• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

• Member since: November 22, 2005

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 14

My comments

• Not a lot of games come out that I want to buy. This one seemed cerebral enough that I thought I might take a chance on it. So I pulled up Amazon and was getting ready to get it shipped to my door. Alas, I read the reviews and I decided to do without it. I'm not going to buy it nor download it. I don't care enough. I'm not a hardcore gamer. I was the embodiment of market growth. But I don't buy DRM, and now that this is the direction the market is headed in, games aren't something I'm likely to bother with in the future. In reply to: "Did 'Spore' copy protections backfire on EA?"

  September 14, 2008

  0 replies

• I love it!!!
  My favorite part of reading contentious, snippy replies in these talkback sections is when I find someone who clearly hasn't read in full that which they are arguing against. Well-done!

  May 5, 2008

  0 replies

• Image upgrade undetectable on monitors under 50"?
  Really? I just upgraded my 36" 720p monitor to a 46" 1080p, but even on the 720, I could tell a difference. The exposed flaws in 480p DVDs was so notable to me that I honestly could not sit and watch movies. The flaws in the image were out and out distracting. When I finally got my hands on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the upgrade on my 720p player was so notable, and made such a difference to my enjoyment of movies, that I immediately made plans to upgrade my monitor. Now that I enjoy full 1080p, I would never go back. Since I have, neither mpv files on my appletv nor divx files on my PS3 are at all watchable. On a relative level, it looks a lot like watching a feature film on YouTube... Not doable. I realize you tech guys get all hard over the idea of super-compressed, downloadable media, but it isn't at all capable of competing. Its iron pyrite. In reply to: "Blu-ray is to DVD as SACD was to CD: Better, but not enough better?"

  March 4, 2008

  0 replies

• No, I don't think so.
  In order to defeat physical media, Amazon and iTunes have to have set-top boxes or PCs in more living rooms than the physical guys - which will not happen. Grandmas and soccer moms will not be doing downloads.
  
  I have an AppleTV but I don't even rent physical media. Why spend $5 on a rental when the disc is only $20? I'm not going to invest money in something I don't own, thanks.
  
  Which is to say nothing of the fact that downloadable rentals sitting at 1080p are blocky and compressed to hell. Its an inferior product and after 10 years of listening to MP3s, I'm tired of over-compressed sound and picture. I have a TV that's capable of a breathtaking picture, and I'm supposed to take a lesser picture in the interest of novelty distribution? No thank you, I'm ready for quality.

  January 18, 2008

  2 replies

• To humor the idea that this is even possible...
  As competitive as the broadband market has become, does AT&T really think they're doing themselves any favors ingratiating themselves to the entertainment industry at the expense of their customer base?
  
  I can see their rationale, given that the entertainment industry has been playing top to the technically naive Congress's bottom. But as the old "system of pipes" dogs die and retire off, this is going to change, which is to say nothing of the fact that a corporation-run government over the next four years is unlikely to say the least.
  
  The only certainty is that the second someone thinking they are enjoying a level of privacy gets red-flagged and denied service, the word is going to spread quickly and customers will jump from AT&T in mass exodus. In reply to: "AT&T considers filtering for pirated content"

  January 9, 2008

  1 reply

• Without any need for hyperbole, I think this is the least insightful tech blog I have ever read. Have you even paid any attention to Microsoft's business activities over the course of the last 15 years?
  
  By the way, is it requisite that applicant wishing to write for cnet tick a box promising to base every article they write on an implication of Apple conducting itself unethically? I don't understand for the life of me why cnet and its writers try to so hard to smear Apple. It was very effective in the 20th century to write headlines like The Pope to Eat Human Babies for Breakfast? as a headline, making the implication while never legally asserting something. Now it just reveals bias. No matter what you write in the body of the article, the implication stands and its as Yellow as the Spanish Armada sinking the U.S.S. Maine in Cuba. In reply to: "Is Apple in danger of becoming Microsoft?"

  December 19, 2007

  0 replies

• That's more or less what they did...
  I didn't pay anything for the download. It came free when I bought the box set that came with vinyl and cd versions of the album, as well as an extra disc of songs and digital artwork. In that, it was a subscribers edition more less in the model that you're speaking of. In reply to: "Radiohead criticized as band shuts down 'In Rainbows' promotion"

  December 12, 2007

  1 reply

• Again?
  I've been onboard for every OS launch since they introduced OS 8. I'm not a mac fanboy, I look at every situation critically. This one has been the smoothest launches of all. The .0 version is a working draft, and every mac early-adopter knows this. We expect the update soon after launch and look forward to the continued innovation.
  
  No system is perfect, but its important to note that what sets Mac apart is their readiness to acknowledge their mistakes and quickly issue updates.
  
  c|net needs to learn to make a distinction between the news story and the blog. An opinion is an opinion and there's no point in arguing with it. The reason you upset people is because the opinion is being put on a plate right nest to news stories. And it kind of tastes funny there, particularly when no one was asking for perspective of a situation no one really talking about. In reply to: "Problems with the Mac promised land"

  December 5, 2007

  1 reply

• More Yellow Journalism
  A startling number of people who downloaded the Radiohead album received the download for free as a complimentary aside from buying the physical box set which comes out in a couple of weeks. That's the reason the numbers look so skewed. It is rather Yellow Jounlism of cnet to characterize the venture as disappointing when not only do admit that the they don't have accurate data, but don' recognize that the downloads were only 160 kbs (less than iTunes) and most Radiohead fans will be buying the physical release come January anyway.
  
  Prince has been suing his fans for years, dating back when he tried to shut down fan sites that weren't affiliated with him, what 10 years ago? The only thing I can guess is that the Jehova's Witnesses needed some more money to print Watchtowers and goaded Prince into suing a website that neither the RIAA or MPAA has been able to legally contain. But he's gonna pull it off, right, because his name is Prince. And he is funky.

  November 17, 2007

  0 replies

• uhhhh....
  If you own a $2000 Macbook pro, and you're complaining about a $2 upgrade to your bandwidth, you are very, very, VERY stupid. My guess is MBP owners aren't penny-pinchers.

  January 19, 2007

  1 reply