Slashdot Mirror

Yamaha 400 Watt Dolby/DTS Receiver ($299.99)

Yahama "natural sound" 5 disc CD Changer/ MP3 Player ($150.00)

Sony Progressive Scan DVD Player ($250.00)

GRaphic Equalizer ($99.00)

Sony Surround Speaker Set ($499.00)

Oh yeah... Home Theater Universal Remove with LCD Display etc. etc. ($229.00)

With the change left, hmmm.. 10 DVD's? Monster cable? Taxes for the equipment?

Sure the remote is for the high end (like my boss's viewing room), but my Den could sure use the extra system above.

Yamaha 400 Watt Dolby/DTS Receiver ($299.99)

Yahama "natural sound" 5 disc CD Changer/ MP3 Player ($150.00)

Sony Progressive Scan DVD Player ($250.00)

GRaphic Equalizer ($99.00)

Sony Surround Speaker Set ($499.00)

Oh yeah... Home Theater Universal Remove with LCD Display etc. etc. ($229.00)

With the change left, hmmm.. 10 DVD's? Monster cable? Taxes for the equipment?

Sure the remote is for the high end (like my boss's viewing room), but my Den could sure use the extra system above.

Yamaha 400 Watt Dolby/DTS Receiver ($299.99)

Yahama "natural sound" 5 disc CD Changer/ MP3 Player ($150.00)

Sony Progressive Scan DVD Player ($250.00)

GRaphic Equalizer ($99.00)

Sony Surround Speaker Set ($499.00)

Oh yeah... Home Theater Universal Remove with LCD Display etc. etc. ($229.00)

With the change left, hmmm.. 10 DVD's? Monster cable? Taxes for the equipment?

Sure the remote is for the high end (like my boss's viewing room), but my Den could sure use the extra system above.

Yamaha 400 Watt Dolby/DTS Receiver ($299.99)

Yahama "natural sound" 5 disc CD Changer/ MP3 Player ($150.00)

Sony Progressive Scan DVD Player ($250.00)

GRaphic Equalizer ($99.00)

Sony Surround Speaker Set ($499.00)

Oh yeah... Home Theater Universal Remove with LCD Display etc. etc. ($229.00)

With the change left, hmmm.. 10 DVD's? Monster cable? Taxes for the equipment?

Sure the remote is for the high end (like my boss's viewing room), but my Den could sure use the extra system above.

Yamaha 400 Watt Dolby/DTS Receiver ($299.99)

Yahama "natural sound" 5 disc CD Changer/ MP3 Player ($150.00)

Sony Progressive Scan DVD Player ($250.00)

GRaphic Equalizer ($99.00)

Sony Surround Speaker Set ($499.00)

Oh yeah... Home Theater Universal Remove with LCD Display etc. etc. ($229.00)

With the change left, hmmm.. 10 DVD's? Monster cable? Taxes for the equipment?

Sure the remote is for the high end (like my boss's viewing room), but my Den could sure use the extra system above.

Yamaha 400 Watt Dolby/DTS Receiver ($299.99)

Yahama "natural sound" 5 disc CD Changer/ MP3 Player ($150.00)

Sony Progressive Scan DVD Player ($250.00)

GRaphic Equalizer ($99.00)

Sony Surround Speaker Set ($499.00)

Oh yeah... Home Theater Universal Remove with LCD Display etc. etc. ($229.00)

With the change left, hmmm.. 10 DVD's? Monster cable? Taxes for the equipment?

Sure the remote is for the high end (like my boss's viewing room), but my Den could sure use the extra system above.

Either you are a little behind the times or only looking at high end models - my friend bought one of those 4 years ago for $1100 - now you can find them for under $400

ofcourse it's goign to be for PC. you can pre order the fucking game from Best Buy and it even says Platform: PC

A few years back I worked at Best Buy

We had HP rep in our store almost 40 hours a week. She was an HP employee, and basically showed off the HP printers and helped customers out. She also gave us lots of cool free stuff.

Anyway, the higher ups at Best Buy figured you shouldn't let a printer go out the door without 2-4 spare ink cartridges.

"Imagine, you're finishing a report at 1:30am, and you run out of ink! Who's open then!?"

Plus, they include greeting card and photo software WITH the printer, so you know once you get the PC home and the kids start printing like there's no tomorrow...

