Add your comments
DLS Archives
May 2012
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Essential Windows Apps | Do Not Track | Microsoft Office | SayNow | LibreOffice | Zeam Android Launcher | Dead Space iPhone | Firefox 4 Mobile | Firefox 4 Release | PlayStation iPhone App | Excel Tips | Android Launcher | Google One Pass | Dead Space | Google Cloud Print | Songbird for Android | NBA Jam | Internet Explorer 9 | Windows 7 Connector for Mac | Office Mac 2011 | IE9 RC






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
(Unverified)May 15th 2006 9:25PM
Well, the video purists will tell you the video quality is nowhere near as good if you use a video sender. (I'm using a set of x10 video senders that I picked up on ebay for around $50).
But for most practical purposes, if you don't have a hi-def tv, I think the picture quality is good enough to justify the convenience factor. Our tv also doesn't have an s-video in, so no matter what, we're only getting composite video, which isn't as good as it could be.
Anyway... so I'd say with the video sender, the picture quality is better than broadcast, but worse than digital cable.
The one thing to watch out for though... our video sender works on the 2.4ghz spectrum. That means if you're trying to use wifi or bluetooth in the house, you might get interference. And for some reason, the thing that makes the picture look like martians are landing is the microwave. So I'd concur -- the best thing to do is to put a computer next to your TV. But if you don't want to spend a couple hundred bucks on a computer so that you can save a few bucks off your tivo bill, you CAN get away with using your primary computer and sending the signal wirelessly.