Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #69887 > unrolled thread

media reliability

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  media reliability Frank <gno52@windstream.net> - 2015-02-18 04:00 -0800
    Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 08:15 -0500
      Re: media reliability Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-02-18 09:24 -0500
        Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 13:03 -0500
          Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-19 00:03 +0000
            Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-19 04:59 +0000
              Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-19 12:53 +0000
                Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 02:51 +0000
              Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 08:44 -0500
                Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:23 +0000
                  Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 07:42 -0500
                    Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-21 06:05 +0000
                Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-20 04:51 +0000
              Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-19 08:49 -0500
            Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 08:38 -0500
            Re: media reliability Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-19 17:12 +0000
              Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-19 11:45 -0800
                Re: media reliability Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-19 22:24 +0000
                Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 13:10 +1300
                  Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-19 17:14 -0800
                    Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 20:41 -0500
                      Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-19 18:11 -0800
                        Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 18:15 +1300
                      Re: media reliability David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-02-19 20:32 -0600
                        Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 07:36 -0500
                          Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 07:51 -0500
                      Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:33 +0000
                        Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-19 19:57 -0800
                          Re: media reliability Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-20 09:44 +0000
                            Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-21 06:10 +0000
                              Re: media reliability Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-21 10:23 +0000
                              Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-21 10:33 -0500
                                Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-22 15:33 +0000
                              Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-22 09:51 +1300
                                Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-21 13:09 -0800
                                  Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-22 03:30 +0000
      Re: media reliability isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2015-02-18 09:40 -0800
        Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-19 05:06 +0000
      Re: media reliability Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2015-02-18 19:31 -0500
        Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-18 19:38 -0500
        Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-19 13:55 +1300
          Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-19 05:17 +0000
            Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-19 19:02 +1300
              Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 09:09 -0500
                Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 09:12 +1300
        Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 08:57 -0500
    Re: media reliability Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-02-18 09:24 -0500
    Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-18 19:20 -0500
      Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-19 05:33 +0000
        Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-19 19:15 +1300
          Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-18 23:22 -0800
          Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-19 08:39 -0500
            Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:21 +0000
              Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 18:46 +1300
                Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-21 06:04 +0000
                  Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-21 10:36 -0500
                    Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-22 15:32 +0000
                  Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-22 09:48 +1300
                    Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-21 13:08 -0800
                    Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-22 03:40 +0000
                      Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-22 17:42 +1300
        Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-19 08:36 -0500
          Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:10 +0000
            Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-20 08:19 -0500
        Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 09:15 -0500
          Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 09:19 +1300
            Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:28 +0000
            Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-21 11:01 -0500
              Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-21 15:03 -0500
                Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-22 09:57 +1300
                  Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-21 19:33 -0500
      Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-19 13:02 +0000
        Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 02:56 +0000
          Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-20 04:43 +0000
    Re: media reliability Frank <gno52@windstream.net> - 2015-02-22 03:24 -0800
      Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-23 09:36 +1300
        Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-22 18:36 -0500
          Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-23 13:24 +1300
          Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-22 17:23 -0800
            Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-22 21:24 -0500
              Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-22 19:13 -0800
                Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-22 23:13 -0500
              Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-23 18:03 +1300
    Re: media reliability Frank <gno52@windstream.net> - 2015-02-23 02:59 -0800
      Re: media reliability John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-02-23 07:00 -0800
        Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-24 09:13 +1300

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#69915

In article <0001HW.D10A98F8013281C5B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
<nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:15:51 -0500, Warren Oates wrote
> (in article <54e49088$0$58725$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com>):
> > 
> > I've never had any real problems burning CD-Rs or 
> > DVD-Rs (other than the dual-layer ones)
> 
> The problem isn't with burning them.  It's with reading them later.  I 
> foolishly believed the "100 year" marketing hype about CD-R's.  Less 
> than 10 years later, I have multiple CD-R's which are unreadable due to 
> layer separation, dye migration, plastic clouding, etc.  And they 
> weren't El-Cheapo brand either.  Plus many have chemically reacted with 
> the vinyl storage sleeves :(

Yep, depnding on various factors (heat, humidity, sunlight, dampness,
etc.) the dyes used on recordable CDs and DVDs is pretty hopeless,
especailly the cheaper ones. 

There is (was?) one drive which uses special discs and physically burns
them in the literal sense, and those should last a long time, although
no doubt have problems, just like properly press-manufactured CD / DVDs
can suffer from.



> I now keep everything on duplicated hard drives.  Just picked up a pair 
> of 5 TB Seagates and they pretty much fit everything I can still read.  
> I'm still looking for a good utility to recover the CD-R's with bad 
> sectors.

