google
I have some webpages on htohananet.com that I want to modify or remove, but hawaiiantel cut off my access to it a couple of years ago without telling me (well it was someplace on their website, but who looks there? I found out only after the fact.)
Anyway, hawaiiantel now says they no longer have access to those pages. And what's worse, couldn't direct me to anybody who does.
Anyway, the site has now been spidered by google. And google effectively says virtually anything on the web is up for grabs (except for confidential information like social security numbers).
Well, to prevent this from happening again, I want to prevent the search engines from finding some webpages when I upload them to another site.
And here's a page that tells me how.
From what I gather, all you have to do is create a robots.txt file with the following commands:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Alternatively, you can insert this meta tag in the HEAD section of the page
***
Here's google's instructions.
Anyway, hawaiiantel now says they no longer have access to those pages. And what's worse, couldn't direct me to anybody who does.
Anyway, the site has now been spidered by google. And google effectively says virtually anything on the web is up for grabs (except for confidential information like social security numbers).
Well, to prevent this from happening again, I want to prevent the search engines from finding some webpages when I upload them to another site.
And here's a page that tells me how.
From what I gather, all you have to do is create a robots.txt file with the following commands:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Alternatively, you can insert this meta tag in the HEAD section of the page
***
Here's google's instructions.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Steve Jobs steps down as Apple CEO
Steve Jobs has stepped down as CEO of Apple after nearly 14 years at the helm of the company he co-founded with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne in 1976, Apple's board of directors said in a statement after the close of trading on Wednesday. Jobs has been elected chairman of Apple's board.
The board has named Tim Cook, previously the company's chief operating officer, as Jobs' replacement as Apple's CEO and a member of the board, effective immediately, the statement said.
"Steve's extraordinary vision and leadership saved Apple and guided it to its position as the world's most innovative and valuable technology company," said Apple director and Genentech chairman Art Levinson, in the statement.
"Steve has made countless contributions to Apple's success, and he has attracted and inspired Apple's immensely creative employees and world class executive team. In his new role as chairman of the board, Steve will continue to serve Apple with his unique insights, creativity and inspiration."
Jobs submitted his resignation earlier Wednesday and "strongly recommended that the board implement its succession plan" and name Cook as CEO, the statement said.
Apple released Jobs' resignation letter, which read as follows:
"To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community:
I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple's CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.
I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.
As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.
I believe Apple's brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.
I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.
—Steve
Jobs' first stint at Apple began with the company's founding on April 1, 1976 as a vehicle for selling Jobs' and Wozniak's Apple I personal computer kit. Wayne left shortly thereafter, but Jobs and Wozniak went on to help usher in the personal computing revolution with innovative machines that were among the first to use graphical user interfaces, helping knock IBM from its perch as the dominant PC vendor.
Jobs resigned from Apple in 1984 following a power struggle with its board of directors, going on to found the computer platform developer NeXT and help build Pixar Animation Studios. He returned to Apple in 1996 as a result of the company's buyout of NeXT, was named interim CEO in 1997, and became permanent CEO in 2000.
His second stint at Apple was even more successful than his first. Jobs rescued Apple from irrelevance with a string of popular products using the letter "i" as calling card—the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad—and even referred to himself in 2000 as Apple's "iCEO."
In recent years, Jobs' health has led to extended leaves of absence from his regular duties as CEO. In the mid-2000s he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and in public appearances he appeared to have lost considerable weight.
He underwent a liver transplant in 2009, and in the ensuing years, Jobs had ceded many of his duties running Apple's day-to-day operations to Cook, though he still made public appearances at Apple product launches and its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, as well as hosting the company's quarterly earnings calls.
The board has named Tim Cook, previously the company's chief operating officer, as Jobs' replacement as Apple's CEO and a member of the board, effective immediately, the statement said.
"Steve's extraordinary vision and leadership saved Apple and guided it to its position as the world's most innovative and valuable technology company," said Apple director and Genentech chairman Art Levinson, in the statement.
"Steve has made countless contributions to Apple's success, and he has attracted and inspired Apple's immensely creative employees and world class executive team. In his new role as chairman of the board, Steve will continue to serve Apple with his unique insights, creativity and inspiration."
Jobs submitted his resignation earlier Wednesday and "strongly recommended that the board implement its succession plan" and name Cook as CEO, the statement said.
Apple released Jobs' resignation letter, which read as follows:
"To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community:
I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple's CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.
I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.
As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.
I believe Apple's brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.
I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.
—Steve
Jobs' first stint at Apple began with the company's founding on April 1, 1976 as a vehicle for selling Jobs' and Wozniak's Apple I personal computer kit. Wayne left shortly thereafter, but Jobs and Wozniak went on to help usher in the personal computing revolution with innovative machines that were among the first to use graphical user interfaces, helping knock IBM from its perch as the dominant PC vendor.
Jobs resigned from Apple in 1984 following a power struggle with its board of directors, going on to found the computer platform developer NeXT and help build Pixar Animation Studios. He returned to Apple in 1996 as a result of the company's buyout of NeXT, was named interim CEO in 1997, and became permanent CEO in 2000.
His second stint at Apple was even more successful than his first. Jobs rescued Apple from irrelevance with a string of popular products using the letter "i" as calling card—the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad—and even referred to himself in 2000 as Apple's "iCEO."
In recent years, Jobs' health has led to extended leaves of absence from his regular duties as CEO. In the mid-2000s he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and in public appearances he appeared to have lost considerable weight.
He underwent a liver transplant in 2009, and in the ensuing years, Jobs had ceded many of his duties running Apple's day-to-day operations to Cook, though he still made public appearances at Apple product launches and its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, as well as hosting the company's quarterly earnings calls.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Hydrofracked?
I was never really interested in this topic, but it was the subject of much discussion at chucks_angels (well, it was a fair number of posts by a relatively few number of posters -- as is par for the course for these discussion groups).
The topic is how environmentally safe is fracking?
Apparently much of the recent discussion was ignited by a New York Times article.
[Hey, how safe is anything?]
*** [7/4/11]
Somewhat related: gurufocus commentary on New York Times vs. Aubrey McClendon
The topic is how environmentally safe is fracking?
Apparently much of the recent discussion was ignited by a New York Times article.
[Hey, how safe is anything?]
*** [7/4/11]
Somewhat related: gurufocus commentary on New York Times vs. Aubrey McClendon
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
chinese inventions
The four great inventions of ancient China were: papermaking, the compass, gunpowder, printing. I get the other three, but the compass?
They also invented lots of other stuff.
[via veryearly1@chucks_angels, 2/24/10]
They also invented lots of other stuff.
[via veryearly1@chucks_angels, 2/24/10]
Friday, June 24, 2011
typing special characters
[6/24/11] For a while (meaning years) I've been trying to figure out how to insert a bullet point in google docs. When I copy and paste from the Credit Suisse daily report the bullets turn into exclamation points. However once in a while, the copy and paste actually turns into a bullet. So I could copy and paste that, if I could remember in what document it was in.
Anyway, I finally figured out (googled successfully) how to do it. It's ALT-0149. Found from this list.
[4/16/15] Actually, it's easier to type in ALT-7.
[4/6/17] I haven't been able to figure out how to type a bullet point on my HP 2000 laptop (I think it's not possible). So I would google bullet point and copy and paste from that web page.
Here's another way via this 10 Amazing Websites video. Go to notengoenie.com and click on the bullet point (the last item on the fifth row). That copies it to your clipboard.
Anyway, I finally figured out (googled successfully) how to do it. It's ALT-0149. Found from this list.
[4/16/15] Actually, it's easier to type in ALT-7.
[4/6/17] I haven't been able to figure out how to type a bullet point on my HP 2000 laptop (I think it's not possible). So I would google bullet point and copy and paste from that web page.
Here's another way via this 10 Amazing Websites video. Go to notengoenie.com and click on the bullet point (the last item on the fifth row). That copies it to your clipboard.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Kasparov and computers
Garry Kasparov supposedly is reviewing the book Chess Metaphors, but it actually sounds like he's writing his history of the evolution computers in the chess world.
[link via brknews, 2/12/10]
[link via brknews, 2/12/10]
Monday, June 06, 2011
antimatter captured
Okay, so antimatter's nothing like lightning, really, but bottling it in a kind of containment field? Doesn't sound like the safest gig. More like something you'd catch Geordi La Forge trying during some wild hair zero-sum Star Trek plotline involving aliens, the Holodeck, rerouting power from life support, and a self-destruct sequence.
Thankfully nothing self-destructed when CERN researchers first created, then forced antihydrogen atoms to hang around for an unprecedented 16 minutes, 40 seconds. That's roughly 16 minutes and 40 seconds longer than the first attempt roughly a year ago, which only managed to snag antihydrogen for a trifling 172 milliseconds (about two-tenths of a second). The new results were published in Nature, impassively titled "Confinement of antihydrogen for 1,000 seconds."
Thankfully nothing self-destructed when CERN researchers first created, then forced antihydrogen atoms to hang around for an unprecedented 16 minutes, 40 seconds. That's roughly 16 minutes and 40 seconds longer than the first attempt roughly a year ago, which only managed to snag antihydrogen for a trifling 172 milliseconds (about two-tenths of a second). The new results were published in Nature, impassively titled "Confinement of antihydrogen for 1,000 seconds."
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
recording to VCR is officially obsolete
The Navigator is the new interface for Oceanic cable boxes. It looks snazzier and I suppose it has some new features that I'll find useful (e.g. like finding shows).
However to me it's not an upgrade if you can't do something that you could do with the old version.
In particular, they have removed the record to VCR feature (actually I was using it to record to my DVD-recorder). What this feature allows you to do is to record to your VCR while watching another show. So now in order to record, you have to watch the same show that you're recording.
I confirmed that this feature has been removed when I chatted online with one of the Oceanic reps (or whoever he was working with). He said (or read from his prepared responses) that it was not supported because the VCR is "obsolete" technology. [here's the quote: "I am sorry, Mr. Ching, but that option is not available anymore, the VCR is an obsolete technology and we do not work with it anymore."] In other words, it is now obsolete to want to save shows for posterity?
I think it's more like the media companies don't want to kill sales of Blu-Ray disks or streaming video. So they're not supporting anything that might hamper their sales in any fashion.
***
Now I see at the Navigator link above, that there is a link for saving recordings to VHS. And actually it wasn't written in response to the removal of the Save To VCR feature. It was because the Navigator also removed support for external hard drives. So they provided instructions to save the recordings to VCR before the switchover to the new Navigator. So if you have recordings on an external hard drive and didn't save them -- too bad. I guess they are deeming external hard drives as obsolete technology too.
However to me it's not an upgrade if you can't do something that you could do with the old version.
In particular, they have removed the record to VCR feature (actually I was using it to record to my DVD-recorder). What this feature allows you to do is to record to your VCR while watching another show. So now in order to record, you have to watch the same show that you're recording.
I confirmed that this feature has been removed when I chatted online with one of the Oceanic reps (or whoever he was working with). He said (or read from his prepared responses) that it was not supported because the VCR is "obsolete" technology. [here's the quote: "I am sorry, Mr. Ching, but that option is not available anymore, the VCR is an obsolete technology and we do not work with it anymore."] In other words, it is now obsolete to want to save shows for posterity?
I think it's more like the media companies don't want to kill sales of Blu-Ray disks or streaming video. So they're not supporting anything that might hamper their sales in any fashion.
