On 4/12/2014 11:49 AM, jmcquown wrote:

>
> I have basic cable, no DVR. Since buying a hi-def TV a few years ago, I
> discovered I get more channels than the old analog set ever dreamed of.
> LOL Sometimes I catch Planet Earth. It's truly spectacular. Especially
> when you can see the images with such clarity. Great music, too.
>
> Jill

There are a handful of No TV adherents that boast then never watch the
rubbish that is on. I agree that the networks have a lot of rubudh but
there are some wonderful programs if you take the time to seek them out.
The clarity of a hi-def screen really adds to the viewing experience.

On 4/12/2014 12:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 11:49 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>>
>> I have basic cable, no DVR. Since buying a hi-def TV a few years ago, I
>> discovered I get more channels than the old analog set ever dreamed of.
>> LOL Sometimes I catch Planet Earth. It's truly spectacular. Especially
>> when you can see the images with such clarity. Great music, too.
>>
>> Jill
>
> There are a handful of No TV adherents that boast then never watch the
> rubbish that is on. I agree that the networks have a lot of rubudh but
> there are some wonderful programs if you take the time to seek them out.

Sure there is rubbish. Most of the reality shows are rubbish, but
someone must be watching. But there are some fun shows on, too. Not
everything needs to be educational and PBS-ish to be entertaining.

I really enjoy Planet Earth when I catch it. Since the channel isn't
listed I never really know when it will be on.

> The clarity of a hi-def screen really adds to the viewing experience.

HD certainly does! My set isn't all that big. It's a 32" flat screen
(measured on the diagonal... lots of people don't know that's how to
measure screens/monitors.) The TV is the perfect size for the room. I
don't remember exactly what I paid for it but I know it wasn't much.

I know you remember when televisions used to be really expensive. They
were often huge heavy pieces of furniture. I don't miss that era one
iota.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...

> I know you remember when televisions used to be really expensive. They
> were often huge heavy pieces of furniture. I don't miss that era one
> iota.
>
> Jill

I really miss the consoles since they were really nice pieces of furniture
many times and were great for putting things on top, but I do like the ease
of picking up the TV and moving it when it needs moving for dusting etc.

Cheri

On 2014-04-12 12:23 PM, jmcquown wrote:

>
> I know you remember when televisions used to be really expensive. They
> were often huge heavy pieces of furniture.


They are cheaper now than they were back in the 60s, and that is without
factoring for inflation. You also needed to be technically minded to
keep them running because they needed frequent tube replacements.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 15:56:55 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2014-04-12 12:23 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>>
>> I know you remember when televisions used to be really expensive. They
>> were often huge heavy pieces of furniture.
>
>
>They are cheaper now than they were back in the 60s, and that is without
>factoring for inflation. You also needed to be technically minded to
>keep them running because they needed frequent tube replacements.

And very often you needed to call a TV repairman, who most times would
also sell you a new tuner... there was no remote back then... to
change channels you had to get up off your ass.

"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 15:56:55 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>On 2014-04-12 12:23 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I know you remember when televisions used to be really expensive. They
>>> were often huge heavy pieces of furniture.
>>
>>
>>They are cheaper now than they were back in the 60s, and that is without
>>factoring for inflation. You also needed to be technically minded to
>>keep them running because they needed frequent tube replacements.
>
> And very often you needed to call a TV repairman, who most times would
> also sell you a new tuner... there was no remote back then... to
> change channels you had to get up off your ass.

That's why we had children. :-)

Cheri

On 4/12/2014 8:33 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 15:56:55 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-04-12 12:23 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know you remember when televisions used to be really expensive. They
>>>> were often huge heavy pieces of furniture.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are cheaper now than they were back in the 60s, and that is without
>>> factoring for inflation. You also needed to be technically minded to
>>> keep them running because they needed frequent tube replacements.
>>
>> And very often you needed to call a TV repairman, who most times would
>> also sell you a new tuner... there was no remote back then... to
>> change channels you had to get up off your ass.
>
> That's why we had children. :-)
>
> Cheri

LOL! Not having a remote wasn't a great hardship.

