Talk:Comparison of CECB units/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Removing Demodulator Column

I think this column needs to be filled in or removed. Only two boxes have something listed in this column.71.120.244.132 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. We ought to give people time to gather the data for that one before calling it quits and deleting it though. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The position within the grid that that column uses can be better used for other purposes, but there needs to be a way of preserving and collecting the information. Easiest way to do that might be to move that column to the far right and not worry about whether the grid is too wide; there should be an ongoing effort anyway to make all the columns narrower to provide as much information as possible.Dmulvany (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Only one box has a demodulator that is listed and is different then its decoder. The main use of the table is to compare the boxes. Since only one box has the demodulator listed there is nothing to compare it with. I say we give it a week for others to fill in this column or we take the column out. I am really unconcerned with the table width, I just think that there is no use for this column and it clutters the table.71.120.244.132 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't think the demodulator information is useful enough to justify using that valuable position in the middle of the grid even if more people do fill it in. The least useful non-feature information should be on the far right so that the average reader doesn't need to keep scanning the full width of the page. Of the group of non-feature information, the chip is probably the most important and should be on or near the left side of that cluster. If the Demodulation column is removed altogether, that would be fine with me, though I wouldn't object if there was a new column at the far right with codes for different components, which would be one way of preserving and collecting that kind of information.Dmulvany (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It was actually at the end of the grid when we started it... But because it's such a time consuming job to shift data over to another column, it was just left there and new columns were simply placed ahead of it. --Tobey (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I support removing this column. 70.253.41.103 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Thoughts on feature columns

My opinion (mainly based on database theory) is that they should all be their own columns. If width is a concern, maybe they should have single-letter column headers with a key at the bottom? I can do a mock-up later if there's interest. —Random832 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Usability is also an issue. The mini-table I had added uses a key like you describe, if the whole table was like that it would get confusing.
It seems to me that creating pages for each box individually would be the better option, then move data such as demodulator etc over there. That would retain the data and open up the table some, and Dmulvany could get his/her CC column too. edit I was going to try it out but Wikipedia won't let me contribute fully w/o an account so screw it. If someone else wants to create the pages then go for it, I'll help fill them. But with such a needlessly restrictive policy on an obvious contributor I'm even less interested in making that account. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Single letter column headers for other features with a key wouldn't be a bad idea, but I'd imagine alot more work? 70.253.41.103 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Features Sub-Table

To prevent the "other features" column from becoming bloated how about a secondary table, 3 columns: first is letters (A B C etc) second is the name of the feature, third is a short description of it and/or a link to a relevant Wikipedia article. Within the big table we have now the "Other features" entries would be links to the different parts of the secondary table similar to the way references work. This would also open things up for a number of other features some consider fringe to be included without making the whole thing a horrible mess. Anyone? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the table to try it on for size. Try using it like that for a little bit I think you may find it handier than an ever-widening monolithic table. The only issue is sorting but at the rate we're going by adding every little feature as a column the table is going to be three screens wide and unusable. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I added the Digital Audio code DA. SurfaceUnits (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I definately like all of the features that have been listed in other features, especially N, T, V, R, & E. 70.253.41.103 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Universal Remotes

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_CECB_units&diff=201819216&oldid=201818393 : I thought one of the requirements for these boxes was that they be controllable by existing universal remote codes that most universals would have? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I'm pretty sure that it is required that they come with a remote (even if not universal), so the new "other features" code RC (at least) seems unnecessary. Djiann (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
They have to come with a remote, but what I meant was the codes the box uses have to be generic enough that most preexisting third party universals should have that code in already. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article no longer fits inside a standard 1024x800 screen

