Good price

Hi,

I'm *considering* selling my S1 on eBay. I haven't really decided
yet. This thread is a fishing expedition to find out what it might be
worth before I fire up an auction. If I do go through with the sale
I'll post the item number here.

The box is a lifetimed Philips HDR112.

It's running 3.0 on 2x 160GB disks which have been locked to 127GB
because I never hacked the kernel. The 2nd disk is properly mounted
using a 9th-Tee bracket. Total recording time is 246 hours.

It's got a TurboNet card, and the Electriclegs memory modification.

What do you think this TiVo might bring?

Best regards,

Tim ==
(substitute 'tcsys.com' for 'nospam.co.uk'
_________________
*HDR112 v3.0 @ 246 hours, Lifetime, Turbonet, "Electriclegs"
*HDVR2 v6.2 @ 246 hours
*HDVR2 v6.2 @ 220 hours
*HDVR2 v6.2 @ 39 hours

Visit the Surrender Dorothy web !! (http://dorothyrocks.com)
Visit the Crunch Monkey web !! (http://crunchmonkey.com)

The guy said lifetimed hdr112, morod!

"Howard" wrote in message
...
Timothy J. Trace wrote in
:

Hi,

I'm *considering* selling my S1 on eBay. I haven't really decided
yet. This thread is a fishing expedition to find out what it might be
worth before I fire up an auction. If I do go through with the sale
I'll post the item number here.

The box is a lifetimed Philips HDR112.

It's running 3.0 on 2x 160GB disks which have been locked to 127GB
because I never hacked the kernel. The 2nd disk is properly mounted
using a 9th-Tee bracket. Total recording time is 246 hours.

It's got a TurboNet card, and the Electriclegs memory modification.

What do you think this TiVo might bring?

No lifetime? Don't expect too much. One can get a 40 or 80 gig Series 2
for free.

--
Spam belongs in your lunchbox, not your newsreader or inbox. Your news
and
email CAN be spam-free, experience it yourself for two days...also free!
(I don't work for them, I'm just a happy customer) Check it out at:
https://acc.newsguy.com/cgi-bin/sub_trial_form

? is Top-Posting considered bad form? or you just giving him a deserved
hard time? I always top-post. ??

DAve

Howard wrote:
"GB" wrote in
:

The guy said lifetimed hdr112, morod!

One has to wonder what is worse. Missing one word, or top-posting.
Interesting.

On 2006-07-08, Dave Allison wrote:
? is Top-Posting considered bad form? or you just giving him a deserved
hard time? I always top-post. ??

Yes, top posting is considered bad form. You should (almost) never top
post.

--
This is my .sig

Sorry, but I like top posting.. That top posting idea was just some one
else's idea of how they think it should be back in the day. there are
reasons to bottom post, but I prefer the top.. I figure if what I say is not
worth reading.. the person looking can figure it out faster and just pass it
by.


"Mike Hunt" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-08, Dave Allison wrote:
? is Top-Posting considered bad form? or you just giving him a deserved
hard time? I always top-post. ??

Yes, top posting is considered bad form. You should (almost) never top
post.

--
This is my .sig

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:02:49 +0000, C what I mean wrote:

Sorry, but I like top posting.. That top posting idea was just some one
else's idea of how they think it should be back in the day. there are
reasons to bottom post, but I prefer the top.. I figure if what I say is not
worth reading.. the person looking can figure it out faster and just pass it
by.


"Mike Hunt" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-08, Dave Allison wrote:
? is Top-Posting considered bad form? or you just giving him a deserved
hard time? I always top-post. ??

Yes, top posting is considered bad form. You should (almost) never top
post.

--
This is my .sig

And not only that, but you're quoting a sigline. Now who am I talking
about? It's how the post appears to others. It doesn't make much sense
when some people top post and others bottom post. And since you don't
read a book backwards, bottom posting was chosen as the posting method. On
complex multiple subject post, the replies should be inserted after each
subject section. Even though this post is at the bottom, it's not a good
post, as I should have edited out a lot of it. Just left it there to
emphsize the wasted space, and show how harder it is to get to the
subject. I like to crap too, but I don't come and do it in your yard so
you have to clean it up. Don't top post or you'll never know what some
people have to say as they won't even bother reading messages like that.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:02:49 GMT, "C what I mean" no
wrote:

Sorry, but I like top posting.. That top posting idea was just some one
else's idea of how they think it should be back in the day. there are
reasons to bottom post, but I prefer the top.. I figure if what I say is not
worth reading.. the person looking can figure it out faster and just pass it
by.


Both top-posting and bottom-posting have reasons for and reasons
against them. Don't worry about following some "rule", and do what
makes sense at the time.


