Slashdot Mirror

The ATSC Tuners....
Yes.. as of this moment, they are disabled.... I don't know why they are... all I know is they are. From what I have been told by the HR20 team... that they WILL be enabled, in a relatively short time frame... I was told a "month", but until the date is more solid... I'm not going to post it.

I assume you're referring to yourself with the new thread title? Trying to pass off Parallels as useful for gaming could only be seen as such. http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6546370.html in other words, its utterly useless currently for gaming.

by the time you goto the trouble of paying the extra cost and time of setting up bootcamp, any price difference is likely gone and it takes time, as is said around here, time is money.

as for an xbox360, great. Only what? another $500 or $600? plus you've now got a second machine. That makes total sense.

More news about Dell from Cnet:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6625541.html

and the follow up:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7....html?tag=b log

More news about Dell from Cnet:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6625541.html

and the follow up:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7....html?tag=b log

• Both removing and restoring IE is risky and difficult. IE is complex with extensive hooks built into Windows, for efficiency and functionality. Thus unplugging it from your system may impact Internet connectivity, Windows functionality, and break functionality in Microsoft Office and non-MS products.
  
• IE is more than a browser, it is the foundation for Internet functionality in Windows.
  

I'm hoping to get an HP 65" microdisplay with wobulation someday. Review here. Wobulation blends the pixels together to almost eliminate screen-dooring.

Not sure what your budget is, but a 58" inch version is also available.

another technology out there that you didn't mention was LCOS. it's similar to a DLP in size. sony is just about to release thier a2000 series which will sport 1080p resolution and 1080p inputs (thereby satisfying your request for more than 768 vertical resolution). there are tons of input types, so you shouldn't have to worry about getting the video to it.

the 50" should be available in the next week or so. they have a 55 and 60 inch projected to launch in the near future. there are a few reviews available with a quick google search, but for the most part, people are waiting (and anxious) to see this new model.

Microsoft have already done the software on the Toshiba Gigabeat S series... It can be syncronised with an Xbox 360, plays video, has FM support and sells for about the same price as an iPod. It uses a portable Media Center edition.

See the CNET review : http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-11396_7-6550266-1.htm l

Ah, and has DRM (yeah !)

Daas

available here.

Looks like a neat little unit. Pretty powerful, but the keyboard isn't super. If course, on any portable, there is a tradeoff between overall size and display & keyboard size.

That said, I miss my Libretto. :-)

I would call it a scheme that inherently involves an amount of scamming. There was a rebate that I got refused because they say I didn't include everything I was supposed to. I was a Medical Laboratory Technician at the time and keeping up with the flow of paperwork when they puncture your spine to test your CSF, I promise you I didn't overlook anything simple.
 
Why would a company go through the hassle of rebates? They pay postage on a check when you get your money instead of the clerk hitting a key on the register. They pay people to open envelopes, check dates, figure out whether enclosed receipts are originals or photocopies, put names and addresses in a database (which means they're paying a database administrator), they pay to print checks, they're spending money all over the place. They do all that and they still come out ahead of where they would be if you just paid at the register what they told you it was going to cost.
 
Maybe not exactly a scam, but not exactly my idea of an honest business practice. Especially when it really is a scam.

Try here.

This past Monday, I bought a 2GB U3 to complement my iRiver h320 (Vorbis but not FLAC, even with Rockbox - at least not in realtime, yet) which is nice to carry around a few CDs plus an audio book or two; I have been very happy with it. I think the 60GB X5 is more like what you are looking for. I was put off by the UI complaints, but they said the same about the iRiver and that was fine. Frankly. if you have a well organized directory structure fo your music, who cares?

Though I have to say this looks neat.

So you've just replaced your $100 PS2 with a $600 PS3? Genius!! "Actually my PS2 was $300" Interesting - I didn't see any. Sega didn't have any. They were just in the Sony booth? So they had what - 4 or 5 units? That's just an engineer spending a couple of days cramming a dev kit in a plastic box. "I can only vouch for what I saw and played" see link below http://reviews.cnet.com/E3_Sony_PlayStation_3/4660 -12331_7-6521287.html Me too. Isn't it great? Any particular reason you haven't spent the last 6 months playing HD games then? If you're so rich why not buy all 3 consoles? "I bought a 360 on release day and returned it recently. As I wasn't getting much use out of it, since I still play my PS2, XBox, and Gamecube. Any more questions?"

