If you READ / or listened to the link I gave you, You would have noticed it wasn't the LANGUAGE that was the problem, It was the process.
I watched the video, and understood it. Carmac was complaining that you had to use a different compiler for the sub-processors, and message to them. This is pretty standard stuff in my world, Carmac just has not been exposed to it.
I whine too when I am forced to do stuff that I think is "ugly" - learning new stuff that you don't like is hard, but programmers do this kind of stuff all the time. Just because Carmac does not like it does not mean that it is unusual, hard, or a bad idea.
Carmack makes phone games now...end of story about his true skills.
This is fitting, because phones use 200-400MHz ARM processors, which have about the same processing power as the computers that ran Quake. Perhaps more processing power if you don't count FPU.
I whine too when I am forced to do stuff that I think is "ugly" - learning new stuff that you don't like is hard, but programmers do this kind of stuff all the time. Just because Carmac does not like it does not mean that it is unusual, hard, or a bad idea.
I still fail to see why it had to be done that way. They were developing a brand new cpu, they could have made the compilers and executed code work any way they wanted. I think he has a right to bitch. Though I don't fully agree with you that experienced devs learning new stuff being hard... It is really damn annoying having to learn unnecessary stuff like that. As far as I know, there isn't any other development cycle in the world that works like that.
I still fail to see why it had to be done that way. They were developing a brand new cpu, they could have made the compilers and executed code work any way they wanted. I think he has a right to bitch. Though I don't fully agree with you that experienced devs learning new stuff being hard... It is really damn annoying having to learn unnecessary stuff like that. As far as I know, there isn't any other development cycle in the world that works like that.
The same complaints were made when the PS2 came out - "it is too hard to program".
In the end all that meant was that games steadily and dramatically improved over the next 5 years (can you imagine if you had shown somebody God of War at the PS2 launch? They would not have believed that it was real). Now they are used to the PS2, and don't like the transition. 5 years from now there will be a ton of complaints "The new PS4 is too hard to deal with, why didn't you make it like the PS3!".
It is not unnessessary stuff - Carmac states it right in the video: Sony sacrificed easy programming in order to get a more powerful system than the 360. 3 or 4 years from now you will be glad that they did, when games are coming out for the PS3 that would not be possible on the 360.
One thing for us all to consider... is will blu-ray / hd-dvd even take over dvd easily?
DVD is what 10 years old now? And they still sell VHS tapes. You can still rent VHS tapes. Not everyone has migrated. Although a ton of people HAVE migrated to DVD. Why? Convenience for one... which I think is the big thing. It was a bitch to rewind VHS tapes. They were bulky, took up more storage. VHS sucked.
So the dvd vs. the new standards doesn't have that complaint. So that is one less reason for people to switch in the first place. I'm very sceptical about how the average consumer will adopt to moving to a new standard. Some people have 2k dvds. Why would they want to migrate again? From what I understand it's still not enough storage on the new formats to obtain true noticeable results. I'd like to see DVD and Blu-Ray / HD-DVD side by side. And see if I could notice any difference. I doubt very very very few could except the professionals. Is it worth all this turmoil for just a few more gigs of space?
I'd like to see DVD and Blu-Ray / HD-DVD side by side. And see if I could notice any difference. I doubt very very very few could except the professionals. Is it worth all this turmoil for just a few more gigs of space?
Ummmm. . . It's pretty easy to tell the difference between DVD video and HD video, especially on a big screen TV. Since most TVs these days are pretty damn big, it's an easy distinction to make unless you have macular degeneration.
I further disagree with this... in that I don't know any of my friends that use their ps2 to watch dvds. I think i've done it 1 time in the 3 years i've owned mine.
Just because it has the capability doesn't necessarily mean it's a shoe-in.
well ive owned the PS2 since launch and watched HUNDREDS of films on it... YMMV of course but at the time i clearly saw it as a way to remove CD, DVD, AND games console out of my room, replacing it with ONE unit that did all that.
im sure Sony see it that way too... as will, im sure many other owners.
One thing for us all to consider... is will blu-ray / hd-dvd even take over dvd easily?
DVD is what 10 years old now? And they still sell VHS tapes. You can still rent VHS tapes. Not everyone has migrated. Although a ton of people HAVE migrated to DVD. Why? Convenience for one... which I think is the big thing. It was a bitch to rewind VHS tapes. They were bulky, took up more storage. VHS sucked.
