LordTheNightKnight said:
You must be new to the web. Look up flame wars. |
I expect if from the user base. The CEO of a major corporation should have a little more class in my opinion.
I am on SHAW in Canada and I pay 45 bucks and I have 500Kbit upload and 5Mbit download. I normally get 300Kbytes a sec (2.4Mbit) but get full bandwidth when I use a download manager.
Download Hi-def movies in 5 minutes even with Shaw Nitro (25Mbit) that is still an hour. for 10-12 Gigs.
| JerCotter7 said: Apparently in 5 years every country in the world will have broadband fast enough to download movies in 5 minutes. Otherwise it's faster to just go to the shop.
Maybe in 10 years it will be mainstream. But they will need support of hardware manufactorers to produce standalones to download to. I don't think it would work with a pc or just the 360. In about 7 years I think people will start to talk about it more. |
thats a joke, i was on a site, and to download 15GB within 2 hr(s), 40 min(s), you would need 1632.25 KB/s ( http://www.dslzoneuk.net/calculator.php ) thats not going to happen where i live, i dont even get 270KB/s download speed, at that speed it would take nearly 19 hours, sory if i want to watch a film i dont want to decide a day in advance at most maybe an hour, and there is no way where i live fast enough within the next 5 years
| NeoRatt said: About 15 years ago PCs were considered a nice to have... About 10 years ago the Internet was a nice to have... About 5 years ago most people still had film cameras... Now, Internet social and knowledge networks are huge like Facebook, My Space, Blogger, Wikipedia, etc... What makes everyone believe that in 5 years digital downloads would not be the only and best way to get media? Just a what if scenario... What if satellites provided Internet access faster without the need for wiring? Both Japanese and American companies have plans that have been forming for over a decade on satellite Internet access at a low cost. And as for wanting a blu-ray disc or whatever, will it matter if the copyright owners refuse to distribute physical media? Point is, I have been in the technology world for a while, and no one can see the next five years and nay say any prediction. To do so is wrong... Think more about what could or would need to happen to make it possible. I thought browsers were a waste of time in '92... Now, I feel they are a needed tool that I don't want to be without. I would have thought people in these forums knew that more than others but I guess I am wrong |
And about 5 years ago, most people had just about as much bandwidth as they have today, at least here in the states. Satellite internet access isn't as hot as you might think. The MINIMUM time to transmit data to the satellite is 110ms. That's only one single direction trip to the satellite(assuming geosynchronous orbit = 35780km). To communicate requires 4 total trips(1 up from home, 1 down to NOC, 1 up from NOC, 1 down from home). So, for any kind of communication, you get almost half a second of lag. This limit is set by the speed of light... until quantum communication is available for the home, you can't get around it. Satellite internet is SHIT for anything requiring low latency(hello, video games).
Where digital distribution really becomes a quagmire is if you can't get government mandated net neutrality. If Verizon, AT&T, and the like all start charging content providers(and they will), content providers will pass that onto consumers. Given the state of politics in this country, I very much doubt that government mandated net neutrality will happen.
Right now, digital distribution is all hype.
| Sansui said: Not to mention that digitally distributed media doesn't have the environmental impact of physically produced goods. No plastic that will live on longer than we can imagine, no CO2 emissions. It's a good way to reduce your carbon footprint. |
You seem to be ignoring the environmental impact of the infrastructure required for digital distribution of media. Those cables, routers, and datacenters all require energy, steel, concrete, and in the case of the electronics, lots and lots of silicon, which is very nasty to make. It's probably not as bad as plastic, but it's also not as clean as you think.
| demacII said: I am on SHAW in Canada and I pay 45 bucks and I have 500Kbit upload and 5Mbit download. I normally get 300Kbytes a sec (2.4Mbit) but get full bandwidth when I use a download manager. Download Hi-def movies in 5 minutes even with Shaw Nitro (25Mbit) that is still an hour. for 10-12 Gigs. |
I'm in Canada as well and use Aliant. It's 5Mbit down, unlimited downloading/uploading. I normally get 600Kbytes/sec when using bittorrent on a well seeded torrent. I pay $47.95 per month (it includes a long distance plan that was thrown in for free).