If I go to the store, I see lots of CRTs, and about as many LCDs. I can go to Target and buy a 32" SDTV CRT with component inputs for around $330. I can buy a 30" SDTV LCD for $800. More than twice the price for a smaller screen with the same resolution and worse color. I'm up to around $900 for higher than 480p. That sucks.

Most people don't want to spend four digits amounts for a TV set. They go to the store, they see a $300 TV that's the size they want, and they buy it. Maybe they really want a LCD for some reason, so they buy the $450 20" LCD. Most people see the prices as 2x - 3x more than a CRT, and say forget it.

Extremely few people are willing to spend the $1800+ to have a 1080p TV. That's just an absurd price to pay for television. It's especially absurd when you realize that $1800 buys you the low end.

Also, direct view *MEANS* CRT.

Here is a page from May of this year: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108443-1.html

The basic sentiment from that page, and most others, is that LCD is getting cheap because it's the worst on tech on the market. My own experience confirms this, even. CRT looks better and is cheaper. DLP looks almost as good as CRT, and is comparably priced and sized to LCD.

Basically, people *don't* care about HDTV, and the early adopters *did* get screwed. All of that HD tech the big money spenders bought won't work right because it lacks the industry DRM infections. They industry then went and confused the hell out of the market with all different versions of HDMI, confusing terminology left and right, and different vendors abusing what *had* been established terms.

They may not sell WAPs now, but they used to:

Microsoft MN 700 Review

And they are pushing their windows embedded software:

Windows Embedded

pretty hard in the embedded systems mags I read.
Posting anon because I already moderated...

Bad cut and paste on my part. But here's the same hot breaking news from 2003 and from 1997.

Your basic Shuttle PC weighs about 4kg before you add the disk and CPU, takes standard PCI cards, has an optional handle for the top... plus you'd need an LCD monitor of whatever size is convenient and a little keyboard. That'll weigh a lot less than these misnamed monster laptops, use standard parts so there's a viable upgrade path

I agree that Shuttle SFFs are more upgradable, but they weigh much more and are not nearly as portable.

A light dual-core Shuttle SFF like the G5 2000 Series weighs 3.2kg net and 4.8kg gross (other models weigh more). I'll assume "gross" weight includes disk, CPU, etc. Shuttle's light 17" semi-portable LCD (has a handle) weighs 4.3kg net and 6.4kg gross (the better model weighs more). I'll assume the gross weight includes the LCD's power brick. Not including keyboard/mouse and speakers, that's 11.2kg (24.7 lbs) for a light Shuttle SFF with 17" LCD that (together) are only semi-portable (you need a good carrying bag).

A Dell XPS M2010 weighs a total of 20.8 lbs (9.4 kg), but that includes its 20.1" LCD, full-size detachable keyboard, 8 speakers w/subwoofer, and AC adapter. Sure, it has less upgrade options than a Shuttle SFF. But (unlike most laptops) the Dell monster does have two hard drive bays with RAID support, a much larger (20.1") built-in widescreen LCD, and is much more portable than the Shuttle bundle. For my money, I'd take a Shuttle but I'd rarely transport it. However, it's not comparable to Dell's monster portable.

these misnamed monster laptops

"Laptop" is just a traditional name we have used for foldable portable computers. I like to call the Dell XPS M2010 a "briefcase computer," but more people understand what you mean if you call it a big fuckin' laptop.

I bought the LE1600 slate tablet PC from motioncomputing.com. It's just awesome. Light, powerful, bright, great viewing angles, and good battery life. I like their convertible keyboard too, you just snap it on when/if you want to make it more like a laptop. The price is spendy, but it's quality worksmanship. If you're interested, here's a few reviews: review1 review2 (w/video)

Here is a review:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6542126.html? tag=cnetfd.sd
The only thing, though, is that his observation about load times does not seem to match what the people on AVS are saying (some guys in Poland and Greece already have their players, and they are getting 10 second load times).

Unless it is out of a Dell Optiplex! Very short shelf life http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/whurd/Bad.j pg and http://japan.cnet.com/media/2005/news/11/051128_ca pacitors_apple2.jpg and I quit taking pics

Here is the review of Dell's 20" laptop if you hungering for a review from a site that won't be easily slashdotted. With that out of the way, I notice a lot of 20" inch springing up all over the place. Is there really a demand for these behemoths? I know some people might enjoy the screen real estate for some graphical as well spreadsheet applications but 17 to 20 lb notebook? It gets any bigger and they won't let you take it on the plane. Is there someone who will shell out 2000 extra for this just for the ability to clear their desk once in a while? Buying a bigger desk is expensive these days. Also, are lan parties that popular? Oh Lord, I must be so geeky that geeks don't want to invite me to their parties! Though I have been to few parties, we generally bring beers not computers. Where is the market?

