The Glade 4.0

Maybe, color me skeptical.

With my computer, I double click on the media file I want to watch, and it plays. No futzing. If I want to play it on the TV, i plug in an HDMI cable and it plays.

I've never seen a non-PC media box that doesn't make me jump through hoops to play my saved media. I worry about the same thing you do in reverse: how reliable will this box be at accessing and playing video from my network file server? Will it force me to set up some half-assed media server to share it or can it just go in on the shared network drives and grab what it needs like a PC can?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It can grab anything that is shared on your network and supports a lot of formats.

But, even if it DOES need some configuration, don't even act like your PC can play 1080p .mkv files without a player and codec pack download :p

Convenience is the main selling point here. Same reason I own a microwave, wall-mounted bottle opener, remote control and a wacom tablet. Many other tools can achieve the same result, but other things don't do them as easily (or aesthetically).

Actually, I didn't need to find a codec this last time...I picked up a new laptop at the end of March. It either came preinstalled, or somewhere along the line I must have accidentally installed a codec, because I was shocked to find Windows Media Player could handle a 1080p .MKV file without me ever configuring it to do so. (Still, I did download and install VLC media player, because who doesn't?)

I've seen a few so-called media boxes, and they always eventually ran into problems that a PC had no trouble with. They also required more complicated "setting up" than a PC, at least to my mind. (For instance, trying to get a PS3 to actually see a media server is far harder than simply mapping a shared drive.) If they've ironed all that out, well, good for them. Is it worth $300 extra for the convenience I've already got?

As for aesthetically, well, I suppose that's a matter of taste. I'd already run network cabling to the PS3. Sending an HDMI cable along the same path wasn't hard, and it's not like people see it. My little baby (the G73jh) is here anyway. I'll probably still use this one when I get my beautiful little EEE 1215n. I love computers...

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I meant interface aesthetics in that particular statement. The way GTV overlays everything is pretty gorgeous as far as TV interfaces go.

I guess it comes down to trust and comfort. I usually find manually doing something more reliable and easier than praying an automated system works the way I want it to.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'll be sure to record a video for you at the end of the month when I get one, showing how awesome it is

I don't get it. I want to
Get it. But I don't. Is this more than just a web browser with search and network file playback?

What makes it better than say XBMC and a web browser?

It's an American thing. You limeys and canucks just can't understand...

_________________
The Dude abides.

Or you could, you know, push the audio thru the HDMI cable as well, a lot of newer computer can do that, I believe any newer ATI..AMD card is capable of that as well, as for ugly I don't see how something no one can see is ugly, well unless you're gheto and simply run the cable thru the door and across the floor/under a rug or something.



Photo's/video look fine showing people on my phone, of course it has a 4.3" screen, and if that's really an issue well I just pull the HDMI cable out of my purse and hook my phone up to the nearest HDTV, of course all of that stuff is already on the computer that's hooked up to the tv as well.

I can see these >insert brand name here< TV products being ok for people who don't have real computers, but otherwise they do the same thing just more limited but with a shinny display....oooh, shiny, oooh, ahhh!

Interestingly, I would buy an apple TV, even though I have a laptop that I pop onto the AV kit with HDMI/Optical

Three real reasons:
1) Its only 99 bucks
2) Its less unsightly than the cables laying around and less of a hassle than the laptop - also leaves the laptop free for web, etc, when watching TV
3) It offers HD rentals for 99c - which arent available off the device

I actually wont be buying an apple TV, because (3) isnt available in the UK (fff.)

But its kinda interesting that I'd consider it for the convenience and reduced cost factor.

I guess Im looking for the 'feature' for google TV. Maybe there'll be a killer app released to convince me - a netflix streaming for the UK, or something.

movie and TV show rental and purchase are available in near-real-time from Amazon On Demand, and in not-so-real-time from netflix. This is not unique to the google TV service, as I can get these on my Roku, via the web, etc..

Basically other than the $99 thing, there is no real convenience advantage to apple TV over Google TV, unless you consider ITunes 'more convenient' (I surely don't).

And keep in mind, the Logitech Revue is just the first hardware partner. Dish Network is already a partner with their DVR. There will be other platform partners available in the future, including the possibility of gaming consoles, Roku, Tivo, etc...

THIS. 100%.

I've had my HTPC hooked up to my HDTV, and eventually, disconnected it. It was totally fine for playing media. But have you ever actually tried to browse the web or read a website (or any other text for that matter) on a large screen TV? I'm guessing not, or you probably wouldn't be suggesting such a thing. It's a truly horrible experience. Both at 1280 X 720 and 1920 X 1080, websites and text were very difficult to read, from 10' away. That's the great thing about these 'media' devices. They are designed with a full 10' GUI in mind. They are designed from the beginning to be used while sitting on your couch, a good distance away from your TV. Most websites, however, are not.