So the dvd vs. the new standards doesn't have that complaint. So that is one less reason for people to switch in the first place. I'm very sceptical about how the average consumer will adopt to moving to a new standard. Some people have 2k dvds. Why would they want to migrate again? From what I understand it's still not enough storage on the new formats to obtain true noticeable results. I'd like to see DVD and Blu-Ray / HD-DVD side by side. And see if I could notice any difference. I doubt very very very few could except the professionals. Is it worth all this turmoil for just a few more gigs of space?
1. DVD will remain the dominant video format for 5 years or so. Very few of the Blu-ray drives sold will be bought for the specific purpose of playing HD movies, they will be bought as PS3s and computer drives. As the PS3s and computer drives gradually gain market share, and as the HD TV market share grows, the HD movie demand will grow.
This dynamic is the reason why HD-DVD has no chance - Blu-ray will be the computer drive of choice because of storage size, and there is no reason for anyone to buy the HD-DVD add on to the 360. When the HD player market is big enough to encourage movie production, the player market will be overwhelmingly blu-ray.
2. You will not be able to tell any difference between blu-ray and HD-DVD. They will look identical. Blu-ray players will be more quiet due to MPEG-2, though, so you will get a lower noise floor in blu-ray based theaters.
1. If Blu-Ray pricing doesn't improve on the whole yes there will be very few drives sold other than what's been bundled with the PS3.
1.a - Neither format will have much traction in storage unless they lower their pricing to be more competitive with HDD and flash memory. When small bus powered drives hold 30GB easily with much more speed I'm not sensing a huge market for expensive optical media. I sell storage everyday. NO ONE has asked about Blu-Ray but then again I deal with companies and not people hoarding their bittorrent downloads.
2. Finally glad someone "gets it" qualitatively both formats are equivalent. 1st gen units will be as loud as the players are going to get but with the newer chipsets ability to accelerate VC-1 and AVC I don't think noise problems are really going to be a factor beyond the launch players.
This dynamic is the reason why HD-DVD has no chance - Blu-ray will be the computer drive of choice because of storage size, and there is no reason for anyone to buy the HD-DVD add on to the 360.
I don't believe that. Well I don't care about the 360 thing. W/e about that. But history has proven that larger storage doesn't always win in the computer industry. Look at all older storage types, orb, jazz, DVD-Ram, Tape, etc. None of these really took off because something better came along before they could gain enough ground to become a standard. With the adoption of blu-ray being slow, and the specs being close (percentage wise) to DVD, I will go out on a limb and say that blu-ray & hd-dvd will be replaced quicker than DVD. I honestly forsee a nicer storage type with 100gbs in the near future. Then what? Something with MUCH more storage will come out quicker over blu-ray / hd-dvd than hd-dvd / blu-ray coming out over DVD. You know.... that's if history repeats itself.
I don't believe that. Well I don't care about the 360 thing. W/e about that. But history has proven that larger storage doesn't always win in the computer industry. Look at all older storage types, orb, jazz, DVD-Ram, Tape, etc. None of these really took off because something better came along before they could gain enough ground to become a standard. With the adoption of blu-ray being slow, and the specs being close (percentage wise) to DVD, I will go out on a limb and say that blu-ray & hd-dvd will be replaced quicker than DVD. I honestly forsee a nicer storage type with 100gbs in the near future. Then what? Something with MUCH more storage will come out quicker over blu-ray / hd-dvd than hd-dvd / blu-ray coming out over DVD. You know.... that's if history repeats itself.
Even if something larger comes out - the winner of this round will get the movie market forever. There just is no point in movie disks that are larger than 100 GB or so.
Even if something larger comes out - the winner of this round will get the movie market forever. There just is no point in movie disks that are larger than 100 GB or so.
LOL Forever?! You're nuts. I don't think any person in technology with any intelligence would say such things. Who knows would kind of video technology can come out in the future. No point? What about 4 hour movies? What about movies with tons of extra content? There is so much that the industry could do with more storage it's inconceivable to say 100gb isn't enough. I can't believe you just said forever.
LOL Forever?! You're nuts. I don't think any person in technology with any intelligence would say such things. Who knows would kind of video technology can come out in the future. No point? What about 4 hour movies? What about movies with tons of extra content? There is so much that the industry could do with more storage it's inconceivable to say 100gb isn't enough. I can't believe you just said forever.