It's not a problem; there is more than enough supported hardware available for Linux.

I suppose it depends on what you consider a "problem." Yes, there are "many" printers & scanners that work with linux. But most of these are old models that aren't commonly sold, and there are many, many more that only partly work with linux; or only partly work if you go through complex proceedures like a kernel recompile; or don't work at all.

And unfortunately, the printers and scanners that are most easily availible-- cheap ones you can get from Best Buy or the like, the newest models, and the most popular models--seem to be the least likely to support linux.

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, go to cnet.com, find the editors choices for best printers.
Canon Pixma iP5000
Canon Pixma MP760
HP Color LaserJet 2840
Lexmark T430dn
Canon Pixma iP8500

And on the same page, the most popular printers:
HP OfficeJet 4215 All-in-One
HP LaserJet 1320
HP Color LaserJet 2840
HP Deskjet 6840
HP OfficeJet 7410

Of all these models, I can't find even ONE that is considered fully supported by linux in the hardware compatiblity form you provided. What this means in practical terms is that rather than just being able to buy a cheap device, it takes a ton of work and research to buy a printer or scanner for a linux home machine. You may not consider this to be a problem, but I do.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3524_7-6529451-10.htm l?tag=ss

hehe, my image word is "screwed"...

making song files incompatible with any portable player other than an iPod.

No no no no no no no. It's up to the content providers (studios) if they want to allow players like the PS3 to output 960x540 double-sized into a standard 1080i signal over component cables. I expect all studios to grudgingly go along with this, considering how many HDTVs there are without HDMI connectors.

960x540 is still 1.5 times as much detail as a 720x480 DVD properly upscaled to HDTV. For people who have been watching their DVDs on SDTV resized to 640x360 (16:9 aspect ratio) they'll get 2.25 times as much detail when they buy an HDTV. For anamorphic movies resized to 640x272 (~2.35:1) they'll get 3 times as much, though admittedly they could put that DVD in a PS3 and get twice as much just by upscaling it for HDTV.

I'm pretty sure Apple just has a contract with one of the main LCD companies to slap on a different, and more attractive, casing.

Then you would be mistaken. Apple's underlying display is better. Quote from the review:

...if you want the best 30-inch display that money can buy, Apple's Cinema HD Display is it.

> First of all, OS X is a UNIX based operating system

Mac OS X is based on darwin, which is based on NeXT, which is based on the Mach kernel and contains code from the BSD implementation of a 'Unix-like' operating system.

> (with a perfectly good user interface layer like no other UNIX has) t

Only systems which are fully compliant with and of course certified to the Single UNIX Specification qualify as "UNIX" (others are called "UNIX system-like" or Unix-like). MacOSX, is UNIX-like.

> that is rock solid in comparison to any other desktop OS, that supports all modern standards that 99% of the computing world expects on a computer.

Where is Gopher support (I have it on windows, linux)?
Why doesn't the FTP client that comes with the system support uploading?
Why is the IMAP implementation (in mail.app) worse than Outlook's and thunderbird's (See sieving script issues)?
Why isn't there ANSI support in the termianl application?
Why isn't there a usable java implementation for the platform (MacOSX's java framework is completely broken for standard java UI elements)?

> And does nearly all of its tasks better than a comparable computer running the latest Windows OS.

I guess these are lies:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/apr06/040506.h tml
http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_Boot_Camp_beta/4505- 3672_7-31826794-2.html?tag=nav
http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20060405 225344882

> Not to mention that you can run 99% of your UNIX programs on it.

Frigging hell, you've never had to deal with signals under MacOSX, or do all those terrible UI compatability hacks to get a GTK application working. It's a lot easier under Windows with CYGWIN.

> OS X. Because friends don't let friends run GNOME.

I don't like Gnome much either, tried KDE 3.5.2 (my prefered enviroment)? I find the entire desktop enviroment provided by KDE is quite adquate for most people's needs. Unfortunately MacOSX and KDE both fail at having a speedy browser (the default browser that comes with the system). This is where Windows wins.

I think I personally like CNET's list more:

1. Webvan
2. Pets.com
3. Kozmo.com
4. Flooz.com
5. eToys.com
6. Boo.com
7. MVP.com
8. Go.com
9. Kibu.com
10. GovWorks.com

Sorry, the Sansa E270.

The Portege M200 that I have is 4.2 pounds; I don't consider that "big", but you may.

