3D television is coming to a living room near you, as early as 2010.

As the economy worsens, the forecast for the TV market is looking grim. TV manufacturers are looking for ways to get people to purchase new TVs. 3D television might be the next gadget that manufacturers are betting on. Sony and Panasonic say they will release home 3D television systems in 2010; Mitsubishi and JVC are reported to be working on similar products.

At this year’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, four of the top selling TV manufacturers–Samsung Electronics, Sony, LG Electronics and Panasonic–showed off their latest versions of 3D TVs. Panasonic set up a mini-home theater where its 103-inch, plasma 3D screen showed clips from New Line Cinema’s Journey to the Center of the Earth and Walt Disney Pictures’ animated film Bolt. They also showed high-definition 3D footage from NBC’s broadcast of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

Surprising, 3D TVs are not significantly more expensive than non-3D TVs. Samsung and Mitsubishi currently sell their 3D-ready TVs for between $1,000 and $2,800, depending on functionality. So, if you are currently in the market to upgrade you old TV, it may make sense to purchase one with 3D capability. However, no one is jumping out of their seats to upgrade their 2-3 years old digital TVs to 3D-ready. The reason, there isn’t much 3D content available yet.

Three-dimensional movies have been around since the 1950s. And for most of its lifespan the technology has been seen more as a gimmick than something that truly enhances the movie-going experience. But newer technology and advanced special effects are helping 3D movies break into the mainstream.

The biggest push for 3D might be coming from Hollywood. DreamWorks announced last year that all of its films will be produced for 3D production starting in 2009. ESPN is currently test-recording some sporting events in 3D, using cameras with two sets of lenses, which would make football players appear to jump out of home television screens during live 3D broadcasts.

There are some drawbacks to watching 3D broadcasts. For one, to get the really cool 3D experience without getting a massive head-ache, consumers will have to wear special glasses when they’re watching TV in 3D. The glasses are needed because 3D imaging requires sending a different image to each eye. And the glasses help merge the images in the mind and trick the brain into thinking that it’s seeing a single 3D image. Without the glasses, the images looked fuzzy.

Also there are concerns that 3D broadcasts, which require twice the data, will gobble up an unworkable amount of television bandwidth. There is no standard way to get 3D footage from the movie studios or from a live broadcasts to the home. Some companies are beginning to develop standards, but there’s no guarantee that one common standard with emerge. We could end up with the HD DVD vs Blu-Ray fiasco again.

Shane Sturgeon, publisher of HDTV Magazine, said “from what I’ve seen from most of the manufacturers, it’s just not there yet,” he said of 3-D TV technology. “I think right now, the technology — whether you’re talking about the refresh rate or the strobing or the glasses — there are too many things right now that get in the way of enjoyment of the film for it to kick off.”

Posted in Television | Leave a Comment | No Comments »

Microsoft has finally released a new operating system that is long overdue after the infamous Vista disaster. The new operating system, called Windows 7 (for the lack of a better name), offers a smoother user experience, multi-touchscreen capability and more seamless networking with other computers.

Early reviews have been promising. It’s argued to be the best operating system that Microsoft has released thus far. It’s even comparable to Apple’s Snow Leopard (much cooler name).

But before you rush out to purchase a copy of Windows 7, you need to consider the following facts to see if it’s right for you.

System Requirements:

1. 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
2. 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
3. 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
4. DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

Requirements For Additional Features:

1. Depending on resolution, video playback may require additional memory and advanced graphics hardware
2. For some Windows Media Center functionality a TV tuner and additional hardware may be required
3. Windows Touch and Tablet PCs require specific hardware
4. HomeGroup requires a network and PCs running Windows 7
5. DVD/CD authoring requires a compatible optical drive
   BitLocker requires Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 1.2
6. BitLocker To Go requires a USB flash drive
7. Windows XP Mode requires an additional 1 GB of RAM, an additional 15 GB of available hard disk space, and a processor capable of hardware virtualization with Intel VT or AMD-V turned on

If you’re not sure what all that means, try downloading a free Microsoft tool called a Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor, which will scan your PC, report any potential problems and offer ways to fix them.

Should I Upgrade To Windows 7?

Let’s see, if budget is not an issue and you generally like newer technologies, then sure go for it. But priced between $120 to $220, upgrading can be expensive if you don’t really need all the features. If your laptop or desktop is an ancient piece of junk, then consider upgrading your computer to one that comes preloaded with Windows 7. These days, you can probably find one cheap for under $500. If you are happy with XP or Vista (can’t imagine anyone is happy), then you can afford to wait until the prices drops. If you are still not sure, check out Microsoft’s comparison chart or top 10 reasons.

If you had purchased your computer after June 26, 2009, you may be qualified for an upgrade to Windows 7 from the manufacturer. Check out more information here.

What Versions of Windows 7 Should I Get?

The differences between the Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate editions are as follows:

Home Premium:

• Make the things you do every day easier with improved desktop navigation.
• Start programs faster and more easily, and quickly find the documents you use most often.
• Make your web experience faster, easier and safer than ever with Internet Explorer 8.
• Watch, pause, rewind, and record TV on your PC.
• Easily create a home network and connect your PCs to a printer with HomeGroup.

Professional:

• Everything that Home Premium has plus…
• Run many Windows XP productivity programs in Windows XP Mode.
• Connect to company networks easily and more securely with Domain Join.
• In addition to full-system Backup and Restore found in all editions, you can back up to a home or business network.