100gb is enough for an 8 hour movie at 1080p (which is about equal to the maximum that your eye can discern). If larger disks are used for movies, they will only be used for large collections (i.e. entire seasons of TV shows and the like), and will be in a larger version of the same format as the small disks. Normal 2 hour movies will never need larger disks.
The roman chariot has been replaced a number of times over the last 2000 years - but the rail gauge has not. Julius Caesar set the standard chariot size by marking out two of his strides, and this has carried through horsecarts and eventually our train system. The blu-ray disk, because it is going to set the standard for the 2 hour HD movie format, will do the same thing for encoded movies as Caesar did for axle length.
100gb is enough for an 8 hour movie at 1080p (which is about equal to the maximum that your eye can discern). If larger disks are used for movies, they will only be used for large collections (i.e. entire seasons of TV shows and the like), and will be in a larger version of the same format as the small disks. Normal 2 hour movies will never need larger disks.
That's if technology NEVER changes. We will have higher resolutions and bigger tvs and more intense audio with more channels. Saying that the movie industry will ahve xx room for the the rest of eternity is absolutely insane. Why would you put such restrictions on bettering technology? That's like saying ok... make this computer faster / better but you are limited to 2ghz forever. Forever is a bold statement that is usually stated by ignorant people. You need to be extremely careful when using "forever".
That's if technology NEVER changes. We will have higher resolutions and bigger tvs and more intense audio with more channels. Saying that the movie industry will ahve xx room for the the rest of eternity is absolutely insane. Why would you put such restrictions on bettering technology? That's like saying ok... make this computer faster / better but you are limited to 2ghz forever. Forever is a bold statement that is usually stated by ignorant people. You need to be extremely careful when using "forever".
What is the point of having TVs with higher resolution than your eye? The size of the screen is pointless, as very few people want a TV that occupies more than a 30 degree field of view. Having a larger TV means that you sit further away, so 1080p is fine for all size screens, even if they are a mile high and two miles wide.
OK - forever was too long. Blu-ray will dictate the movie format until they start pumping real-life VR directly into our nervous system, and we forget about 2D movies. I imagine that a full-body nerve simulation will use up more than 100gB for two hours. 8)
What is the point of having TVs with higher resolution than your eye? The size of the screen is pointless, as very few people want a TV that occupies more than a 30 degree field of view. Having a larger TV means that you sit further away, so 1080p is fine for all size screens, even if they are a mile high and two miles wide.
OK - forever was too long. Blu-ray will dictate the movie format until they start pumping real-life VR directly into our nervous system, and we forget about 2D movies. I imagine that a full-body nerve simulation will use up more than 100gB for two hours. 8)
Resolution is only 1 thing... what about everything else? Why stunt technological growth by stunting the size of media it can be on? You're being irrational by keeping it that size forever. It makes no sense. Video gets larger and bigger with the advancement of technology every where. IE better audio, more effects etc. There is so much that could be done instead of having a flat thing in front of you. How about doing the whole room? How about an optical stereo output that goes all the way around the room. These are just dumb things that MY mind has thought of in the last 5 min. The point is there is no reason to put a restraint like that. Just because you can't forsee a reason to expand technology doesn't mean you should prevent it
Resolution is only 1 thing... what about everything else? Why stunt technological growth by stunting the size of media it can be on? You're being irrational by keeping it that size forever. It makes no sense. Video gets larger and bigger with the advancement of technology every where. IE better audio, more effects etc. There is so much that could be done instead of having a flat thing in front of you. How about doing the whole room? How about an optical stereo output that goes all the way around the room. These are just dumb things that MY mind has thought of in the last 5 min. The point is there is no reason to put a restraint like that. Just because you can't forsee a reason to expand technology doesn't mean you should prevent it
We already have surround sound, and it just does not use very much space (even if you use the highest quality audio - say, 20 channel SACD) and I just don't see surround video taking off.
Even if surround video took off, 360 degree vision + the ceiling would only take about 300gb for two hours. And the people beind you would get in the way when you turned around - it would have to be a solitary activity.
Even if surround video took off, 360 degree vision + the ceiling would only take about 300gb for two hours. And the people beind you would get in the way when you turned around - it would have to be a solitary activity.
Where do you get those #'s? 300gb or 2 hours. That seems like a thrown out # to me.
Comments
Originally posted by marzetta7
Yeah, upgrade to the Xbox HD DVD players, with no HDMI port and a whopping 720P resolution. Good call!
Yeah no HDMI port just like the entry level $500 PS3
"TrueHD" gag what a horrible name.