***
Now I see at the Navigator link above, that there is a link for saving recordings to VHS. And actually it wasn't written in response to the removal of the Save To VCR feature. It was because the Navigator also removed support for external hard drives. So they provided instructions to save the recordings to VCR before the switchover to the new Navigator. So if you have recordings on an external hard drive and didn't save them -- too bad. I guess they are deeming external hard drives as obsolete technology too.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
teachparentstech
TeachParentsTech.org is filled with more than 50 basic how-to videos that you can send to your parents, or really anyone who might need a little tech help. These videos cover a wide range of topics from copying and pasting to how to video chat (one that I had to deal with recently). Each video is very brief (less than a minute), so they should be able to sit through them without their eyes glazing over.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Zuckerberg Time's Person of the Year
For connecting more than half a billion people and mapping the social relations among them, for creating a new system of exchanging information and for changing how we live our lives, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg is TIME's 2010 Person of the Year.
At 26, Zuckerberg is the youngest "Person of the Year" since the first one chosen, Charles Lindbergh; he was 25 when he was named in 1927, Time said Wednesday. Zuckerberg beat out Britain's Queen Elizabeth II by just two weeks: She was 26 when she was named in 1952.
Zuckerberg has built Facebook into an international phenomenon by stretching the lines of social convention and embracing a new and far more permeable definition of community. In this new world, users are able to construct a social network well beyond what would ever be possible face-to-face.
"I'm trying to make the world a more open place," Zuckerberg says in the "bio" line of his own Facebook page.
At 26, Zuckerberg is the youngest "Person of the Year" since the first one chosen, Charles Lindbergh; he was 25 when he was named in 1927, Time said Wednesday. Zuckerberg beat out Britain's Queen Elizabeth II by just two weeks: She was 26 when she was named in 1952.
Zuckerberg has built Facebook into an international phenomenon by stretching the lines of social convention and embracing a new and far more permeable definition of community. In this new world, users are able to construct a social network well beyond what would ever be possible face-to-face.
"I'm trying to make the world a more open place," Zuckerberg says in the "bio" line of his own Facebook page.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
WarCraft II on Vista
For some reason, I thought WarCraft II didn't run on Vista. Maybe it's because I noted previously on my old CyberClub page that Vista didn't support IPX. Actually I never tried to run it.
But Libert called me tonight. He's back in Hawaii.
Got me to google WarCraft II and Vista and found there's a version that works on Vista. Available at war2custom.com. Don't feel like I'm pirating it because I already have like six legitimate copies of War2:BNE.
Downloaded and tried it and it runs on Vista. I think it's best launched by running War2Launcher. Didn't try to play with anybody. Apparently the only server that works is the Russian server.
***
[10/14/14] Supposedly a few people at Blizzard were working to get War2 working on the newer operating systems (I assume Windows 7 and 8). Well, it's been almost a year since the article.
But Libert called me tonight. He's back in Hawaii.
Got me to google WarCraft II and Vista and found there's a version that works on Vista. Available at war2custom.com. Don't feel like I'm pirating it because I already have like six legitimate copies of War2:BNE.
Downloaded and tried it and it runs on Vista. I think it's best launched by running War2Launcher. Didn't try to play with anybody. Apparently the only server that works is the Russian server.
***
[10/14/14] Supposedly a few people at Blizzard were working to get War2 working on the newer operating systems (I assume Windows 7 and 8). Well, it's been almost a year since the article.
Monday, February 28, 2011
my Blu-Ray player
Hey, got my Blu-Ray player. Got it from Sue who got it from Howard who apparently bought a new one. Sue didn't really need it because she only has standard def TV. (I guess I can give it back when she gets her wide-screen TV.)
I ran XXX: State of the Union on it and compared it to the DVD running on my DVD recorder. The picture does look sharper, but it's not as great of a difference as watching a show on a HD channel on cable vs. the SD channel. Well, for one thing, the DVD does show up as wide-screen. The second thing is that my TV is 720p so that the difference between 480p and 720p isn't as big as 480p and 1080p. (Though I read that it's hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway.)
Another difference is that the spoken audio seems softer on the Blu-Ray. I think it's made to be played on audio equipment while I'm just using the sound on the TV. When I play other tracks, the sound is louder. Adjusting the Audio DRC setting on the player (as suggested in the manual) didn't seem to make much difference. But the audio track on the special feature was louder. And when I tried Kung Fu Hustle, the Chinese audio was louder than the English. Now I'm trying the XXX DVD on the Blu-Ray player and the sound does seem a little louder (trying to compare the spoken audio volume with the background music).
Another difference was that the subtitles were smaller and smoother. The DVD subtitles were more blocky and yellow, while the Blu-Ray subtitles were white.
One more thing. I tried playing a full frame DVD (The Mummy) on the Blu-Ray player and the picture was stretched to the edges of the screen (making everything look fatter). [Trying out my full-frame Star Trek: TOS DVD -- yep same thing.] My DVD recorder actually does the same thing, but if I force the HDMI mode back to 480p, then the picture has the proper aspect ratio. (see my earlier post below) I think the TV interprets anything over 480p as a wide-screen signal and stretches the signal. (Either that or the DVD player is stretching it.) The Blu-Ray player seems to upscale everything to 1080p (looking at the info display from the TV). I don't see anyway around it. Well, maybe if I hooked up the Blu-Ray player with the A/V cables to the composite input.. (A project for later just to satisfy my curiosity. ... Yep, that works.)
Anyway, based on this initial viewing I wouldn't say a Blu-Ray player is a must-have. The Blu-Ray picture is sharper, but isn't really a quantum-leap over a DVD. I think it would be be more of a difference if you have a 50" screen or bigger (I have a 42" plasma). Or have better eyes than me.
***
Playing the XXX: SOTU special feature on the Blu-Ray. The picture is stretched. Popping in the DVD into my DVD-Recorder shows that the special feature was shot in full-frame. Changing the TV aspect ratio to 4:3 shrinks the picture horizontally solves the problem for the DVD. But changing it to 4:3 on the Blu-Ray just cuts the sides off.
Don't notice any complaints on the internet about this. So maybe it's not a common problem to Blu-Ray players but a problem with my Panansonic TV. Maybe not, because I see in my anamorphic/non-anamorphic post below that the Sony had the same problem.)
... Now trying out the XXX Blu-Ray special feature with A/V cables. OK, that works. The output is 480i and switching to 4:3 doesn't cut off the edges. Actually the picture isn't that bad. I bet a lot of people hook up their Blu-Ray player that way (especially if the player didn't come with an HDMI cable in the box) and think they're watching Hi-Def.
***
Now I'm trying my Criterion Collection Armageddon which is non-anamorphic wide-screen. I'm surprised to see it display at the proper aspect ratio with the Panasonic TV in full mode. But actually it's apparently automatically zooming the picture because when I turn on the sub-titles the bottom line is cut off. I guess that's a choice that Sony made, to automatically zoom non-anamorphic DVDs?
When I play the same DVD on my Toshiba DVD-Recorder in full mode, the picture is stretched horizontally. I have to set it to 480p mode on the DVD player and 4:3 or zoom on the TV to get the proper proportion. Zoom fills the screen horizontally. (Again, it's in the post below.)
***
[11/20/11] OK found the fix to the problem on page 41 of the manual. Changed the Screen Format in Video Settings from Original to Fixed Aspect Ratio. "Changes the picture size to fit the screen size with the original picture aspect ratio."
XXX: SOTU feature now plays fine with black bars on each side. Also tested The Mummy Returns, King of Queens, Three Stooges. All OK. Dog Whisperer Season 2 and 3. Both are wide-screen, but non-anamorphic, so the picture is small with black borders on top and bottom as well as the sides (you can still zoom it with the TV). Season 4 is wide-screen, anamorphic and filled the screen as it should.
[7/25/12] I don't know if this is the same problem, but when I play my DVR-R recordings of widescreen, the aspect ratio is fine when I play it on the TV via HDMI (though the whole picture is shrunk, so I zoom it). But when playing it via the composite connection, when I zoom it, it just zooms vertically to fill the top and bottom bars, but the side bars remain. So the picture looks squeezed from the sides.
Popping in my Armageddon, the picture now looks fine in full mode on the TV. [Actually the picture looks pretty good - the Blu-Ray must be automatically upscaling] Though the sub-titles are still cut off.
Setting the Blu-Ray player from fixed aspect ratio to original. And back to Dogs In The City. The picture via HDMI now looks stretched horizontally. But via composite, the 4:3 and zoom modes look in proportion.
Putting back in Armageddon. The picture still looks stretched vertically in zoom mode. OK, I dunno. I guess I'll have to work it on a case-by-case basis. Between full and zoom. And between original and fixed aspect ratio.
I ran XXX: State of the Union on it and compared it to the DVD running on my DVD recorder. The picture does look sharper, but it's not as great of a difference as watching a show on a HD channel on cable vs. the SD channel. Well, for one thing, the DVD does show up as wide-screen. The second thing is that my TV is 720p so that the difference between 480p and 720p isn't as big as 480p and 1080p. (Though I read that it's hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway.)
Another difference is that the spoken audio seems softer on the Blu-Ray. I think it's made to be played on audio equipment while I'm just using the sound on the TV. When I play other tracks, the sound is louder. Adjusting the Audio DRC setting on the player (as suggested in the manual) didn't seem to make much difference. But the audio track on the special feature was louder. And when I tried Kung Fu Hustle, the Chinese audio was louder than the English. Now I'm trying the XXX DVD on the Blu-Ray player and the sound does seem a little louder (trying to compare the spoken audio volume with the background music).
Another difference was that the subtitles were smaller and smoother. The DVD subtitles were more blocky and yellow, while the Blu-Ray subtitles were white.
One more thing. I tried playing a full frame DVD (The Mummy) on the Blu-Ray player and the picture was stretched to the edges of the screen (making everything look fatter). [Trying out my full-frame Star Trek: TOS DVD -- yep same thing.] My DVD recorder actually does the same thing, but if I force the HDMI mode back to 480p, then the picture has the proper aspect ratio. (see my earlier post below) I think the TV interprets anything over 480p as a wide-screen signal and stretches the signal. (Either that or the DVD player is stretching it.) The Blu-Ray player seems to upscale everything to 1080p (looking at the info display from the TV). I don't see anyway around it. Well, maybe if I hooked up the Blu-Ray player with the A/V cables to the composite input.. (A project for later just to satisfy my curiosity. ... Yep, that works.)
Anyway, based on this initial viewing I wouldn't say a Blu-Ray player is a must-have. The Blu-Ray picture is sharper, but isn't really a quantum-leap over a DVD. I think it would be be more of a difference if you have a 50" screen or bigger (I have a 42" plasma). Or have better eyes than me.
***
Playing the XXX: SOTU special feature on the Blu-Ray. The picture is stretched. Popping in the DVD into my DVD-Recorder shows that the special feature was shot in full-frame. Changing the TV aspect ratio to 4:3 shrinks the picture horizontally solves the problem for the DVD. But changing it to 4:3 on the Blu-Ray just cuts the sides off.
Don't notice any complaints on the internet about this. So maybe it's not a common problem to Blu-Ray players but a problem with my Panansonic TV. Maybe not, because I see in my anamorphic/non-anamorphic post below that the Sony had the same problem.)
... Now trying out the XXX Blu-Ray special feature with A/V cables. OK, that works. The output is 480i and switching to 4:3 doesn't cut off the edges. Actually the picture isn't that bad. I bet a lot of people hook up their Blu-Ray player that way (especially if the player didn't come with an HDMI cable in the box) and think they're watching Hi-Def.
***
Now I'm trying my Criterion Collection Armageddon which is non-anamorphic wide-screen. I'm surprised to see it display at the proper aspect ratio with the Panasonic TV in full mode. But actually it's apparently automatically zooming the picture because when I turn on the sub-titles the bottom line is cut off. I guess that's a choice that Sony made, to automatically zoom non-anamorphic DVDs?