The prices of ... HDTV's are fscking ridiculous! When they get to $300 let me know......

How about this? A 27" HDTV CRT for $650. Sure, it's higher than your $300 limit, but it's pretty damned good for a decent-sized CRT that can handle 1080i (sadly, no 720p). For most people, though, going to HDTV also means going to a larger/wider screen. Larger and wider means more expensive.

However, the FCC has already thought about this. That's why you'll be able to buy down-convertors so you can still watch modern HDTV broadcasts on your aging non-HDTV monitor. Of course, a better monitor has more advantages than just watching HDTV. You get progressive scan (assuming you have a source that outputs in progressive, or a decent line-doubler) so your DVDs look better, and modern gaming consoles take advantage of that as well (99% of all XBox games support 480p with a few even at 720p or 1080i, most Gamecube games do 480p as well, some newer PS2 games do 480p, and even nearly every Dreamcast game does 480p with the proper connector). Plus, it makes a computer hooked to your TV more readable (assuming you have vga, RGBHV, or DVI inputs, or buy a transcoder to go from VGA/RGBHV to YPrPb, and take the time to tweak your modes to get a useable display with minimal overscan).

> I bought my HP laserjet for $240. About the $289 dollar inkjet from Dell. Inkhet printers are typically $200-$100.

I would say about $150 for a decent one. You're not going to print photos with your laser (something a lot of consumers look for in a printer). Also, most consumer balk at the cost of toner compared to ink cartidges.

> After switching to laser I will never go back. I do not need color for most documents and the quality and reliablity are so much better.

I prefer laser prints, too, but I bet you can find some near-laser quality inkjets at your local superstore.

> My epson inkjet blows goatballs and always jams.

If you buy a shitty printer, you get shitty results. There are good inkjets out there, although each varies greatly depending on your needs. Mostly photos? Epson 825 or 925. Mostly documents? Get a Samsung laser for home or decent HP laser for office. Mostly color documents? I would go with the HP 7150 at home or the 6122 in the office.

The Epson 825 has stunning color photo prints and has a 5-color print built in. I don't think the cartridges are that bad either, unless you do a lot of color document printing (instead of photos), the you'll burn through the 3-color fast and waste the photo cyan and magenta. However, if you're doing a lot of color documents, go with a printer with separate photo ink tanks. Get a 825 or 925 if you're serious about photos.

I bought my recent UPS there. Most things are about equal in price from wherever you shop now. Try for instance a router or the same router. I just grabbed that product as a random example. It just goes to show that Office Depot is that terribly hhigh priced.

1. Brightness:

---Brightness isn't that bad. Ok so you can't watch it with the sun shining directly on the projector screen, but I can't watch TV that way either so it doesn't matter. They use a LCD projector in my CS classes, and it's easily viewable with all the bright fluorescent lights on, but I won't lie, it does look better with the lights off. Also the projector is a older Epson model (probably 3 or 4 years old?), so I'm sure the newer ones look much, much better.

2. Bulb Life:

Most decent projectors have a 2,000 hr life, while good ones have up to 4,000 hrs. This doesn't sound like a lot, but according to several sources (here's one) the average US family watches about 4 hours of TV daily, or 28 hrs a week. Sounds like a whole lot, almost 1,500 hrs a year, so the bulb will need replacing every 16 months or longer.

This sounds very costly, but considering the fact that just a 47" projection TVs cost $1500+ it would be several years before the price of a inexpensive eBay-purchased LCD projector would equal anywhere near the cost of even a 47" TV, much less 60", while the size would be much larger.

I've also noticed that most of the bulbs aren't so amazing, most are 100-200 watts, easily attainable using inexpensive bulbs purchased at Wal-Mart. While the real bulbs are quite different than standard bulbs, I'm sure there would be a way to hack the projector to use a less expensive bulb. Perhaps those bright white automotive bulbs may work? I believe those are 70 watts, so two should provide around 1300-1500 lumens, not bad. I also feel white LEDs may be a reasonable alternative in the next few years: they've already doubled their power within the last 5 years while the price is 1/10th.

3. Other options?

---slashdot did a story not long ago about the "build your own 100" TV!" internet scams that just put a magnifying glass in front of a standard TV. While that probably wouldn't work so well, a LCD projector is pretty much just that, a tiny LCD in front of a projector, and this site has instructions on how to build your own. Seems legit.

