On 7/17/2012 11:24 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:02:31 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> On 7/17/2012 12:39 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:25:38 -1000, dsi1
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those ads for WebTV may have been a little too white for me but who
>>>> could resist those happy, attractive, models of an advanced age taking
>>>> such delight in reaching out to the kids through their TV? Certainly not I.
>>>
>>> I must not watch the right television channels because I never see
>>> WebTV ads, not even back when it was at its most popular stage. In
>>> fact, I would think it was kaput if Judy and whoever else it is
>>> weren't posting.
>>>
>>
>> I don't recall where I saw it. Family magazines probably. Maybe even PC
>> mags - the idea being the the reader would buy his parents this box.
>
> Oh, okay. I don't subscribe to or read "family" magazines anymore and
> of course I don't subscribe to anything in a technical field.
>

WebTV is dead. Microsoft discontinued it a few years ago. They're
continuing to provide service (for the time being) to the dwindling
userbase, but they're not signing up new customers.

And for the near-universal disdain in which aol and webtv users are
held, it's because the fact that they're continuing to access the
internet via such outdated, antiquated means tells us they don't know
what the hell they're doing, where they are, and how they got there.
Back in the day when aol and webtv were popular, they were blamed for
unloosing hundreds of thousands of idiots onto the internet, which was
not welcomed by the more tech-savvy denizens.