Which way do you prefer or "Have it your way."

[Psy]

You know what, I'm going to go ahead and be "that guy" here, and say that there really is nothing that can't be done in some form on a reasonably powerful 68k Mac or Amiga that is really vitally worth doing on a computer at all. Movies, sure, or playback of recorded music (as opposed to synthesized music,) but those can be done perfectly satisfactorily on dedicated devices (VCRs, CD players) anyway.

Have you tried live video streaming on such hardware?   Have your tried to do live streaming while playing a game without it dropping a single frame?

Sure older hardware can still be used to do real work yet modern hardware is beyond what even super computers of the 1990's were capable of.

Indeed. Modern software is increasingly buried under a mountain of glitz...Windows 7 won't even let you roll back to the simple 95 look anymore.

There still is tons of text based software for Linux and BSD.

[Psy]

Actually? Yes. Take the Sega CD - FMV on a 12MHz 68000, even while playing a game! And that's got nothing on a mid-range 68k Mac or a moderately upgraded Amiga. Even a stock 1200 needs only a PCMCIA CD-ROM to whoop its ass.

I meant streaming video onto the Internet, and by also playing games I mean that the computer can stream the output of the graphics of the game to the Internet while you are playing it (thus also sending it to your monitor).

[Psy]

Oh. Frankly that's actually pretty stupid.

It allows people to broadcast video from the PC over the Internet. There more practical applications i.e developers can stream video of builds of their program to other people in their team over the Internet or to people interested in the project.

[Psy]

No, that's still stupid, sorry. The only practical purpose for live-streaming of video over the Internet is for remote-desktop access, and framerate requirements are much lower on that.

Steaming of desktop works fine for broadcasting TV through a capture card over the Internet.  It it clear even the most modern television one could buy today is obsolete for anything other then a display for a PC as it is only a matter of time before streaming video replaces TV.

[Psy]

That's as may be; I still don't consider TV-watching to be an essential part of the computing experience when there's perfectly adequate dedicated hardware available.

And I have absolutely no idea what you propose to accomplish by broadcasting TV over the Internet through a capture card...?

(And anyway there hasn't been anything that worth watching on TV since The Red Green Show finale.)

The downside to television is that its quantity of programming pales in comparison to the Internet, even if you have 1,000 channels that a drop in the buck compared to video programming on the Internet.  It also makes it easier for people to provide video content.

[Psy]

These are both upsides of television.

How so, everything on TV has to be green lighted by a programming executive then on top of that it has to pass government regulations (i.e the FCC), while there is zero regulations limiting content on the Internet and producers have no one to convince to get their show on the Internet.  

Also the audience on the Internet is vastly larger, for example the recent My Little Pony phenomenon was only possible due to episodes being streamed on the Internet where Internet stream of My Little Pony draws many times the viewers then the Hub (the TV network that airs My Little Pony).   This is also not a fluke the same is true for HBO's Game of Thrones where most fans of the show don't even have HBO.

[Psy]

I think in the majority of cases TV wins that point. Most people don't have the time or motivation to sift through the dregs of the internet to track down programmes, while TV has less better quality programmes that are easier to find. The internet makes it much harder to have water cooler moments.
 
Game of Thrones is the most pirated TV show, that is another win for TV. Just that you're using the internet for an illegal method of receiving it.
 
TV programmes that are legitimately streamed by the TV channel don't count as internet programmes as most wouldn't likely exist without TV money in the first place.
 
There are a few instances of webisodes that have been good, if they are promotional material for TV programmes that used TV money to produce then again they wouldn't exist without the TV studio system.
 
I can also see that a cancelled TV show may be able to have a further life as an internet only show, but again without the audience base of the original TV show it wouldn't happen.
 
And yes this does all mean that sometimes there will be great programmes that never make it to air or programmes you enjoy that get cancelled. But overall TV is the best compromise for the majority of people. The surge of people watching TV online has been due to young people who are comfortable with technology and have a lot of time, however it will be interesting to see how that develops as they become older.

Take the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic popularity, its success has nothing to do with it being on the Hub, its popularity exploded because it became a Internet meme and was available on the Internet thus it was easier for Internet users to give the show a try as they were more likely to get curious and it was easier to view on the Internet then going through the trouble of watching it on the Hub on their TV.

This also show a huge stumbling block to TV, you have to pay extra for most TV stations, while services like Netflix is much cost effective as you pay less money for more content even ignoring the ability to watch it for free.