phil said:
And about 5 years ago, most people had just about as much bandwidth as they have today, at least here in the states. Satellite internet access isn't as hot as you might think. The MINIMUM time to transmit data to the satellite is 110ms. That's only one single direction trip to the satellite(assuming geosynchronous orbit = 35780km). To communicate requires 4 total trips(1 up from home, 1 down to NOC, 1 up from NOC, 1 down from home). So, for any kind of communication, you get almost half a second of lag. This limit is set by the speed of light... until quantum communication is available for the home, you can't get around it. Satellite internet is SHIT for anything requiring low latency(hello, video games). Where digital distribution really becomes a quagmire is if you can't get government mandated net neutrality. If Verizon, AT&T, and the like all start charging content providers(and they will), content providers will pass that onto consumers. Given the state of politics in this country, I very much doubt that government mandated net neutrality will happen. Right now, digital distribution is all hype. |
Yeah...I REALLY didnt like satellite internet when I had it(there was no DSL here at the time...and we really didn't want dial-up). The bandwidth limit is crazy. You could only download 170MB every 12 hours before your connection dropped down to dial-up speed! So forget any random download huge-files days...that's just crazy. And we only got 2Mbits of downspeed with that...I'm glad we got DSL here now. AT&T's 6Mbit downspeed and 1Mbit up is nice. Only $30 added to the phone bill too. No limits on bandwidth either.
PSN: Lone_Canis_Lupus
I wanted HD-DVD to win because I don't want to pay 40$ for a movie.
Whenever I saw an HD-DVD it was 5-10 dollars less. Sony needs to lower the freakin' price of the new format before anyone becomes interested in it. Or else reg. dvd's will be king for another 15 years.
And that's the only thing I need is *this*. I don't need this or this. Just this PS4... And this gaming PC. - The PS4 and the Gaming PC and that's all I need... And this Xbox 360. - The PS4, the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360, and that's all I need... And these PS3's. - The PS4, and these PS3's, and the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360... And this Nintendo DS. - The PS4, this Xbox 360, and the Gaming PC, and the PS3's, and that's all *I* need. And that's *all* I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one... I need this. - The Gaming PC and PS4, and Xbox 360, and thePS3's . Well what are you looking at? What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - And this. That's all I need.
Obligatory dick measuring Gaming Laptop Specs: Sager NP8270-GTX: 17.3" FULL HD (1920X1080) LED Matte LC, nVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, Intel Core i7-4700MQ, 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3, 750GB SATA II 3GB/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive
TheRealMafoo said:
What's possible, and what will me mainstream are two different things. Music Downloads (A much better idea then movie or game downloads) has been going for well over 5 years. The experts expect Music Downloads to surpass CD's in 2012. That's just getting to 50%... it 12 years. To claim that adding support for the next generation of optical media to Vista is unimportant, and will be obsolete in 5 years, is just a load of crap. Sorry, there is no other way to see it. In fact if optical mead was so dead, why did MS spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to keep HD-DVD going? It’s only now “dead” because they lost. Show some dignity and just add the damn driver. No need for the bad mouthing of Sony’s format.
|
I don't remember saying Sony in my original post (Or implied)... They won the format war hands down. Just relax. I happily play blu-ray because there sure aren't many games out for the PS3s.
| Strategyking92 said: I wanted HD-DVD to win because I don't want to pay 40$ for a movie. Whenever I saw an HD-DVD it was 5-10 dollars less. Sony needs to lower the freakin' price of the new format before anyone becomes interested in it. Or else reg. dvd's will be king for another 15 years. |
HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies seem to be around the same price...at from what I've seen in the stores around here o.0 Sometimes Blu-ray movies are more expensive...and sometimes I've seen HD-DVD movies cost more than the Blu-ray counterpart.
PSN: Lone_Canis_Lupus
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
