Thread: Why ntl and not sky?
View Single Post
Old 11-05-2004, 13:45   #61
SMHarman
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Services: Cablevision
Posts: 8,305
SMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronze
SMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronze
Re: Why ntl and not sky?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdean
Leemarsh - my comment re freeview- ntl sky fta sat etc was about:-
1)picture quality- not numbers of channel ie on the same tv there is no difference between the different platforms (contary to some daft posts here.

2) A VCR / PVR/Pc can record off any of these sources- Sky+ can only record off sky

Therefore sky + is propriatory rubbish to be avoided at all costs.

Clearly to tape 2 ntl sources you need 2 ntl boxes and 2 recorders
But it is only £200 propritary rubbish. So in 18 months when the costs of otehr forms of PVR / DVDR have fallen in price to a similar level choice will open up.

At the moment I think in terms of value for money it can't be beat. When your done with it you have a HDD you can put in your PC too.
SMHarman is offline   Reply With Quote