When I play the same DVD on my Toshiba DVD-Recorder in full mode, the picture is stretched horizontally. I have to set it to 480p mode on the DVD player and 4:3 or zoom on the TV to get the proper proportion. Zoom fills the screen horizontally. (Again, it's in the post below.)
***
[11/20/11] OK found the fix to the problem on page 41 of the manual. Changed the Screen Format in Video Settings from Original to Fixed Aspect Ratio. "Changes the picture size to fit the screen size with the original picture aspect ratio."
XXX: SOTU feature now plays fine with black bars on each side. Also tested The Mummy Returns, King of Queens, Three Stooges. All OK. Dog Whisperer Season 2 and 3. Both are wide-screen, but non-anamorphic, so the picture is small with black borders on top and bottom as well as the sides (you can still zoom it with the TV). Season 4 is wide-screen, anamorphic and filled the screen as it should.
[7/25/12] I don't know if this is the same problem, but when I play my DVR-R recordings of widescreen, the aspect ratio is fine when I play it on the TV via HDMI (though the whole picture is shrunk, so I zoom it). But when playing it via the composite connection, when I zoom it, it just zooms vertically to fill the top and bottom bars, but the side bars remain. So the picture looks squeezed from the sides.
Popping in my Armageddon, the picture now looks fine in full mode on the TV. [Actually the picture looks pretty good - the Blu-Ray must be automatically upscaling] Though the sub-titles are still cut off.
Setting the Blu-Ray player from fixed aspect ratio to original. And back to Dogs In The City. The picture via HDMI now looks stretched horizontally. But via composite, the 4:3 and zoom modes look in proportion.
Putting back in Armageddon. The picture still looks stretched vertically in zoom mode. OK, I dunno. I guess I'll have to work it on a case-by-case basis. Between full and zoom. And between original and fixed aspect ratio.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
WTH Oceanic DVR?
I just took a look at the shows recorded on my Oceanic DVR. Only three are left!
Somehow they all got set to erase after a certain amount of days and those older than a couple of weeks are gone!
And the option to change the save time of the recorded ones is gone (at least I don't see it now).
I'm pissed, err I mean somewhat upset... Well good thing I recorded most of the ones I wanted to keep already.
***
OK, now I see the option to change save time. Select the show and the option is two above Play. (The option is missing for the show currently being played.) It's like I turned on the option to auto-erase without realizing it. I'll blame it on myself this time, unless I see a bunch of other complaints around this time.
I still think the box reset and the settings changed. The power did get unplugged this morning.
Looking more. Turning on auto-erase shouldn't have erased the shows that were set to do not erase. So I'm back to blaming Oceanic.
***
Hey cool. I see it's possible to upgrade your DVR (this model anyway) by plugging in an external hard drive.
Somehow they all got set to erase after a certain amount of days and those older than a couple of weeks are gone!
And the option to change the save time of the recorded ones is gone (at least I don't see it now).
I'm pissed, err I mean somewhat upset... Well good thing I recorded most of the ones I wanted to keep already.
***
OK, now I see the option to change save time. Select the show and the option is two above Play. (The option is missing for the show currently being played.) It's like I turned on the option to auto-erase without realizing it. I'll blame it on myself this time, unless I see a bunch of other complaints around this time.
I still think the box reset and the settings changed. The power did get unplugged this morning.
Looking more. Turning on auto-erase shouldn't have erased the shows that were set to do not erase. So I'm back to blaming Oceanic.
***
Hey cool. I see it's possible to upgrade your DVR (this model anyway) by plugging in an external hard drive.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Watson wins on Jeopardy (baby)
Machines first out-calculated us in simple math. Then they replaced us on the assembly lines, explored places we couldn't get to, even beat our champions at chess. Now a computer called Watson has bested our best at "Jeopardy!"
A gigantic computer created by IBM specifically to excel at answers-and-questions left two champs of the TV game show in its silicon dust after a three-day tournament, a feat that experts call a technological breakthrough.
Watson earned $77,147, versus $24,000 for Ken Jennings and $21,600 for Brad Rutter. Jennings took it in stride writing "I for one welcome our new computer overlords" alongside his correct Final Jeopardy answer.
***
I was watched the end of it today. Actually it seemed that Jennings and Rutter knew the answers too (hey if I knew some of the answers, I know they did), but that the machine beat them to the buzzer. You could see the frustration especially with Jennings tapping the buzzer with his thumb.
So of course the computer is going to be faster than the human. It would have been a lot closer if all of them were allowed to answer the questions instead of making it a reflex contest.
Actually thinking about it from that perspective, it was kind of amazing that the humans did as well as they did.
A gigantic computer created by IBM specifically to excel at answers-and-questions left two champs of the TV game show in its silicon dust after a three-day tournament, a feat that experts call a technological breakthrough.
Watson earned $77,147, versus $24,000 for Ken Jennings and $21,600 for Brad Rutter. Jennings took it in stride writing "I for one welcome our new computer overlords" alongside his correct Final Jeopardy answer.
***
I was watched the end of it today. Actually it seemed that Jennings and Rutter knew the answers too (hey if I knew some of the answers, I know they did), but that the machine beat them to the buzzer. You could see the frustration especially with Jennings tapping the buzzer with his thumb.
So of course the computer is going to be faster than the human. It would have been a lot closer if all of them were allowed to answer the questions instead of making it a reflex contest.
Actually thinking about it from that perspective, it was kind of amazing that the humans did as well as they did.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
recycle your bottles
Reynolds Recycling, one of the state's largest recyclers of deposit beverage containers, has begun accepting and paying for glass containers not marked HI-5 now that the city is paying recyclers more for handling nondeposit glass.
Reynolds will pay 4 cents a pound for nondeposit, clean, empty, unbroken glass bottles and jars at any of its 33 Oahu redemption centers. That goes for everything from wine and hard-liquor bottles to jelly and cosmetic jars.
A champagne bottle weighs about 2 pounds, and an average wine bottle about 1.6 pounds.
Reynolds will pay 4 cents a pound for nondeposit, clean, empty, unbroken glass bottles and jars at any of its 33 Oahu redemption centers. That goes for everything from wine and hard-liquor bottles to jelly and cosmetic jars.
A champagne bottle weighs about 2 pounds, and an average wine bottle about 1.6 pounds.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
power, then no power, then power, etc.
Here's an odd one.
I took home Florida's computer which they said wouldn't boot. I plugged it in and as I soon as I plugged in the power cord the thing powered up! (Didn't press the power button.)
So all seemed well. I then saw the thing had only 256MB of memory. It turns out it took DDR memory and I found I had a 128MB module available and inserted it.
Plug everything back in and no power! OK, now I see their problem.
Remove the added memory. Still no power.
OK, unplug it. And put back the other computer.
A day or so later, I try plugging it in again and it worked!
OK, try shut down. Pull out the power cord. Wait a couple of minutes. Plug in the power cord again. Doesn't power up again!
Dunno. Maybe it's the power supply?
I guess I can try put in another. Or just wait until the next day and try again.
Stay tuned..
I took home Florida's computer which they said wouldn't boot. I plugged it in and as I soon as I plugged in the power cord the thing powered up! (Didn't press the power button.)
So all seemed well. I then saw the thing had only 256MB of memory. It turns out it took DDR memory and I found I had a 128MB module available and inserted it.
Plug everything back in and no power! OK, now I see their problem.
Remove the added memory. Still no power.
OK, unplug it. And put back the other computer.
A day or so later, I try plugging it in again and it worked!
OK, try shut down. Pull out the power cord. Wait a couple of minutes. Plug in the power cord again. Doesn't power up again!
Dunno. Maybe it's the power supply?
I guess I can try put in another. Or just wait until the next day and try again.
Stay tuned..
Friday, January 21, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
looking for memory for slow computer
I notice computers running slower and slower these days. Including my own.
They still run into performance problems even after I reinstall Windows (usually XP), though it seems better for a while.
I think the problem was that these computers used to be acceptably fast when they first came out, but that Microsoft kept putting more and more junk into XP so that it taxes the system and it starts to run out of memory (and so goes to the hard drive to use virtual memory). That's my guess anyway.
So now I'm looking to upgrade memory.
A "standard" site to buy memory from seems to be crucial.com. They have a neat system scanner that scans your system, tells you what you have in your system, and makes recommendations on what to buy.
For example, my current system is a Dell Dimension 2400 with two memory modules (one 256MB and one 128MB, both DDR 2700). According to the scanner, "Each memory slot can hold DDR PC2700, DDR PC3200 with a maximum of 1GB per slot." That's good to know.
What's the difference between PC2700 and PC3200? (Shows you how out of touch I am these days.) The speed. PC3200 is the faster speed with peak transfer rate of 3200MB per second.
Let's see. Crucial is selling the 1GB module for $46.99.
[a couple days later -- actually the key to notice is DDR which stands for Double-Data Rate. I now see it's different than the old SIMMs. I assume the old SIMMs must be SDRAM (single data rate) See below.]
On ebay, I see two 512MB modules for $23.88. Only PC2100 DDR. Hey half price. 2GB for $54.48. Darn, free shipping only to 48 states.
OK, ramhut sells 1GB PC2700 for $38.95. $34.90 starting bid. I dunno. I might spring for the extra $8 and buy from Crucial.
deedan92: two 512MB modules for $24.88 (used).
fsgw: PC3200 1GB DDR SDRAM 1 GB PC 3200 DDR400 1G RAM 184 pin for $14.99 plus $6.99 shipping. So $21.98. Doesn't state compatibility though.
***
[1/20] Looking to pop in more memory into Florida's computer which has only 256MB. I notice it takes DDR memory too. I found a 128MB DDR module (I think from Tanaka) and I notice it's physically different from the myriad other SIMMs that I have lying around. OK, so much for upgrading all these computers. [Ugh, popped it in anyway and now Florida's computer doesn't power up. I guess that was the original problem.]
They still run into performance problems even after I reinstall Windows (usually XP), though it seems better for a while.
I think the problem was that these computers used to be acceptably fast when they first came out, but that Microsoft kept putting more and more junk into XP so that it taxes the system and it starts to run out of memory (and so goes to the hard drive to use virtual memory). That's my guess anyway.
So now I'm looking to upgrade memory.
A "standard" site to buy memory from seems to be crucial.com. They have a neat system scanner that scans your system, tells you what you have in your system, and makes recommendations on what to buy.
For example, my current system is a Dell Dimension 2400 with two memory modules (one 256MB and one 128MB, both DDR 2700). According to the scanner, "Each memory slot can hold DDR PC2700, DDR PC3200 with a maximum of 1GB per slot." That's good to know.
What's the difference between PC2700 and PC3200? (Shows you how out of touch I am these days.) The speed. PC3200 is the faster speed with peak transfer rate of 3200MB per second.
Let's see. Crucial is selling the 1GB module for $46.99.
[a couple days later -- actually the key to notice is DDR which stands for Double-Data Rate. I now see it's different than the old SIMMs. I assume the old SIMMs must be SDRAM (single data rate) See below.]
On ebay, I see two 512MB modules for $23.88. Only PC2100 DDR. Hey half price. 2GB for $54.48. Darn, free shipping only to 48 states.
OK, ramhut sells 1GB PC2700 for $38.95. $34.90 starting bid. I dunno. I might spring for the extra $8 and buy from Crucial.
deedan92: two 512MB modules for $24.88 (used).
fsgw: PC3200 1GB DDR SDRAM 1 GB PC 3200 DDR400 1G RAM 184 pin for $14.99 plus $6.99 shipping. So $21.98. Doesn't state compatibility though.
***
[1/20] Looking to pop in more memory into Florida's computer which has only 256MB. I notice it takes DDR memory too. I found a 128MB DDR module (I think from Tanaka) and I notice it's physically different from the myriad other SIMMs that I have lying around. OK, so much for upgrading all these computers. [Ugh, popped it in anyway and now Florida's computer doesn't power up. I guess that was the original problem.]
