# Sales of high-definition TV sets expected to grow rapidly this year



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Sales of high-definition television sets are expected to grow more than 50 percent in 2004, thanks to lower prices and more programming, analysts say.

Yankee Group, a Boston technology research firm, estimates that Americans will buy between 6 million and 7 million HDTVs this year, compared with about 4 million in 2003. That will be enough to put HDTV sets in about one in eight U.S. households, said Adi Kishore, media and entertainment analyst at Yankee Group.

"Just going back a few years, HDTV was not taking off, and with good reason," Kishore said. "They were quite expensive, and there was almost no programming." But the rapid expansion of digital programming over the air and via cable and satellite providers, along with plunging prices, has finally sparked sales, he said.

According to the Consumer Electronics Association, the average price of an HDTV set is expected to be $1,295 in 2004 _ about half the price in 1999.

*Full Story*


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Looks like sales of HDTVs is approaching 'critical mass'. CATV's current rollout of HD programming in many areas of the country, DVD players selling under $100 coupled with DVD prices now under $10-$15 (thanks, Wal*Mart) are what will be bringing the average guy into the HD tent.

I don't think either E* or D* and their meager HD offerings have done _that_ much to contribute to the HD gold rush. OTOH, Voom's timely launch and compelling marketing presence may well be perking up some eyes and ears among the great unwashed.

To very loosely (not losely) paraphrase FDR, "...a chicken in every pot, and HDTV in every home." This is a _great_ time for the average Joe sixpack.
__________

Speaking of Voom, on my way into Sears last night to look at hedge clippers, I detoured through the TV dept as I usually do. (Don't we all?:sure: ). When I asked the guy what Sears' current deal for Voom is, he said he knew about Voom's recent "$0" offer, but said Sears' deal is still $700 up front.

Go figure. Greed or bleed, take your choice.


----------



## BearsFan (Apr 22, 2002)

Nick said:


> To very loosely (not losely) paraphrase FDR, "...a chicken in every pot, and HDTV in every home." This is a _great_ time for the average Joe sixpack.
> __________


Nick, how do you figure?

Unless we each have different definitions of "Average Joe" (no, not the ghey TV show)...

When I see HDTV's "on sale," I laugh. There is no way that I, an "Average Joe" (even without kids right now) as a family man can, in good conscience, plunk down on credit/use cash to purchase a $1,000 + TV. Even if said model can be found for as "little" as $700, why? 

The add-ons, i.e. Voom / separate tuner / the like, are way too pricey, unless the home's money-maker is a spend-thrift, obssessively focused on having new tech items, or a "new toy" collector.

I have no doubt that HDTV will take off, and eventually be the standard. But in the meantime, there's no *way* _this_ "Average Joe" will be plunking down $1,000 + for something that's simply not affordable right now.

I love the toys as much as the next "Joe," but until the sets, even in the 20"-27" inch range (flat screen or not) come down to the range of a current "tube" TV price range, fuhgetaboutit.

Not until HDTV is the ONLY choice do I think many, and IMHO most, Americans plunk down money for such a TV set.

--BearsFan


----------



## Pantageas (Jan 28, 2004)

I don't know BearsFan - and let me compliment your EXCELLENT choice of football teams - I don't think the financial commitment is really that bad anymore.

The 54" HD-RPTV that I bought 2 years ago on sale for $1899 can probably be found on sale for $1200 now. Combine that with the offers of 0% financing for 1-3 years that abound now from the big box stores, or the even deeper discounts from wholesalers/online retailers, and all you really need to justify is a desire for HD viewing.

The satellite companies have new subscriber/ loyal subscriber discounts, or a local cable company may have low monthly rates for obtaining a receiver. Two years ago, I spent $1900 on a RPTV and another $450 on an open box HD receiver($700 new) for a total of $2350. A few years earlier I would have had to spend almost twice as much. Currently, someone could get away with spending about 40% less than I did. A little juggling of my entertainment budget and I barely noticed the expenditure at all!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

BearsFan said:


> There is no way that I, an "Average Joe" (even without kids right now) as a family man can, in good conscience, plunk down on credit/use cash to purchase a $1,000 + TV.


BearsFan, your prudent restraint makes you above the average. You have your priorities in order. As has been said before, "It's only TV".

