It seems to me reading threads over on AVS, not so many address this issue directly on here, that the general view seems to be Matterhorn-based machines are not worth considering now HD2s are available: the reason seems to be "why buy 1024x576 when you can get "1280x720" for the same price or cheaper? But WHY? Is it because in the US everyone watches HDTV? Seems to me that watching SD material on a 1280x720 display by definition .. no pun .. requires the source material scaling considerably and scaling by definition softens the image due to the way interpolation works. Surely SD images will be sharper on a display which is native size, for PAL, or only marginally larger, NTSC? Yes, I realise that pixellation will be more evident further way from the screen than an HD2, but over 1.5x it seems not to be an issue. For us in the UK HD material is non-existent from broadcasts and will be for some considerable time .. ignoring the 1080i satellite feed .. then we're left waiting for HD-DVD, 2005?, or maybe WM9 but there are many questions over that right now. Bottom line: isn't a Matterhorn machine more apporpriate than a larger panel for this year at least? Matterhorn rather than XGA is needed due to the light-spill problem on an XGA in 16:9 mode.