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Steve Jobs to take another medical leave
Steve Jobs, the iconic chief executive of Apple who has battled serious health problems for years, said Monday that he is taking another medical leave of absence, raising questions about whether the country's most highly valued technology company can prosper without its leader.
The announcement that the creator of the iPod, iPhone and iPad would step aside - without revealing the extent of his medical problems or how long he'll be on leave - prompted criticism from some analysts that Apple was betraying its obligations to tell its shareholders important information.
Jobs, a survivor of pancreatic cancer and recipient of a liver transplant, two conditions known to cause a variety of complications, sent a message to Apple employees Monday saying that the company's board "granted me a medical leave of absence so I can focus on my health." He added that he would continue to be involved in major decisions but would give up day-to-day control.
Since founding Apple in 1976, Jobs has been known for a nearly fanatical attention to detail - caring as much about the appearance of his products as how they function - that makes him unique among many technology executives.
He has fostered a culture at Apple that has allowed the company, which was months from bankruptcy in 1997 when he returned to the helm after a long hiatus, to edge out bigger rivals and dominate the market for smartphones and music players.
The announcement that the creator of the iPod, iPhone and iPad would step aside - without revealing the extent of his medical problems or how long he'll be on leave - prompted criticism from some analysts that Apple was betraying its obligations to tell its shareholders important information.
Jobs, a survivor of pancreatic cancer and recipient of a liver transplant, two conditions known to cause a variety of complications, sent a message to Apple employees Monday saying that the company's board "granted me a medical leave of absence so I can focus on my health." He added that he would continue to be involved in major decisions but would give up day-to-day control.
Since founding Apple in 1976, Jobs has been known for a nearly fanatical attention to detail - caring as much about the appearance of his products as how they function - that makes him unique among many technology executives.
He has fostered a culture at Apple that has allowed the company, which was months from bankruptcy in 1997 when he returned to the helm after a long hiatus, to edge out bigger rivals and dominate the market for smartphones and music players.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
hitman pro
adding another item to my toolbox
was getting redirects on google searches (among other problems) even after running malwarebytes. Microsoft Security Essentials was terminating before completion.
Found hitman pro from this thread
cleared up the redirect problem (and other problems as well including the MSE problem).
However there was still one particularly stubborn file that hitman identified as malware but couldn't delete even on reboot.
Tried deleting manually from safe mode with no success.
Finally tried moveonboot and moved it to another folder (probabably could have deleted it too, but I wanted to have a sample of it around - but come to think of it, that probably was not a good idea).
was getting redirects on google searches (among other problems) even after running malwarebytes. Microsoft Security Essentials was terminating before completion.
Found hitman pro from this thread
cleared up the redirect problem (and other problems as well including the MSE problem).
However there was still one particularly stubborn file that hitman identified as malware but couldn't delete even on reboot.
Tried deleting manually from safe mode with no success.
Finally tried moveonboot and moved it to another folder (probabably could have deleted it too, but I wanted to have a sample of it around - but come to think of it, that probably was not a good idea).
Thursday, December 02, 2010
uninstalling AVG
Arlene had WinDefragmenter infecting her computer.
Did the usual. Boot to safe mode, install/update MBAM and run. It found a couple of things, but WinDefragmenter was still there.
Decided to do a system restore, which brought the system back before it was infected.
But then I noticed that AVG had errors. Anti-Rootkit driver not found, Identity Protection disabled. The fix button brought up another error message.
Tried uninstalling, but that brought up error code: 0xC0070643. Removal of product failed.
Tried running the install file with the repair option, but the errors will still there on AVG.
Tried cleaning the registry with ccleaner.
Then tried another AVG install (add/remove components: unchecked all)
Still got the error code with error message: general internal error, additional message: MSI engine: fialed to install the product, context: AVG product installation
Looked up the error code on google, and got to this computing.net page which led to AVG's remover tool.
just to see, went to safe mode
ran malwarebytes, found nothing.
tried AVG repair: error
then ran the AVG remover
It took a while but it finally finished
rebooted
AVG seemed gone, but Security Center reported it was still there!
OK, install AVG again
this time all the options were active incluing the Anti-Rootkit and Identity Protection.
The databases got updated and everything seemed OK now.
So finally got AVG running, but I still didn't want it.
reboot
uninstall
uninstall finished. Hey uninstall seemed to work this gime.
reboot and install MSE which is the program I really wanted to put on
got the error message: can't complete the Microsoft Security Essentials Setup Wizard. Another Windows Installer is already running on your computer
pleas close the other program or restart your computer and try running the Microsoft Security Essentials Wizard again. error code: 0x8004FF00
The googled fix was to run the Windows Installer Cleanup Utility, but "
While the Windows Installer Cleanup utility resolved some installation problems, it sometimes damaged other components installed on the computer. Because of this, the tool has been removed from the Microsoft Download Center."
OK, let's try run the AVG remover again.
And since M.S.E. suggest removing other anti-virus programs, I uninstalled SuperAntiSpyware
boot to safe mode, but MSE setup can't run from safe mode.
reboot. hey somehow it installed this time.
update worked too.
I should quit while I'm ahead.
Did the usual. Boot to safe mode, install/update MBAM and run. It found a couple of things, but WinDefragmenter was still there.
Decided to do a system restore, which brought the system back before it was infected.
But then I noticed that AVG had errors. Anti-Rootkit driver not found, Identity Protection disabled. The fix button brought up another error message.
Tried uninstalling, but that brought up error code: 0xC0070643. Removal of product failed.
Tried running the install file with the repair option, but the errors will still there on AVG.
Tried cleaning the registry with ccleaner.
Then tried another AVG install (add/remove components: unchecked all)
Still got the error code with error message: general internal error, additional message: MSI engine: fialed to install the product, context: AVG product installation
Looked up the error code on google, and got to this computing.net page which led to AVG's remover tool.
just to see, went to safe mode
ran malwarebytes, found nothing.
tried AVG repair: error
then ran the AVG remover
It took a while but it finally finished
rebooted
AVG seemed gone, but Security Center reported it was still there!
OK, install AVG again
this time all the options were active incluing the Anti-Rootkit and Identity Protection.
The databases got updated and everything seemed OK now.
So finally got AVG running, but I still didn't want it.
reboot
uninstall
uninstall finished. Hey uninstall seemed to work this gime.
reboot and install MSE which is the program I really wanted to put on
got the error message: can't complete the Microsoft Security Essentials Setup Wizard. Another Windows Installer is already running on your computer
pleas close the other program or restart your computer and try running the Microsoft Security Essentials Wizard again. error code: 0x8004FF00
The googled fix was to run the Windows Installer Cleanup Utility, but "
While the Windows Installer Cleanup utility resolved some installation problems, it sometimes damaged other components installed on the computer. Because of this, the tool has been removed from the Microsoft Download Center."
OK, let's try run the AVG remover again.
And since M.S.E. suggest removing other anti-virus programs, I uninstalled SuperAntiSpyware
boot to safe mode, but MSE setup can't run from safe mode.
reboot. hey somehow it installed this time.
update worked too.
I should quit while I'm ahead.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Motorola Talkabout T5030R
I picked up this 2-way radio (walkie-talkie) from Radio Shack so my mom could communicate with me in case I'm not in the same room.
At first, I bought the FV300 because it was cheaper, but decided to return it because the T5030R was bigger and brighter so I thought my mom would be able to find it better. Plus the T5030R was rechargeable and used AA batteries (which I have a lot of) vs. AAA batteries for the FV300.
I guess it works OK, but there are a few things I don't like about it. One is the talk button is a bit hard to press and keep depressed. Second the charge on the battery doesn't last all that long if you intend to leave it on for half the day. And third, my mom has problems figuring out what button to press (or even seeing the button apparently) as they are a little small and kind of blend in with the face plate. I'm winding up using the AA batteries instead of the rechargeable battery.
It makes me wonder if I would have been better off with the FV300 or even one of those Cobra ones from Toys R Us (though now I see they get crappy reviews).
I wound up letting my mom use my old Motorola FR50 which has the call button right in the center of the unit. I would have not needed to buy the T5030R, but only one of the FR50 units still work.
The FR50 can call the T5030R fine, as long as the interference eliminator code is set to 0. The FR50 can talk to the T5030R, but the T5030R can't talk to the FR50 on every channel. So far, I've found that channel 7 works. Hmm. Now it seems the other channels are working. I dunno.
And now, after charging one of the batteries all day, it's still dead. Guess I'll be using up the AA batteries.
One thing in favor of the T5030R, the battery compartment is sure a lot easier to open than the FR50.
At first, I bought the FV300 because it was cheaper, but decided to return it because the T5030R was bigger and brighter so I thought my mom would be able to find it better. Plus the T5030R was rechargeable and used AA batteries (which I have a lot of) vs. AAA batteries for the FV300.
I guess it works OK, but there are a few things I don't like about it. One is the talk button is a bit hard to press and keep depressed. Second the charge on the battery doesn't last all that long if you intend to leave it on for half the day. And third, my mom has problems figuring out what button to press (or even seeing the button apparently) as they are a little small and kind of blend in with the face plate. I'm winding up using the AA batteries instead of the rechargeable battery.
It makes me wonder if I would have been better off with the FV300 or even one of those Cobra ones from Toys R Us (though now I see they get crappy reviews).
I wound up letting my mom use my old Motorola FR50 which has the call button right in the center of the unit. I would have not needed to buy the T5030R, but only one of the FR50 units still work.
The FR50 can call the T5030R fine, as long as the interference eliminator code is set to 0. The FR50 can talk to the T5030R, but the T5030R can't talk to the FR50 on every channel. So far, I've found that channel 7 works. Hmm. Now it seems the other channels are working. I dunno.
And now, after charging one of the batteries all day, it's still dead. Guess I'll be using up the AA batteries.
One thing in favor of the T5030R, the battery compartment is sure a lot easier to open than the FR50.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
light anti-virus programs?
I'm using a machine that has only 384MB. And now working on a laptop that has like 228MB (or something like that).
I'm wondering what anti-virus program I should use to put on these machines that won't hog the precious resources (I know, I should actually increase the memory but..)
Anyway, I found this page via Yahoo (via this google search) that answers the question better than I could.
The conclusion?
If I would to compare between the few giant antivirus brands such as Avast, Avira, Norton and Kaspersky, I’d say that Avast is the lightest of all.
That's a little disappointing because I use Avast on my 384MB machine and it often thrashes to memory when running firefox.
Well, let me run a compare on the laptop which currently has AVG 8.5 installed.
I'm wondering what anti-virus program I should use to put on these machines that won't hog the precious resources (I know, I should actually increase the memory but..)
Anyway, I found this page via Yahoo (via this google search) that answers the question better than I could.
The conclusion?
If I would to compare between the few giant antivirus brands such as Avast, Avira, Norton and Kaspersky, I’d say that Avast is the lightest of all.
That's a little disappointing because I use Avast on my 384MB machine and it often thrashes to memory when running firefox.
Well, let me run a compare on the laptop which currently has AVG 8.5 installed.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Google Instant
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Google Inc. stepped on its Internet search accelerator Wednesday by adding a feature that displays results as soon as people begin typing their requests.
The change, called "Google Instant," is the closest the 12-year-old company has come yet to realizing its founders' ambition to build a search engine that reads its users' minds.
The achievement wasn't lost on Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who jokingly told reporters that the company's lightning-quick computers are morphing into the "other third" of people's brains.
"I think it's a little bit of a new dawn in computing," Brin said Wednesday.
The shift means Google users will begin to see an ever-evolving set of search results appearing on their computer screens, potentially changing with each additional character typed. That means a satisfactory set of results could take just one keystroke. As an example, a person who types "w" in Google's search box could see the weather results in the same area as where the request was entered.
