# DBSTalk mentioned in the Boston Globe!



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

DBSTalk and DBSForums were both mentioned in the Boston Globe this morning in this article:

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/home...cord_in_hd_is_a_step_closer_to_techie_heaven/

Kind of cool eh?


----------



## Maniacal1 (Apr 9, 2002)

Very cool, Chris! I came here this morning to mention this when I noticed it over breakfast, but you beat me to it. 

I hope we find a spike today in the number of members from the Bay State.


----------



## Tusk (Nov 14, 2002)

Congratulations Chris! :goodjob:


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

That's very cool! We've gone mainstream people!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Congrats on the mention! I hope BG readers drop by for a looksee.

From the article: _"This looks like the future of television to me. It combines two of the most important television advances in the last 20 years: DVR and HD."_

More like the only advances in the last 20 years. :shrug:


----------



## mini1 (Jan 25, 2004)

"[HD DVR] Units that work with cable-TV signals are not yet available."-what? units that work with cable ARE out. when was this written?


----------



## RJS1111111 (Mar 23, 2002)

Boston Globe said:


> The DirecTV HD DVR can store up to 100 hours of regular television, but only 30 hours of HD programming because high-definition provides so much more data for every pixel.


Not necessarily any more data per pixel; just about six times the number of pixels!


----------



## mini1 (Jan 25, 2004)

as I said, someone who doesn't know much about current Satellite TV and Cable TV wrote this article, or otherwise it is outdated, and they just decided to run it today.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Maybe I'm too picky, but I'm still not sold on HDTV. From what I've seen in stores, the picture is a decent improvement, but still not worth a four-figure price.


----------



## BearsFan (Apr 22, 2002)

Ira Lacher said:


> Maybe I'm too picky, but I'm still not sold on HDTV. From what I've seen in stores, the picture is a decent improvement, but still not worth a four-figure price.


I agree with you, Ira.

I've seen HD in both retail stores and spent time watching at a private residence.

The picture was very nice, but I'm so used to seeing TV on my 32" Sony WEGA flat screen w/ S-Video in from a Hughes D* receiver, that I really didn't think it was *that* much better-looking.

Not worth that kind of money, anyway.


----------



## kmcnamara (Jan 30, 2004)

You guys are obviously entitled to your opinion. But comparing an SD football game with an HD football game is night-and-day to my eyes. 

I will say that VHS to DVD is a bigger jump than DVD to HDTV - but that may just be a limitation of my projector.


----------



## catman (Jun 27, 2002)

I have been telling people of this since 2000 . I like the group . Cable is no good . Sattelite is better . The states that are taxing satelite are ones with no smoking tax money .


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I would think that the member counts for DBSForums and DBSTalk would go up after being in a widely recognized magazine such as that.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Jacob S said:


> I would think that the member counts for DBSForums and DBSTalk would go up after being in a widely recognized magazine such as that.


We did see a surge in new memberships when the article appeared.


----------



## mini1 (Jan 25, 2004)

~"Maybe I'm too picky, but I'm still not sold on HDTV. From what I've seen in stores, the picture is a decent improvement, but still not worth a four-figure price.

~"I agree with you, Ira.

I've seen HD in both retail stores and spent time watching at a private residence.

The picture was very nice, but I'm so used to seeing TV on my 32" Sony WEGA flat screen w/ S-Video in from a Hughes D* receiver, that I really didn't think it was that much better-looking. 

Not worth that kind of money, anyway."



-you two have never had HDTV at home I can tell. If you did you wouldn't be saying that. I hear this from almost anyone who hasn't actully seen it in their own home. The picture isn't "very nice" it is 6 times better than the best analog signal you are watching on your TV at home, even if you think you are watching digital thru satellite with S-Video, which is nothing more than analog on your analog TV. color analog wasn't worth "that kind of money" when it came out was it? I didn't think so. reconsider what is next, HDTV is the best, and goes far beyond analog.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Part of the improvement is that the method of reception is changing from NTSC to ATSC, which would acount for the signal reception improvement. 

But, the price/benefit ratio is still too steep. You make the comparison between B&W and color TV. At that time, the cost difference between B&W and color was a huge margin. Not anymore. Same thing with stereo televisions.


----------