I was fortunate to have gotten some very good deals on my HDTV, the 811, my a/v receiver, the DVD payer and even new cabling at clearance pricees. I have offset the reoccurring costs of my HT by having Dish AEP and no longer going the theater or renting movies. I don't pay list price for the DVDs I buy, and most are in the $5-$10 price range.

You are doing the right thing by setting your priorities and knowing what is really important in your life. Most all of us have financial limits, but too many people ignore the realities of their budgetary constraints by succumbing to impulse buying. In my case, as I wrote in another post, my HT setup was long in the planning, I saved up for what I planned to get, and my purchases were made in cash -equivalent only as I could afford them.

Congratulations on your wise restraint, and for not getting caught up in the hi-def feeding frenzy currently going on.

:righton:


----------



## mattyro (Nov 26, 2002)

Let's look at it this way.very soon, having a sd tv will be akin to having a black+white tv. Now, nobody HAS to upgrade from b+w to color but if at all financially possible, most people will make the jump. Heck, for $599 you can get 27 inches of hi def. Soon that $599 will get you 32 inches. I'm sure $399 will get you that same 27 inches within 6 months. Like that commercial- would you rather drop $1500 on a dinette set or an HDTV?? they both are NOT necessities.!!!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

The FCC has hinted that they are ready to designate the 85% market saturation rule having been met as almost all markets have SOME HD via OTA, Cable, and Satellite. This caught a bunch of broadcasters flat footed as they thought they could exploit that loophole for a few more years.

Uh uh. I'm glad the FCC has finally gotten some balls and is pushing this thing forward. George W. needs to find cash to help bring dwn the deficit and the billions which would come from licensing the old analog spectrum would help do the trick. I'm hoping for them to make that 2006 deadline firm and set in stone. THAT will finally cause the stragglers to get their act together and to stop stonewalling.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

Some of that money from the sale of that spectrum needs to go toward a subsidy for low cost STB's for those of us not ready to replace all of are TV's and VCR's in are house with DT and still get locals ota. Personally even though I will eventually either upgrade my E* Dish 500 to a Super Dish to get locals or switch to D* and get locals from them, I would still like the ability to receive locals ota for PIP and back up during stormy weather. Also many have E* or D* with locals but only have satellite receivers on 1 -3 or so of their TV's and relie on ota for other TV's in their home.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 1, 2003)

So, how many people think "Joe 6-Pack" has no idea that the VCR he bought for $39 won't be able to record any signal OTA? If J6P has cable, maybe he'll be okay for the next few years, but I wonder if the cable companies will be looking at all that bandwidth in the VHF range and think, "we could fit 6-8 times the money-making channels in that range." Of course, most $39 VCRs won't last that long...

Do you think the sales droid at BB or CC passed on this nugget of truth?


----------



## BearsFan (Apr 22, 2002)

Pantageas said:


> I don't know BearsFan - and let me compliment your EXCELLENT choice of football teams - I don't think the financial commitment is really that bad anymore.


Excellent!  I thought I was the only one around here with allegiance to "The Beloved," as I call them. They've been horrible for years (save 2001), but I've tried to be loyal. Maybe things will look up this year.



Pantageas said:


> The 54" HD-RPTV that I bought 2 years ago on sale for $1899 can probably be found on sale for $1200 now. Combine that with the offers of 0% financing for 1-3 years that abound now from the big box stores, or the even deeper discounts from wholesalers/online retailers, and all you really need to justify is a desire for HD viewing.


This is precisely my point. BTW, thanks to Nick/others for the compliments. Yeah, "it's only TV (and/or satellite)", but I'm a little passionate about it; still, I *can not* see spending $1200 hundred dollars _for a television_.

Not that there's anything wrong with that (sorry for the Seinfeld reference), but for me...unless the gov't "mandates" that all signals go to HDTV for whatever reason, whether it's financially feasible for the regular public, I just won't do it. There, I said it...it's a choice, I guess. I choose not to spend copious amounts of cash on a TV until said technology becomes more common/comes down in price.

Same deal w/ high-speed internet for me. While I won't pay $40 or more per month for it, I simply don't use the 'net @ home enough to justify paying that premium. People fire back at me and say "Well, if you _had_ broadband, you'd *use* it more, since you're paying for it." I don't buy that. It's a simple principle to me...I just can't see paying more than even $25 per month for high-speed 'net access...it's just not that important to me. I pay $9.99 for dialup, and on my "dinosaur-like" PC, the pages load pretty fast, and I have zero complaints.

