|
|
The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived
John Russell wrote:
"neil h" wrote in message ... Nigel Barker wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:59:22 +0100, "John Russell" wrote: "Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:33:58 +0100, "John Russell" wrote: "Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:04 +0100, "Gaz" wrote: John Russell wrote: Sky contract the design of box's to their spec for use by SKY customers. SKY are not in the business of producing box's for general use. SKY are not responsible for the crap design of non SKY box's! Sky will not allow the use of their cam in non approved boxes, to keep a tight reign on what will be the future pvr market. Sky+ is a truly awful retarded product, which has had little innovation over the last few years, using outdated technology and interface. It will not change, because it doesnt have to, it is the only game in town, because nobody else has access to the cam. The User Interface for Sky & SKy+ has not changed since launch. It looks very old & clunky compared to Vista Media Center for example. The UI for the Sky HD box is just the same. It's crazy as by definition the user must have an HDTV so why is the UI designed for an SDTV? If you don't like it get Virgin Media! Not an option for the majority of the population in the UK. -- Life's a bitch! I suggest you start your own company if accepting the limitations of being a customer is getting you down. My comments on the ugly Sky+ interface were more of an observation than a complaint. It does the job but it's a shame that they didn't ake the opportunity to rework the GUI with the launch of the HD model. That was the major attraction of the Topfield box for me - if you don't like the GUI just install another one and customize it however you like it. Most people take it for granted that they can tweak the appearance of their computers and mobiles, so why not something like a PVR? Most People? Most people turn things on and use them as they are, usually at crap default settings! How come there are companies making so much money from selling alternate ring tones and wallpapers for mobile phones then? Who hasn't set a different picture for their desktop background at some point? -- neil h. Google Brights |
The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived
On Mon, 28 May 2007 12:21:03 +0100, Dom Robinson wrote:
In article , says... On Sun, 27 May 2007 12:39:15 +0100, Dom Robinson wrote: In article , says... "Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:59:15 +0100, "the dog from that film you saw" wrote: "Light of Aria" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ups.com... And as I said a while ago, the £10 fee is dropped for any sky package from 1 July. It will remain for anyone with NO sky digital subscription unfortunately, so basically a two mix package for £15 a month is now the most financially sensible way to be able to use the recording features of the box as at least you get some channels for your money! Yeeesss. My Topfield has a monthly fee of £0 and doesn't come with **** channels. and doesnt receive satellite tv either - i didnt realise a cock waving contest had started. To be fair there are equivalent FTA digital satellite dual tuner PVRs that can be bought for around the same price e.g. http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...=14&doy=search -- Exactly. The SKY+ is designed for those who want SKY channels. One minute posters condemn SKY's kit for being crap, the next they can't find anything as good as the SKY+ elsewhere and blame SKY for that as well. TiVo - that's better than Sky+ Apart from the picture & sound quality of course. Best Quality on a TiVo is a negligible difference to the original quality, and at least I can set recordings of different qualities so I can do radio stations in basic quality (since it only affects the picture) and maximise the hard drive space that way (since Sky+ only records at one quality setting). There is only one quality setting 'Just as broadcast'. Sky+ does not re-encode the MPEG2/4 transport screen just records it direct to disk. There is no way that he difference in quality is negligible as the MPEG2 transport stream has been decoded to analogue then the Tivo takes that analogue output from the digibox & encodes it to MPEG2. How does the Tivo handle 5.1 surround sound? or HDTV? There will be considerable difference to the original quality in that case. Perhaps you're blind and deaf? And I can't hear you speak on here, so I bet you're a whizz at pinball! I'm not knocking your Tivo just pointing out some of the limitations. -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived
"neil h" wrote in message ... John Russell wrote: "neil h" wrote in message ... Nigel Barker wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:59:22 +0100, "John Russell" wrote: "Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:33:58 +0100, "John Russell" wrote: "Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:04 +0100, "Gaz" wrote: John Russell wrote: Sky contract the design of box's to their spec for use by SKY customers. SKY are not in the business of producing box's for general use. SKY are not responsible for the crap design of non SKY box's! Sky will not allow the use of their cam in non approved boxes, to keep a tight reign on what will be the future pvr market. Sky+ is a truly awful retarded product, which has had little innovation over the last few years, using outdated technology and interface. It will not change, because it doesnt have to, it is the only game in town, because nobody else has access to the cam. The User Interface for Sky & SKy+ has not changed since launch. It looks very old & clunky compared to Vista Media Center for example. The UI for the Sky HD box is just the same. It's crazy as by definition the user must have an HDTV