Google will also try to predict what a person really wants by filling out the anticipated search terms in gray letters. Below that, in a drop-down box, Google will still offer other suggested search requests, as the site has been offering for the past two years.
The change, called "Google Instant," is the closest the 12-year-old company has come yet to realizing its founders' ambition to build a search engine that reads its users' minds.
The achievement wasn't lost on Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who jokingly told reporters that the company's lightning-quick computers are morphing into the "other third" of people's brains.
"I think it's a little bit of a new dawn in computing," Brin said Wednesday.
The shift means Google users will begin to see an ever-evolving set of search results appearing on their computer screens, potentially changing with each additional character typed. That means a satisfactory set of results could take just one keystroke. As an example, a person who types "w" in Google's search box could see the weather results in the same area as where the request was entered.
Google will also try to predict what a person really wants by filling out the anticipated search terms in gray letters. Below that, in a drop-down box, Google will still offer other suggested search requests, as the site has been offering for the past two years.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
cancer vaccine research progressing
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The vaccine that Larry Mathews is getting won't protect him from the flu. That's OK — the stakes are far higher than that.
He's hoping the shots will prime his immune system to fight the aggressive cancer that has invaded his brain. If it works as he wants it to, his body's own killer cells will mop up malignant cells that surgery, radiation and chemotherapy couldn't eliminate.
For decades, scientists have been trying to create vaccines like this to recruit the body's immune system to destroy cancer cells the way it wipes out foreign viruses and bacteria.
After many false starts and premature promises, it appears that their research is beginning to pay off.
In late April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first cancer vaccine, Provenge, that can modestly extend the lives of men with advanced prostate cancer. Several major insurance plans and Medicare claims processors in some parts of the country, including Kansas and Missouri, already have agreed to pay for the costly treatment.
Mathews is taking part in a preliminary clinical study at St. Luke's Hospital on a brain cancer vaccine developed at the University of Kansas Medical Center. A larger two-year study aimed at gaining FDA approval is planned to start this fall.
Worldwide, scientists are working on dozens of vaccines against melanoma, breast cancer and cancers of the lung, colon and pancreas.
Researchers can cite anecdotes of cancer patients given months to live who have survived 15 years or longer after receiving vaccines. But so far, conclusive evidence from large clinical trials is scant.
Even so, experts anticipate that several cancer vaccines could prove effective enough to gain FDA approval in the next four or five years.
The goal for vaccines is to train the immune system to recognize ways that cancer cells differ from normal cells and motivate it to attack.
By trial and error scientists have identified targets on cancer cells, called antigens, that the immune system can identify as different from normal cells. They also better understand components of the immune system that recognize antigens and alert the immune system's killer cells.
Vaccines represent a major shift in thinking about how to treat cancer, said James Gulley, a researcher at the National Cancer Institute. Conventional cancer therapies aim toxic drugs and radiation at tumors, but can harm other tissues and cause nausea, fatigue, hair loss and other side effects.
Vaccines narrowly target the immune system. Side effects — fever, chills, soreness at the injection site — typically aren't much greater than what you may get from a flu shot. But getting vaccinated can take much longer than a flu shot.
He's hoping the shots will prime his immune system to fight the aggressive cancer that has invaded his brain. If it works as he wants it to, his body's own killer cells will mop up malignant cells that surgery, radiation and chemotherapy couldn't eliminate.
For decades, scientists have been trying to create vaccines like this to recruit the body's immune system to destroy cancer cells the way it wipes out foreign viruses and bacteria.
After many false starts and premature promises, it appears that their research is beginning to pay off.
In late April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first cancer vaccine, Provenge, that can modestly extend the lives of men with advanced prostate cancer. Several major insurance plans and Medicare claims processors in some parts of the country, including Kansas and Missouri, already have agreed to pay for the costly treatment.
Mathews is taking part in a preliminary clinical study at St. Luke's Hospital on a brain cancer vaccine developed at the University of Kansas Medical Center. A larger two-year study aimed at gaining FDA approval is planned to start this fall.
Worldwide, scientists are working on dozens of vaccines against melanoma, breast cancer and cancers of the lung, colon and pancreas.
Researchers can cite anecdotes of cancer patients given months to live who have survived 15 years or longer after receiving vaccines. But so far, conclusive evidence from large clinical trials is scant.
Even so, experts anticipate that several cancer vaccines could prove effective enough to gain FDA approval in the next four or five years.
The goal for vaccines is to train the immune system to recognize ways that cancer cells differ from normal cells and motivate it to attack.
By trial and error scientists have identified targets on cancer cells, called antigens, that the immune system can identify as different from normal cells. They also better understand components of the immune system that recognize antigens and alert the immune system's killer cells.
Vaccines represent a major shift in thinking about how to treat cancer, said James Gulley, a researcher at the National Cancer Institute. Conventional cancer therapies aim toxic drugs and radiation at tumors, but can harm other tissues and cause nausea, fatigue, hair loss and other side effects.
Vaccines narrowly target the immune system. Side effects — fever, chills, soreness at the injection site — typically aren't much greater than what you may get from a flu shot. But getting vaccinated can take much longer than a flu shot.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
anamorphic or not anamorphic?
Now that I have my widescreen TV, I'm having a penchant on seeing how my DVDs look on it.
Some of them didn't look very good at first because I had my DVD player still set up to 4:3 and when the TV zoomed the picture it wasn't very clear. Now that I have set it to 16:9, they look better (if not really good).
I have a few that are non-anamorphic that don't look that great when zoomed (or in "full" mode), so I actually prefer watching some of these unzoomed.
I don't know if this applies to every single DVD, but so far the way I figure out if a DVD is anamorphic, is that the picture looks squished vertically (black bars on sides) when Wide Mode is Normal. When I switch Wide Mode to Full, then the picture uncompresses and the black bars on the sides disappear. The height of the picture remains the same.
If the DVD is non-anamorphic (or full screen), the picture looks in proportion in Normal setting.
I have a few DVDs that even though they're anamorphic, the picture looks a little too blurry in full mode and I actually like to watch these with the picture a little smaller with the borders all around. (Or maybe it's just my eyes.)
With an non-anamorphic DVD, you do this by just watching in Normal mode. With an anamorphic DVD, you can do it by setting the DVD player to 4:3 with the TV in Normal mode.
I assume none of this rigmarole is needed with a Blu-Ray disc.
***
So far I have found the following DVDs are non-anamorphic:
Wing Chun (Tai Seng, HK Legends version is anamorphic, come on Dragon Dynasty?, wow selling used for $59.85 on amazon.)
Mortal Kombat (which also looks really dark, Blu-Ray release 8/31/10 in Canada)
Armageddon (Criterion edition) but looks pretty decent from a distance
WarGames (the 25th Anniversary edition is anamorphic)<!-8/26/10-->
Fist of Legend (Dimension) / Dragon Dynasty version is anamorphic <!- 8/26/10 -->
Enemy of the State / there's a newer special edition that is anamorphic / I was watching it because it was on FX earlier that day. I noticed the actress that played Will Smith's wife, Regina King, looks like Michelle Obama (or vice-versa) especially with the similar hair-do. Also in the movie, Scott Caan now of Hawaii Five-O fame. I see he was also in the Ocean's Eleven, etc. films. I never noticed. I also notice that this came out the same year (all the way back in 1998) as another Bruckheimer production, Armageddon (see above) <!- 11/5/10 -->
[4/10/11] My latest non-anamorphic DVD, Die Hard 2. Picked this up from Blockbuster Salt Lake which is going out of business. Well, I guess it's viewable assuming you don't mind watching it as a smaller picture on 4:3. Or zooming it with the bottom half of the subtitles off the screen. Good thing it was only 90 cents. Checked my copy of Die Hard. It's anamorphic, so it's the later version. [swapped it on swapadvd]
[9/5/11] Since Army of Darkness happened to be on Spike-TV, I dug out my Army of Darkness DVDs. The old Universal version is wide-screen, non-anamorphic. The old Anchor Bay version has both full-screen and wide-screen presentations and is anamorphic. The Anchor Bay bootleg edition is wide-screen only and is anamorphic.
The advantage of Universal version (the one with the chainsaw cover) is that it has sub-titles. I think that's why I bought it. The advantage of the old Anchor Bay version (the one with skeletons on the cover) is that it contains a behind-the-scenes featurette). The advantage of the "Official Bootleg Edition" (the cover looks like a paper bag) is that it has commentary from Bruce Campbell and Sam & Ivan Raimi) and includes footage that was later edited out. The Anchor Bay versions also include the original ending (I think as an extra in the old version).
Looking at AOD DVD fanatic webpage, I have the first, third, and fifth DVD's mentioned. The latest DVD version mentioned was from early 2003. So no mention of the Blu-Ray version. The Blu-Ray "Screwhead Edition" would evidently give the best picture available along with the sub-titles. Maybe that'll be my next purchase (or swap).
***
[9/1/10] Hooked up my Toshiba DVD-Recorder to the Sony TV via HDMI (the first time I've ever used the HDMI cable, since I never had an HDMI display device before). The DVDs seemed to looked even sharper (from a distance, looks pretty block up close) and seemingly less strain on my sensitive eyes.
Tried a non-anamorphic DVD and couldn't it get in the right proportion - looks too fat. Discovered that I have to change the resolution to 480p on DVD player. Any signal 720 or higher and the Sony interprets it as a 16:9 signal and stretches the signal. Either that or the DVD player is stretching it to 16:9. Same thing for full frame DVDs too.
... Found the solution. Need to set the HDMI mode on the DVD player to 480p [press the HDMI button on the remote and the setting changes on the little DVD player display]. The TV then interprets it as a 4:3 signal.
So I tried that with my non-anamorphic Armageddon Criterion edition. The picture had borders all around, so I had the TV zoom it. Looked pretty decent while sitting far away. Not that good when looking close. But that's pretty much true of all standard-def DVDs on a big screen TV. [2/28/11 - trying it now on my Panasonic plasma. The picture actually looks pretty decent. I think this TV does a better job upscaling SD pictures.]
***
[9/20/10] Here's a problem I noted when playing back my Three Stooges volume 6 DVD on my Toshiba DVD-Recorder on my new Panasonic 42" Plasma. When I play it via the HDMI interface, the picture plays back on full mode with the edges of the screen stretched to the edge of the screen. So the picture is out of proportion. However when I change the TV format to 4:3 the picture just cuts off the edges to 4:3 so the picture is still out of proportion, just cut off. Oddly when I play it back via the composite interface on 4:3, the picture shrinks to the proper proportion rather than cut off. Well I suppose any 4:3 picture would be non-anamorphic and not hi-def anyway. And they assume that anything played through the HDMI wouldn't be 4:3. Which very simply is just plain wrong.
I'm wondering though if it's a problem with my DVD recorder or the TV.
The four screen format modes are explained here. But no mention of the cut-off problem.
Wait, I just read what I wrote in the previous entry (on 9/1/10). OK, try setting 480p on the DVD player. (So it looks like a "problem" with the DVD player, not the TV.)
Some of them didn't look very good at first because I had my DVD player still set up to 4:3 and when the TV zoomed the picture it wasn't very clear. Now that I have set it to 16:9, they look better (if not really good).
I have a few that are non-anamorphic that don't look that great when zoomed (or in "full" mode), so I actually prefer watching some of these unzoomed.
I don't know if this applies to every single DVD, but so far the way I figure out if a DVD is anamorphic, is that the picture looks squished vertically (black bars on sides) when Wide Mode is Normal. When I switch Wide Mode to Full, then the picture uncompresses and the black bars on the sides disappear. The height of the picture remains the same.