I would imagine that simply buying a HDTV would, in the end, be cheaper. HDTVs are just really big monitors IIRC. That's not to say this isn't cool, I just imagine it would be more economical to buy an HDTV and use it as your monitor :D

Maybe I'm the guy that's missing something, but the cheapest HDTVs I saw at best buy are above $1300 US. Meanwhile, I bought a used 19" monitor a month ago for $55. If I must have HDTV, $455 seems cheap.

Also, they recommend a $1000 dollar "edit" VCR or a standalone time base corrector. You could just as easily buy a digital VHS deck with a built in time base corrector and built in digital noise correction for $800. I use this deck to stream VHS tapes to my Mac via a Firewire bridge for transfer to DVD. The built-in TBC makes a noticeable difference. In any case, maybe it's time for me to add something to my Faq-O-Matic about transferring VHS for all systems.

Actually this is a great idea. I mean, the VAIO thing seems unlikely. There is also a media center PC with minidisc, but it retails at 2999, so I won't even bother providing a link.

However, I have a friend that just bought a Sony MiniDisc/MP3 player from Best Buy. Incidentally, it was $129, less than half the price listed here. I am not entirely sure it was the same model, but I think it is. I have no reason for the price discrepancy.

In any case, if you were not set on the medium (optical vs. minidisc), this might suit your purposes. You could disassemble this and make it smaller, though it is pretty damn small as it is. You were unclear in your post whether your desire is just to prove that you can hack an MP3 player together, or whether you were trying to save money, but $129 is pretty darn cheap. If it is missing the features you want, you could buy this and hack those in. A bigger LCD would be nice. Also, there is this, a computer MiniDisc drive. It might help you with construction/experimentation, or even using this device in your ultimate invention.

The cons as I see them are that you are tied down to a proprietary, closed-source medium. It is relatively popular, but not ubiquitous (like CDR).

The pros: it's cheap. It's easy. It's small.

Good Luck. -Foster

1. Gameboy Advanced $70
2. 5Gb Ipod $300

For 370 bucks (around or cheaper than most "highend" pdas) you get space than any(!) palm and better games to boot!

To get HDTV running well right now, you are looking at 3000-5000 dollars, and unless you get broadcast HDTV, AND have a compliant aerial, you will get one channel of HBO, and HD theater channel in HD. So until you get a good variety of programming over the way you get your TV, dont bother. It will be quite a while before enough programming is HD to make it worth your while.

To get HDTV running well right now, you are looking at 3000-5000 dollars, and unless you get broadcast HDTV, AND have a compliant aerial, you will get one channel of HBO, and HD theater channel in HD. So until you get a good variety of programming over the way you get your TV, dont bother. It will be quite a while before enough programming is HD to make it worth your while.

That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)

A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.

That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.

Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.

The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)

Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.

Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.

That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)

A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.

That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.

Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.

The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)

Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.

Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.

That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)

A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.

That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.

Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.

The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)

Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.

Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.

That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)

A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.

That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.

Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.

The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)

Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.

Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.

That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)

A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.

That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.

Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.

The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)

Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.

Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.

'll just gloss over the fact that I can't afford to drop $6k on a TV...A quick look at Sony's site shows that a 32" HDTV is going to set me back $5000.

I'm worried that the FTC is going to change standards soon, and then I'll have to buy a $300 converter box to use my "new" TV.

$280 for a speaker system with two digital inputs, one input for analog stereo, one input for analog 5.1, and it doesn't support DTS. vs. 5 home theater in a box systems at BestBuy for under $290 shipped. One of them even has a progressive DVD player built-in.

You might recall this notebook from a while back. Now, if your make an honest assessment of the features, you may find that at ~$1400 after rebate, this notebook, from a price/performance point of view, might compare favorably with these. Now I'm not talking about originality or color schemes. I'm talking about what you get in terms of functionality for the money that you paid.

Now, the BestBuy notebook has a significant weak point in terms of battery performance. The Pentium-4M processor that it uses consumes more power than Motorola G4s found on PowerBooks but runs somewhat faster. Depending what you want to do, you can still, therefore, make a good case for a PowerBook.

However, you take the Pentium-4M, and replace it with a chip that's this much faster, with as good battery performance as the G4 (notice the fpu performance at 600 MHz, for example), and the remaining advantage of the PowerBooks evaporates.