Jill

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:33:33 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
>"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 15:56:55 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 2014-04-12 12:23 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know you remember when televisions used to be really expensive. They
>>>> were often huge heavy pieces of furniture.
>>>
>>>
>>>They are cheaper now than they were back in the 60s, and that is without
>>>factoring for inflation. You also needed to be technically minded to
>>>keep them running because they needed frequent tube replacements.
>>
>> And very often you needed to call a TV repairman, who most times would
>> also sell you a new tuner... there was no remote back then... to
>> change channels you had to get up off your ass.
>
>That's why we had children. :-)
>
>Cheri

Back then children were in bed by 8 PM or earlier, and they didn't
dare give parents any lip for fear of a good lickin'.

"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:33:33 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 15:56:55 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2014-04-12 12:23 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know you remember when televisions used to be really expensive.
>>>>> They
>>>>> were often huge heavy pieces of furniture.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They are cheaper now than they were back in the 60s, and that is without
>>>>factoring for inflation. You also needed to be technically minded to
>>>>keep them running because they needed frequent tube replacements.
>>>
>>> And very often you needed to call a TV repairman, who most times would
>>> also sell you a new tuner... there was no remote back then... to
>>> change channels you had to get up off your ass.
>>
>>That's why we had children. :-)
>>
>>Cheri
>
> Back then children were in bed by 8 PM or earlier, and they didn't
> dare give parents any lip for fear of a good lickin'.

They were in bed early because they were worn out from running back and
forth changing those channels. ;-)

Cheri

On 4/12/2014 6:12 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> And very often you needed to call a TV repairman, who most times would
> also sell you a new tuner... there was no remote back then... to
> change channels you had to get up off your ass.

That was a super chore! Flipping through all 5 channels or
whatever it was.

Wasn't really much of a problem deciding on one show.

nancy

On 4/12/2014 10:04 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 6:12 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> And very often you needed to call a TV repairman, who most times would
>> also sell you a new tuner... there was no remote back then... to
>> change channels you had to get up off your ass.
>
> That was a super chore! Flipping through all 5 channels or
> whatever it was.
>
> Wasn't really much of a problem deciding on one show.
>
> nancy
>
You had FIVE channels? Wow! We only had CBS, NBC, and ABC. I'm not
sure there was a PBS station where I lived in those days.

Jill

On 4/12/2014 10:51 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 10:04 PM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> That was a super chore! Flipping through all 5 channels or
>> whatever it was.
>>
>> Wasn't really much of a problem deciding on one show.

> You had FIVE channels? Wow! We only had CBS, NBC, and ABC. I'm not
> sure there was a PBS station where I lived in those days.

It's all I could think of, you had 2, 4, 7, 11 and 13. And I don't
remember what 11 was, if we had it.

nancy

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 22:04:04 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 4/12/2014 6:12 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> And very often you needed to call a TV repairman, who most times would
>> also sell you a new tuner... there was no remote back then... to
>> change channels you had to get up off your ass.
>
>That was a super chore! Flipping through all 5 channels or
>whatever it was.
>
>Wasn't really much of a problem deciding on one show.
>
>nancy

And between 11:30 PM and 6:00 AM all you could watch was a pattern and
hear it buzzzzzz. Our first TV was in 1948, an 11" Dumont in a nice
furniture console, they were very expensive, probably well over $500.
Looked something like this:
http://www.antiqueradio.org/art/DuMo...shedMedium.jpg

On 4/13/2014 12:19 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> And between 11:30 PM and 6:00 AM all you could watch was a pattern and
> hear it buzzzzzz.

Don't forget the test pattern! Even when I was a teenager (no cable in
our area) the stations went off the air at midnight. In the US they'd
play the Star Spangled Banner then, gone until the next morning.

> Our first TV was in 1948, an 11" Dumont in a nice
> furniture console, they were very expensive, probably well over $500.
> Looked something like this:
> http://www.antiqueradio.org/art/DuMo...shedMedium.jpg
>
My parents had a console in the early 1960's. It had a record player at
one end and a black & white TV at the other.

Jill

On 4/12/2014 3:56 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-04-12 12:23 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>>
>> I know you remember when televisions used to be really expensive. They
>> were often huge heavy pieces of furniture.
>
>
> They are cheaper now than they were back in the 60s, and that is without
> factoring for inflation. You also needed to be technically minded to
> keep them running because they needed frequent tube replacements.

