PC vs Xbox 360 vs PS3 vs Wii
- spartan.dk
- Professional
- Posts: 1270
- Joined: 18 Sep 2005, 18:00
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- WhereIsTheNsx
- Drift King
- Posts: 743
- Joined: 29 Jul 2005, 01:21
- Location: Brooklyn NYC
- WhereIsTheNsx
- Drift King
- Posts: 743
- Joined: 29 Jul 2005, 01:21
- Location: Brooklyn NYC
Like what? Less heat transmission?2furio wrote:Indeed, I never liked Plasma TVs. First of all, they don't have a true HD resolution, most plasmas have a resolution of 1024x768, what's up with that??? It's not even wide-screen and I really feel like LCD Tvs offer much better quality...TheStig wrote:And why do you want a Plasma... PLasma SUCKS!
Pfff...
It's ok if you can't afford one, but that doesn't mean to be jealous of others. Ok, so you want pros of LCDs over Plasmas, well get ready to be "pwnd":korge wrote:Like what? Less heat transmission?2furio wrote:Indeed, I never liked Plasma TVs. First of all, they don't have a true HD resolution, most plasmas have a resolution of 1024x768, what's up with that??? It's not even wide-screen and I really feel like LCD Tvs offer much better quality...TheStig wrote:And why do you want a Plasma... PLasma SUCKS!
Pfff...
1. Like I've stated before, most plasmas (run-of-the-mill) have 1024x768 which is not even true 720p.
2. Basically, LCDs have higher native resolutions (also, I have yet to see a 1080p Plasma, which can be bought by an average user)
3. LCDs definately consume less power (fact: could result in a 30% savings per year for electricity)
4. LCDs also have a longer life-span, Plasmas offer between 30,000 h and 60,000 hours, while LCDs GUARANTEE at least 60,000 hours
5. Screen burn? A thing of the past for LCDs but still a nightmare for Plasmas
6. LCDs offer a much clearer image. I have seen this myself. In the store, a Sharp 37" LCD was beside a LG 42" Plasma and one could clearly see the image on the Sharp TV was clearer and sharper (no pun intended)
But this thread is not about Plasma vs. LCD, so let's put that aside because we all know LCD is superior...
- WhereIsTheNsx
- Drift King
- Posts: 743
- Joined: 29 Jul 2005, 01:21
- Location: Brooklyn NYC
And how you would you know I can't afford one, in fact we do have an LCD TV (32" Sharp) and planning on getting another one. We're definately not going back to tube TVs or ever consider plasma TVs. And like I've said before, no need to get so pissed, I was merely stating the facts, that's it. It's fun manipulating people...korge wrote:No one really cares. Its a TV that you most likely cant afford anyways.
-------------------------
Anyways, I was actually impressed by Sony's PS3 at E3. Many people were complaining and whinning..."Aww, it's too expensive....aww they stole Nintendo's controller". But I feel the price may be a little bit high but definately not over-priced. In terms of graphics, it will own Microsoft and its cheapo-quality Xbox 360 but I guess only time will tell...
- The Gravedigger
- Professional
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: 10 Sep 2005, 12:35
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Unless they release a few million updates for it, and then you have to buy the newer software to get these new advantages + download some more updates, etc...2furio wrote:Anyways, I was actually impressed by Sony's PS3 at E3. Many people were complaining and whinning..."Aww, it's too expensive....aww they stole Nintendo's controller". But I feel the price may be a little bit high but definately not over-priced. In terms of graphics, it will own Microsoft and its cheapo-quality Xbox 360 but I guess only time will tell...
Still, going to get all three anyhow in order of.... Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii, Xbox 1.5
Korge I was to one that said that plasma SUCKED!
And if I want to go offtopic for it I will, and my point was simple. cause it does SUCK!
I had one before I bought my LCD tv (for 1 day to be specific cause I traded it it the next day for the LCD)
it was around the same price as the LCD tv I have now (1200 euro, multiply it by 1.2 to get the USD price) it was 2 cm shorter but the image quality was simply blurry especially from close by. it simply had a bad quality.
And stop being so pissed everytime you are wrong, you make yourself look stupid.
And if I want to go offtopic for it I will, and my point was simple. cause it does SUCK!
I had one before I bought my LCD tv (for 1 day to be specific cause I traded it it the next day for the LCD)
it was around the same price as the LCD tv I have now (1200 euro, multiply it by 1.2 to get the USD price) it was 2 cm shorter but the image quality was simply blurry especially from close by. it simply had a bad quality.
And stop being so pissed everytime you are wrong, you make yourself look stupid.
- chemicalcode
- Turbo Charged
- Posts: 175
- Joined: 11 Jul 2004, 01:05
- Location: UK - Newcastle
- Blazing Gallardo
- Drift King
- Posts: 293
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 23:14
- Location: In a Lamborghini Gallardo