Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

When will the follow on product arrive.

Last response: in Home Theatre Legacy
Share
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 8:55:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?

More about : follow product arrive

Anonymous
March 28, 2005 9:02:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:55:09 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
>be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?

They forgot to take down the web page where they advertise them
http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/shop/_templates/cat_li...

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 3:12:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
> be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?

Please post a link to the announcement. Thanks in advance
Related resources
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 6:12:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:12:41 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
>> be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?
>
>Please post a link to the announcement. Thanks in advance

"a revised financial forecast for its full 2004 fiscal year ending
March 31, 2005....
"As anticipated, the ReplayTV hardware inventory will be depleted by
this upcoming fiscal year-end"

http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/media/press/2005/2005022...
March 29, 2005 7:36:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
>> be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?
>
> Please post a link to the announcement. Thanks in advance

Interesting. This past Sunday we returned the second DOA 5504 unit to
"The Good Guys" (neither machine would power up - no fan or HD - or
allow the power button to reboot the things.)

While doing the charge back the store manager commented "They're still
supporting them but they have quit making them." I wrote it off to the
never-ending rumor mill in places like that but hey...

Ralph
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 1:46:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:12:25 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:12:41 GMT, John in Detroit
><Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>> DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
>>> be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?
>>
>>Please post a link to the announcement. Thanks in advance
>
>"a revised financial forecast for its full 2004 fiscal year ending
>March 31, 2005....
>"As anticipated, the ReplayTV hardware inventory will be depleted by
>this upcoming fiscal year-end"
>
>http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/media/press/2005/2005022...

So they've already sold all them AND are going to sell all them within
a year?

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:33:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:12:41 GMT, John in Detroit
> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
>>>be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?
>>
>>Please post a link to the announcement. Thanks in advance
>
>
> "a revised financial forecast for its full 2004 fiscal year ending
> March 31, 2005....
> "As anticipated, the ReplayTV hardware inventory will be depleted by
> this upcoming fiscal year-end"
>
> http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/media/press/2005/2005022...
>
The same DNNA report that sources your media release announces a HD
stand alone unit (which is not the previously announced system of media
servers and "server lites".) They also announced the partnering with
Tribune (who supplies the guides for Tivo & Replay) to distribute Replay
and Tribune services through DNNAs network. This is a month or 2 old
already.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 1:50:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:12:25 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:12:41 GMT, John in Detroit
>><Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
>>>>be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?
>>>
>>>Please post a link to the announcement. Thanks in advance
>>
>>"a revised financial forecast for its full 2004 fiscal year ending
>>March 31, 2005....
>>"As anticipated, the ReplayTV hardware inventory will be depleted by
>>this upcoming fiscal year-end"
>>
>>http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/media/press/2005/2005022...
>
>
> So they've already sold all them AND are going to sell all them within
> a year?
>

The report said "Stocks will be depleted" this is not the same as "We
are not going to make any more" it did not say that, I can think of
alternative meanings for "Stocks will be depleted" including "We over
build and are stuck with 2 warehouses full of these things"

However, since I've not read past reports, and am not privvy to what
goes on inside the board room, In truth, I just do not know
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 1:50:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:50:06 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:12:25 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:12:41 GMT, John in Detroit
>>><Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
>>>>>be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?
>>>>
>>>>Please post a link to the announcement. Thanks in advance
>>>
>>>"a revised financial forecast for its full 2004 fiscal year ending
>>>March 31, 2005....
>>>"As anticipated, the ReplayTV hardware inventory will be depleted by
>>>this upcoming fiscal year-end"
>>>
>>>http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/media/press/2005/2005022...
>>
>>
>> So they've already sold all them AND are going to sell all them within
>> a year?
>>
>
>The report said "Stocks will be depleted" this is not the same as "We
>are not going to make any more" it did not say that, I can think of
>alternative meanings for "Stocks will be depleted" including "We over
>build and are stuck with 2 warehouses full of these things"
>
>However, since I've not read past reports, and am not privvy to what
>goes on inside the board room, In truth, I just do not know

The first post in this thread said thay HAD ALREADY SOLD everything.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 5:13:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:19 -0600, Mark Lloyd
<mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:

>So they've already sold all them AND are going to sell all them within
>a year?

Mark the "year end" is mar 31 2005 (tomorrow) and they say the
"ReplayTV" stock is depleted. Tony D confirms the new product is an HD
device, probably sold as anotther product line.
My original question is still valid. Is it going to be backward
compatible with the 5xxx boxes? 45xx will not talk to 5xxx so it is a
reasonable question.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 7:37:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

>
> The first post in this thread said thay HAD ALREADY SOLD everything.