Hard drives can of course die as well, so you need to check them
occasionally. Plus there's the problem that the disc format may become
so obsolete that finding a device in, for example, 50 years time may be
near impossible. (Try finding anything in most shops that will read VHS
tapes now.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69923

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:55:58 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <0001HW.D10A98F8013281C5B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
><nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:15:51 -0500, Warren Oates wrote
>> (in article <54e49088$0$58725$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com>):
>> > 
>> > I've never had any real problems burning CD-Rs or 
>> > DVD-Rs (other than the dual-layer ones)
>> 
>> The problem isn't with burning them.  It's with reading them later.  I 
>> foolishly believed the "100 year" marketing hype about CD-R's.  Less 
>> than 10 years later, I have multiple CD-R's which are unreadable due to 
>> layer separation, dye migration, plastic clouding, etc.  And they 
>> weren't El-Cheapo brand either.  Plus many have chemically reacted with 
>> the vinyl storage sleeves :(
>
>Yep, depnding on various factors (heat, humidity, sunlight, dampness,
>etc.) the dyes used on recordable CDs and DVDs is pretty hopeless,
>especailly the cheaper ones. 
>
>There is (was?) one drive which uses special discs and physically burns
>them in the literal sense, and those should last a long time, although
>no doubt have problems, just like properly press-manufactured CD / DVDs
>can suffer from.
>

 These? http://www.mdisc.com/what-is-mdisc/
 

>
>
>> I now keep everything on duplicated hard drives.  Just picked up a pair 
>> of 5 TB Seagates and they pretty much fit everything I can still read.  
>> I'm still looking for a good utility to recover the CD-R's with bad 
>> sectors.
>
>Hard drives can of course die as well, so you need to check them
>occasionally. Plus there's the problem that the disc format may become
>so obsolete that finding a device in, for example, 50 years time may be
>near impossible.

 It's the *connector* that generally stops them from being useful,
that and the device driver. I have a lovely scanner that did
fabulously clear copies but no modern PC has a connector that it will
plug into (and I don't think Macs ever did) and the latest device
driver is for WinME. Actually Win95 but it did work in ME. 
 I have a trio of HDDs that used to work in WinME, from USB connectors
using software called a "USB-bridge". The software is incompatible
with WinXP and later. That's unfortunate as they were special-order,
truly *gigantic* 13GB drives.
 
 13GB? I have pinky-nail sized memory cards four times that size.

> (Try finding anything in most shops that will read VHS
>tapes now.)

 I have one ... maybe two. They still work. I use them to ... no, I do
*NOT* use them for that as that would be very naughty but they *could*
be used to transfer the VHS data onto DVD so the PC can read it. Not
that *I* would ever dream of doing this.
                                           J. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69930

In article <curaea10er2ir6onlvp2qimm6eaujc77pq@4ax.com>, John
<Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:55:58 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <0001HW.D10A98F8013281C5B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
> ><nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:15:51 -0500, Warren Oates wrote
> >> (in article <54e49088$0$58725$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com>):
> >> > 
> >> > I've never had any real problems burning CD-Rs or 
> >> > DVD-Rs (other than the dual-layer ones)
> >> 
> >> The problem isn't with burning them.  It's with reading them later.  I 
> >> foolishly believed the "100 year" marketing hype about CD-R's.  Less 
> >> than 10 years later, I have multiple CD-R's which are unreadable due to 
> >> layer separation, dye migration, plastic clouding, etc.  And they 
> >> weren't El-Cheapo brand either.  Plus many have chemically reacted with 
> >> the vinyl storage sleeves :(
> >
> >Yep, depnding on various factors (heat, humidity, sunlight, dampness,
> >etc.) the dyes used on recordable CDs and DVDs is pretty hopeless,
> >especailly the cheaper ones. 
> >
> >There is (was?) one drive which uses special discs and physically burns
> >them in the literal sense, and those should last a long time, although
> >no doubt have problems, just like properly press-manufactured CD / DVDs
> >can suffer from.
> 
>  These? http://www.mdisc.com/what-is-mdisc/

Could be. I read about them a while back, but I think "mdisc" is the
name.



> >> I now keep everything on duplicated hard drives.  Just picked up a pair 
> >> of 5 TB Seagates and they pretty much fit everything I can still read.  
> >> I'm still looking for a good utility to recover the CD-R's with bad 
> >> sectors.
> >
> >Hard drives can of course die as well, so you need to check them
> >occasionally. Plus there's the problem that the disc format may become
> >so obsolete that finding a device in, for example, 50 years time may be
> >near impossible.
> 
>  It's the *connector* that generally stops them from being useful,
> that and the device driver. I have a lovely scanner that did
> fabulously clear copies but no modern PC has a connector that it will
> plug into (and I don't think Macs ever did) and the latest device
> driver is for WinME. Actually Win95 but it did work in ME. 
>  I have a trio of HDDs that used to work in WinME, from USB connectors
> using software called a "USB-bridge". The software is incompatible
> with WinXP and later. That's unfortunate as they were special-order,
> truly *gigantic* 13GB drives.
>  
>  13GB? I have pinky-nail sized memory cards four times that size.