so why is the UI designed for an SDTV? If you don't like it get Virgin Media! Not an option for the majority of the population in the UK. -- Life's a bitch! I suggest you start your own company if accepting the limitations of being a customer is getting you down. My comments on the ugly Sky+ interface were more of an observation than a complaint. It does the job but it's a shame that they didn't ake the opportunity to rework the GUI with the launch of the HD model. That was the major attraction of the Topfield box for me - if you don't like the GUI just install another one and customize it however you like it. Most people take it for granted that they can tweak the appearance of their computers and mobiles, so why not something like a PVR? Most People? Most people turn things on and use them as they are, usually at crap default settings! How come there are companies making so much money from selling alternate ring tones and wallpapers for mobile phones then? Who hasn't set a different picture for their desktop background at some point? Lot's of business exist but that doesn't mean they are used by "Most People". SKY+ is a successful product without any of the things you want! What you (or I) want doesn't define success! |
The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:43:18 +0100, "Gaz" wrote: John Russell wrote: "neil h" wrote in message ... Most People? Most people turn things on and use them as they are, usually at crap default settings! You would be amazed at the number of houses i go into, who have their nice shiny new widescreen tv, stretching a 4:3 picture because they havent changed the options in the sky box. But you have to strectch the 4:3 picture to get rid of those annoying black bars either side. What's the point of spendinf all that money on a widescreen TV & then only using 2/3 of the screen? What's the point of buying a car that goes faster than the speed limit? The purpose of a widescreen tv is to display widescreen content when it's available. I want to watch 4:3 undistorted if you don't mind. |
The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:41:35 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote: Sky do not control the quality of the broadcasts other than their own. In fact SKY's OB broadcasts for footy show how good DVB can be. Funny, I was going to single out football as being one of the worst examples with regard to picture artifacts. -- |
The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived
On Mon, 28 May 2007 12:44:14 +0100, "John Russell" wrote:
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:43:18 +0100, "Gaz" wrote: John Russell wrote: "neil h" wrote in message ... Most People? Most people turn things on and use them as they are, usually at crap default settings! You would be amazed at the number of houses i go into, who have their nice shiny new widescreen tv, stretching a 4:3 picture because they havent changed the options in the sky box. But you have to strectch the 4:3 picture to get rid of those annoying black bars either side. What's the point of spendinf all that money on a widescreen TV & then only using 2/3 of the screen? What's the point of buying a car that goes faster than the speed limit? The purpose of a widescreen tv is to display widescreen content when it's available. I want to watch 4:3 undistorted if you don't mind. Sense of humour failure? Perhaps I should have appended the :-):-):-) audience laughter track? -- Cheers Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur |
The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived
On Mon, 28 May 2007 09:59:43 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:
Its the best we are going to get though. A sky picture is usually an awful lot better then freeview. I'd disagree with Sky being noticeably better than freeview, but in general neither display anything that remotely resembles a quality picture. -- |
The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived
"Mike" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:41:35 +0100, "John Russell" wrote: Sky do not control the quality of the broadcasts other than their own. In fact SKY's OB broadcasts for footy show how good DVB can be. Funny, I was going to single out football as being one of the worst examples with regard to picture artifacts. -- Footy shows the diversity of DVB quality. SKY Sports Footy is fantastic, whilst ITV is dire. Don't blame SKY for the poor quality of ITV DVB via Sat. SKY do not control what bitrates or compression ITV, or the BBC, use for DVB via Sat. People are too quick to blame SKY for everything to do with Sat reception. |
The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 May 2007 12:44:14 +0100, "John Russell" wrote: "Nigel Barker" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:43:18 +0100, "Gaz" wrote: John Russell wrote: "neil h" wrote in message ... Most People? Most people turn things on and use them as they are, usually at crap default settings! You would be amazed at the number of houses i go into, who have their nice shiny new widescreen tv, stretching a 4:3 picture because they havent changed the options in the sky box. But you have to strectch the 4:3 picture to get rid of those annoying black bars either side. What's the point of spendinf all that money on a widescreen TV & then only using 2/3 of the screen? What's the point of buying a car that goes faster than the speed limit? The purpose of a widescreen tv is to display widescreen content when it's available. I want to watch 4:3 undistorted if you don't mind. Sense of humour failure? Perhaps I should have appended the :-):-):-) audience laughter track? Unfortunately there are people who do indeed distort everything to fill their widescreen TV. I've seen people post demanding that DVD movies are 16:9 rather than Movie Format letterbox! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com