If the DVD is non-anamorphic (or full screen), the picture looks in proportion in Normal setting.
I have a few DVDs that even though they're anamorphic, the picture looks a little too blurry in full mode and I actually like to watch these with the picture a little smaller with the borders all around. (Or maybe it's just my eyes.)
With an non-anamorphic DVD, you do this by just watching in Normal mode. With an anamorphic DVD, you can do it by setting the DVD player to 4:3 with the TV in Normal mode.
I assume none of this rigmarole is needed with a Blu-Ray disc.
***
So far I have found the following DVDs are non-anamorphic:
Wing Chun (Tai Seng, HK Legends version is anamorphic, come on Dragon Dynasty?, wow selling used for $59.85 on amazon.)
Mortal Kombat (which also looks really dark, Blu-Ray release 8/31/10 in Canada)
Armageddon (Criterion edition) but looks pretty decent from a distance
WarGames (the 25th Anniversary edition is anamorphic)<!-8/26/10-->
Fist of Legend (Dimension) / Dragon Dynasty version is anamorphic <!- 8/26/10 -->
Enemy of the State / there's a newer special edition that is anamorphic / I was watching it because it was on FX earlier that day. I noticed the actress that played Will Smith's wife, Regina King, looks like Michelle Obama (or vice-versa) especially with the similar hair-do. Also in the movie, Scott Caan now of Hawaii Five-O fame. I see he was also in the Ocean's Eleven, etc. films. I never noticed. I also notice that this came out the same year (all the way back in 1998) as another Bruckheimer production, Armageddon (see above) <!- 11/5/10 -->
[4/10/11] My latest non-anamorphic DVD, Die Hard 2. Picked this up from Blockbuster Salt Lake which is going out of business. Well, I guess it's viewable assuming you don't mind watching it as a smaller picture on 4:3. Or zooming it with the bottom half of the subtitles off the screen. Good thing it was only 90 cents. Checked my copy of Die Hard. It's anamorphic, so it's the later version. [swapped it on swapadvd]
[9/5/11] Since Army of Darkness happened to be on Spike-TV, I dug out my Army of Darkness DVDs. The old Universal version is wide-screen, non-anamorphic. The old Anchor Bay version has both full-screen and wide-screen presentations and is anamorphic. The Anchor Bay bootleg edition is wide-screen only and is anamorphic.
The advantage of Universal version (the one with the chainsaw cover) is that it has sub-titles. I think that's why I bought it. The advantage of the old Anchor Bay version (the one with skeletons on the cover) is that it contains a behind-the-scenes featurette). The advantage of the "Official Bootleg Edition" (the cover looks like a paper bag) is that it has commentary from Bruce Campbell and Sam & Ivan Raimi) and includes footage that was later edited out. The Anchor Bay versions also include the original ending (I think as an extra in the old version).
Looking at AOD DVD fanatic webpage, I have the first, third, and fifth DVD's mentioned. The latest DVD version mentioned was from early 2003. So no mention of the Blu-Ray version. The Blu-Ray "Screwhead Edition" would evidently give the best picture available along with the sub-titles. Maybe that'll be my next purchase (or swap).
***
[9/1/10] Hooked up my Toshiba DVD-Recorder to the Sony TV via HDMI (the first time I've ever used the HDMI cable, since I never had an HDMI display device before). The DVDs seemed to looked even sharper (from a distance, looks pretty block up close) and seemingly less strain on my sensitive eyes.
Tried a non-anamorphic DVD and couldn't it get in the right proportion - looks too fat. Discovered that I have to change the resolution to 480p on DVD player. Any signal 720 or higher and the Sony interprets it as a 16:9 signal and stretches the signal. Either that or the DVD player is stretching it to 16:9. Same thing for full frame DVDs too.
... Found the solution. Need to set the HDMI mode on the DVD player to 480p [press the HDMI button on the remote and the setting changes on the little DVD player display]. The TV then interprets it as a 4:3 signal.
So I tried that with my non-anamorphic Armageddon Criterion edition. The picture had borders all around, so I had the TV zoom it. Looked pretty decent while sitting far away. Not that good when looking close. But that's pretty much true of all standard-def DVDs on a big screen TV. [2/28/11 - trying it now on my Panasonic plasma. The picture actually looks pretty decent. I think this TV does a better job upscaling SD pictures.]
***
[9/20/10] Here's a problem I noted when playing back my Three Stooges volume 6 DVD on my Toshiba DVD-Recorder on my new Panasonic 42" Plasma. When I play it via the HDMI interface, the picture plays back on full mode with the edges of the screen stretched to the edge of the screen. So the picture is out of proportion. However when I change the TV format to 4:3 the picture just cuts off the edges to 4:3 so the picture is still out of proportion, just cut off. Oddly when I play it back via the composite interface on 4:3, the picture shrinks to the proper proportion rather than cut off. Well I suppose any 4:3 picture would be non-anamorphic and not hi-def anyway. And they assume that anything played through the HDMI wouldn't be 4:3. Which very simply is just plain wrong.
I'm wondering though if it's a problem with my DVD recorder or the TV.
The four screen format modes are explained here. But no mention of the cut-off problem.
Wait, I just read what I wrote in the previous entry (on 9/1/10). OK, try setting 480p on the DVD player. (So it looks like a "problem" with the DVD player, not the TV.)
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
my new HD TV on Oceanic cable
Got rained out at tennis. Wound up at IchiBen with Lori, Cathy, Bob. Somehow I mentioned getting a new TV and we wound at Wal-Mart and I walked out of there with a Sony EX4/40 TV. I was going to get it at Costco, but it was $20 cheaper at Wal-Mart. It was the last one and had a hole in the lower side of the box, but I chanced it.
Bob hooked up the stand but had trouble with the last screw. Turned out the screw was stripped. But it seems to be sturdy enough. Lori put the batteries in the remote. Dunno what Cathy did. I was feeding Kimo.
I wanted the Sony brand because I knew that Sony could catch HD channels on Oceanic without needing a cable box (because I had set Sony's up for BettyN and the Fongs). I know some other brands could too, but I knew of other (Non-Sony) flat screen TVs that could only tune in the analog channels (because I tried them). (Probably because they were older models, but maybe not).
Anyway, cross fingers and auto-tune. It found 26 digital channels, 7 of them in HD (KHON, KITV, KFVE, KGMB, KHNL, KHET, and oddly MSNBC). One good thing about this Sony is it tells you what kind of signal it's picking up. NTSC (analog), digital SD (480i), and hi-def. I was surprised to see it picked up both 720p and 1024i signals.
Here's the digital channels it found after scanning (and what I believe are Oceanic's corresponding digital channels), plus the resolution of the hi-def channels. The non-HD channels are all in 480i.
46.3 KHON HD (1003) 720p
46.4 The CW Network (93)
77.3 NewsChoice (112)
79.1 PBS Kids Hawaii (443)
79.10 Event Prevues (?)
83.3 KHNL HD (1008) 1080i
94.101 Prevues (?) (I briefly got the picture then it blanked out)
94.102 Games? (433?) (there was a game in progress, but later it blanked)
103.250 SURF (250)
103.1107 MSNBC HD (1107) 1080i
112.353 blank?
113.698 New Tang Dynasty (698)
114.2 KITV HD (1006) 720p
116.1 KGMB HD (1007) 1080i
116.4 Digital KIKU (89)
116.5 Digital KBFD (82)
117.3 Digital KHON (none)
117.5 Digital KFVE (85)
117.6 Digital KITV (86)
117.7 Digital KGMB (87)
117.8 Digital KHNL (88)
117.10 Digital KHET (90)
118.1 KFVE HD (1005) 1080i
120.12 KHET HD (1010) 1080i
121.10 Digital HSN (152)
0 SportsChoice (200)
The next day, MSNBC disappears and so does New Tang Dynasty. And the Games and SURF too. On the other hand TEC appears (actually it disappeared later, then reappeared again).
[8/24am] Scan again. REELZ appears. And SURF and the Game channel reappears. Then comes the morning and REELZ and Games disappear, though SURF is still there so far.
Wondering why my so-called anamorphic DVDs don't fill the screen with black bars all around both horizontally and vertically. Light bulb. Set DVD player setting to 16:9 from 4:3. Yeah, much better!
[9/3/10] Ah, here's the official digital lineup from Oceanic. My KHNL HD 83.3 disappeared. I noticed the signal has been spotty in the past and now it's just plain gone. Well, hopefully it'll come back.
[11/11] My latest scan now shows the following channels:
46.3 KHON-HD
118.1 KFVE-HD
116.9 KITV-HD
116.1 KGMB-HD
118.3 KHNL-HD
118.12 KHET-HD
46.1 KPXO-HD
46.4 CW-SD
49.1 OC12-HD
122.11 1420 AM (radio)
***
[9/1/10] Decided to trade in my DVR for a hi-def DVR (Cisco Explorer 8300HD). Was considering cancelling my digital variety pack. But when the lady checked, she said I'm getting a special deal and my cost would actually go up! Well, that's what she said. So I'm keeping it. Got a new remote, though she said the old one would work. But I told her it was kind of worn out. (Some of the buttons, like the pause didn't work well.) So I got a new one. And they gave me an HDMI cable too.
Hooked it up via HDMI. Looks pretty sharp. My eyes still get a little sore, but they used to get sore at my old TV with the color turned up too much (come to think of it). They did get sore watching the 27" flat screen Sony I found on the side of the road. It was a little blue. Maybe it's Sony.
Now considering trading LCD for Plasma. But I dunno. The pros for plasma: viewing angle, motion handling. Pros for LCD: does better in daylight. And I see now that this Sony is "only" 60 Hz.
But every time I think of returning it, I see a nice super-clear, super-sharp, hi-def picture (the Sony does have an awesome hi-def picture) and think wow, how can I give this up? I'm not so impressed with the sharpness of the plasmas I see at the store. But they probably look fine if I'm not too close.
Anyway, couldn't find the code for the remote (which looks like the Atlas OCAP 5) to control the Sony. The code at urcsupport didn't work. So I did a code search and it worked at about the fifth or sixth try. Checking the code, it turns out to be 1-1-0-0.
And, ah, here's how to turn on closed caption when using HDMI (on this box anyway). It's just one of the settings you can access by pressing the settings button on the remote control (couldn't get the on when mute option working though).
[9/3/10] Panic. I was going to compare the HDMI picture with the composite picture on my DVD recorder. But couldn't get a picture on the composite despite some mad swapping of cables, even trying it with my Apex analog TV. I thought the DVD-recorder might have busted. But then I remembered I had set the setting to progressive. I hooked up the HDMI again and turned off the progressive. OK, it works now!
My eyes seem to ache with the HDMI hookups. Maybe it's just too sharp. I'm trying to turn down the backlight and sharpness. Maybe a little better. I dunno.
[9/5/10] I'm not getting a couple of HD channels I'm supposed to get, most of the time. The picture is blank when I tune them in. Specifically it's HTRAV (1325) AND HHIST (1327). The problem is the signal is marginal. The cable box is hooked up to a two-way splitter with one cable going to my mom's bedroom and the other cable going to the cable box. (And in fact it's split earlier with a three-way splitter with one end going to my bedroom and another going to the patio.) If I bypass the splitter and put the cable directly to the cable box it works. And in fact if I unscrew the other cable on the splitter, that works too.
Funny though that HHIST works if I use the Start Over function and watch from the beginning. HTRAV doesn't have the option.
So I guess I'll have to unscrew the cable when I want to watch those channels. Another option is to get a signal booster. Or maybe a low-loss splitter might work?
***
[9/12/10] Well I decided to return the Sony TV to the WalMart on Keeaumoku. It just so happened that Chelsea was there and took my return. So no problem.
Not sure what I going to buy to replacement. Either a Panasonic plasma. Or maybe the Vizio 37".