Originally posted by emig647
If you READ / or listened to the link I gave you, You would have noticed it wasn't the LANGUAGE that was the problem, It was the process.
I watched the video, and understood it. Carmac was complaining that you had to use a different compiler for the sub-processors, and message to them. This is pretty standard stuff in my world, Carmac just has not been exposed to it.
I whine too when I am forced to do stuff that I think is "ugly" - learning new stuff that you don't like is hard, but programmers do this kind of stuff all the time. Just because Carmac does not like it does not mean that it is unusual, hard, or a bad idea.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Carmack makes phone games now...end of story about his true skills.
This is fitting, because phones use 200-400MHz ARM processors, which have about the same processing power as the computers that ran Quake. Perhaps more processing power if you don't count FPU.
Originally posted by e1618978
I whine too when I am forced to do stuff that I think is "ugly" - learning new stuff that you don't like is hard, but programmers do this kind of stuff all the time. Just because Carmac does not like it does not mean that it is unusual, hard, or a bad idea.
I still fail to see why it had to be done that way. They were developing a brand new cpu, they could have made the compilers and executed code work any way they wanted. I think he has a right to bitch. Though I don't fully agree with you that experienced devs learning new stuff being hard... It is really damn annoying having to learn unnecessary stuff like that. As far as I know, there isn't any other development cycle in the world that works like that.
Originally posted by emig647
I still fail to see why it had to be done that way. They were developing a brand new cpu, they could have made the compilers and executed code work any way they wanted. I think he has a right to bitch. Though I don't fully agree with you that experienced devs learning new stuff being hard... It is really damn annoying having to learn unnecessary stuff like that. As far as I know, there isn't any other development cycle in the world that works like that.
The same complaints were made when the PS2 came out - "it is too hard to program".
In the end all that meant was that games steadily and dramatically improved over the next 5 years (can you imagine if you had shown somebody God of War at the PS2 launch? They would not have believed that it was real). Now they are used to the PS2, and don't like the transition. 5 years from now there will be a ton of complaints "The new PS4 is too hard to deal with, why didn't you make it like the PS3!".
It is not unnessessary stuff - Carmac states it right in the video: Sony sacrificed easy programming in order to get a more powerful system than the 360. 3 or 4 years from now you will be glad that they did, when games are coming out for the PS3 that would not be possible on the 360.
DVD is what 10 years old now? And they still sell VHS tapes. You can still rent VHS tapes. Not everyone has migrated. Although a ton of people HAVE migrated to DVD. Why? Convenience for one... which I think is the big thing. It was a bitch to rewind VHS tapes. They were bulky, took up more storage. VHS sucked.
So the dvd vs. the new standards doesn't have that complaint. So that is one less reason for people to switch in the first place. I'm very sceptical about how the average consumer will adopt to moving to a new standard. Some people have 2k dvds. Why would they want to migrate again? From what I understand it's still not enough storage on the new formats to obtain true noticeable results. I'd like to see DVD and Blu-Ray / HD-DVD side by side. And see if I could notice any difference. I doubt very very very few could except the professionals. Is it worth all this turmoil for just a few more gigs of space?
Originally posted by emig647
I'd like to see DVD and Blu-Ray / HD-DVD side by side. And see if I could notice any difference. I doubt very very very few could except the professionals. Is it worth all this turmoil for just a few more gigs of space?
Ummmm. . . It's pretty easy to tell the difference between DVD video and HD video, especially on a big screen TV. Since most TVs these days are pretty damn big, it's an easy distinction to make unless you have macular degeneration.
Originally posted by emig647
I further disagree with this... in that I don't know any of my friends that use their ps2 to watch dvds. I think i've done it 1 time in the 3 years i've owned mine.
Just because it has the capability doesn't necessarily mean it's a shoe-in.
well ive owned the PS2 since launch and watched HUNDREDS of films on it... YMMV of course but at the time i clearly saw it as a way to remove CD, DVD, AND games console out of my room, replacing it with ONE unit that did all that.
im sure Sony see it that way too... as will, im sure many other owners.
Originally posted by emig647
One thing for us all to consider... is will blu-ray / hd-dvd even take over dvd easily?
DVD is what 10 years old now? And they still sell VHS tapes. You can still rent VHS tapes. Not everyone has migrated. Although a ton of people HAVE migrated to DVD. Why? Convenience for one... which I think is the big thing. It was a bitch to rewind VHS tapes. They were bulky, took up more storage. VHS sucked.