IIRC, our first TV when we got married in 1966 was about $170 ($1200 in
today's money). It was a 29" B&W portable. That was more than a weeks
pay back then.

A good sized flat screen can be had for just a couple of days pay now.

On 2014-04-12 12:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> There are a handful of No TV adherents that boast then never watch the
> rubbish that is on. I agree that the networks have a lot of rubudh but
> there are some wonderful programs if you take the time to seek them out.
> The clarity of a hi-def screen really adds to the viewing experience.


The major networks are, for the most part, an cultural wasteland. I
never used to watch much television in the days that we caught the
transmissions over the air. Then I got satellite and got a bunch of
specialty channels. I watch a local news station... for local news, and
some of the international news stations, and there are a couple network
comedy shows. The rest of the stuff is a waste of my time.

Hi def is nice for some things. I have to say that if I watch hockey I
prefer in in the regular mode. My satellite includes close to 20 HD
stations. A lot of the nature stuff I get on DVD or BluRay from the
library.

On 4/12/2014 12:34 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

>
> Hi def is nice for some things. I have to say that if I watch hockey I
> prefer in in the regular mode. My satellite includes close to 20 HD
> stations.

Never heard of anyone preferring regular broadcast over HD. I've become
an HD snob and have only HD stations on the customized channel list.

My sat offers over 80 HD stations.

On 4/12/2014 9:51 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 12:34 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi def is nice for some things. I have to say that if I watch hockey I
>> prefer in in the regular mode. My satellite includes close to 20 HD
>> stations.
>
> Never heard of anyone preferring regular broadcast over HD. I've become
> an HD snob and have only HD stations on the customized channel list.

Before I had a DVR extender, I'd record shows in SD because they took
up so much less room. Otherwise why watch something on the SD channel
rather than the HD version.

nancy

On 4/12/2014 10:06 PM, Nancy Young wrote:

> Before I had a DVR extender, I'd record shows in SD because they took
> up so much less room. Otherwise why watch something on the SD channel
> rather than the HD version.
>
> nancy
>

I have the DirecTV Genie. Plenty of space and can record 5 hd shows at
a time.

On 4/13/2014 12:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 10:06 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Before I had a DVR extender, I'd record shows in SD because they took
>> up so much less room. Otherwise why watch something on the SD channel
>> rather than the HD version.

> I have the DirecTV Genie. Plenty of space and can record 5 hd shows at
> a time.

That's a great feature. It's annoying that I can only record two
shows at a time. Most of the time not a problem but there's always
that one night when a bunch of shows conflict.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> On 4/13/2014 12:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 4/12/2014 10:06 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
> >
> >> Before I had a DVR extender, I'd record shows in SD because they took
> >> up so much less room. Otherwise why watch something on the SD channel
> >> rather than the HD version.
>
> > I have the DirecTV Genie. Plenty of space and can record 5 hd shows at
> > a time.
>
> That's a great feature. It's annoying that I can only record two
> shows at a time. Most of the time not a problem but there's always
> that one night when a bunch of shows conflict.

Do you two watch the recorded shows later though? Back in the days of
my VCR, I would often record shows but then never watch them. I was
constantly recording over recorded shows that I never watched. I
prefer realtime tv now

I would like to record a few cooking shows on Saturday mornings though
that I love but never have time to watch that early on Saturdays. I'm
talking about the two shows featuring that nice fellow that always
wear a bow tie. Cook's County, I think and another one that's pretty
much the same.

G.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:21:40 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 4/13/2014 12:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/12/2014 10:06 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> Before I had a DVR extender, I'd record shows in SD because they took
>>> up so much less room. Otherwise why watch something on the SD channel
>>> rather than the HD version.
>
>> I have the DirecTV Genie. Plenty of space and can record 5 hd shows at
>> a time.
>
>That's a great feature. It's annoying that I can only record two
>shows at a time. Most of the time not a problem but there's always
>that one night when a bunch of shows conflict.
>
>nancy