Ultimate:

• Everything that Professional has plus…
• Help protect data on your PC and portable storage devices against loss or theft with BitLocker.
• Work in the language of your choice and switch between any of 35 languages.

Is It Difficult To Install Windows 7?

If you currently have Vista, then upgrade is a piece of cake. Just pop in the CD, run Setup, and choose Upgrade as the option. The upgrade process is smooth and automatic.

If you currently have XP, your best choice to start fresh. Backup your files (using a USB external drive), reformat the hard drive, and install a fresh copy of Windows 7. I wouldn’t recommend with the complicated process of upgrade from XP to Windows 7. Someone suggests that you may try to upgrade to Vista first then to Windows 7.

Will Windows 7 run old XP programs?

Since Windows 7 just released, most devices still lack updated drivers for Windows 7. However, most users reported that Vista and XP drivers seem to work just fine. For older applications, Microsoft introduced XP Mode, which creates a virtual, or “shadow” Windows XP operating system running inside Windows 7. XP Mode is only available in the higher-priced Professional and Ultimate editions, though.

Posted in Microsoft, Windows | Leave a Comment | No Comments »

Popular Firefox add-on, AdBlock Plus, is ticking off a lot of website owners by blocking ads on their websites. To many website owners, revenue generated from advertisement helps to pay for expensive hosting costs. In retaliation, some websites are calling to block Firefox users all together. Let’s look at the argument from both sides:

AdBlock is the greatest invention mankind has ever known!
Personally as a user who spent hours visiting different websites daily, I think AdBlock works extremely well in blocking all ads on every website I visit. It cuts down loading time tremendously. It’s even more useful in sites where the advertisements are extremely intrusive. Take a look at the following images of ESPN homepage with AdBlock on and off.

AdBlock On

AdBlock Off

As you can see, AdBlock successfully got rid of the ad banner at the top and the ad block on the right.

Fundamentally, I hate it when people tell me what I can do and cannot do on my own browser. I should be able to install whatever I want on my machine. Now, if I am consciously making the choice to install AdBlock, most likely I won’t be clicking on the advertisement anyway. So, the publisher didn’t really lose any potential ad revenue in me.

AdBlock is evil and should be banned from all browsers!
As a blog publisher myself, AdBlock is the last thing I want to see people using when they view my blog. Granted, I don’t make a whole lot from ads, but every little bit does help to cover my hosting cost. Now, my argument is that if you choose to visit my website, then you should be bound to my terms of agreement. One of my rules is that you do not change the content and appearance of my website in any form. AdBlock significantly changes the appearance of my website by removing ad banners and ad blocks. In the case of ESPN homepage, it makes the site looks uneven on the right side.

I put a lot of effort in maintaining the site and coming up with contents for readers to enjoy. If all of the sudden all of my readers install AdBlock, I would have no choice but to start charging people for coming to my website to recoup loss in advertising revenue. Doing that may cause most of my readers to walk away from visiting my website at all. But hey, someone’s got to pay for the service. If I am putting in my time and effort to deliver the content, at least the readers should pick up the tab. You may be fine in walking away from my small blog, but it’s becoming a trend that all major websites now carry advertisement. Besides ESPN, have you seen Facebook, Yahoo, CNN, … If they don’t get their advertising revenue, someone else will pay.

Conclusion!
As you can see, both sides present very sound arguments. There’s no doubt that AdBlock is a great product. But its impact on the online advertisement industry cannot be overlooked. Remember, online advertising is not evil. It helps to pay for some of the costs so that you and I can get access to contents or services for free. Running a website isn’t cheap. Taking away the ad revenue will just make it less enjoyable for website owners to continue to maintain the site. This may lead to a decline in quality of blogs and smaller websites. The bigger websites will simply make you and I pay for their costs one way or another. So, you may think that it’s your freedom to use AdBlock, but in reality you will pay for it sometime in the future.

What’s the best solution? Use AdBlock only when you must. Let’s say if you are researching random websites, go ahead and turn on AdBlock to avoid the annoying ads. But, when you are visiting a site that you enjoy often, go ahead and turn AdBlock off. You may not like the ads, but if you like the site, you can live with the ads. Think of it as a token of appreciation to the site owners for providing free content or service.

Posted in Blogging, Google | Leave a Comment | No Comments »

In a surprising move, the FTC announced guidelines for bloggers to disclose payments from ad companies and celebrities will be held to account for promotions. This is huge win for average consumers who often research online for product reviews. There are many sites out there who appear to be offering genuine and unbiased product reviews when in fact they are receiving the products for free from the advertisers. In some cases, they may even be compensated for their reviews.

The FTC said that endorsements on blogs appear to be “word of mouth,” but that is not always the case — sometimes companies create their own blogs that can give the aura of objectivity.

While there is already an existing rule already states product reviewers must reveal any connection they have with advertisers, this rule now extends to bloggers. The existing rules carry a fine as high as $11,000 if product endorsers and reviewers don’t comply.

Funny thing is what would FTC define as a blogger or a blog? Is a Facebook or MySpace account considered a blog? What about Twitter page? So the next time a celebrity tweets about a product, he or she better disclose how the product was given to him or her for free. Good luck trying to fit that under 140 characters.

FTC’s effort could be the beginning of a larger attempt for the government to regulate the Internet. But enforcement could prove difficult. FTC won’t be hiring new personnel to monitor blogs. Instead, the FTC said it is more likely to go after advertisers rather than bloggers to ensure ad companies are giving product reviewers proper instructions about disclosure compliance.

Posted in Blogging | Leave a Comment | No Comments »