People may still buy PowerBooks because of style and OS X, but in terms of overall functionality, a Centino notebook will blow away a PowerBook. I'm looking forward to getting my widescreen one six months down the line (and no, I'm not affiliated in anyway with any of the companies involved, I've just been looking into purchasing a notebook lately since lots of my colleagues have gotten PowerBooks).

PowerBooks are GREAT devices, but the Wintel world is fast over taking them due to their reliance on Motorola's G4 processor. Let's hope that Apple gets one of those other processors into their product line real soon.

You might recall this notebook from a while back. Now, if your make an honest assessment of the features, you may find that at ~$1400 after rebate, this notebook, from a price/performance point of view, might compare favorably with these. Now I'm not talking about originality or color schemes. I'm talking about what you get in terms of functionality for the money that you paid.

Now, the BestBuy notebook has a significant weak point in terms of battery performance. The Pentium-4M processor that it uses consumes more power than Motorola G4s found on PowerBooks but runs somewhat faster. Depending what you want to do, you can still, therefore, make a good case for a PowerBook.

However, you take the Pentium-4M, and replace it with a chip that's this much faster, with as good battery performance as the G4 (notice the fpu performance at 600 MHz, for example), and the remaining advantage of the PowerBooks evaporates.

People may still buy PowerBooks because of style and OS X, but in terms of overall functionality, a Centino notebook will blow away a PowerBook. I'm looking forward to getting my widescreen one six months down the line (and no, I'm not affiliated in anyway with any of the companies involved, I've just been looking into purchasing a notebook lately since lots of my colleagues have gotten PowerBooks).

PowerBooks are GREAT devices, but the Wintel world is fast over taking them due to their reliance on Motorola's G4 processor. Let's hope that Apple gets one of those other processors into their product line real soon.

*Ahem* allow me to direct your attention to Best Buy, hardley bargain shopping. This has a 40GB HD, DVD/CD-RW, 6xUSB ports. You will have to add in a monitor, I know these can be had cheaper elsewhere, and you won't have Firewire, WhoopEE! We throw in some more RAM for $20 and a microphone for $5 and we're done for under $700. Granted this is walking into BB with no sales. If you shop around even a little, you can knock off $100 easy. Yes, you don't have OSX. Damn, I want my screen to look pretty too, SKIN IT! Oh, and did I mention that there are about a trillion software packages that will run on this box, some are even free! And if you even bring up component quality, let me ask you how much you'll be using this machine of yours in 3 years when some of my parts just might start showing some wear?

Please, in a world where people have to look at the bottom line, buying a Mac is like buying a Jaguar delivery vehicle. It's just not neccesary.

*Ahem* allow me to direct your attention to Best Buy, hardley bargain shopping. This has a 40GB HD, DVD/CD-RW, 6xUSB ports. You will have to add in a monitor, I know these can be had cheaper elsewhere, and you won't have Firewire, WhoopEE! We throw in some more RAM for $20 and a microphone for $5 and we're done for under $700. Granted this is walking into BB with no sales. If you shop around even a little, you can knock off $100 easy. Yes, you don't have OSX. Damn, I want my screen to look pretty too, SKIN IT! Oh, and did I mention that there are about a trillion software packages that will run on this box, some are even free! And if you even bring up component quality, let me ask you how much you'll be using this machine of yours in 3 years when some of my parts just might start showing some wear?

Please, in a world where people have to look at the bottom line, buying a Mac is like buying a Jaguar delivery vehicle. It's just not neccesary.

According to Nielsen SoundScan, which tracks album sales, 681 million were sold in 2002, down from 785 million in 2000.

But if you look here for instance, you'll see that the article starts with "Christmas 2002 may wind up being a season to forget for some of the country's biggest retailers". Times are tough all over. I went shopping at 3 differnt malls on Christmas Eve, and I had no trouble finding parking, and I know that the malls were completely dead before Christmas too.

Best Buy announced that it would close 107 stores...

I've got a sneaking suspicion that Best Buy's decision to close 107 stores isn't completely linked to Kazaa et al. Also, I want to know where on Kazaa I can download a new TV, DVD player, and accessories for my new cell phone.