I ran my computer for years on just a 6GB hard drive ... I'm still
using the same drive now for the OS X boot drive, but had to add a
bigger 120GB drive for work files and use a partition on that as a  Mac
OS 9 boot drive.



> > (Try finding anything in most shops that will read VHS tapes now.)
> 
>  I have one ... maybe two. They still work. I use them to ... no, I do
> *NOT* use them for that as that would be very naughty but they *could*
> be used to transfer the VHS data onto DVD so the PC can read it. Not
> that *I* would ever dream of doing this.

There are places and people around that still have VHS boxes, but
that's why I specifically said "shop".   :-)

I've got a VHS/DVD combo box in the cupboard (brand new, never used
yet) so that I can watch my old video tapes if I want to. My Mac has an
audio-visual card, so I could easily plug that VHS box in and digitise
the tapes ... although OS 9 screwed up the original software, so I'd
have to find newer software (I haven't tried using the card with OS X)
or re-install OS 8.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69950

In article <190220151902565488%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> I've got a VHS/DVD combo box in the cupboard (brand new, never used
> yet) so that I can watch my old video tapes if I want to. My Mac has an
> audio-visual card, so I could easily plug that VHS box in and digitise
> the tapes ... although OS 9 screwed up the original software, so I'd
> have to find newer software (I haven't tried using the card with OS X)
> or re-install OS 8.

What resolution are you going to get from an old AV card (to System 8)? 
I had a Quadra 630 with an AV card, and I could get a very nice 320x240 
on it (which I could edit with a filthy old version of Premiere). I even 
put together a pitch on it and we even got the job (producer was an 
eejit, thought I was some kind of tech wizard "is this digital?").
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69962

In article
<54e5ee99$0$39569$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>,‡Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <190220151902565488%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I've got a VHS/DVD combo box in the cupboard (brand new, never used
> > yet) so that I can watch my old video tapes if I want to. My Mac has an
> > audio-visual card, so I could easily plug that VHS box in and digitise
> > the tapes ... although OS 9 screwed up the original software, so I'd
> > have to find newer software (I haven't tried using the card with OS X)
> > or re-install OS 8.
> 
> What resolution are you going to get from an old AV card (to System 8)? 
> I had a Quadra 630 with an AV card, and I could get a very nice 320x240 
> on it (which I could edit with a filthy old version of Premiere). I even 
> put together a pitch on it and we even got the job (producer was an 
> eejit, thought I was some kind of tech wizard "is this digital?").

I don't know. It's been a long time since I used it. I know you can
change the video recording size to basically anything you want in the
VideoShop software, but whether or not the capture card and computer
can keep up would be a different question and depend at least partly on
the speed of your computer and hard drive. 

I know the stuff I used to play around with was fairly small (a quick
look at one movie shows it is 320x240), mainly due to only having a 6GB
hard drive and not wanting to tie up the computer for hours and hours
while the save file to be processed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69949

In article <0001HW.D10A98F8013281C5B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>,
 Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:15:51 -0500, Warren Oates wrote
> (in article <54e49088$0$58725$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com>):
> 
> > I've never had any real problems burning CD-Rs or 
> > DVD-Rs (other than the dual-layer ones)
> 
> The problem isn't with burning them.  It's with reading them later.  I 
> foolishly believed the "100 year" marketing hype about CD-R's.  Less 
> than 10 years later, I have multiple CD-R's which are unreadable due to 
> layer separation, dye migration, plastic clouding, etc.  And they 
> weren't El-Cheapo brand either.  Plus many have chemically reacted with 
> the vinyl storage sleeves :(
> 
I see. I haven't had that problem either, but I don't have any discs 
that old that I rely on. I picked a couple of MP-3 discs that are ten 
years old  and popped them into the Mac Pro, and up they came. They go 
back to when commercial CD players first started playing MP3s.

Once upon a time, R-DATS were going to be a big deal but consumers never 
bought them, even though Sony created a nice low sampling rate just for 
the guy in Lethbridge. The media rusts.


> I now keep everything on duplicated hard drives.  Just picked up a pair 
> of 5 TB Seagates and they pretty much fit everything I can still read.  
> I'm still looking for a good utility to recover the CD-R's with bad 
> sectors.