"Mike Hunt" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-08, Dave Allison wrote:
? is Top-Posting considered bad form? or you just giving him a deserved
hard time? I always top-post. ??

Yes, top posting is considered bad form. You should (almost) never top
post.

--
This is my .sig

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Mark Lloyd ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
Both top-posting and bottom-posting have reasons for and reasons
against them.

The truth is that top-posting never existed before Microsoft Outlook
Express. Because that newsreader did everything different from every
other newsreader previously, it encouraged top-posting: quoted text was
not marked...just separated, and the cursor was placed at the top of
the buffer.

There was no real way to change this behavior (although you could click
a setting that made OE add a marker to the front of each quoted line),
and it was very difficult to edit the quoted text (to delete non-relevant
material, etc.), so people just "went with the flow" and started typing.

Other newsreaders started to foolishly emulate OE because it was a
Microsoft product, so there are now more users who think that top-posting
has some sort of "approval". Still, over 90% of the people who top-post
use Outlook Express, and probably 99% of the people who say "I like top
posting" use OE. This is understandable, because OE makes it so damn
difficult to do anything *other* than top-post and quote the entire
original post.

If there were no good free newsreaders, I would be somewhat sympathetic
to the OE users, but since there are now dozens of capable newsreaders
that are free, there just isn't any excuse for top-posting other than
laziness. And, if they are going to be that lazy in a one-time thing
like installing a good newsreader, it's likely they'll be just as lazy
when it comes to being able to repeatedly compose useful information
into a post

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert...tOnMonitor.gif

Mark Lloyd wrote:
Sorry, but I like top posting.. That top posting idea was just some one
else's idea of how they think it should be back in the day. there are
reasons to bottom post, but I prefer the top.. I figure if what I say is not
worth reading.. the person looking can figure it out faster and just pass it
by.


Both top-posting and bottom-posting have reasons for and reasons
against them. Don't worry about following some "rule", and do what
makes sense at the time.

Top posting almost never makes "sense". It's basically pure laziness
99% of the time. It's ok (but still not good) for e-mail because you
can be fairly sure that the person reading it is familiar with the
conversation, but this is not true for newsgroup posts.

Newsgroup etiquette is clear about top posting:

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

(from RFC 1855, about as official as it gets,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/1855)

Interspersing comments and responses in longer posts, certainly makes
sense as well.

Basically, consider who you're posting to. No matter how you
rationalize it, top posting is *not* easier for the reader who hasn't
read every single previous post in the thread recently. And since
reading individual posts in threads not in order is common in Usenet,
bottom-posting is simply not polite. It's even worse if you're
searching posts through google groups, there top posting with no editing
causes posts to be virtually unreadable, and are usually easier to just
skip completely (and is often a good indicator that they don't contain
any useful information anyway).

Some folks tend to come back and say "you don't have the right to set
rules and tell people what to do" and they're right. People don't have
the right to order you to say please and thank you either, but that
doesn't make it any less impolite not to do it, or wrong for people to
comment on it when you act rudely around them.

Long and short of it, bottom posting is polite, easier to follow, and
easy to do (most nntp clients can be set to auto-start responses *after*
the quoted text). It also means it's more likely that your post will be
read and understood, rather than ignored. And we all want that, don't
we? ;-)

Randy S.

Still, over 90% of the people who top-post
use Outlook Express, and probably 99% of the people who say "I like top
posting" use OE. This is understandable, because OE makes it so damn
difficult to do anything *other* than top-post and quote the entire
original post.

I think this (and the other statements before it are very true and
perceptive. It should be noted that of Dave, GB, and "C what I mean"
who are in favor of top posting (I'm exempting Mark, who defended it
without favoring it), only Dave uses something other than OE (Dave is
seems to be using Tbird 1.5, the same as myself). I should add a caveat
that of course clients can alter their headers to masquerade as a
different reader, but I don't think many do as there isn't much of a
reason to (unlike browser headers).


If there were no good free newsreaders, I would be somewhat sympathetic
to the OE users, but since there are now dozens of capable newsreaders
that are free, there just isn't any excuse for top-posting other than
laziness. And, if they are going to be that lazy in a one-time thing
like installing a good newsreader, it's likely they'll be just as lazy
when it comes to being able to repeatedly compose useful information
into a post

Well, there is *some* draw to being able to use one client for mail
*and* news, so if you use OE for email, I suppose it's nice to be able
to use it for news as well. But long ago I abandoned MS products for
news for almost exactly the reasons you state, plus the "view threads
with unread" option that they never had. Thank god Outlook has never
had native Newsgroup support (you can end-run around it with exchange
connections and public folders, but no end user is likely to do that on
his own).

But I would agree that there is a negative correlation between
top-posting and OE clients to posts with useful information.

Randy S.