Yup, They have sold everything...... Just like Ford, GM and Chrysler
have will sell out of 2005's about July and are currently sold out of 2004's

In and of itself, it means nothing, Is there a report that says

"We are discontinuing this product line" Like GM's Oldsmobile is now
discontinued? That is the one I'd need to see to be convinced.

Not that it matters cause I have 2 now and do not think I'll be needing
a 3rd. In fact, from where I'm typing there is an advantage to
"Discontinued" in that it's far less likely the software will be updated

This makes turning my 5504 into a 5040.... Much easier
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:59:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

The OP didn't say that they were discontinuing the product only that the
current stock was or would be gone. His question was whether anyone knew
what the replacement product would be. Continuing your analogy, he's
asking what the 2006's will look like.

From:John in Detroit
Blanked@sbcglobal.net

> Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>>
>> The first post in this thread said thay HAD ALREADY SOLD everything.
>
> Yup, They have sold everything...... Just like Ford, GM and Chrysler
> have will sell out of 2005's about July and are currently sold out of
> 2004's
> In and of itself, it means nothing, Is there a report that says
>
> "We are discontinuing this product line" Like GM's Oldsmobile is now
> discontinued? That is the one I'd need to see to be convinced.
>
> Not that it matters cause I have 2 now and do not think I'll be
> needing a 3rd. In fact, from where I'm typing there is an advantage
> to
> "Discontinued" in that it's far less likely the software will be
> updated
> This makes turning my 5504 into a 5040.... Much easier
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 12:20:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:13:03 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:19 -0600, Mark Lloyd
><mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
>>So they've already sold all them AND are going to sell all them within
>>a year?
>
>Mark the "year end" is mar 31 2005 (tomorrow) and they say the
>"ReplayTV" stock is depleted.

They're still advertising the 55xx units. Is this dishonest?

> Tony D confirms the new product is an HD
>device,

Maybe a useful one.

> probably sold as anotther product line.
>My original question is still valid. Is it going to be backward
>compatible with the 5xxx boxes? 45xx will not talk to 5xxx so it is a
>reasonable question.

The HD files themselves will be different, although everything else
may be compatible.

It's possible that there will be no network transfers, considering all
this "protection" sh#$.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 1:19:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

You do have to wonder though.
They've done no updates to the software or user website in how long?

"Mark Lloyd" <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote in message
news:673h419nuobq578lerpdc6hv179rnm7hho@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:55:09 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
> >DNNA has announced they have sold all the RTV machines that will ever
> >be. What is the follow on product and will it be backward compatible?
>
> They forgot to take down the web page where they advertise them
> http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/shop/_templates/cat_li...
>
> --
> Mark Lloyd
> has a Replay 5xxx
> http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
>
> "The idea that there is an invisible being who
> created and still runs this old universe is so
> childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
> believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
> still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:40:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:20:40 -0600, Mark Lloyd
<mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:

>It's possible that there will be no network transfers, considering all
>this "protection" sh#$.


So you think the answer is no? With no network, compatibility is moot.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:50:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

BruceR wrote:
> The OP didn't say that they were discontinuing the product only that the
> current stock was or would be gone. His question was whether anyone knew
> what the replacement product would be. Continuing your analogy, he's
> asking what the 2006's will look like.


You understand my point it seems, Yes, Exactly.. (And hoping there will
be a 2006, though nobody has said their won't be)
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 2:22:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:
>"The idea that there is an invisible being who
>created and still runs this old universe is so
>childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
>believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
>still fall for that scam."

I take it this means you can not see him?

He has been seen, in the flesh, by many, Think about it, you may figure
out what I'm talking about.

Note to some folks: "HE" is used here because I was taught if you are
not sure use the male pronoun, only use the female if you are sure the
subject is female.

And for the record,,, This is so far off the newsgroup topic that if you
wish to reply, go to E-mail cause this is all I have to say on the topic
here. Thank you... Or you may choose to ignore, I will not be offended.
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 2:22:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:22:29 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
> >"The idea that there is an invisible being who
> >created and still runs this old universe is so
> >childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
> >believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
> >still fall for that scam."
>
>I take it this means you can not see him?
>

I'm especially not in the mood for this bullshit today.

>He has been seen, in the flesh, by many, Think about it, you may figure
>out what I'm talking about.
>

There is absolutely no evidence of such "sightings", of of the
existance of something this contrary to known reality. Maybe you could
look for some.

>Note to some folks: "HE" is used here because I was taught if you are
>not sure use the male pronoun,

True.