<http://en.softonic.com/s/cd-recovery-software:mac/mac-x>

I don't know how up-to-date that is. There's a bunch of tools for 
Winders.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69896

Frank:

> have  windows7 OS on Dell and OS-X v 10.9.5 on mac mini

I have Yosemite and Win 7 Pro on two MacBook Pros.

> Too many unsatisfactory experiences on both with reliability of CD and DVD
> disks.  Should I just discard remaining unformatted disks and use only flash
> drives?   Never have had one of them to fail;  weak link with them seems to
> hubs rather than the media.

Those optical media have been obsolete for years. Download and
streaming of audio and video did them in. They were always a poor way
to store or move files, IMO.

I'm guessing it has been no less than 10 years since I last burned a CD
or DVD. But I still have a bunch of both in the basement, probably
still in good condition.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69910

On 2015.02.18 07:00 , Frank wrote:
> have  windows7 OS on Dell and OS-X v 10.9.5 on mac mini
>
> Too many unsatisfactory experiences on both with reliability of CD
> and DVD disks.  Should I just discard remaining unformatted disks and
> use only flash drives?   Never have had one of them to fail;  weak
> link with them seems to hubs rather than the media.

I have about 50 CD/DVD's over 5 years old that still read fine.  I 
reburn (copy) all discs that are older than 5 years.  I've kept a few 
older ones to see how long they'll go and they're at over 10 years with 
no issues that I can spot.

I have write fails on about 1 disk in 10.  Doesn't matter - they're 
cheap enough.  No need to discard what you have.  At least find someone 
who might have use for them.

They are kept in a dark, cool, dry place.  That's a big part of keeping 
them for the long term.

I keep saying I'll get archive disks (gold, not made in India - Taiwan 
make the real deal) that should outlive me by several decades, but never 
get round to it.

That said, my "rate" of burning CD/DVD's has dropped from about 20 or so 
per year to a few per year.  My iMac doesn't have a burner so I borrow 
my SO's burner (USB powered).

I also have thought of getting a Blu Ray burner but keep putting that 
off as well.

-- 
"Your net worth to the world is usually
  determined by what remains after your
  bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
                                   Benjamin Franklin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69927

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:20:24 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2015.02.18 07:00 , Frank wrote:
>> have  windows7 OS on Dell and OS-X v 10.9.5 on mac mini
>>
>> Too many unsatisfactory experiences on both with reliability of CD
>> and DVD disks.  Should I just discard remaining unformatted disks and
>> use only flash drives?   Never have had one of them to fail;  weak
>> link with them seems to hubs rather than the media.
>
>I have about 50 CD/DVD's over 5 years old that still read fine.  I 
>reburn (copy) all discs that are older than 5 years.  I've kept a few 
>older ones to see how long they'll go and they're at over 10 years with 
>no issues that I can spot.
>
>I have write fails on about 1 disk in 10.  Doesn't matter - they're 
>cheap enough.  No need to discard what you have.  At least find someone 
>who might have use for them.
>
>They are kept in a dark, cool, dry place.  That's a big part of keeping 
>them for the long term.
>
>I keep saying I'll get archive disks (gold, not made in India - Taiwan 
>make the real deal) that should outlive me by several decades, but never 
>get round to it.
>
>That said, my "rate" of burning CD/DVD's has dropped from about 20 or so 
>per year to a few per year.  My iMac doesn't have a burner so I borrow 
>my SO's burner (USB powered).
>
>I also have thought of getting a Blu Ray burner but keep putting that 
>off as well.

 I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
(by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums. 
 That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
access, which I use more than the BR drive. 
 I have, in three and a bit years recorded five discs on it. I got a
pack of 50 for about a tenner in a sale, Verbatim not "no-name", and I
still have most of them empty.
 If I need to move chunks of data I use a small hard drive, in the
500GB range, or a USB stick in the 8-64GB range. Or send it over the
wifi if I'm really, really not in a hurry.
 Wifi is truly lamentably slow and unreliable.
                                               J.     

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69932

In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>, John
<Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> 
>  I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
> (by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
> They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
> the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums. 
>  That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
> myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
> access, which I use more than the BR drive. 
<snip>

Blu-ray is obsolete ... 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray players are on the way. Of
course, those are already obsolete as well since they're now selling 8K
TVs.  :-\

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69934

In article <190220151915361081%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>, John
> <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> > 
> >  I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
> > (by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
> > They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
> > the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums. 
> >  That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
> > myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
> > access, which I use more than the BR drive. 
> <snip>
> 
> Blu-ray is obsolete ... 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray players are on the way. Of
> course, those are already obsolete as well since they're now selling 8K
> TVs.  :-\

There's truth to the old saw "By the time it gets to the store shelf, 
it's obsolete"

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69946

On 2015.02.19 01:15 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>, John
> <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>>
>>   I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
>> (by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
>> They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
>> the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums.
>>   That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
>> myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
>> access, which I use more than the BR drive.
> <snip>
>
> Blu-ray is obsolete ... 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray players are on the way. Of
> course, those are already obsolete as well since they're now selling 8K
> TVs.  :-\

4K is useless in most homes at usual viewing distances.  1080p on a 50 
inch screen outresolves the human eye at about 3.5 metres away.