Too ____ many columns. I tried to fix the problem by merging columns, but of course my time-consuming changes were immediately reverted. I feel like I wasted my time. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Works fine on my standard 1280x1024 screen. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
1280x1024 is "standard" according to who? Nobody. The most popular size used by Web browser users is 1024x768. Reference the wikipedia article on Display_resolution#Current_standards. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Read. Learn. Then quit picking fights on every forum you come across, Theaveng/rrroger/whatever handle you're hiding behind lately. It's getting a little old. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think dismissing users with smaller screens is appropriate, and not everyone uses their browser with a maximized window. Articles should be readable at 800 pixels wide, really - and if something scrolls sideways at the standard font size at 1024x768, that's a sign there's a problem that should at least be looked at.
Moving forward, could the columns "S-Video", "Analog passthrough", and "Smart antenna" be shrunk by abbreviating the labels and abbreviating "Unknown" to "Unkn.", or maybe even going to Y/N/U?
I'm also concerned that some of the information being covered here steps over the line into what Wikipedia is not. MSRP is the main item I'm thinking of here. —Random832 19:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It fits with plenty of room on my 1024x768 display. Also, when I set my display to 800x600 it almost fits, all but one character. I could understand if the table was much more wider, but at its current size I see no reason to change it. Also, I see no reason for keeping the MSRP and Demodulator columns. The MSRP on some boxes differs greatly from the actual selling prices, while other the selling price and MSRP are the same. Most of the boxes are within $10 of eachother, so it really doesn't give much information. I do not support abbrevating column headers or merging columns as this would hamper usability.134.121.247.59 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. MSRP is useless and as of right now the demodulator column is a waste of space as well. Both should be removed IMO. --Tobey (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
@134, What is your browser font size? It scrolls (slightly, but it's still there) at the default size with default browser settings for me. (and yes, i have a custom monobook.css, i disabled it to check) —Random832 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
My font size is the default setting "Medium", which I believe is 96dpi. At the 1024x768 there is no horizontal scroll bar. You must be using Firefox or another browser other than MS IE. The problem lies within compatibility between the code that automatically sizes the table and with your browser. Short-term fix use a different browser, such as MS IE, but really the code that makes the table needs to be fixed. Any idea on where that code can be accessed or changed?134.121.241.249 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You're advocating using such an insecure browser as IE? Sure maybe the table templates could use a little touch up but don't put the poor simple Windows users at risk of infection here. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from users to Editors/Authors

Just wanted to say thanks. I now have way more info than I did before I stumbled on this wiki. What follows are some General comments re: How I think a great page could be made even better and in reply to some of the discussions already in progress.

Table size: I would rather have to scroll for more info than not have some info available.

Price: Some indication of the ball park price is helpful. We all understand that our milage may vary. I've seen listed units on an auction site for 14 bucks that I'm sure are going for closer to the coupon value in the retail store. Still, It would save me time if I knew that the unit with the most Yess in the left had columns (that I cant find any info on elseware) had an MSRP that is way more than the coupon price.

Available where: If you know that certain units are available at particular retailers, some indication would be helpful. By the way, while you have certain models listed for one manufacture, I've noted that one major retailor has a subtily different model number available by the same manufacture. If I weren't suspicious of said retailor, I might have overlooked the model number difference and ran out to get it, thinking I was going to get all the kewl features in the table.

Tuner/sensitivity: I fully appreciate the problems involved with a column for this, but it is after all, the most important aspect (assuming there are differences). Could there be some sort of per model number/per zip code/ indication of: got all my channels/number of channels unreceiveable, for people table users to add their data point?

Link to spec: I see that some units have links associated with them, so I'm guessing you already appreciate this point. But, more links to spec sheets/product literature would be helpful.

Meaning of Table headings: I think the page should include some explanation of the table headings. I followed the smart antenna link and was totally confused by what I found at the far end of the link. How the box could figure out which direction a signal is coming from if it is only connected to my rabbit ears is beyond me. Futhermore, what the box might do with that information is still a mistery. Might it display a message that says, for a better picture turn the rabbit ears clockwise and put a piece of aluminum foil on the left ear? Accoringly, I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling that the smart antenna page I wound up on includes an explanation for the term used in the context of tv converter boxes.


Thanks again.

64.0.112.33 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)CouponsBurningHolesInPockets

Re: Tuner/sensitivity: The CECBs are required to meet a certain level of performance to maintain eligibility for the program. The tests are done using a set of worst-case signals. If a CECB is wildly inefficient compared to the posted requirements then it wouldn't qualify and at least in theory is no longer a CECB. It's not possible to have sensitivity numbers unless they are results of the aforementioned tests which should make the results roughly equal anyway. --97.114.2.125 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Manufactures have been making tuners for many years and analog tuners are almost the same as a digital tuner. So, there is very little variance in the reception abilities of the tuners on the market today. What is more important for receiving a digital broadcast is the decoder. How the decoder handles errors determines how well you will receive weak signal. Currently there is noticeable variance in the decoders, but there has not been any quantitative tests run on multiple boxes made available to the public. As for the smart antenna feature, you need a smart antenna which is different than rabbit ears and a smart antenna capable box. If you want to look at personal reviews of the boxes a good place to visit is avsforum.134.121.246.142 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I came from there like I would guess many other contributors here did. "Tuner" can be used as a general term, it should be obvious that I wasn't merely making reference to the electronics which lock in to a certain frequency range but rather the whole kit n kaboodle. If someone wants the quantitative tests they should bother the NTIA to get those results. We're not going to get them from Joe User's bedroom TV reception. --97.114.2.125 (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

MaxMedia "Availability"

The MM box, MMDTVB03, never existed. It was claimed to, preorders were taken and coupons/checks cashed but no boxes. http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/08/2245248 --97.114.2.125 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)