Same deal with TV. Yes, I've seen HDTV, and am "wowed" by it. But to me, it's just not *worth* paying even $1200 hundred for a set.

I'm totally happy with what I have, with D* & the S-Video connection, and a 32-inch Sony WEGA Flat-Screen (I won that TV in a contest). HDTV would be nice, but I guess I just don't foresee the gov't / otherwise "selling" the general public on plunking down tons of their money on a new format until the price is WAY down, to where it is now.

That TV I have can be had for $600 or less these days...and until HDTV (the complete package, including the "tuner") is that much or less for a smaller TV screen, I won't buy it, and can't really see the general public doing the same.


----------



## mini1 (Jan 25, 2004)

HDTV sales will really take off, when makers start putting QAM and ATSC tuners in every set they make. Most people have no idea that their new HDTV can't even tune an HD signal, and are very disappointed to learn that they will need an external tuner for the life of their TV. If your on satellite TV than a Qam tuner makes no difference to you now, but an ATSC would if you didn't have a HD satellite box, and most likely if you are like me, and sell your TV's after they become outdated, then the next person will want to use it on cable, when it is all digital and will need a Qam tuner. I think all HDTV's should have be required to have both a Qam and ATSC tuner in them since Jan. 1 2000, and don't understand as to why the FCC takes so long to keep up with technology?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

BearsFan said:


> I *can not* see spending $1200 hundred dollars _for a television_...
> 
> ...and until HDTV (the complete package, including the "tuner") is that much or less for a smaller TV screen, I won't buy it, and can't really see the general public doing the same.


BF, I generally concur with what you say except the last part.

_"...and can't really see the general public doing the same."_

I think you are gauging the 'general public' solely from your own perspective. We all tend to think that others reason as we do, but most of us know this is not the case.

For all too many, contemplating the purchase of a "big-screen TV" is not a rational process based on due consideration of family budget, prioriities, additional costs for content to justify the expense, etc. Too often, it is an emotionally-rooted impulse decision made to satisfy a "want" that the person has transitioned into a "need", which, for the moment, ranks right up there with roof, food and clothing.

Here's a classic example of what I'm saying:

Recently, one of my neighbors, a single mother of three, received a rather large income tax refund check (earned income credit). Yesterday, a local furniture company delivered to her home a new JVC 56" widescreen along with a complete set of rather large "home entertainment" furniture consisting of two huge component/storage towers, and two lighted "bridges'' to tie it all together.

This is a woman who frequently runs behind with her bills, has had utilities disconnected, and is often late with her rent.

She bought the TV from a furniture store, of all places, probably paying full MSRP. Then, to make matters worse, even though she had her tax refund check in hand, she paid only $200 down and financed the balance.

Go figure.


----------



## DarrellP (Apr 24, 2002)

My set sure grew this past year, I used to have a 68" screen and it grew to be 110"!! Maybe I need to keep the plant mister with the Miracle Grow off my screen.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

I need a smaller TV. In our previous house, our den (where we watched most television) was huge, over 800 sq.ft. We needed a big tv just to see it good, so we bought a 65" Phillips rear-projection set that has been very good. But, our new house doesn't have a huge den like that, so the 65" set is very overwhelming to our living room, now. It looks rather out of place, but right now I just can't afford to plunk down more money for another set. I'll wait until the HDTV settles down and I'll get something in the 42" range. It'll probably be another couple of years. By then my new DirecTivo will be ready to be upgraded to the latest HD model. No way I can afford a new HDTV plus one of those HD DirecTivos right now.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

DarrellP said:


> My set sure grew this past year, I used to have a 68" screen and it grew to be 110"!! Maybe I need to keep the plant mister with the Miracle Grow off my screen.


Did the wife buy that explanation. Also, how did you hide the $$$$ purchase from. Personally, I switched to paperless billing on all my credit cards and most of my monthly bills. Less aggravation than having to explain why my satellite bill is $180 every month now. (Plus it will braeking the $200 barrier for a few months while I pay off MLB Extra Innings for the next three months)


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2004)

Chris Blount said:


> Sales of high-definition television sets are expected to grow more than 50 percent in 2004, thanks to lower prices and more programming, analysts say.
> 
> Yankee Group, a Boston technology research firm, estimates that Americans will buy between 6 million and 7 million HDTVs this year, compared with about 4 million in 2003. That will be enough to put HDTV sets in about one in eight U.S. households, said Adi Kishore, media and entertainment analyst at Yankee Group.
> 
> ...