4K would out resolve at about 2 metres away on that size screen.

8K?  Now you're into bragging rights only.

-- 
"Your net worth to the world is usually
  determined by what remains after your
  bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
                                   Benjamin Franklin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69984

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:39:53 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2015.02.19 01:15 , Your Name wrote:
>> In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>, John
>> <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>>>
>>>   I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
>>> (by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
>>> They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
>>> the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums.
>>>   That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
>>> myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
>>> access, which I use more than the BR drive.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Blu-ray is obsolete ... 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray players are on the way. Of
>> course, those are already obsolete as well since they're now selling 8K
>> TVs.  :-\
>
>4K is useless in most homes at usual viewing distances.  1080p on a 50 
>inch screen outresolves the human eye at about 3.5 metres away.
>
>4K would out resolve at about 2 metres away on that size screen.
>
>8K?  Now you're into bragging rights only.

 I saw an image on a large, super-HD TV in a shop recently. It was
wall-mounted at an appropriate height and, for a few seconds, I
thought it was a real lady looking at me through a small window from a
room next-door. It looked *exceedingly* real.
 The distance was from about ten to about five metres. Closer than
that there was something about the luminance or a flickering or
something that shattered the illusion but for a few seconds I knew how
that first movie audience felt when watching the train come at them
pre-1900.
 I actually had a touch of the "don't stare, naughty" that one gets
when encountering live ladies. That had *never* happened before with a
televised image. I've always known those were "paintings" and had no
feelings to be hurt. 
 (Yes, the *actors* have feelings when they are being recorded, but
the images I see do not.)
 I was quite impressed by the quality of many of the very large screen
TVs in the store. 
 And Apple's new 5K screen is just *gorgeous*. Though I do want a
larger version, with more pixels ...
                                                     J.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69995

In article <ve9deahrhvnsc49u4fcenhutrgid3rlvjk@4ax.com>, John
<Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:39:53 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >On 2015.02.19 01:15 , Your Name wrote:
> >> In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>, John
> >> <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
> >>> (by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
> >>> They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
> >>> the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums.
> >>>   That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
> >>> myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
> >>> access, which I use more than the BR drive.
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Blu-ray is obsolete ... 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray players are on the way. Of
> >> course, those are already obsolete as well since they're now selling 8K
> >> TVs.  :-\
> >
> >4K is useless in most homes at usual viewing distances.  1080p on a 50 
> >inch screen outresolves the human eye at about 3.5 metres away.
> >
> >4K would out resolve at about 2 metres away on that size screen.
> >
> >8K?  Now you're into bragging rights only.
> 
>  I saw an image on a large, super-HD TV in a shop recently. It was
> wall-mounted at an appropriate height and, for a few seconds, I
> thought it was a real lady looking at me through a small window from a
> room next-door. It looked *exceedingly* real.
>  The distance was from about ten to about five metres. Closer than
> that there was something about the luminance or a flickering or
> something that shattered the illusion but for a few seconds I knew how
> that first movie audience felt when watching the train come at them
> pre-1900.
>  I actually had a touch of the "don't stare, naughty" that one gets
> when encountering live ladies. That had *never* happened before with a
> televised image. I've always known those were "paintings" and had no
> feelings to be hurt. 
>  (Yes, the *actors* have feelings when they are being recorded, but
> the images I see do not.)
>  I was quite impressed by the quality of many of the very large screen
> TVs in the store. 
>  And Apple's new 5K screen is just *gorgeous*. Though I do want a
> larger version, with more pixels ...

What you see in the TV showroom are demo reels, usually played from a
computer. There's no 4K players yet, no 4K DVDs to play on them, and no
studios / channels filming or broadcasting in 4K ... unless you're
making your own 4K content, it's a complete waste of money.

Even ignoring the pointlessness of increasing the screen pixel density,
there's also the issue that there simply won't really be any 4K
content. The content makers won't ever catch up with the TV makers -
almost nobody makes 4K content and TV is already selling at 8K TVs, by
the time companies start thinking about making 8K content, TV makers
will be selling 12K TVs.

