Let the hive mind of Engadget get that for you.
"As someone who doesn't reside in the USA, I was wondering what would be the best way to get internet for my computer in the US for a couple of weeks? If it were Europe I know I'd look for some prepaid data. Is there anything similar offered by American carriers? A MiFi or a data SIM that I can tether from would work, but I'm trying to maintain a tight budget. Help!"
Wow, long and pointless thread. Guess I'll add to it! :)
Two of Jerry's Myths are... Myths! :p
>Myth: BR has more capacity.
>Truth: In the real world BR disks are 25GB (single layer)
>vs 30GB (dual layer) for HD-DVD.
Um, BD DOES have more capacity, just none of the BD launch titles. To say this is a myth is totally misleading. Is it a myth that DVD is 8GB... after all there were no dual layer DVDs at launch.
>Myth: BR has better picture quality.
>Truth: BR is using mpeg2 instead of VC1/mpeg4/H.264.
It does not matter what Codec is being used. As long as the transfer / compression / bitrate is good, the two, side-by-side are gonna look great. And there's several Reference-Quality MPEG2 HD transfers out there clocking in well below 25GB, such as Gladiator and the non-BD Fifth Element.
Besides, Bill Hunt at the Digital Bits has said that, as of yesterday, a Blu-Ray demo he just watched is THE BEST LOOKING HD HE'S EVER SEEN. And he's already raved about the picture quality of HD-DVD.
So, indeed, according to one source, BD has the best picture quality! :)
On paper, BD has better specs. That's just a plain fact (higher capacity and higher bitrate, even if we're not seeing it today).
But look, in the end BOTH formats will have totally comparable quality. They will have their duds (ala Highlander) and their reference material (ala Fifth Element Superbit). It's just too early to call a winner or loser right now.
-Pie