So the dvd vs. the new standards doesn't have that complaint. So that is one less reason for people to switch in the first place. I'm very sceptical about how the average consumer will adopt to moving to a new standard. Some people have 2k dvds. Why would they want to migrate again? From what I understand it's still not enough storage on the new formats to obtain true noticeable results. I'd like to see DVD and Blu-Ray / HD-DVD side by side. And see if I could notice any difference. I doubt very very very few could except the professionals. Is it worth all this turmoil for just a few more gigs of space?
1. DVD will remain the dominant video format for 5 years or so. Very few of the Blu-ray drives sold will be bought for the specific purpose of playing HD movies, they will be bought as PS3s and computer drives. As the PS3s and computer drives gradually gain market share, and as the HD TV market share grows, the HD movie demand will grow.
This dynamic is the reason why HD-DVD has no chance - Blu-ray will be the computer drive of choice because of storage size, and there is no reason for anyone to buy the HD-DVD add on to the 360. When the HD player market is big enough to encourage movie production, the player market will be overwhelmingly blu-ray.
2. You will not be able to tell any difference between blu-ray and HD-DVD. They will look identical. Blu-ray players will be more quiet due to MPEG-2, though, so you will get a lower noise floor in blu-ray based theaters.
1.a - Neither format will have much traction in storage unless they lower their pricing to be more competitive with HDD and flash memory. When small bus powered drives hold 30GB easily with much more speed I'm not sensing a huge market for expensive optical media. I sell storage everyday. NO ONE has asked about Blu-Ray but then again I deal with companies and not people hoarding their bittorrent downloads.
2. Finally glad someone "gets it" qualitatively both formats are equivalent. 1st gen units will be as loud as the players are going to get but with the newer chipsets ability to accelerate VC-1 and AVC I don't think noise problems are really going to be a factor beyond the launch players.
Originally posted by e1618978
This dynamic is the reason why HD-DVD has no chance - Blu-ray will be the computer drive of choice because of storage size, and there is no reason for anyone to buy the HD-DVD add on to the 360.
I don't believe that. Well I don't care about the 360 thing. W/e about that. But history has proven that larger storage doesn't always win in the computer industry. Look at all older storage types, orb, jazz, DVD-Ram, Tape, etc. None of these really took off because something better came along before they could gain enough ground to become a standard. With the adoption of blu-ray being slow, and the specs being close (percentage wise) to DVD, I will go out on a limb and say that blu-ray & hd-dvd will be replaced quicker than DVD. I honestly forsee a nicer storage type with 100gbs in the near future. Then what? Something with MUCH more storage will come out quicker over blu-ray / hd-dvd than hd-dvd / blu-ray coming out over DVD. You know.... that's if history repeats itself.
Originally posted by emig647
I don't believe that. Well I don't care about the 360 thing. W/e about that. But history has proven that larger storage doesn't always win in the computer industry. Look at all older storage types, orb, jazz, DVD-Ram, Tape, etc. None of these really took off because something better came along before they could gain enough ground to become a standard. With the adoption of blu-ray being slow, and the specs being close (percentage wise) to DVD, I will go out on a limb and say that blu-ray & hd-dvd will be replaced quicker than DVD. I honestly forsee a nicer storage type with 100gbs in the near future. Then what? Something with MUCH more storage will come out quicker over blu-ray / hd-dvd than hd-dvd / blu-ray coming out over DVD. You know.... that's if history repeats itself.
Even if something larger comes out - the winner of this round will get the movie market forever. There just is no point in movie disks that are larger than 100 GB or so.
Originally posted by e1618978
Even if something larger comes out - the winner of this round will get the movie market forever. There just is no point in movie disks that are larger than 100 GB or so.
LOL Forever?! You're nuts. I don't think any person in technology with any intelligence would say such things. Who knows would kind of video technology can come out in the future. No point? What about 4 hour movies? What about movies with tons of extra content? There is so much that the industry could do with more storage it's inconceivable to say 100gb isn't enough. I can't believe you just said forever.
Originally posted by emig647
LOL Forever?! You're nuts. I don't think any person in technology with any intelligence would say such things. Who knows would kind of video technology can come out in the future. No point? What about 4 hour movies? What about movies with tons of extra content? There is so much that the industry could do with more storage it's inconceivable to say 100gb isn't enough. I can't believe you just said forever.
