zno
join:2002-01-08
Atlanta, GA
| reply to djrobx
Re: Wow.
quote:
True HDTV is 19.2mbps for a single channel.
that's if they use mpeg2.
but if they use MS WMV9 HD codec, it's gonna be about 6Mbps per channel... so you should be able to watch up to 4 channels at a time.
sbc signed w/ microsoft not mpeg... so we'll see.
»www.microsoft.com/windows/window···CIP.aspx
--
got anti-virus and firewall? |
|
griff1013
join:2002-01-10
Virginia Beach, VA
| I have read reviews from folks who have seen side by side comparisons of the pictures of the MSFT codec and the HDTV stream from Comcast and they indicated that they could clearly see the difference with the MSFT codec and it was significantly worse. I can't see how you are going to get a HDTV customer from a cable company with a worse picture. Folks spend lots of cash on those nice new tvs.
I agree that SBC is just pusing out press releases and lots of vapor ware. As I recall Project Pronto was supposed to be what Project Lightspeed is, but done some 10 years ago. So not holding my breath. FTTH is only way to go now. Cable guys can easiily move to 30mb on the downstream. Comcast should have 95% of their systems up to DOCSIS 1.1 and a good deal to 2.0 for the huge VoIP rollout coming in 2005. That would support up to 100mb downstream. AND they are broadcasting all the video content all at the same time. Changing channles on IPTV is said to be very slow as it has to go to the server change the stream.
I can't wait to reboot my new SBC/MSFT set-top box when I get the BSD!!!! |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| Do you have a link for that review all I could find with MS and Comcast in it was a press release saying that Comcast and MS would be working together on TV software (including HD).
»www.microsoft.com/tv/content/Pre···4PR.mspx
I'd be interested in seeing yours though for a more complete picture.
--
"I drank what?" -Socrates |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | reply to zno
I think the MS HD codec requires a 3GHz CPU to decompress that 6Mbit stream. I don't see how their going to cram a 3GHz cpu in a set top box without making it sound like a jet engine. |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| They wouldn't they would use a slower single purpose processor which would be much more efficient. (Rather than strapping a PC to the top of your TV)
Not that it matters but my PC is a 3GHz and its whisper quiet since I used quiet components.
--
"I drank what?" -Socrates |
|
griff1013
join:2002-01-10
Virginia Beach, VA
| reply to AthlGrond
The "review" was an observation by Dave who writes for dslprime.com. I believe it was at some tech show or something. MSFT and CMCSA were not cooperating with the demonstration at all. They were just using a CMCSA HDTV feed as a comparison to the MSFT codec. One of the other posters mentioned later in the thread the exact specifics of the compression and that it is indeed lower in quality. The compression will require a significant amount of horsepower in top of your TV. It will clearly not be an Intel chip, but a MIPS processor from Broadcam probably designed specifically for compression. Will be able to run much slower MHz to keep the heat down and MTBF up.
MSFT is the King of Vaporware and I will have to see it to believe it. I am not sure that something as poorly coded and bloated as Windows will translate well to the set-top experience. In order to make it work like they have talked about, the "computer" would have to be very powerful. That would drive up the cost of the set-top for the cable cos far about the $200 or so they pay MOT and SFA for them. But MSFT has billions to burn and will probably so an X-box type deal with the cable cos - sell the hardware at a significant loss just to make the sale and hope to make it back on the software side. Cable cos also hate service calls as the cost so much. I can't imagine them wanting to get into the service business of a massive MSFT settop box that will allow folks to add additional programs to it. Billions of service calls on that. |
|