It's all really little more than a greedy big business con to get
gullible people buying a new TV set which they don't really need ...
just as 3D TV was.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70048

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:46:21 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <ve9deahrhvnsc49u4fcenhutrgid3rlvjk@4ax.com>, John
><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:39:53 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> >On 2015.02.19 01:15 , Your Name wrote:
>> >> In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>, John
>> >> <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>   I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
>> >>> (by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
>> >>> They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
>> >>> the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums.
>> >>>   That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
>> >>> myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
>> >>> access, which I use more than the BR drive.
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> Blu-ray is obsolete ... 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray players are on the way. Of
>> >> course, those are already obsolete as well since they're now selling 8K
>> >> TVs.  :-\
>> >
>> >4K is useless in most homes at usual viewing distances.  1080p on a 50 
>> >inch screen outresolves the human eye at about 3.5 metres away.
>> >
>> >4K would out resolve at about 2 metres away on that size screen.
>> >
>> >8K?  Now you're into bragging rights only.
>> 
>>  I saw an image on a large, super-HD TV in a shop recently. It was
>> wall-mounted at an appropriate height and, for a few seconds, I
>> thought it was a real lady looking at me through a small window from a
>> room next-door. It looked *exceedingly* real.
>>  The distance was from about ten to about five metres. Closer than
>> that there was something about the luminance or a flickering or
>> something that shattered the illusion but for a few seconds I knew how
>> that first movie audience felt when watching the train come at them
>> pre-1900.
>>  I actually had a touch of the "don't stare, naughty" that one gets
>> when encountering live ladies. That had *never* happened before with a
>> televised image. I've always known those were "paintings" and had no
>> feelings to be hurt. 
>>  (Yes, the *actors* have feelings when they are being recorded, but
>> the images I see do not.)
>>  I was quite impressed by the quality of many of the very large screen
>> TVs in the store. 
>>  And Apple's new 5K screen is just *gorgeous*. Though I do want a
>> larger version, with more pixels ...
>
>What you see in the TV showroom are demo reels, usually played from a
>computer. There's no 4K players yet, no 4K DVDs to play on them, and no
>studios / channels filming or broadcasting in 4K ... unless you're
>making your own 4K content, it's a complete waste of money.
>
>Even ignoring the pointlessness of increasing the screen pixel density,
>there's also the issue that there simply won't really be any 4K
>content. The content makers won't ever catch up with the TV makers -
>almost nobody makes 4K content and TV is already selling at 8K TVs, by
>the time companies start thinking about making 8K content, TV makers
>will be selling 12K TVs.
>
>It's all really little more than a greedy big business con to get
>gullible people buying a new TV set which they don't really need ...
>just as 3D TV was.

 We all know this but the images in the showrooms are still often
gorgeous. And extremely real. Not "realistic", they went beyond
realistic when colour started in the last Century. 
 The event I mentioned was the first time I had truly confused a
recorded, televised moving image with reality. I doubt it will happen
again as the circumstances, the perfect placement of a window into
another room where one *could* be, will probably never occur again.
 
 As far as the confidence trick of upgrading the tech to keep the
economy running, all PC manufacturers, and Microsoft's Windows
divisions, have been doing this for decades, too. It's also part of
the mobile telephone handset industry, among others. 
 There's nothing new there.
 Which does not stop the images from being impressive.
 Especially the Astro-images, wildlife, night-time cityscapes and
firework shows. Some of those reels are worth a few seconds of just
standing and gawping. 
 Though that does tend to attract the attention of the local sales
drones who are hunting chumps. 
                                   J.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70058

In article <5g7gea97qe80gp2kkjvrrp3diopp49i0hs@4ax.com>,
 John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

> As far as the confidence trick of upgrading the tech to keep the
> economy running, all PC manufacturers, and Microsoft's Windows
> divisions,

Apple too. They (Apple) could easily provide firmware and boot options 
for the Mac Pro 1,1, but they'd rather have me spend teh monies on a 
newer computer.

Hey, how come a video card for a Mac costs $240 but the (exact) 
equivalent for a PC costs $40? Hmm? Are Monster Cables behind this?
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70095

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> was all, like:
> In article <5g7gea97qe80gp2kkjvrrp3diopp49i0hs@4ax.com>,
>  John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

>> As far as the confidence trick of upgrading the tech to keep the
>> economy running, all PC manufacturers, and Microsoft's Windows
>> divisions,

> Apple too. They (Apple) could easily provide firmware and boot options 
> for the Mac Pro 1,1, but they'd rather have me spend teh monies on a 
> newer computer.