Also, with regard to Best Buy, how many of the stores that they closed were because they'd bought Future Shop and were duplicating in the same market? IIRC, they're closing a couple of stores in and around Bellingham, WA, since the Future Shop is about 2 blocks from Best Buy.

-- Ray

I haven't charged mine in months, and I've gone through at least three 90 minute mini-dv tapes and have taken several hundred digital photos. It's listed at 10 hours.

Oh for christs sake, the damn thing is priced at ATI 9700 Pro prices. I have no idea why the prices are so high for Europe (sorry), maybe the original post is way out of date.

Best Buy preorder

I saw this 50" plasma display during Christmas shopping. Unfortunately, I only had $10,999.98 to spend. :-)

I tried to buy something on Best Buy.com and my credit card got billed, but the order didn't get placed... "Unusually high network traffic" they said.. Interesting how they have enough bandwith to bill me, but not enough to place the order..

And today, 4 business days later, they're still "researching" the charge (aka. I haven't gotten my money back yet!)

I really think the tablet PCs would have to be thin clients to conserve battery life. I also don't think that a M$ OS is the way to go. The bloat in OS would just use up so much memory and processor cycles, that the battery life would suffer. A thin client, with just a web browser(intranet, limited internet) and maybe a few small apps, such as a calculator, or life support monitor, etc etc. This is assuming that a sales person or a medical professional is using the device.

Anything goes if someone is watching DVDs and running SETI@Home in the background while downloading the latest Harry Potter. I wouldnt expect the battery to last that long at all. Then again, the same goes for normal protables.

Another factor to consider is heat. If the WinXP OS is running all sorts of junk in the background, the system will heat up considerably. Much like thier desktop brothers, the new pentiums and athlons /**You forgot my processor, you insensetive clod!*/, the new processors get HOT. Would you really hold a system like this, if it was reaching 150 degrees F? I wouldn't

But then again, this is nothing new. I think I've seen people with devices like this before. Usually, its all proprietary programs. They seem to work well, since its just a thin client with connections to a server somewhere.

Write to them to complain instead of writing on Shashdot. Are you unhappy about this misuse of an already existing law? Sale prices are facts, not copyrighted material. Courts have already ruled that facts devoid of any creativity (such as telephone books) can be copied.


Wal-Mart

From main web site, click Help (at top). Click Company Information (bottom). Click Contact Stores and Home Office Customer Service (bottom left).

Contact


Target

From main web site, click Help (way bottom). Click either Contact Us About Online Services (left middle), or Contact Us About Target (left further down).

Target

Target


Best Buy

From main web site, click Contact Us (left bar, bottom). Click General Questions about BestBuy.com.

Best Buy


Staples

From main web site, click Help (top right). Click Contact Us. Click Something Else.

Staples


These pages have a SUBMIT button for a reason. (because they want you to submit to them.)

If you don't write, then I'll assume you are perhaps happy about this.

I've seen many comments saying "Don't buy from these companies" or the like. That's fine, but be sure to let them know why you aren't buying from them!

Here are some links to:
Walmart's comment page.

Best Buy's comment page or call them at 1-888-BESTBUY.

Target's comment page or call them at 1-800-440-0680.

Staple's comment page or call 1-800-3STAPLE.

I was in the same boat about a year ago. A friend of mine had just purchased the 4.1 surround version (now 5.1), and I was quite impressed. Not wanting to spend as much on computer speakers, I decided to get the 2.1 version, and I haven't looked back since. These speakers provide a full, rich sound that I've never heard from run-of-the-mill Altecs or Logitechs. If you are looking for quality sound at high volume or low, this is it.

I don't work for Klipsch or anything, yadda x 3. Just a satisfied customer here.

Oh, the ONE thing I don't like about the 2.1 is that the power button is on the sub. The 4.1 has a power switch on the right speaker.

-IAmTheSuit

I was in the same boat about a year ago. A friend of mine had just purchased the 4.1 surround version (now 5.1), and I was quite impressed. Not wanting to spend as much on computer speakers, I decided to get the 2.1 version, and I haven't looked back since. These speakers provide a full, rich sound that I've never heard from run-of-the-mill Altecs or Logitechs. If you are looking for quality sound at high volume or low, this is it.

I don't work for Klipsch or anything, yadda x 3. Just a satisfied customer here.