Anyway, reprogrammed the Oceanic remote back to the old TV. Followed the instructions on the back of the remote
1) turn device on
2) press device key (TV, DVD, etc.)
3) press and hold SETUP (LED blinks twice)
4) Press 9-9-1 (LED blinks twice)
5) Press POWER key
6) Press CH+ repeatedly until device turns off
7) Press SETUP when device turns off
(For more support, go to www.urcsupport.com, actually the instructions are here)
The Apex turned off pretty quickly, like on the fourth or fifth try. The Panasonic turned off quickly at first but then didn't work. Had to try again and it took like 90 tries before it worked.
Checking the code (page 14 of the instructions), it's 0650 for the Panasonic TV.
***
[9/16/10] Went down with Donna to Costco and picked up the Panasonic 42" Plasma TV (model TC-42PX24). It barely fit in her car. Good thing I didn't try to pick it up in my car. The other thing it's quite a bit heavier than the LCD. The box says 30 KG which is 66 pounds.
Hooked it up and didn't really like the hue. I guess it was too warm. I set it to cool and it looked better. However I think the "cool" setting is more harsh on my eyes.
My eyes seem better but still seem a little fatigued. I do think SD looks better on the plasma. There's not quite as many functions on the remote but I guess it's OK. And when I auto-scanned, I caught more channels than on the Sony. Like the Science Channel for example. We'll see how long they stay on. KHNL-HD (83.3) didnt catch at first. Then had a weak signal. It finally came in when I disconnected the cable going to mom's room.
Next to hook up the cable box and DVD player.
[9/17/10] Hooked up the cable box and watched Knocked Up (the rest of it) on DVR. It was in HD but was blurry. It's my eyes that were blurry. My eyes got sore. So that was discouraging. I think it could be the TV color, but maybe it was because I was straining my eyes trying to focus on the HD picture. I can hope.
I'm looking at the TV in the daytime now and the picture is awfully dim. Switched to standard picture and it has a lot more contrast and looks pretty good. Actually really good when I went to hi-def. But we'll see how the picture looks at these settings in the evening. My eyes don't seem too bad in the daytime. Again we'll see this evening.
And now in addition to HKHNL, HTRAV, HHIST not working (most of the time), HNGEO not working either :(
[9/18/10] put on the Planet Earth DVD and it looked pretty good on the big screen. Maybe I'll keep it.
It's now morning. The picture in the early morning still looked pretty good but as the morning went on the picture went downhill and I switched from "custom" back to "standard" (which has the C.A.T.S setting on) and it looked better. So apparently I'll have to use "standard" during the daylight hours and "custom" during the evenings, nights, and early mornings.
The HD channels that were blank last night are working this morning. We'll see how long that lasts.
Was watching some Dude Where's My Car on FX HD and the picture looked too green to me. Adjusting the tint didn't do much. Now I'm having second thoughts about keeping the TV.
I do like the plasma though as I think SD looks better on it and I don't notice the picture washing out when viewing at an angle. I think I may take a second look at the 37" Panasonic plasma that I saw at K-Mart. It did look quite good with the hidef signal when I saw it. Especially compared to the 42" Panasonic on display which looked pretty crappy with an SD feed from a DVD player.
Don't see any listing for the Panasonic 37" at kmart.com. I did find this favorable review (for the picture) of the Panasonic TH-37PD25UP. But this looks like an older review considering the TV had only one HDMI input and the Sharp LCD (to which the Panasonic was being compared) had a DVI input. Plus the street price was $2600 for the Panasonic and $4000 (!) for the Sharp.
Amazon has a listing for the Panasonic TH-37PX60U which gets 4.5 stars. But the reviews are dated 2006.
Looking at the Panasonic site, I don't see any listing for a 37" plasma. I did find my current TV, model TC-42PX24. (Now I'm wondering if the TV was actually a 37" plasma at KMart. I'm pretty sure I did.)
[9/18/10] After voting, I went down to KMart to take a look. No wonder I couldn't find it on the internet, it was actually a LCD TV, no plasma. Model number TC-L37C22. Rates 3.5 stars at Amazon (3 reviews: 1 5-star, 1 4-star, 1 1-star [bad support]). What sounded impressive to me was that it boasts of a 178 degree viewing angle!
Well, since it's not plasma, I guess I'll keep the 42". [For now.] Truth to tell, when I came home and looked at the football game in HD, it looked pretty good. Maybe it helped that I changed the setting back to cool? [For now.] I think if I saw this picture at the store, I'd actually be kind of impressed.
[9/21/10] More messing around with the TV. Finding the "cinema" mode (with the color tweaked down a bit) gives a pretty nice picture during the day. But it depends on the channel and show. Now watching the TB-NYY games on MLB in the afternoon. I'd have to say it's close to a perfect picture (for my eyes anyway).
[9/21/10] Here's an interesting article on how to adjust your picture (linked from Misconception #5 of Nine Common Misconceptions About Plasma TVs). All this time I didn't know that contrast is actually the white level.
[9/22/10] more messing with the TV settings. There are four main picture settings: vivid, cinema, standard, custom. And they are all different (duh). By that I mean even when I set the contrast, brightness, color, sharpness to the same setting, the picture looks different. The problem is even after I have the settings to where it suits me, the picture becomes different at a different time of day and on a different channel. Well, I like to play with the TV anyway...
[10/2/10] Trying out Donna's Toshiba 40" TV on hi-def. I like the color better. Doesn't seem too harsh like the Sony. Or too greenish like the Panasonic plasma. But my eyes still get sore. Maybe the TV needs more adjustment. But more likely it's me since this is the third TV that makes my eyes tired/sore. (And I remember my eyes tend to get sore when looking at big LCD computer monitors -- I'm still using old CRT monitors.) It doesn't seem as bad when watching standard definition. Maybe the hidef is forcing my eyes to focus. Lowering the contrast and color (like my CRT) seems to help. But too much and the picture don't look too great. Now considering returning the Panasonic. And considering the 37" Panasonic LCD. Or maybe an edge-lit 120 Hz Vizio.
Hmmm. Maybe my eyes don't like the CCFL? If so, maybe LED is better?
*** [4/11/12]
Unplugged the cable box last night and did a new scan for channels. Some of the free HD channels have changed. Here's some of the new lineup:
48-1 KGMB-HD
48-4 DKIKU
48-5 DKBFD
48-9 KITVHD
49-1 KFVE-H
49-3 KHNL-HD
49-12 KHET-HD
51-1 OC SPORTS
78-21 KBS-WORLD
The following remain the same
46-1 KPXO-HD (Ion)
46-3 KHON-HD
46-4 CW-SD
Ah, I see the channel changes reflected on the website. Apparently they changed them Monday.
***
Plugged back in the cable box so I could watch the Knicks-Bucks on ESPN-HD. And, hey, TNT-HD, TRAV-HD, HIST-HD are back. I had lost the signal a couple of weeks ago and was going to call Oceanic about it. But I guess maybe I just needed to unplug the cable box.
*** [5/5/12]
Last night I noticed I lost ESPN-HD in addition to TNT-HD and a bunch of other channels (like USA-HD, etc.). Tried unplugging and replugging in the cable box. Tried having them resend the signal. Nope. And noticed that some of the lower channels were fuzzy (like channels 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or most of them). So it's probably a weak signal. Called Oceanic and they were busy. Finally managed to get a callback from (I think) the mainland and I could barely hear her. She suggested I swap the cable box. Then I told her about the weak signal on the TV not on the cable box. She resent the signal. Nope. Finally she decided to schedule a visit from a tech. Channel 12 isn't working either, let along 1012. At least ESPN-HD is working again for now.
[Maybe I will swap the cable box, but I want to watch the shows that's on my DVR. Specifially Hachi. But I haven't watched it all this time. So maybe I should just get the DVD. I also have Avatar but I'm sure it's going to be on cable again. And the other one is the Dallas-Knicks game with Jeremy Lin. I've seen it, but I want to record it. Well, we'll see if the signal gets better in the next few days. There was a guy installing cable at Amy Pang's house a couple of days ago so I wonder if it's related?]
OK, early in the a.m. most of the channels are now working. It's down to TNT-HD, TRAV-HD, HIST-HD. And oddly OC-12, even though OC-12 HD (1012) is working. I'll probably try another reset to see if it takes this time..
[5/6/12] unplugged the cable box this morning and plugged the cable directly into the TV. Then about 1:00 PM plugged back the cable box. Hey, it's working! We'll see how long it lasts this time.
[5/14/12] TNT-HD is spotty, but TRAV-HD and HIST-HD seems to be working most of the time now. The TBS-HD signal doesn't seem to be that strong since the picture has been breaking up once in a while.
Bob hooked up the stand but had trouble with the last screw. Turned out the screw was stripped. But it seems to be sturdy enough. Lori put the batteries in the remote. Dunno what Cathy did. I was feeding Kimo.
I wanted the Sony brand because I knew that Sony could catch HD channels on Oceanic without needing a cable box (because I had set Sony's up for BettyN and the Fongs). I know some other brands could too, but I knew of other (Non-Sony) flat screen TVs that could only tune in the analog channels (because I tried them). (Probably because they were older models, but maybe not).
Anyway, cross fingers and auto-tune. It found 26 digital channels, 7 of them in HD (KHON, KITV, KFVE, KGMB, KHNL, KHET, and oddly MSNBC). One good thing about this Sony is it tells you what kind of signal it's picking up. NTSC (analog), digital SD (480i), and hi-def. I was surprised to see it picked up both 720p and 1024i signals.
Here's the digital channels it found after scanning (and what I believe are Oceanic's corresponding digital channels), plus the resolution of the hi-def channels. The non-HD channels are all in 480i.
46.3 KHON HD (1003) 720p
46.4 The CW Network (93)
77.3 NewsChoice (112)
79.1 PBS Kids Hawaii (443)
79.10 Event Prevues (?)
83.3 KHNL HD (1008) 1080i
94.101 Prevues (?) (I briefly got the picture then it blanked out)
94.102 Games? (433?) (there was a game in progress, but later it blanked)
103.250 SURF (250)
103.1107 MSNBC HD (1107) 1080i
112.353 blank?
113.698 New Tang Dynasty (698)
114.2 KITV HD (1006) 720p
116.1 KGMB HD (1007) 1080i
116.4 Digital KIKU (89)
116.5 Digital KBFD (82)
117.3 Digital KHON (none)
117.5 Digital KFVE (85)
117.6 Digital KITV (86)
117.7 Digital KGMB (87)
117.8 Digital KHNL (88)
117.10 Digital KHET (90)
118.1 KFVE HD (1005) 1080i
120.12 KHET HD (1010) 1080i
121.10 Digital HSN (152)
0 SportsChoice (200)
The next day, MSNBC disappears and so does New Tang Dynasty. And the Games and SURF too. On the other hand TEC appears (actually it disappeared later, then reappeared again).
[8/24am] Scan again. REELZ appears. And SURF and the Game channel reappears. Then comes the morning and REELZ and Games disappear, though SURF is still there so far.
Wondering why my so-called anamorphic DVDs don't fill the screen with black bars all around both horizontally and vertically. Light bulb. Set DVD player setting to 16:9 from 4:3. Yeah, much better!
[9/3/10] Ah, here's the official digital lineup from Oceanic. My KHNL HD 83.3 disappeared. I noticed the signal has been spotty in the past and now it's just plain gone. Well, hopefully it'll come back.