I guess we've always enjoyed being the first on our block with some stuff... some years back it was one of them new fangled video cameras, never regretted spending 1800 bucks for it, today I can get one 10 times as good for half that.

But the pictures I took back then are priceless.

Same goes for our new HD set.... couple of grand and I know a few years (months?) from now, they will be much cheaper.

But watching channels like Discovery HD, the Daytona 500 and now the NCAA Tourney, WOW!! Simply changed the way we watch TV.

Sticker shock, is, well, shocking. Until you plug it in.

-Earl
Yankee born Southern bred and livin' life in High Definition.....


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

Non-HD Big Screen TV prices are going to be (if they already aren't) about the same price as smaller HDTV sets, and some people are going to wonder why they should spend twice as much money for half as much screen, or why they should spend twice as much money for the same screen size. I couldn't talk my mother out of plunking down $1,200 for a larger TV when Wal Mart had a Philips 32 in HD Widescreen TV for $700, but it was only slightly bigger than her current tv (27 in) and she wanted a BIG TV. BIG HD TVs are in the near $2,000 range. Of course my mother just did get a DVD player (because I bought it for her for Christmas) but I made the mistake of buying her Widescreen DVDs and she hates Widescreen ("they cut the movie in half with those black bars"). Im pretty sure that this mentality applies to most of the over 50 crowd..


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Marvin said:


> Im pretty sure that this mentality applies to most of the over 50 crowd.."


Don't be so quick to judge the "over 50 crowd" as you say. I know I'm not exactly the poster-boy for silver-haired seniors, but there are a whole lot of us old farts who know a bit more than some may give us credit for.

Many of us are doing very well and are well-acquainted with the joys of having the latest technology, and some of us even understand the nuts & bolts of what makes it tick. Someday I'll be happy to explain to you the difference between resistance, inductance and reluctance. I'm way out ahead of most of the 20/30/40-somethings, many of whom are still buying 27" and 31" TVs at Wal*Mart.

Get over your notion that 'old' is the same as 'clueless' and give credit where credit is due. Old folks know a helluva lot more than you think - sonny!

:alterhase

FYI - The contraction of "I am" requires the use of an apostrophe.


----------



## HarryD (Mar 24, 2002)

I joined the ranks of big screen TV. I got the Hitachi 46F500. I am very surprised how good the SD PQ is. I haven't installed my triple lnb dish yet or gotten a HD recv.


----------



## catman (Jun 27, 2002)

Who has $1800 to fork over . With jobs going overseas . only the FCC will have the money . a HDTV costs $1800 . a anolog tv costs $400 . Who's got brains to figure out that HDTV is not right . bush is not right on jobs . HDTVis not right .


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

HDTVs are returning to their former cost levels from the 50's and 60's when adjusted for inflation. Prices initially plunged in the 80's and 90's and looks like they have found a way to get people to pay more for a while. Look for competition to get them back to cutting deep price discounts once the FCC states that the HD deadline has passed and people have to buy converter boxes to make their old sets be able to see the signal. Waves will then buy the new sets. Sales are already surging 50% and only about 5% of channels available are HD. What happens when that number goes up by a factor of 10.


----------



## uncdanwrong (Feb 11, 2004)

BobMurdoch said:


> The FCC has hinted that they are ready to designate the 85% market saturation rule having been met as almost all markets have SOME HD via OTA, Cable, and Satellite. This caught a bunch of broadcasters flat footed as they thought they could exploit that loophole for a few more years.
> 
> Uh uh. I'm glad the FCC has finally gotten some balls and is pushing this thing forward. George W. needs to find cash to help bring dwn the deficit and the billions which would come from licensing the old analog spectrum would help do the trick. I'm hoping for them to make that 2006 deadline firm and set in stone. THAT will finally cause the stragglers to get their act together and to stop stonewalling.