Oh, the ONE thing I don't like about the 2.1 is that the power button is on the sub. The 4.1 has a power switch on the right speaker.

-IAmTheSuit

Why not just get a headphone extension? They're pretty cheap, 25' for $10...Here

That should make you pretty mobile...

The iRive iFP-180T has 128 MB of memory as well as a 90 dB S/N ratio and a LCD for about $140 at Best Buy. I don't own one...but if the specs tell anything, as well as the one review I read, this product seems like a great one. I wonder why it has hardly been noticed by the mp3 community?

If this is so easy to do, why haven't the various consumer electronics manufacturers shipped DVD players with a hard drive on board?

Um, they have. Panasonic and others have made DVD players that can record to either DVD-R or internal hard drives. They also use the hard drives for PVR like functions.

It would certainly be an advantage to be one of the first to market with something like this, not to mention the hordes of geeks (like myself) who would be compelled to go out and get one immediately.

Go get it then.

I heard a song the other day by someone named Norah Jones which I very much liked. I decided to stop by Best Buy and buy it. The CD cost me $11.99.

Then I was looking at the list of upcoming releases, and thought I'd stop back next week and buy the new Tori Amos album. It too is only $11.99.

Then I thought of a couple of other albums I didn't yet have I wanted. For instance "Heart Shaped World" by Chris Isaak, I checked and it is $9.99. Also "Warning:" by Green Day, I checked and it is $15.99.(Wow that's the first one I've seen close to your price range)

Then I thought... You know, I really need to broaden my horizons and stop listening to off beat music and pick up some top-40. So I looked up the latest album from Eminem. I found it for $12.99. Then I decided to find Pink, her album is $13.99.

I've been buying music since 1987 when I purchased my first CD player. Back then the first CD I bought was the Top Gun Soundtrack, and I paid $16.99 for it. Now if you go look at the historical value of the dollar, you'd find that $16.99 in 1987 is worth $26.48 today. But I'm not paying $26 for my music, I'm paying an average $12-14 for it, or about half the price. You should also note that in 1987 I could buy a Cassette for about $6-7, today they are $10.

Basically it seems like you have two problems.

First, you don't understand what the value of money really means. In 1987 I was working as a student and receiving $4/hour. Want to take a guess as to how much students receive now for working on campus?(Try $8-10/hour) It's called inflation, go look it up.

Second, if you are paying $16-20 for your CDs, then you are a really really stupid consumer and PT Barnum was correct. There are many places to buy music cheaper than that.

And as far as DVDs go... You know what, just quit yer whining and go back to playing Nintendo. (BTW, want to take a guess as to what I paid for Atari 2600 video cartridges?)

I heard a song the other day by someone named Norah Jones which I very much liked. I decided to stop by Best Buy and buy it. The CD cost me $11.99.

Then I was looking at the list of upcoming releases, and thought I'd stop back next week and buy the new Tori Amos album. It too is only $11.99.

Then I thought of a couple of other albums I didn't yet have I wanted. For instance "Heart Shaped World" by Chris Isaak, I checked and it is $9.99. Also "Warning:" by Green Day, I checked and it is $15.99.(Wow that's the first one I've seen close to your price range)

Then I thought... You know, I really need to broaden my horizons and stop listening to off beat music and pick up some top-40. So I looked up the latest album from Eminem. I found it for $12.99. Then I decided to find Pink, her album is $13.99.

I've been buying music since 1987 when I purchased my first CD player. Back then the first CD I bought was the Top Gun Soundtrack, and I paid $16.99 for it. Now if you go look at the historical value of the dollar, you'd find that $16.99 in 1987 is worth $26.48 today. But I'm not paying $26 for my music, I'm paying an average $12-14 for it, or about half the price. You should also note that in 1987 I could buy a Cassette for about $6-7, today they are $10.

Basically it seems like you have two problems.

First, you don't understand what the value of money really means. In 1987 I was working as a student and receiving $4/hour. Want to take a guess as to how much students receive now for working on campus?(Try $8-10/hour) It's called inflation, go look it up.

Second, if you are paying $16-20 for your CDs, then you are a really really stupid consumer and PT Barnum was correct. There are many places to buy music cheaper than that.

And as far as DVDs go... You know what, just quit yer whining and go back to playing Nintendo. (BTW, want to take a guess as to what I paid for Atari 2600 video cartridges?)