The MacPro1,1 has a 32bit EFI. Getting that to work with a 64bit ROM is
something that takes multiple steps (boot from 32 bit, load 64 bit), and
is prone to failure and security exploits.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
Liberty means responsibility.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70070

In article <5g7gea97qe80gp2kkjvrrp3diopp49i0hs@4ax.com>, John
<Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:46:21 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <ve9deahrhvnsc49u4fcenhutrgid3rlvjk@4ax.com>, John
> ><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> >
> >What you see in the TV showroom are demo reels, usually played from a
> >computer. There's no 4K players yet, no 4K DVDs to play on them, and no
> >studios / channels filming or broadcasting in 4K ... unless you're
> >making your own 4K content, it's a complete waste of money.
> >
> >Even ignoring the pointlessness of increasing the screen pixel density,
> >there's also the issue that there simply won't really be any 4K
> >content. The content makers won't ever catch up with the TV makers -
> >almost nobody makes 4K content and TV is already selling at 8K TVs, by
> >the time companies start thinking about making 8K content, TV makers
> >will be selling 12K TVs.
> >
> >It's all really little more than a greedy big business con to get
> >gullible people buying a new TV set which they don't really need ...
> >just as 3D TV was.
> 
>  We all know this but the images in the showrooms are still often
> gorgeous. And extremely real. Not "realistic", they went beyond
> realistic when colour started in the last Century. 
>  The event I mentioned was the first time I had truly confused a
> recorded, televised moving image with reality. I doubt it will happen
> again as the circumstances, the perfect placement of a window into
> another room where one *could* be, will probably never occur again.
>  
>  As far as the confidence trick of upgrading the tech to keep the
> economy running, all PC manufacturers, and Microsoft's Windows
> divisions, have been doing this for decades, too. It's also part of
> the mobile telephone handset industry, among others. 
>  There's nothing new there.
>  Which does not stop the images from being impressive.
>  Especially the Astro-images, wildlife, night-time cityscapes and
> firework shows. Some of those reels are worth a few seconds of just
> standing and gawping. 
>  Though that does tend to attract the attention of the local sales
> drones who are hunting chumps. 

The point was that they may look impressive in the shop ... but once
you pay the over-bloated price and get it home it won't look any
different to your current "HD TV" or even your old CRT TV if watching
old re-runs (in some cases the image may even be worse than those since
LCD screens are not very good at displaying non-native resolutions).

It's similar to cars - a Ferrari may have impressive acceleration and
speed, but on most normal roads you'll quickly end up with massive
fines for using it that way and with almost no luggage space it isn't
particularly good as a daily driver, so you may as well stick with your
old Honda which is cheaper and works just as well within those
boundaries and better in some ways.

As someone else posted, UltraHD / 4K / 8K TV is little more than
bragging rights to claim you've got the "latest and greatest" toy on
the block.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70074

In article <220220150948233301%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <5g7gea97qe80gp2kkjvrrp3diopp49i0hs@4ax.com>, John
> <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:46:21 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
> > wrote:
> > >In article <ve9deahrhvnsc49u4fcenhutrgid3rlvjk@4ax.com>, John
> > ><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> > >
> > >What you see in the TV showroom are demo reels, usually played from a
> > >computer. There's no 4K players yet, no 4K DVDs to play on them, and no
> > >studios / channels filming or broadcasting in 4K ... unless you're
> > >making your own 4K content, it's a complete waste of money.
> > >
> > >Even ignoring the pointlessness of increasing the screen pixel density,
> > >there's also the issue that there simply won't really be any 4K
> > >content. The content makers won't ever catch up with the TV makers -
> > >almost nobody makes 4K content and TV is already selling at 8K TVs, by
> > >the time companies start thinking about making 8K content, TV makers
> > >will be selling 12K TVs.
> > >
> > >It's all really little more than a greedy big business con to get
> > >gullible people buying a new TV set which they don't really need ...
> > >just as 3D TV was.
> > 
> >  We all know this but the images in the showrooms are still often
> > gorgeous. And extremely real. Not "realistic", they went beyond
> > realistic when colour started in the last Century. 
> >  The event I mentioned was the first time I had truly confused a
> > recorded, televised moving image with reality. I doubt it will happen
> > again as the circumstances, the perfect placement of a window into
> > another room where one *could* be, will probably never occur again.
> >  
> >  As far as the confidence trick of upgrading the tech to keep the
> > economy running, all PC manufacturers, and Microsoft's Windows
> > divisions, have been doing this for decades, too. It's also part of
> > the mobile telephone handset industry, among others. 
> >  There's nothing new there.
> >  Which does not stop the images from being impressive.
> >  Especially the Astro-images, wildlife, night-time cityscapes and
> > firework shows. Some of those reels are worth a few seconds of just
> > standing and gawping. 
> >  Though that does tend to attract the attention of the local sales
> > drones who are hunting chumps. 
> 
> The point was that they may look impressive in the shop ... but once
> you pay the over-bloated price and get it home it won't look any
> different to your current "HD TV" or even your old CRT TV if watching
> old re-runs (in some cases the image may even be worse than those since
> LCD screens are not very good at displaying non-native resolutions).

