There are a lot more Canadians here and we don't have an ass kicking thunderstorm every afternoon.
There are a lot more Canadians here and we don't have an ass kicking thunderstorm every afternoon.
My point being, *you* are part of the control loop. I can't take your solution and transplant it to northern California, or expect it to perform optimally in Summer, etc.
Putting smarts *in* a device (e.g., via an MPU/MCU) lets that device meet a variety of needs without requiring a knowledgeable, involved user to remain (forever) part of the solution.
Is this correct yet?
Is that the sum total of the advantages of WiFi on a TV?
Every Smart Tv that I've seen included normal inputs, eg HDMI, composite video, antenna, etc. just like TV's before the smart tvs became available. They work just like any other HD TV, with wifi added in addition. I would think almost all smart Tvs are hooked up to cable, sat, or antenna just like they were before, with the wifi being an additional way of using them, if you choose.
Yes
IDK about the speed of the web browser. With fast processors available today, at modest prices, I don't see why they can't make a web interface that performs well.
Per previous they have all the normal TV inputs.
I think that covers it.
Ya, so now you get to wait for it to boot up every time you turn it on.
Mikek
I have a Sony, and it's slow too!
A disadvantage to Smart TVs is that they quite literally spy on you. At least one manufacturer has issued a warning about it:
I really don't understand why anyone would even consider the purchase of such a device. I suppose for many that convenience and entertainment trump all other considerations these days.
If I turn on my TV and computer at the same time, the TV barely beats the computer at booting. It takes 17.86 seconds for the picture/sound to show up for the TV.
BTW, that's a hard-wired HD TV attached to a basic cable box not providing HD.
At the time (70s) we were in the DC area. The photo cell still worked
It takes about as long as it used to take for a CRT to warm up. My dumb Samsung takes almost as long as the smart one so there is a processor in there too.
I got one that was just a little dumber than that (no voice control)
From the manufacturer's standpoint, this approach (to the imagined problem!) makes sense: why incur the added cost of putting enough processing power in the TV to be able to decode INFREQUENTLY spoken commands? It makes more sense (assuming transit times are short) to ship the "data" ("sound") off to a server (located at some firm that you CONTRACT WITH -- not even *your* server!) and have it do the heavy lifting.
And, the TV needn't deliberately be "spying" on you to still allow them to harvest other information from it. I.e., if you are
*talking*, then, chances are, you are still sitting in front of the TV! Your eyes are more likely to be viewing than looking through the refrigerator for a snack! That's worth something to the content distributor pushing that "movie" to you; or, the vendor who has purchased the ad time!On 04 Sep 2015, Ewald B?hm wrote in alt.home.repair:
Not necessarily. If you have a TV feed from an antenna or cable service, you hook that up, too. The "Smart" features are internet only, so you need an internet connection to use them. You could hook that part of the TV to your home router with a cable or wirelessly.
Yes.
Yes.
Well, mine is. It displays content slowly (I think that there isn't much memory or storage in the TV for buffering, plus the browser itself may be a Java app, which is inherently slow to start up) but the worst thing about it is that you have to navigate using your TV remote. You may be able to hook up a computer keyboard, which would help.
There's a coax input on mine, but I don't know anything about DirectTV.
Yes. There are "apps" included with the Smart TV software, analogous to the apps on your smart phone. The apps on my Samsung TV can be updated from them. You can purchase others, I think.
The OS and apps may be updateable from the manufacturer.
There may be others. Actually, if I knew then what I know now, I'd get a dumb TV and add one of those add-on boxes like Chromecast or whatever to get the content I use. Most of the apps on my Samsung suck royally. I only use a couple of them.
That's about it. I think my Sharp TV is Android. Slow, clunky. Even the apps that work are inferior to what you would have on a phone/tablet/PC.
I use the "MiraCast" option to cast my Android tablet to the scrren quite often, so I can see my cat videos from YouTube in better quality.
Don Y: Good Question as we didn't have a smart TV before--just a 30 year old tube type. So apparently the new TV sent a signal "home" reporting that it couldn't spy on us. Not a coincidence.
Okay. I can remember that too. But I'm getting discouraged.
I think I should follow Mark Lloyd's advice in next thread about using wires when one can.
So I think I'll just get a USB active extension cord and a keyboard/mouse to plug into it;, and an AV balun with cat6 to connect the computer to the DVDR
Do I understand the situation correctly that the WiFi enabled TVs are dog slow, for example, at browsing, because of two fundamental flaws?
You can't fix the CPU processing power. But, can you simply add a standard bluetooth keyboard?
Can't you just connect any old bluetooth keyboard to solve that problem?
Don't think blue tooth is not on the TV. I have an AMD A10 laptop dedicated as HTPC. Laptop connects to AC2600 router on 5GHz. My down load speed is 50mbps solid. No problem even real time streaming 1080P,4K UHD, 3D videos. Native 4K material is rare but A/V receiver upscale to
4K on 4K 60" set. Our HT is 7.1 set up. Biggest I could afford for the family room space. For storage I have small 4 bay Synology NAS with 4x2TB WD Red drives.(not powerful enough for some codec)HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.