I heard a song the other day by someone named Norah Jones which I very much liked. I decided to stop by Best Buy and buy it. The CD cost me $11.99.

Then I was looking at the list of upcoming releases, and thought I'd stop back next week and buy the new Tori Amos album. It too is only $11.99.

Then I thought of a couple of other albums I didn't yet have I wanted. For instance "Heart Shaped World" by Chris Isaak, I checked and it is $9.99. Also "Warning:" by Green Day, I checked and it is $15.99.(Wow that's the first one I've seen close to your price range)

Then I thought... You know, I really need to broaden my horizons and stop listening to off beat music and pick up some top-40. So I looked up the latest album from Eminem. I found it for $12.99. Then I decided to find Pink, her album is $13.99.

I've been buying music since 1987 when I purchased my first CD player. Back then the first CD I bought was the Top Gun Soundtrack, and I paid $16.99 for it. Now if you go look at the historical value of the dollar, you'd find that $16.99 in 1987 is worth $26.48 today. But I'm not paying $26 for my music, I'm paying an average $12-14 for it, or about half the price. You should also note that in 1987 I could buy a Cassette for about $6-7, today they are $10.

Basically it seems like you have two problems.

First, you don't understand what the value of money really means. In 1987 I was working as a student and receiving $4/hour. Want to take a guess as to how much students receive now for working on campus?(Try $8-10/hour) It's called inflation, go look it up.

Second, if you are paying $16-20 for your CDs, then you are a really really stupid consumer and PT Barnum was correct. There are many places to buy music cheaper than that.

And as far as DVDs go... You know what, just quit yer whining and go back to playing Nintendo. (BTW, want to take a guess as to what I paid for Atari 2600 video cartridges?)

I heard a song the other day by someone named Norah Jones which I very much liked. I decided to stop by Best Buy and buy it. The CD cost me $11.99.

Then I was looking at the list of upcoming releases, and thought I'd stop back next week and buy the new Tori Amos album. It too is only $11.99.

Then I thought of a couple of other albums I didn't yet have I wanted. For instance "Heart Shaped World" by Chris Isaak, I checked and it is $9.99. Also "Warning:" by Green Day, I checked and it is $15.99.(Wow that's the first one I've seen close to your price range)

Then I thought... You know, I really need to broaden my horizons and stop listening to off beat music and pick up some top-40. So I looked up the latest album from Eminem. I found it for $12.99. Then I decided to find Pink, her album is $13.99.

I've been buying music since 1987 when I purchased my first CD player. Back then the first CD I bought was the Top Gun Soundtrack, and I paid $16.99 for it. Now if you go look at the historical value of the dollar, you'd find that $16.99 in 1987 is worth $26.48 today. But I'm not paying $26 for my music, I'm paying an average $12-14 for it, or about half the price. You should also note that in 1987 I could buy a Cassette for about $6-7, today they are $10.

Basically it seems like you have two problems.

First, you don't understand what the value of money really means. In 1987 I was working as a student and receiving $4/hour. Want to take a guess as to how much students receive now for working on campus?(Try $8-10/hour) It's called inflation, go look it up.

Second, if you are paying $16-20 for your CDs, then you are a really really stupid consumer and PT Barnum was correct. There are many places to buy music cheaper than that.

And as far as DVDs go... You know what, just quit yer whining and go back to playing Nintendo. (BTW, want to take a guess as to what I paid for Atari 2600 video cartridges?)

I heard a song the other day by someone named Norah Jones which I very much liked. I decided to stop by Best Buy and buy it. The CD cost me $11.99.

Then I was looking at the list of upcoming releases, and thought I'd stop back next week and buy the new Tori Amos album. It too is only $11.99.

Then I thought of a couple of other albums I didn't yet have I wanted. For instance "Heart Shaped World" by Chris Isaak, I checked and it is $9.99. Also "Warning:" by Green Day, I checked and it is $15.99.(Wow that's the first one I've seen close to your price range)

Then I thought... You know, I really need to broaden my horizons and stop listening to off beat music and pick up some top-40. So I looked up the latest album from Eminem. I found it for $12.99. Then I decided to find Pink, her album is $13.99.