If you want a really tiny notebook, check out the Fujitsu Lifebook P1510D; it only weighs 2.2 pounds. That's starting to be PDA size.

As far as your price concerns, most of the tablet notebooks are selling in the $1400-$1800 range these days, which I consider reasonable for a full-featured notebook. You're right; they won't be as cheap as regular notebooks, but I also think the tablet features are worth the premium. I especially enjoy reading online with my notebook in tablet mode. The scroll keys make it easy to do a long session of reading. And watching movies in bed is fabulous with the Tablet PC. :)

Right, by a huge factor, in favor of high fields causing 10^9 times more damage. There are darn few places where weaker influences cause biggger effects. I can't think of one.

>2. Your 500,000 watt figure for radio stations is on the absolute high end (afaik only WBCT-FM is allowed that figure under certain circumstances) but valid; your .0000001 watt figure is definitely not. Cell phones, for instance, are around the 1 watt range (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6602_7-5020357-1.htm l?tag=nav has various SARs, which is decently close to raw wattage numbers)

The original article was talking abotu "dirty power" as a source of EM fields. 0.0000001 watts is a pretty good ballpark guess on the "dirty power" that could get coupled to the human body, even if you wrapped yourself with a 500ft extension cord plugged into an outlet next to an arcwelder.

3. Intensity varies inversely with the square of the distance. This quickly minimizes exposure from transmission towers but does little for chronic EM exposure in a home.

My father worked in an office building literally in the shadow of several 100,000 watt TV transmitter antennas. The local high school is across the street from the same antennas. At home we lived for decades under a mile away from a 50,000 watt AM station antenna. Globally, there's at least three billion people living within inches of dirty power, radio stations, and cell phones. No noticeable awful patches of gargling deaths reported yet. In fact life expectancy is going UP all around the globe.

>These hypothesized negative reactions to EM fields are statistical. Consider that it took quite a long while to gather enough evidence to prove that smoking is quite unhealthy.

Er, no. I think the smoking reports go back to about 1912 or so. Mark Twain writes about the dammnable habit circa 1850. You seem to think statistical is a bad thing. It's the only way to get at causes... wishful thinking isnt noticeably better.

4. At the neurological level, the voltage spikes from your nerves are 1,000's of times a bigger EM field than anything from outside your body. It's hard to imagine how a signal that's much weaker than your nerve impulses can have a noticeable effect.

Nobody knows how EM fields affect the body--

Er, it's been studied since the time of Senor Volta, about 250 years or so.

Sunlight's energy distribution (and, speaking to the point made in the article, lack of oscillation) is completely different than that of man-made EM fields.

Again you have a really hard job trying to explain a mechanism where sunlight, being 10^6 times more intense, AND 10^8 times more energetic PER PHOTON than "dirty power" or "cell phones", AND 10^3 times poorer at coupling to human tissue, how those influences can be 10^6, 10^8, or combined, 10^17 times weaker, and they can still cause problems that the 10^17 times stronger stimulus cannot.

The source material is wrong. I just confirmed it with Toyota:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484140.html

Yeah, a PowerBook/MBP docking station would be nice, and I don't know why Apple hasn't made one (ExpressCard could handle it). But that's not the solution for everyone -- I have a tower with faster hard drives and 2 big monitors at home, so I don't dock. I use my DVI connector on the road to connect to monitors and projectors at remote sites, and VGA wouldn't always cut it.

I also like the trackpoint and wish it were available as an Apple option. I disagree with your characterization of the keyboards, though -- I find I'm faster with the Apple PB/MBP keyboards than the ThinkPad one. (If you're thinking of the flimsy iBook keyboard it's a different story.)

The other thing which the ThinkPads (and 99% of all other non-Apple laptops) is lacking is digital audio output. This is especially glaring as laptop analog audio hardware is both cheap and very prone to interference from inside the case.

By the way: stealth fighter = 1982. :-) Seriously, I'd love to buy other Core Duo laptops but I haven't seen one with a design even half as sleek and well-executed as Apple's -- and the MBP is only a slight evolution of a design first unveiled in 2003! Laptop manufacturers need to get with the design program. Garish multicolored plastic 1.5" thick enclosures aren't good enough.

Bad troll! No biscuit!

Copy and paste from here.

fnord to you too, Sir

The Bang & Olufsen BeoSound 2 has no screen and no memory (SD card sold separately) and costs about $500. It's awesome.