There are some real flaws in that logic. Close to 10% of viewers still get all their TV OTA and they aren't likely to have digital sets. A large number of cable viewers still get only analog cable. The Class A and low power stations haven't even been assigned yet. Broadcasters may ask for a handful of frequencies above channel 51 to be added to the DTV core. Last but not least, the FCC usually takes about forever to act!


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

There is a higher population today than there was back in the 50's and 60's plus electronics are more common in many devices than they were back then so this would help lower the price a bit more, and a bit quicker, in addition to the digital transition.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

11 million HDTV's is still not enough to jump on the band wagon. You still have to pay from $1500 and up for a decent TV and then you still need a HDTV receiver to match up with it. If its from Directv, Dish, or now Voom, or a receiver from Circuit City or Best Buy just to use an Outdoor HDTV Antenna to get just the locals. Only 20 stations out of 180 according to Dish. This is still not a good bang for the BUCK. Of course you have VOOM now but it is my understanding that some of there HDTV Stations are on a continuous loop. Showing the same program over and over again all day and all night. Also I think some are confusing HDTV with a DIGITAL feed. You do not need a HDTV to get a Digital picture from the station feed. I am another one of those over 50 that has seen Television make some advance's. The cost for HDTV sets is not one for right now. When the cost comes down to the consumer and the HDTV receiver is built into the set, maybe it will be worth the cost. I do enjoy my Dish with my 510 receiver.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

I asked several people, including my parents and other relatives, if they knew about the digital OTA mandate and the eventual need for either a digital TV or set top box to receive OTA stations. Out of 28 people, not one knew anything about it. None. A few said they recalled seeing or reading something about digital TV but didn't pay much attention because they didn't think it meant anything to them since they weren't "high tech" people. They just watch TV and don't keep up with all the latest "fads". One of my aunts was sort of angry about it, she'd just bought a new Sony VEGA 32" TV and when I told her she'd eventually need a seperate box attached just to tune OTA channels, she was livid and started going off on "those stupid government idiots who think everybody is just made of money..."


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

You can get into a complete HD system for a lot less than you think...I did, for around $1200

Panasonic 53" HDTV.................$969 (sale, was $1,400)
Panasonic P/S DVD Player........$100 (now < $80)
Dish 811 HD Receiver................$149
Dish HD Pak.............................$..10/m

Personal Pleasure Perusing Pretty Pictures -- _*Priceless!*_


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

This could all be a bluff by the FCC to get the broadcasters to up their HD content (Fox still has 0%, channels like UPN only have Enterprise in HD, while CBS has their entire slate in HD - hmm. they're #1 ratings wise too....)

Broadcasters figured they could stall this thing another 5-10 years. This might be a shot across the bow to help the transition by making more HD content available to fufill the content side of the equation....


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Wal-Mart had a Sanyo 32" HD tv for $599 (or it might have been $699 but I am looking more towards $599). I do not see it on their online website though.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Jacob S said:


> Wal-Mart had a Sanyo 32" HD tv for $599 (or it might have been $699 but I am looking more towards $599). I do not see it on their online website though.


Have you checked Wal*Mart's offline website? -> :lol: <-

<edit> added smiley


----------



## uncdanwrong (Feb 11, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> I asked several people, including my parents and other relatives, if they knew about the digital OTA mandate and the eventual need for either a digital TV or set top box to receive OTA stations. Out of 28 people, not one knew anything about it. None. A few said they recalled seeing or reading something about digital TV but didn't pay much attention because they didn't think it meant anything to them since they weren't "high tech" people. They just watch TV and don't keep up with all the latest "fads". One of my aunts was sort of angry about it, she'd just bought a new Sony VEGA 32" TV and when I told her she'd eventually need a seperate box attached just to tune OTA channels, she was livid and started going off on "those stupid government idiots who think everybody is just made of money..."


The 2006 deadline probably wasn't realistic in the first place but I do expect that a lot more people will become aware of HDTV this fall. It may seem long overdue to early adopters but market forces have only just begun.


----------



## ramcm7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Is the FCC mandate to go to HDTV (720p/1080i) or just DTV (480p)?


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

ramcm7 said:


> Is the FCC mandate to go to HDTV (720p/1080i) or just DTV (480p)?