I've been buying music since 1987 when I purchased my first CD player. Back then the first CD I bought was the Top Gun Soundtrack, and I paid $16.99 for it. Now if you go look at the historical value of the dollar, you'd find that $16.99 in 1987 is worth $26.48 today. But I'm not paying $26 for my music, I'm paying an average $12-14 for it, or about half the price. You should also note that in 1987 I could buy a Cassette for about $6-7, today they are $10.

Basically it seems like you have two problems.

First, you don't understand what the value of money really means. In 1987 I was working as a student and receiving $4/hour. Want to take a guess as to how much students receive now for working on campus?(Try $8-10/hour) It's called inflation, go look it up.

Second, if you are paying $16-20 for your CDs, then you are a really really stupid consumer and PT Barnum was correct. There are many places to buy music cheaper than that.

And as far as DVDs go... You know what, just quit yer whining and go back to playing Nintendo. (BTW, want to take a guess as to what I paid for Atari 2600 video cartridges?)

I heard a song the other day by someone named Norah Jones which I very much liked. I decided to stop by Best Buy and buy it. The CD cost me $11.99.

Then I was looking at the list of upcoming releases, and thought I'd stop back next week and buy the new Tori Amos album. It too is only $11.99.

Then I thought of a couple of other albums I didn't yet have I wanted. For instance "Heart Shaped World" by Chris Isaak, I checked and it is $9.99. Also "Warning:" by Green Day, I checked and it is $15.99.(Wow that's the first one I've seen close to your price range)

Then I thought... You know, I really need to broaden my horizons and stop listening to off beat music and pick up some top-40. So I looked up the latest album from Eminem. I found it for $12.99. Then I decided to find Pink, her album is $13.99.

I've been buying music since 1987 when I purchased my first CD player. Back then the first CD I bought was the Top Gun Soundtrack, and I paid $16.99 for it. Now if you go look at the historical value of the dollar, you'd find that $16.99 in 1987 is worth $26.48 today. But I'm not paying $26 for my music, I'm paying an average $12-14 for it, or about half the price. You should also note that in 1987 I could buy a Cassette for about $6-7, today they are $10.

Basically it seems like you have two problems.

First, you don't understand what the value of money really means. In 1987 I was working as a student and receiving $4/hour. Want to take a guess as to how much students receive now for working on campus?(Try $8-10/hour) It's called inflation, go look it up.

Second, if you are paying $16-20 for your CDs, then you are a really really stupid consumer and PT Barnum was correct. There are many places to buy music cheaper than that.

And as far as DVDs go... You know what, just quit yer whining and go back to playing Nintendo. (BTW, want to take a guess as to what I paid for Atari 2600 video cartridges?)

I heard a song the other day by someone named Norah Jones which I very much liked. I decided to stop by Best Buy and buy it. The CD cost me $11.99.

Then I was looking at the list of upcoming releases, and thought I'd stop back next week and buy the new Tori Amos album. It too is only $11.99.

Then I thought of a couple of other albums I didn't yet have I wanted. For instance "Heart Shaped World" by Chris Isaak, I checked and it is $9.99. Also "Warning:" by Green Day, I checked and it is $15.99.(Wow that's the first one I've seen close to your price range)

Then I thought... You know, I really need to broaden my horizons and stop listening to off beat music and pick up some top-40. So I looked up the latest album from Eminem. I found it for $12.99. Then I decided to find Pink, her album is $13.99.

I've been buying music since 1987 when I purchased my first CD player. Back then the first CD I bought was the Top Gun Soundtrack, and I paid $16.99 for it. Now if you go look at the historical value of the dollar, you'd find that $16.99 in 1987 is worth $26.48 today. But I'm not paying $26 for my music, I'm paying an average $12-14 for it, or about half the price. You should also note that in 1987 I could buy a Cassette for about $6-7, today they are $10.

Basically it seems like you have two problems.

First, you don't understand what the value of money really means. In 1987 I was working as a student and receiving $4/hour. Want to take a guess as to how much students receive now for working on campus?(Try $8-10/hour) It's called inflation, go look it up.

Second, if you are paying $16-20 for your CDs, then you are a really really stupid consumer and PT Barnum was correct. There are many places to buy music cheaper than that.

And as far as DVDs go... You know what, just quit yer whining and go back to playing Nintendo. (BTW, want to take a guess as to what I paid for Atari 2600 video cartridges?)