I can't say myself whether this hypothesis is True or False (I doubt things are precisely as the interviewee stated), but there is some amount of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence for EM effects on health. http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,57488,00 .html was the quickest link I could drag up.

Aside from what facts are known, though, I don't believe your arguments speak directly to the issue at hand, that *in theory* household EM fields could negatively impact health.

1. If it were true you'd expect stronger fields to make a bigger effect than miniscule ones.
      2. Therefore driving past a 500,000 watt radio or TV transmitting antenna should cause much much much greater symptoms than a 0.0000001 watt emissions from "dirty power". No such effect.

Three responses:
1. A one-time exposure to a high-wattage transmission tower is qualitatively different from chronic exposure to EM fields.

2. Your 500,000 watt figure for radio stations is on the absolute high end (afaik only WBCT-FM is allowed that figure under certain circumstances) but valid; your .0000001 watt figure is definitely not. Cell phones, for instance, are around the 1 watt range (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6602_7-5020357-1.htm l?tag=nav has various SARs, which is decently close to raw wattage numbers)

3. Intensity varies inversely with the square of the distance (or cube of the distance, roughly, if there are many absorbtive materials between you and the transmission). This quickly minimizes exposure from transmission towers but does little for chronic EM exposure in a home.

3. People that are exposed to high EM fields, such as airport workers, tower light replacers, cell site testers, plasma physicists, industrial RF welders, TV technicians, walkie-talkie testers, they should all be really sick. Like 100,000 time ssicker than the average Joe or Jane Doe. They're not.

These hypothesized negative reactions to EM fields are statistical. Consider that it took quite a long while to gather enough evidence to prove that smoking is quite unhealthy.

4. At the neurological level, the voltage spikes from your nerves are 1,000's of times a bigger EM field than anything from outside your body. It's hard to imagine how a signal that's much weaker than your nerve impulses can have a noticeable effect.

Nobody knows how EM fields affect the body-- but there are plenty of solid, scientific ways that they *could*. One way is through catalyzing reactions involving iron via oscillating EM fields (and hey, there's a whole field emerging in chemistry that specializes in this). Another is by imparting vibrational, rotational, or other types of energy to molecules, which could lead to changes in protein shape.

5. EM fields includes light, particularly sunlight. Sunlight hits you with almost 1,000 watts per square meter, many powers of ten greater than any other EM field, and most people think sunlight feels *good*, not bad.

Sunlight's energy distribution (and, speaking to the point made in the article, lack of oscillation) is completely different than that of man-made EM fields. Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field significantly filters anything that makes it down to us.

There's no basic theoretical problem with the concept of statistically hazardous EM fields. It's definitely worth looking into, all things considered.

RD

I wonder how many of those sales are for the Smartphone that runs Windows?

http://reviews.cnet.com/Palm_Treo_700w/4505-6452_7 -31473222.html

Who do they answer to?

For informational value...
For entertainment value, or as thay say, "Follow the money".

Some quick googling says it does!!! Woo Hoo!!!! I know what I'm getting for my birthday.

Check it out.

CNET has another article showing the radiation levels of certain cell phones.

Within the US models listed, Motorola has the highest with its Motorola V120c, and the lowest goes to the Audiovox PPC66001.
Maybe people will want to check this chart before buying a new cell phone? Maybe not.

Here's the link you asked for with CNET MP3 reviews. They like Sony: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-6247126-1.html ?tag=prmo1/

The controller in question is probably this abomination. I agree with you, anyone can build a knock-off, but it's rare that they get it right.

If you prefer a different source, here is the C-NET article the GP's information originally came from. http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-7597_7-0.html?forumID =41&messageID=1708660&threadID=153671

Nice way to engage in dialog.

I also questioned the numbers since I remember that right when cell phone popularity started growing dramatically, there was a statement (in the manual of my Motorola flip phone) about the limits on maximum emission levels being raised recently. That was back in the early 90s.

Anyhow, I think the number this guy quotes correlates to SAR which this list claims goes pretty close to the 1.6 Watts SAR maximum level mentioned in the page you link to.

btw, that list is the highest SAR levels mentioned from this other page.

Nice way to engage in dialog.

I also questioned the numbers since I remember that right when cell phone popularity started growing dramatically, there was a statement (in the manual of my Motorola flip phone) about the limits on maximum emission levels being raised recently. That was back in the early 90s.

Anyhow, I think the number this guy quotes correlates to SAR which this list claims goes pretty close to the 1.6 Watts SAR maximum level mentioned in the page you link to.

btw, that list is the highest SAR levels mentioned from this other page.