And like Midgen said, these things just work, right out of the box. No downloading codecs, no installing third party software, no 'tinkering' to try and fix an audio/video stuttering issue. They just work. That's why I love my SageTV HD extender. I don't have to jack with it all the time, like I did with my HTPC and my xbox360 (Don't even get me started on the 360. MS REALLY dropped the ball on that one as a media extender). Literally, it was ALWAYS something with my HTPC. I always had to fiddle with something to get the perfect experience. And there was no way I could teach my wife how to use it. But with something like GoogleTV, I'm guessing non-techie people can just pick up the remote, turn it on, and watch/do whatever they want. That's another plus in my book.

_________________
"I Live, I Love, I Slay, and I Am Content."
- Conan the Barbarian

yeah, it's a little on the small side even on a large 50"+ tv, however Ctrl + is your friend there and does basically exactly what those TV solutions do

Zooming an interface is not the same as having a large-screen-optimized interface.

QFTMFT

_________________
"I Live, I Love, I Slay, and I Am Content."
- Conan the Barbarian

I use a large screen as my primary PC display and it's actually quite a nice experience for me. =)



Of course though, my display now is 120", but even back when I had my 56", it wasn't so bad.

that's only true if the in resolutions are different. You don't optimize for screen size, you optimize for resolution. Now, i'm not sure why i'd want to internet surf away from my computer. I love sitting at my computer...

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Oh you do optimize for screen size. It has to do with DPI. You can't reasonably make graphics for a 27' screen @ 1080p and expect them to look just as crisp on a 60' screen @ 1080p. Text isn't an issue because it's rendered and scaled by the operating system. Images don't scale that way. Not until we have standard SVG interfaces on the web, at least.

Psst. On an LCD, DPI = Resolution divided by screen size. Always. You cannot gain more DPI on a screen without increasing resolution. Each pixel is a dot. You cannot display any more than that. The only way to make a larger screen at the same resolution look smoother is by making heavier use of anti-aliasing -- which of course also makes things blurrier. My 17.3" 1080p laptop screen displays the same number of dots as a top of the line 52" LCD television (granting it much higher DPI, always.) All 1080p screens have 2,073,600 "dots," (better known as pixels) no matter their size. You cannot optimize for size, only for resolution.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Normally I live for everything you say, but in this i believe that you're wrong. UI is absolutely designed for the combination of resolution and size (pixel density) - an interface that makes sense on my phone makes no sense at all on a similar resolution device of much larger size, and a 50 inch 1080p screen rarely supports an interface designed for smaller screen sizes well; there is a reason set top boxes tend to use large simple block style paradigms, and it is only partly down to input mechanics.

I gave up. It's not like I design interfaces for different screens all day or anything.

Pssst, I didn't mean DPI of the screen.

Well, the DPI of what, then?

The interface? The interface in Windows 7 is designed to take maximum advantage of every single pixel on the screen it is being output to. The image becomes less clear on a larger screen of the same resolution, because it must. ALL interfaces in 1920x1080 become less clear on larger resolutions. Each individual pixel is rendered, but the pixels are larger on a larger screen. Windows interfaces do not take shortcuts because they expect a smaller screen.

SuiNeko: An interface on a phone is different. It's designed for the fingers touching it. Now, an interface does have to be designed for the method of controlling it. A TV device doesn't have a keyboard and mouse, so it will have an interface better designed for whatever interface (likely some remote controller) is used to control it. But it cannot be made to look more clear or more legible on the larger screen than Windows already does. That is a function of the resolution and screen size alone. This is why an X-Box360 interface, or a PS3 interface, or an AppleTV interface doesn't look any more crisp on a 1080p television than does the HDMI output of my laptop.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

DPI can be set per image on creation. A 500x500 image @ 72dpi (normal screen res) is not the same as a 500x500 image @ 150dpi.

This is true. The 500x500 imge is going to be much larger at 72dpi, and much smaller at 150dpi. However we are discussing a 1920x1080 image...i mean, digital images done correctly are rendered pixel-for-pixel, exactly. The size of individual elements in that image? Well, you're faced with a conundrum there on a larger TV. They are already less clear, less focused. Make them smaller (such as 400x400), and you can minimize the apparent lack of clarity, but they might be harder to read. The lower DPI of a big television compared to a smaller monitor is always going to look a bit less clear. In general, the larger the screen/lower the DPI, the more antialiasing you need.

NEVER should you simply take a 500x500 image and make it fill a number of pixels on screen greater or less than 500x500, however. (3d rendering is necessarily exempt from this, obviously, but even then it's better to use textures that are larger than any space they might be rendered on and compressed, rather than smaller and needing to be enlarged) Interpolation always looks worse than an image shown in its native resolution. A 500x500 image should always take up 500 vertical pixels and 500 horizontal pixels. (Heck, if you're primarily watching 720p video, it actually looks much better on a 720p television than it does on a 1080p television, for that very reason.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Anyone have one of these? We're in the process of putting our TV network on Roku and Boxee, and wondering about Google TV, so I'm thinking about getting the company to pick up a Revue box for me.