<snerk>

I'm reminded of a bit from a radio "morning crew" skit - set in an IKEA 
type store:

Salesman, in thick scandahoovian accent: Unt ve call dis one de 
Snerkinsnorgen - it's one of our most popular items!
Customer: What's that word mean in english?
Salesman: <starts on what's obviously going to be a long drawn-out spiel>
Customer's buddy, over top of blabbing salesman: "Looks great in our 
showroom, looks like ass in your living room."

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70083

On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 09:48:23 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <5g7gea97qe80gp2kkjvrrp3diopp49i0hs@4ax.com>, John
><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:46:21 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <ve9deahrhvnsc49u4fcenhutrgid3rlvjk@4ax.com>, John
>> ><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>> >
>> >What you see in the TV showroom are demo reels, usually played from a
>> >computer. There's no 4K players yet, no 4K DVDs to play on them, and no
>> >studios / channels filming or broadcasting in 4K ... unless you're
>> >making your own 4K content, it's a complete waste of money.
>> >
>> >Even ignoring the pointlessness of increasing the screen pixel density,
>> >there's also the issue that there simply won't really be any 4K
>> >content. The content makers won't ever catch up with the TV makers -
>> >almost nobody makes 4K content and TV is already selling at 8K TVs, by
>> >the time companies start thinking about making 8K content, TV makers
>> >will be selling 12K TVs.
>> >
>> >It's all really little more than a greedy big business con to get
>> >gullible people buying a new TV set which they don't really need ...
>> >just as 3D TV was.
>> 
>>  We all know this but the images in the showrooms are still often
>> gorgeous. And extremely real. Not "realistic", they went beyond
>> realistic when colour started in the last Century. 
>>  The event I mentioned was the first time I had truly confused a
>> recorded, televised moving image with reality. I doubt it will happen
>> again as the circumstances, the perfect placement of a window into
>> another room where one *could* be, will probably never occur again.
>>  
>>  As far as the confidence trick of upgrading the tech to keep the
>> economy running, all PC manufacturers, and Microsoft's Windows
>> divisions, have been doing this for decades, too. It's also part of
>> the mobile telephone handset industry, among others. 
>>  There's nothing new there.
>>  Which does not stop the images from being impressive.
>>  Especially the Astro-images, wildlife, night-time cityscapes and
>> firework shows. Some of those reels are worth a few seconds of just
>> standing and gawping. 
>>  Though that does tend to attract the attention of the local sales
>> drones who are hunting chumps. 
>
>The point was that they may look impressive in the shop ... 

 They do. Because the guys setting them up spend *days* fiddling to
get them just about perfect. And, as you said, they have excellent
content fed into them. Probably optimised. 
 If TVs in a shop *don't* look truly spectacular, don't buy there.

> but once
>you pay the over-bloated price and get it home it won't look any
>different to your current "HD TV" or even your old CRT TV if watching
>old re-runs (in some cases the image may even be worse than those since
>LCD screens are not very good at displaying non-native resolutions).

 Yeh, true. In fact many programs look *worse* on a good, large HD-ish
set because you see the JPEGgy artifacts. Little and large squares
when things get exciting and the scene is rapidly changing. That
rarely shows up on the poorer screens.
 

>
>It's similar to cars - a Ferrari may have impressive acceleration and
>speed, but on most normal roads you'll quickly end up with massive
>fines for using it that way and with almost no luggage space it isn't
>particularly good as a daily driver, so you may as well stick with your
>old Honda which is cheaper and works just as well within those
>boundaries and better in some ways.

 Personally, I mostly use the 'bus. It gets there just as quickly as a
car and costs a whole lot less. 
 For places buses can't get me, I use taxis. They are *lots* cheaper
than ownership of my very own vehicle. 
 

>
>As someone else posted, UltraHD / 4K / 8K TV is little more than
>bragging rights to claim you've got the "latest and greatest" toy on
>the block.

 Yerp, but if you *do* happen to be able to download some good content
for your toy, or you have a thousand-bux-per-month ticket to the
highest resolution sports feed you can sure impress friends and
neighbours.
 As I have no friends and my neighbours are very impressed with me
anyway, I think I've bought my last TV. I only got this one because
the previous one went dark.
                                 J. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web