I'd suggest taking a look at CNET's cell phone radiation chart. Updated Feb 22, 2006.

I agree. Ironically the manufacturers are bit afraid of OSS. On one hand, it's sort of an unknown factor to them and on the other, major format pushers like Microsoft and Apple discourage it. So as long as the consumer demand isn't there, ogg support will only come from underdog vendors.

Unfortuantely, consumers are fools. They'll use a defacto format just b/c it is defacto format, even if it makes their life more the miserable for doing so. And indeed MP3 does, in the form of lower quality, higher prices and eventual DRM.

But here's the real issue. Vendors use these formats to vye for market. More popular brands can afford to only support a limited set of formats. Worse, Microsoft pressures vendors not to use OSS formats if they want WM support. Less popular brands are put at a disadvantage even though they support more formats to capture a nitche or to broaden their market. The result is the we consumers end up with a confusing mess which makes it increasingly difficult to buy compatible equipment.

What happend to standards groups! And there's the thing. If ogg and OSS in general want to thrive, the differnt OSS vendors really need to come together and form a strong standards body.

But all of this may be a mute point. In decade or two 4G cell phones with large built in hard drives will deliver all the music one could possibly want. It will be cheap enough that the common listener won't even worry about "having" the music, so formats and DRM become mute points.

In the mean time a recommendation:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Cowon_iAudio_U2_1GB/4505-6 490_7-31129769.html?tag=pop

They would have much more clients on iTMS if they just offered FairPlay or whatchmacallit to the other manufacturers... They already profit big, and they could be profiting bigger -- and they are blind for not seeing something so obvious.

Would they? In may iPod market share was 87.3%. That represents 32+million iPods in 2005 of the total 36.6 million sold. So, Apple is missing out on 4.6 million mp3 player sales. Of those how many people wouldn't buy strictly because it is Apple? How many of those would use the iTMS? Let's say 100% of those 4.6 million people were allowed to use iTMS. How much more money would that leave for Apple?

ZERO because Apple makes at most .04 So again, let's say Apple makes 0.04*4.6million*10(songs) (saying all of those 4.6 million bought 10 songs over the lifetime of the product). That gives us $1.84M. How does that compare with margins on iPod? Let's do the same comparison. 4.6M*299*0.19 = $261M (this would be the same $$ if Apple convinced just 32.2K of those 4.6M to buy an iPod and buy 0 songs from iTMS. (The latter assumes the avg price for an iPod across the board is $299 and all iPods are selling equally well by %)

Which would you rather do? Try to increase sales by 32k or try to convince 4.2 million people to buy 10 songs from your store, or 2.1 to buy 20, or 1.05 to by 40 etc.....

You might be right if these boys were specialist IT analysts, but they aren't they are financial analysts making a series of pretty big assumptions that don't match reality. These are also the folks that hyped the .com as the future and didn't spot the gaming market or mobile markets (don't believe me go and look at the reports from 1999).

So we have the Cell... currently for sale on development boxes... so not quite experimental

We have blue-ray price of $350 a unit, some what odd given that you can already get BURNERS for under $1000. And these are at the low volume end while the PS3 will be high volume.

Then we get the slip until 2007. This is based on the Cell being too new (its in production) and some assumptions.

So in terms of who I'd trust around it? Me I'd go for the IEEE who reckoned that the Cell would be one of the hits of 2006, but hell they are only the most established electronics and computer organisation on the planet.

Don't trust analysts, remember most of them don't beat the market.

Man, slashdotters can be so fucking annoying sometimes...

1. Another defunct one: Turtle Beach Audiotron
2. Yet Another: KiSS DP-500
3. This one's actually for sale on Amazon: Roku Soundbridge M1000
4. Also for sale: Slim Devices Squeezebox
5. On the high ($2000) end, Denon AVR-4036 Receiver has streaming (among many other things.)
6. And the winner of our "strangest item": sermonaudio.com internet radio. Though I suspect you'd have to hack it to get it to play anything other than their content :)
7. Oh, I guess you don't have to hack it, you can just buy the un-sermonized version as Penguin Radio.
8. D-Link has a DVD player with internet streaming radio called DSM-320RD Medialounge. It's even wireless. There's also a HD version, the DSM-520.
9. Even Philips has a series called Boombox.

I'm sorry my initial example was poor. I just grabbed the first link and didn't look at it much. Nonetheless, there are umpteen fucking examples of streaming internet radio devices. Many of them are available on the shelf, even at places like Circuit Shitty. And I've seen several at Fry's, come to think of it.