But... of course... the brand is ALL nowadays, where the hell do you live?

well don't you feel that brand has an equal chance of breaking? You really think the quality is that much better, or do you think you're just paying for adversiting.

If it has the same features, and a good picture quality, i don't why people put so much emphasis on brand name.

However, I wish there were some good long term benchmark reviews on this tv. I don't want to have it for a year and a day and have it exlplode.

No I really see a much more quality in a brand; in the left hand, programmed death pathway is the new fashion in order to put in your hands the next one. I suggest you get a Sony, the war horse for sure.

Meh, I just think sony is overpriced.

Indeed, but at least you got something not so bad for the next 5 years or more. I have VERY old Sony things; the plastic is broken but all of them are working perfectly until now. Just my 2 cents.

I recently bought a HDTV to replace my regular monitor. I like it, its nice.

Do research. Buy tv of personal brand preference. Enjoy.
Is it so hard?

I have done alot of research on this tv in particular actually, unfortunately since it's rebranded the reviews are relatively inconsistent. So basically I have come to the conclusion that it's a crap shoot. Insignia is either a really good bargain tv, or a peice of shit tv depending on who the manufacturer was.

The problem is not so much finding a tv brand I want as it is, finding a decent review on the brand I did buy to find out if it is good or not.

My mom bought an LCD Insignia. No dead pixels have shown up at all. I think its a great picture, especially compared to how much cheaper it was than the same size big name brand TV's.

I hear polariod is the worst tv brand around, and thats a fairly familiar brand name. My view is just because i've heard of a name before, doesn't mean its good.

and relevant news article. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008018_681920.htm

Sony breaking even on PS3's

Doesn't mention anything about the PS3 breaking even. AFAIK, Nintendo is the only company actually making a profit on the sale of each console. Both Sony and MS are absorbing substantial losses on the hope of recouping costs later w/ software and services.

The picture on it is rally great. The did pixel is not noticable at all unless the screen is black.

The only real problem i've had with it, is when i use an hdmi device, the sound seems to crackle randomly on the speakers. This isn't really a problem though because I just output my sound to my boom box anyway. The speakers on TV's are never good anyway. I went ahead and bought the extended warranty just to be safe. Aside from the dead pixel, and the occasional crackly sound on the speakers i will never use, the tv is really great. For 450 I'm deffinately not complaining.

There are some actual gains to the PS3 that aren't readily visible. Blu-ray is currently beating out HD-DVD in the market last I'd heard, and at least part of the reason is because the PS3 isn't actually that unreasonable a purchase next to the other players, particularly when you consider it's other capabilities. While it's doing very poorly in and of itself, it may actually win the format war for them.

Well if that were the case, I thought the 360 was a hd-dvd player, so wouldn't the 360 be causing hd-dvds to win the format war? Or is the 360 not a HDDVD player?
I have rented a blu ray disc dvd, and they do look very good. However, to me, in the end, it's just a dvd. i don't really care how amazing the resolution, the content is the same regardless.

Every single PS3 is a blu-ray player out of the box. If you want your 360 to play HD-DVD, you need to purchase an accessory for a good $150+.