100gb is enough for an 8 hour movie at 1080p (which is about equal to the maximum that your eye can discern). If larger disks are used for movies, they will only be used for large collections (i.e. entire seasons of TV shows and the like), and will be in a larger version of the same format as the small disks. Normal 2 hour movies will never need larger disks.
The roman chariot has been replaced a number of times over the last 2000 years - but the rail gauge has not. Julius Caesar set the standard chariot size by marking out two of his strides, and this has carried through horsecarts and eventually our train system. The blu-ray disk, because it is going to set the standard for the 2 hour HD movie format, will do the same thing for encoded movies as Caesar did for axle length.
Originally posted by e1618978
100gb is enough for an 8 hour movie at 1080p (which is about equal to the maximum that your eye can discern). If larger disks are used for movies, they will only be used for large collections (i.e. entire seasons of TV shows and the like), and will be in a larger version of the same format as the small disks. Normal 2 hour movies will never need larger disks.
That's if technology NEVER changes. We will have higher resolutions and bigger tvs and more intense audio with more channels. Saying that the movie industry will ahve xx room for the the rest of eternity is absolutely insane. Why would you put such restrictions on bettering technology? That's like saying ok... make this computer faster / better but you are limited to 2ghz forever. Forever is a bold statement that is usually stated by ignorant people. You need to be extremely careful when using "forever".
Originally posted by emig647
That's if technology NEVER changes. We will have higher resolutions and bigger tvs and more intense audio with more channels. Saying that the movie industry will ahve xx room for the the rest of eternity is absolutely insane. Why would you put such restrictions on bettering technology? That's like saying ok... make this computer faster / better but you are limited to 2ghz forever. Forever is a bold statement that is usually stated by ignorant people. You need to be extremely careful when using "forever".
What is the point of having TVs with higher resolution than your eye? The size of the screen is pointless, as very few people want a TV that occupies more than a 30 degree field of view. Having a larger TV means that you sit further away, so 1080p is fine for all size screens, even if they are a mile high and two miles wide.
OK - forever was too long. Blu-ray will dictate the movie format until they start pumping real-life VR directly into our nervous system, and we forget about 2D movies. I imagine that a full-body nerve simulation will use up more than 100gB for two hours. 8)
Originally posted by e1618978
What is the point of having TVs with higher resolution than your eye? The size of the screen is pointless, as very few people want a TV that occupies more than a 30 degree field of view. Having a larger TV means that you sit further away, so 1080p is fine for all size screens, even if they are a mile high and two miles wide.
OK - forever was too long. Blu-ray will dictate the movie format until they start pumping real-life VR directly into our nervous system, and we forget about 2D movies. I imagine that a full-body nerve simulation will use up more than 100gB for two hours. 8)
Resolution is only 1 thing... what about everything else? Why stunt technological growth by stunting the size of media it can be on? You're being irrational by keeping it that size forever. It makes no sense. Video gets larger and bigger with the advancement of technology every where. IE better audio, more effects etc. There is so much that could be done instead of having a flat thing in front of you. How about doing the whole room? How about an optical stereo output that goes all the way around the room. These are just dumb things that MY mind has thought of in the last 5 min. The point is there is no reason to put a restraint like that. Just because you can't forsee a reason to expand technology doesn't mean you should prevent it
Originally posted by emig647
Resolution is only 1 thing... what about everything else? Why stunt technological growth by stunting the size of media it can be on? You're being irrational by keeping it that size forever. It makes no sense. Video gets larger and bigger with the advancement of technology every where. IE better audio, more effects etc. There is so much that could be done instead of having a flat thing in front of you. How about doing the whole room? How about an optical stereo output that goes all the way around the room. These are just dumb things that MY mind has thought of in the last 5 min. The point is there is no reason to put a restraint like that. Just because you can't forsee a reason to expand technology doesn't mean you should prevent it
We already have surround sound, and it just does not use very much space (even if you use the highest quality audio - say, 20 channel SACD) and I just don't see surround video taking off.
Even if surround video took off, 360 degree vision + the ceiling would only take about 300gb for two hours. And the people beind you would get in the way when you turned around - it would have to be a solitary activity.
Originally posted by e1618978
Even if surround video took off, 360 degree vision + the ceiling would only take about 300gb for two hours. And the people beind you would get in the way when you turned around - it would have to be a solitary activity.
Where do you get those #'s? 300gb or 2 hours. That seems like a thrown out # to me.