[11/11] My latest scan now shows the following channels:
46.3 KHON-HD
118.1 KFVE-HD
116.9 KITV-HD
116.1 KGMB-HD
118.3 KHNL-HD
118.12 KHET-HD
46.1 KPXO-HD
46.4 CW-SD
49.1 OC12-HD
122.11 1420 AM (radio)
***
[9/1/10] Decided to trade in my DVR for a hi-def DVR (Cisco Explorer 8300HD). Was considering cancelling my digital variety pack. But when the lady checked, she said I'm getting a special deal and my cost would actually go up! Well, that's what she said. So I'm keeping it. Got a new remote, though she said the old one would work. But I told her it was kind of worn out. (Some of the buttons, like the pause didn't work well.) So I got a new one. And they gave me an HDMI cable too.
Hooked it up via HDMI. Looks pretty sharp. My eyes still get a little sore, but they used to get sore at my old TV with the color turned up too much (come to think of it). They did get sore watching the 27" flat screen Sony I found on the side of the road. It was a little blue. Maybe it's Sony.
Now considering trading LCD for Plasma. But I dunno. The pros for plasma: viewing angle, motion handling. Pros for LCD: does better in daylight. And I see now that this Sony is "only" 60 Hz.
But every time I think of returning it, I see a nice super-clear, super-sharp, hi-def picture (the Sony does have an awesome hi-def picture) and think wow, how can I give this up? I'm not so impressed with the sharpness of the plasmas I see at the store. But they probably look fine if I'm not too close.
Anyway, couldn't find the code for the remote (which looks like the Atlas OCAP 5) to control the Sony. The code at urcsupport didn't work. So I did a code search and it worked at about the fifth or sixth try. Checking the code, it turns out to be 1-1-0-0.
And, ah, here's how to turn on closed caption when using HDMI (on this box anyway). It's just one of the settings you can access by pressing the settings button on the remote control (couldn't get the on when mute option working though).
[9/3/10] Panic. I was going to compare the HDMI picture with the composite picture on my DVD recorder. But couldn't get a picture on the composite despite some mad swapping of cables, even trying it with my Apex analog TV. I thought the DVD-recorder might have busted. But then I remembered I had set the setting to progressive. I hooked up the HDMI again and turned off the progressive. OK, it works now!
My eyes seem to ache with the HDMI hookups. Maybe it's just too sharp. I'm trying to turn down the backlight and sharpness. Maybe a little better. I dunno.
[9/5/10] I'm not getting a couple of HD channels I'm supposed to get, most of the time. The picture is blank when I tune them in. Specifically it's HTRAV (1325) AND HHIST (1327). The problem is the signal is marginal. The cable box is hooked up to a two-way splitter with one cable going to my mom's bedroom and the other cable going to the cable box. (And in fact it's split earlier with a three-way splitter with one end going to my bedroom and another going to the patio.) If I bypass the splitter and put the cable directly to the cable box it works. And in fact if I unscrew the other cable on the splitter, that works too.
Funny though that HHIST works if I use the Start Over function and watch from the beginning. HTRAV doesn't have the option.
So I guess I'll have to unscrew the cable when I want to watch those channels. Another option is to get a signal booster. Or maybe a low-loss splitter might work?
***
[9/12/10] Well I decided to return the Sony TV to the WalMart on Keeaumoku. It just so happened that Chelsea was there and took my return. So no problem.
Not sure what I going to buy to replacement. Either a Panasonic plasma. Or maybe the Vizio 37".
Anyway, reprogrammed the Oceanic remote back to the old TV. Followed the instructions on the back of the remote
1) turn device on
2) press device key (TV, DVD, etc.)
3) press and hold SETUP (LED blinks twice)
4) Press 9-9-1 (LED blinks twice)
5) Press POWER key
6) Press CH+ repeatedly until device turns off
7) Press SETUP when device turns off
(For more support, go to www.urcsupport.com, actually the instructions are here)
The Apex turned off pretty quickly, like on the fourth or fifth try. The Panasonic turned off quickly at first but then didn't work. Had to try again and it took like 90 tries before it worked.
Checking the code (page 14 of the instructions), it's 0650 for the Panasonic TV.
***
[9/16/10] Went down with Donna to Costco and picked up the Panasonic 42" Plasma TV (model TC-42PX24). It barely fit in her car. Good thing I didn't try to pick it up in my car. The other thing it's quite a bit heavier than the LCD. The box says 30 KG which is 66 pounds.
Hooked it up and didn't really like the hue. I guess it was too warm. I set it to cool and it looked better. However I think the "cool" setting is more harsh on my eyes.
My eyes seem better but still seem a little fatigued. I do think SD looks better on the plasma. There's not quite as many functions on the remote but I guess it's OK. And when I auto-scanned, I caught more channels than on the Sony. Like the Science Channel for example. We'll see how long they stay on. KHNL-HD (83.3) didnt catch at first. Then had a weak signal. It finally came in when I disconnected the cable going to mom's room.
Next to hook up the cable box and DVD player.
[9/17/10] Hooked up the cable box and watched Knocked Up (the rest of it) on DVR. It was in HD but was blurry. It's my eyes that were blurry. My eyes got sore. So that was discouraging. I think it could be the TV color, but maybe it was because I was straining my eyes trying to focus on the HD picture. I can hope.
I'm looking at the TV in the daytime now and the picture is awfully dim. Switched to standard picture and it has a lot more contrast and looks pretty good. Actually really good when I went to hi-def. But we'll see how the picture looks at these settings in the evening. My eyes don't seem too bad in the daytime. Again we'll see this evening.
And now in addition to HKHNL, HTRAV, HHIST not working (most of the time), HNGEO not working either :(
[9/18/10] put on the Planet Earth DVD and it looked pretty good on the big screen. Maybe I'll keep it.
It's now morning. The picture in the early morning still looked pretty good but as the morning went on the picture went downhill and I switched from "custom" back to "standard" (which has the C.A.T.S setting on) and it looked better. So apparently I'll have to use "standard" during the daylight hours and "custom" during the evenings, nights, and early mornings.
The HD channels that were blank last night are working this morning. We'll see how long that lasts.
Was watching some Dude Where's My Car on FX HD and the picture looked too green to me. Adjusting the tint didn't do much. Now I'm having second thoughts about keeping the TV.
I do like the plasma though as I think SD looks better on it and I don't notice the picture washing out when viewing at an angle. I think I may take a second look at the 37" Panasonic plasma that I saw at K-Mart. It did look quite good with the hidef signal when I saw it. Especially compared to the 42" Panasonic on display which looked pretty crappy with an SD feed from a DVD player.
Don't see any listing for the Panasonic 37" at kmart.com. I did find this favorable review (for the picture) of the Panasonic TH-37PD25UP. But this looks like an older review considering the TV had only one HDMI input and the Sharp LCD (to which the Panasonic was being compared) had a DVI input. Plus the street price was $2600 for the Panasonic and $4000 (!) for the Sharp.
Amazon has a listing for the Panasonic TH-37PX60U which gets 4.5 stars. But the reviews are dated 2006.
Looking at the Panasonic site, I don't see any listing for a 37" plasma. I did find my current TV, model TC-42PX24. (Now I'm wondering if the TV was actually a 37" plasma at KMart. I'm pretty sure I did.)
[9/18/10] After voting, I went down to KMart to take a look. No wonder I couldn't find it on the internet, it was actually a LCD TV, no plasma. Model number TC-L37C22. Rates 3.5 stars at Amazon (3 reviews: 1 5-star, 1 4-star, 1 1-star [bad support]). What sounded impressive to me was that it boasts of a 178 degree viewing angle!
Well, since it's not plasma, I guess I'll keep the 42". [For now.] Truth to tell, when I came home and looked at the football game in HD, it looked pretty good. Maybe it helped that I changed the setting back to cool? [For now.] I think if I saw this picture at the store, I'd actually be kind of impressed.
[9/21/10] More messing around with the TV. Finding the "cinema" mode (with the color tweaked down a bit) gives a pretty nice picture during the day. But it depends on the channel and show. Now watching the TB-NYY games on MLB in the afternoon. I'd have to say it's close to a perfect picture (for my eyes anyway).
[9/21/10] Here's an interesting article on how to adjust your picture (linked from Misconception #5 of Nine Common Misconceptions About Plasma TVs). All this time I didn't know that contrast is actually the white level.
[9/22/10] more messing with the TV settings. There are four main picture settings: vivid, cinema, standard, custom. And they are all different (duh). By that I mean even when I set the contrast, brightness, color, sharpness to the same setting, the picture looks different. The problem is even after I have the settings to where it suits me, the picture becomes different at a different time of day and on a different channel. Well, I like to play with the TV anyway...
[10/2/10] Trying out Donna's Toshiba 40" TV on hi-def. I like the color better. Doesn't seem too harsh like the Sony. Or too greenish like the Panasonic plasma. But my eyes still get sore. Maybe the TV needs more adjustment. But more likely it's me since this is the third TV that makes my eyes tired/sore. (And I remember my eyes tend to get sore when looking at big LCD computer monitors -- I'm still using old CRT monitors.) It doesn't seem as bad when watching standard definition. Maybe the hidef is forcing my eyes to focus. Lowering the contrast and color (like my CRT) seems to help. But too much and the picture don't look too great. Now considering returning the Panasonic. And considering the 37" Panasonic LCD. Or maybe an edge-lit 120 Hz Vizio.
Hmmm. Maybe my eyes don't like the CCFL? If so, maybe LED is better?
*** [4/11/12]
Unplugged the cable box last night and did a new scan for channels. Some of the free HD channels have changed. Here's some of the new lineup:
48-1 KGMB-HD
48-4 DKIKU
48-5 DKBFD
48-9 KITVHD
49-1 KFVE-H
49-3 KHNL-HD
49-12 KHET-HD
51-1 OC SPORTS
78-21 KBS-WORLD
The following remain the same
46-1 KPXO-HD (Ion)
46-3 KHON-HD
46-4 CW-SD
Ah, I see the channel changes reflected on the website. Apparently they changed them Monday.
***
Plugged back in the cable box so I could watch the Knicks-Bucks on ESPN-HD. And, hey, TNT-HD, TRAV-HD, HIST-HD are back. I had lost the signal a couple of weeks ago and was going to call Oceanic about it. But I guess maybe I just needed to unplug the cable box.
*** [5/5/12]
Last night I noticed I lost ESPN-HD in addition to TNT-HD and a bunch of other channels (like USA-HD, etc.). Tried unplugging and replugging in the cable box. Tried having them resend the signal. Nope. And noticed that some of the lower channels were fuzzy (like channels 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or most of them). So it's probably a weak signal. Called Oceanic and they were busy. Finally managed to get a callback from (I think) the mainland and I could barely hear her. She suggested I swap the cable box. Then I told her about the weak signal on the TV not on the cable box. She resent the signal. Nope. Finally she decided to schedule a visit from a tech. Channel 12 isn't working either, let along 1012. At least ESPN-HD is working again for now.
[Maybe I will swap the cable box, but I want to watch the shows that's on my DVR. Specifially Hachi. But I haven't watched it all this time. So maybe I should just get the DVD. I also have Avatar but I'm sure it's going to be on cable again. And the other one is the Dallas-Knicks game with Jeremy Lin. I've seen it, but I want to record it. Well, we'll see if the signal gets better in the next few days. There was a guy installing cable at Amy Pang's house a couple of days ago so I wonder if it's related?]
OK, early in the a.m. most of the channels are now working. It's down to TNT-HD, TRAV-HD, HIST-HD. And oddly OC-12, even though OC-12 HD (1012) is working. I'll probably try another reset to see if it takes this time..
[5/6/12] unplugged the cable box this morning and plugged the cable directly into the TV. Then about 1:00 PM plugged back the cable box. Hey, it's working! We'll see how long it lasts this time.
[5/14/12] TNT-HD is spotty, but TRAV-HD and HIST-HD seems to be working most of the time now. The TBS-HD signal doesn't seem to be that strong since the picture has been breaking up once in a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)