As far as I know, I can only record one at a time. I can watch one
and record another. So if there are two I want to record I do one at
the earlier time and the other in the middle of the night when it is
repeated.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:21:40 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> On 4/13/2014 12:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 4/12/2014 10:06 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
> >
> >> Before I had a DVR extender, I'd record shows in SD because they took
> >> up so much less room. Otherwise why watch something on the SD channel
> >> rather than the HD version.
>
> > I have the DirecTV Genie. Plenty of space and can record 5 hd shows at
> > a time.
>
> That's a great feature. It's annoying that I can only record two
> shows at a time. Most of the time not a problem but there's always
> that one night when a bunch of shows conflict.
>
There's always On Demand. The problem with that is no fast forwarding
through commercials... which is the case with Comcast.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:21:40 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 4/13/2014 12:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/12/2014 10:06 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> Before I had a DVR extender, I'd record shows in SD because they took
>>> up so much less room. Otherwise why watch something on the SD channel
>>> rather than the HD version.
>
>> I have the DirecTV Genie. Plenty of space and can record 5 hd shows at
>> a time.
>
>That's a great feature. It's annoying that I can only record two
>shows at a time. Most of the time not a problem but there's always
>that one night when a bunch of shows conflict.
>
>nancy

But how do you find time to watch them all, you don't do anything
else, not even sleep?

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 00:48:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 4/12/2014 10:06 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Before I had a DVR extender, I'd record shows in SD because they took
>> up so much less room. Otherwise why watch something on the SD channel
>> rather than the HD version.
>>
>> nancy
>>
>
>I have the DirecTV Genie. Plenty of space and can record 5 hd shows at
>a time.

That could be more than 40 hours of TV a week, probably more, even
zipping through the commercials when do you find time to watch them,
and you work full time, there aren't that many hours in a day. I
stopped DVRing because it wasn't long I'd fill the memory and never
found time to watch many, and by the time I'd get around to watching
something it was dated.... there're TV shows on 24/7, even if I stayed
awake all night I wouldn't be able to watch everything I'd DVR... for
a while I was deleting shows just so I'd have room to DVR newer shows
and still didn't have time to watch them... that's when I said who
needs this addiction and stopped DVRing. I have a TV on 24/7 but I
don't watch much, it's more for background sound... for me TV is the
best sleeping pill... I can get into bed at 9 PM, put on a movie and
be out before ten minutes passes... I can't remember the last time I
watched an entire movie on TV, has to be a couple decades. There's a
awful lot on TV nowadays but not much of value, I'm much more into
quality than quantity. I'd rather do a crossword puzzle than waste my
time watching the crapola TV shows on these days. About all I'll
watch are some Nat Geos and lots of those are too far out, I'm really
not interested in how life will be in the next century, I won't be
here.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/12/2014 11:49 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>>
>> I have basic cable, no DVR. Since buying a hi-def TV a few years ago, I
>> discovered I get more channels than the old analog set ever dreamed of.
>> LOL Sometimes I catch Planet Earth. It's truly spectacular. Especially
>> when you can see the images with such clarity. Great music, too.
>>
>> Jill
>
> There are a handful of No TV adherents that boast then never watch the
> rubbish that is on. I agree that the networks have a lot of rubudh but
> there are some wonderful programs if you take the time to seek them out.
> The clarity of a hi-def screen really adds to the viewing experience.

When I first got my HD DVR along with Directv, the clarity about knocked my
eyes out and took a bit to get used to it. It really does make a difference.
I do think the networks have some decent shows, but I also find that the
shows I enjoy the most are cable channels.

Cheri

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:15:56 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
m...
>> On 4/12/2014 11:49 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have basic cable, no DVR. Since buying a hi-def TV a few years ago, I
>>> discovered I get more channels than the old analog set ever dreamed of.
>>> LOL Sometimes I catch Planet Earth. It's truly spectacular. Especially
>>> when you can see the images with such clarity. Great music, too.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> There are a handful of No TV adherents that boast then never watch the
>> rubbish that is on. I agree that the networks have a lot of rubudh but
>> there are some wonderful programs if you take the time to seek them out.
>> The clarity of a hi-def screen really adds to the viewing experience.
>
>When I first got my HD DVR along with Directv, the clarity about knocked my
>eyes out and took a bit to get used to it. It really does make a difference.
>I do think the networks have some decent shows, but I also find that the
>shows I enjoy the most are cable channels.
>
>Cheri

Hi Def makes a huge difference... I watch all the Nat Geos I can find
and I enjoy those gold mining shows a lot. If I can't watch them when
broadcast I DVR them. There's a huge difference watching Hi Def.