The mandate is to go digital. It is up to the stations whether they want to use the bandwidth for HDTV or SDTV. With the bandwidth allotted to them, they could have several SDTV "channels" compared to one HDTV "channel" (the "channel" term is becoming more generic than its analog counterpart). So, say an NBC affiliate in Atlanta could broadcast several SDTV "channels" with one being the NBC feed and another some local programming and another a loop of the news, etc. Or perhaps that would be the daytime scenario, and in primetime they send only the full HDTV feed from the network. Now, whether that HDTV feed is 720p or 1080i is a different issue.

I can't remember how many SDTV feeds they can have vs. HDTV in the allotted bandwidth. I'm sure someone else will know, and will probably correct my errors.


----------



## uncdanwrong (Feb 11, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> The mandate is to go digital. It is up to the stations whether they want to use the bandwidth for HDTV or SDTV. With the bandwidth allotted to them, they could have several SDTV "channels" compared to one HDTV "channel" (the "channel" term is becoming more generic than its analog counterpart). So, say an NBC affiliate in Atlanta could broadcast several SDTV "channels" with one being the NBC feed and another some local programming and another a loop of the news, etc. Or perhaps that would be the daytime scenario, and in primetime they send only the full HDTV feed from the network. Now, whether that HDTV feed is 720p or 1080i is a different issue.
> 
> I can't remember how many SDTV feeds they can have vs. HDTV in the allotted bandwidth. I'm sure someone else will know, and will probably correct my errors.


How many SD "channels" depends on the level of digital artifacts the broadcaster is willing to live with. Generally it's considered that it's one 1080i HDTV, or one 720p HDTV + one SD, or four SD "channels". The content, especially motion, as well as things like data services also have an effect on how many "channels". BTW, my guess is that full power analog will go dark in 2009. Perhaps a topic for another thread or even a poll.


----------



## DarrellP (Apr 24, 2002)

BobMurdoch said:


> Did the wife buy that explanation. Also, how did you hide the $$$$ purchase from. Personally, I switched to paperless billing on all my credit cards and most of my monthly bills. Less aggravation than having to explain why my satellite bill is $180 every month now. (Plus it will braeking the $200 barrier for a few months while I pay off MLB Extra Innings for the next three months)


Easy solution Bob, I got rid of the wife and converted my Living Room into a home theater and made my own custom 96x54 screen which cost me a total of about $35. My projector only cost $1900 and it does native 720p, so I am in TV Heaven.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Well, that IS a way to go.....

Of course, I don't ALWAYS watch TV..........

:icon_hug:


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Nick, why do you seem to smart off my messages lately? Is it just to be funny or what?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Jacob S said:


> Nick, why do you seem to smart off my messages lately? Is it just to be funny or what?


I'm posting this from out-of-town, so I don't have a full set of member dossier files with with me, but as best I can recall, whatever I said must have been either funny or sarcastic, or both. If I forgot to stick a smiley, it was an omission on my part.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Ok, I was just curious, no biggie. Sometimes one does not realize what he is saying until he goes back and reads his post or have someone remind him of it (I am talking about myself).


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2004)

Nick said:


> Don't be so quick to judge the "over 50 crowd" as you say. I know I'm not exactly the poster-boy for silver-haired seniors, but there are a whole lot of us old farts who know a bit more than some may give us credit for.
> 
> Many of us are doing very well and are well-acquainted with the joys of having the latest technology, and some of us even understand the nuts & bolts of what makes it tick. Someday I'll be happy to explain to you the difference between resistance, inductance and reluctance. I'm way out ahead of most of the 20/30/40-somethings, many of whom are still buying 27" and 31" TVs at Wal*Mart.
> 
> ...


Nick, 
thanks for saying that. 
i'll be 70 next month and probably forgot more than some of these quick to judge "guys" will ever know. I have taken many mechanical and electronic parts that someone else would never attempt to repair and repaired them. i have built stereo systems from scratch and put computers together
when a 20meg hdd was a big deal, intsatlled my own d* and e* with wiring that deserves having their photos taken.
and a lot more that i take for granted. yeah i might be blowing my own horn but you young whiz kids should take note guys our age had to make do and sometimes make the part cause it couldn't be bought.....that has never left
me. sometimes i go out of my way to recycle a machine or rebuild an intricate part just to keep me sharp and remind me where i came from!

doing things the hardway is a great learning experience....try ot you may learn something, instead of just plugging in the line cord !


----------

