Returned My Wiz

[crookedmouth]

I returned my Wiz also but I'm getting one back. (I also had a non-responsive B button).

If I wait for the Pandora, I will most likely wait a couple years. Like I was going to for the PSP, but then decided to get the Wiz.

I normally wouldn't buy a device when it first comes out but after reading a lot I decided against the Sony unit and for the Wiz.

I could barely convince my wife that $189 for a "toy" was feasible. I think for $300 bucks I would have to make it a netbook or part of a laptop.
When you have a family you have to make compromises and the Wiz was a good one IMO.

Of course I will envy the Pandora's ability to emulate Amiga and C64 (or really any computer) with full keyboard support and full speed. This all in a package only slightly bigger then a DS and clamshell to boot! Love that you could slide it into your pocket with your keys and what not, without worrying about scratching it up. The build also looks sturdy.

Can't we love and appreciate both devices though?

I really just hope that this seeming battle between the two will not rage on with the developers abandoning the Wiz or something. Does everything need to be a competition?

Or will most developers choose one device and thats it?

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Audi]

agreed

 

[FenixT]

I for one think the Pandora is pretty uninteresting. It sorta reminds me of this:

It tries to do too much at once, making it more expensive and somewhat clunky. There is also some overlap with netbooks.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on it. Like the Swiss Army knife of consumer electronics.

 

[crookedmouth]

I for one think the Pandora is pretty uninteresting. It sorta reminds me of this:

It tries to do too much at once, making it more expensive and somewhat clunky. There is also some overlap with netbooks.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on it. Like the Swiss Army knife of consumer electronics.

Let's be honest though, Swiss Army knifes kick ass and are made very well. Perhaps the Pandora is not for everyone but for what (and whom) it is designed it will be the best hand-held on the market. I don't know what would be considered clunky about a device around the size of a DS. Is the DS "clunky"?

By "tries to do too much" do you mean having gaming and Linux functionality? That would stink having GIMP and OpenOffice running on your handheld. I think that the Pandora also doesn't cost enough. Some have criticized that it is unrealistic if you look compare it to Ultra-Portables so they become skeptical.

I don't have the money to buy a Pandora right now (or the long foreseeable future) and I'm very happy with the Wiz (I need it back) but why is it that some people seem to try to convince themselves that the Pandora is somehow flawed. I've seen the videos and I've looked at the screens and specs, studied the size and watched full-speed Amiga, unless something really bad happens, I personally don't see a downside.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, this is just an observation I have made about a strange phenomenon that I see happening where some people seem to have this unreasoning dislike of the Pandora, while I see absolutely no negatives.

As I said before, it is my hope that the communities can all live together.

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

I think the point DaveC is trying to get across is that the black levels on CRT if setup correctly are pure black, whilst the black levels on TFT are never pure black, and to see why we have to look at the way these technologies produce the image. Here's a very basic breakdown how they work which should make things a bit clearer.

CRT
A beam of electrons is scanned across the screen from top left to bottom right (Usually interlaced) hitting a phosphor layer which lights up brightly, to produce black the beam is turned off, to produce white the beam is set to full intensity. In colour screens there are 3 beams, Red Green and Blue, to produce black it's the same, they are off. Correctly setting up the brightness and contrast levels on these screens produce pure black with high contrast bright images. Vector scan screens are also CRT with a single beam, but instead of scanning the beam from top left to bottom right, the beam draws all the lines directly, turning on at the beginning of a line and off at the end, this is why the ends of the lines are usually slightly brighter as the beam pauses slightly before and after drawing a line.

TFT
These have a permanent bright backlight, each pixel has three transistors, red, green and blue. For white you turn all 3 off to let the light through, to make black you turn all 3 on blocking the backlight. Unfortunately no matter how you setup the brightness and contrast levels you cannot block the backlight 100%. The other thing to remember about TFT screens is that the most common failure is due to a board called an inverter which powers the backlight, this (mainly in laptops) is one of the most common components we replace.

OLED
OLED screens use an array of Organic Light Emitting Diodes, there is no backlight as the pixels themselves produce the image. Advantages are that the contrast is very much like a CRT, the screens are lighter in weight as they have no backlight or inverter, and they are more energy efficient due to not having to permanently light up the screen, and due to the simple fact that to produce black you turn the pixels off. OLED however is still at an early stage in development and like the phosphor layer in CRT screens the OLEDs do degrade over time, it's been reported that the blue OLED segments degrade faster, but like all technologies this will improve.

Now here's something to think about. Due to old CRT screens being phosphor based, there's always a slight after image left in fast animated games, especially those whith black backgrounds. I am wondering if this will ever be emulated in software on old style emulators such as NES, Spectrum or MAME. Even more to think about is the fact that systems such as the original ZX Spectrum sent the signal to your TV via UHF which degraded the image even more producing interfearence, I wonder if that will ever be emulated? So if we have PERFECT deep blacks and brilliant vivid colours on some of our emulators I would say that this would be incorrect, as the original was never all that. If you want authentic CRT you need to introduce a slight after image and for systems that were on a TV you need to degrade the image further to emulate UHF or Composite video signals.

:blink:

 

[gruso]

Now here's something to think about. Due to old CRT screens being phosphor based, there's always a slight after image left in fast animated games, especially those whith black backgrounds. I am wondering if this will ever be emulated in software on old style emulators such as NES, Spectrum or MAME. Even more to think about is the fact that systems such as the original ZX Spectrum sent the signal to your TV via UHF which degraded the image even more producing interfearence, I wonder if that will ever be emulated? So if we have PERFECT deep blacks and brilliant vivid colours on some of our emulators I would say that this would be incorrect, as the original was never all that. If you want authentic CRT you need to introduce a slight after image and for systems that were on a TV you need to degrade the image further to emulate UHF or Composite video signals.

:blink:

As with most things these days, if you can think of it, someone's done it.

Students Make Atari Games Look Like Atari Again

I've also heard about someone incorporating screen burn into an emulator. RF/composite signal degradation though? Maybe that's going too far. :lol: I bet someone does it though.

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

LOL that's great, I wonder if other emulators are going to follow suit