PCWorld The Best Blu-ray Players Article

[Ex Accountant]

Here's PCWorld's take on which Blu-ray players are the best and why.

http://tech.msn.com/products/slidesh...8045&GT1=40000

[arush5268d]

Are those results some kind of joke???

[Ex Accountant]

Originally Posted by arush5268d

Are those results some kind of joke???

Dunno. Didn't care enough to actually read the article.

[Bobby Henderson]

Seems like a very out of date article judging on some of the player choices.

The PS3 still gives the best bang for the buck out of all Blu-ray compatible devices. It still loads discs faster and really blows away other players in terms of using BD Live features.

DVD File posted a review of the Panasonic DMP-BD50 player, which is finally now available after months of delays. That site gives the BD50 slightly better marks than the PS3 for audio handling (in part because it can bitstream Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD). But the BD50 doesn't fare so well on BD Live functions. They saw really long wait times for certain features to load from the Internet versus the time it took for the same content to load up on the PS3.

[arush5268d]

Maybe you should have read the article that you are posting....before doing it.

Their results are a joke.

[Ex Accountant]

Originally Posted by arush5268d

Maybe you should have read the article that you are posting....before doing it.

Their results are a joke.

I had no need to read it. I knew some people would want to read it. They can make up their own minds whether the results are a joke. Don't you agree? Or does everyone have to agree with your beliefs?

[arush5268d]

Originally Posted by Ex Accountant

I had no need to read it. I knew some people would want to read it. They can make up their own minds whether the results are a joke. Don't you agree? Or does everyone have to agree with your beliefs?

When you just post stuff without knowing what you are posting - or care what it is then you are pretty much just spamming.

For all you know that article could say that the PS3 is a piece of junk and that HD-DVD won the format war.

[Ex Accountant]

Originally Posted by arush5268d

When you just post stuff without knowing what you are posting - or care what it is then you are pretty much just spamming.

For all you know that article could say that the PS3 is a piece of junk and that HD-DVD won the format war.

OK, allow me to alter my response to your initial post. I didn't thoroughly read the article. I skimmed the first 2 pages. Dare I say, just because I don't care about the results, I assure you that does not equate to spam. I posted something that I thought some readers of this forum would be interested in dissecting. How can you disagree with this? Don't you think someone would want to read this, regardless of whether or not I agree with or care about the results? What does my opinion have to do with the relevance of the article?

And yes, since I didn't thoroughly read the article, maybe it did say that HD-DVD won the war. That would be odd considering the article's title, "The best blu-ray players," but not entirely impossible.

[dv8pdx]

[QUOTE=arush5268d;1088682]When you just post stuff without knowing what you are posting - or care what it is then you are pretty much just spamming.

QUOTE]

Im sorry to the OP, but I really have to agree with you arush5268. Crazy to post something that you didn't read, OR skimmed the first 2 of 8 pages!!! It's not totally about your opinion, but the article... or articles full contents. At least just post it, and say... "comment?" after YOU read it, so you know about what you posted.

[Ex Accountant]

Im sorry to the OP, but I really have to agree with you arush5268. Crazy to post something that you didn't read, OR skimmed the first 2 of 8 pages!!! It's not totally about your opinion, but the article... or articles full contents. At least just post it, and say... "comment?" after YOU read it, so you know about what you posted.

Hmmm. I knew (or you might say assumed since I didn't thoroughly read it) that the article was a list of the best blu-ray players according to a well respected company. Therefore, I don't understand why there is a prerequisite to having read the entire article prior to posting about it. I read enough of it to know that they were posting exactly what the title of the article said. Just how many pages do I need to read prior to posting? 6? Or perhaps it should be a percentage of the total read?

Please remember, I stated nothing about the quality of the article, simply that it exists.

I just hope that some poor person doesn't post a reference to a 500 page book about Blu-ray without having read it front to back, cover to cover. They will be at our collective mercy.

Lol, as far as your "comment?" suggestion, I wouldn't have done that because I honestly didn't care if anyone agreed with it! I was merely posting it for others to read. Nothing more. Similarly, if I found a website selling a Hannah Montana Blu-ray for $2.00 shipped, I would post it even though I myself had no interest. OK, maybe I do have a little interest, but that's a different post altogether...