> only use the female if you are sure the
>subject is female.
>

Or use IT.

>And for the record,,, This is so far off the newsgroup topic that if you
>wish to reply, go to E-mail cause this is all I have to say on the topic
>here. Thank you... Or you may choose to ignore, I will not be offended.

And all I have to say is to start using your brain, rather than
regurgitating archaic BS.

I will not make any further replies to this, in the newsgroup or
elsewhere. It would quickly exceed my tolerance for &%$#!
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 2:23:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:20:40 -0600, Mark Lloyd
> <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
>
>>It's possible that there will be no network transfers, considering all
>>this "protection" sh#$.
>
>
>
> So you think the answer is no? With no network, compatibility is moot.

I think the answer is more likely a bulit in DVD burner... But I may
just be engaging in wishful thinking. But that seems to be the way the
industry is going ,,, Build in the DVD thingy.
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 2:23:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:23:54 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:20:40 -0600, Mark Lloyd
>> <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's possible that there will be no network transfers, considering all
>>>this "protection" sh#$.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you think the answer is no? With no network, compatibility is moot.
>
>I think the answer is more likely a bulit in DVD burner...

At least that would give a way to get access to your shows. Any
"protection" problems should now be on the PC, where software'll
become available.

> But I may
>just be engaging in wishful thinking. But that seems to be the way the
>industry is going ,,, Build in the DVD thingy.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 6:21:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:23:54 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I think the answer is more likely a bulit in DVD burner... But I may
>just be engaging in wishful thinking. But that seems to be the way the
>industry is going ,,, Build in the DVD thingy.

The trend seems to be going the other way with DNNA.
The 55xx was a neutered 5xxx with all of the offending features gone.
I doubt they will let you have a "pirate" movie factory (in the words
of Jack Valenti )
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 2:11:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:21:03 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:23:54 GMT, John in Detroit
><Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>I think the answer is more likely a bulit in DVD burner... But I may
>>just be engaging in wishful thinking. But that seems to be the way the
>>industry is going ,,, Build in the DVD thingy.
>
>The trend seems to be going the other way with DNNA.
>The 55xx was a neutered 5xxx with all of the offending features gone.
>I doubt they will let you have a "pirate" movie factory (in the words
>of Jack Valenti )

I'm not interested in "pirating". I support the copyright
restrictions, but DEFINATELY believe that machines (hardware and/or
software) should never be allowed to try to enforce them. They lack
the knowledge and intelligence (and other abilities) to do this
properly. For example, your recorder might know it's being fed a
copyrighted signal, but has no idea of what you intend to do with your
copy. There's no detectable difference (by that recorder) between one
personal copy (to watch once then delete) and the beginning of
millions of unauthorized copies to sell.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 7:17:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:23:54 GMT, John in Detroit
> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I think the answer is more likely a bulit in DVD burner... But I may
>>just be engaging in wishful thinking. But that seems to be the way the
>>industry is going ,,, Build in the DVD thingy.
>
>
> The trend seems to be going the other way with DNNA.
> The 55xx was a neutered 5xxx with all of the offending features gone.
> I doubt they will let you have a "pirate" movie factory (in the words
> of Jack Valenti )

Well, DVD supports a version of Sony's Serial Copy Management System
(That's not what it's called on a DVD but it's the same idea)

The thing is that... Well... I have software that blows that (and most
all other copy guard tricks) away. I don't use it often, but I do have
it (I use it mostly for copying legit stuff, From time to time I make
DVD's for my daughter, These are made from Video tape which I shot, of
performances which she directed) Copying with DVD-Shrink is easy, It
can shrink some DVD's down to a VCD or two. Very handy It can shrink
an "oversize" Dvd down to a standard DVD (Some quality loss) and it
ignores every copy protection scheme to date.

But DNNA does not know this program exists and I think it's been ruled
illegal to distribute... Of course if you already have a copy
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 7:18:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:17:59 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>
>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:23:54 GMT, John in Detroit
>> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think the answer is more likely a bulit in DVD burner... But I may
>>>just be engaging in wishful thinking. But that seems to be the way the
>>>industry is going ,,, Build in the DVD thingy.
>>
>>
>> The trend seems to be going the other way with DNNA.
>> The 55xx was a neutered 5xxx with all of the offending features gone.
>> I doubt they will let you have a "pirate" movie factory (in the words
>> of Jack Valenti )
>
>Well, DVD supports a version of Sony's Serial Copy Management System
>(That's not what it's called on a DVD but it's the same idea)
>

Like I explained more in another post, I respect copyrights but don't
care for the sh#$ caused by dumb mackines trying to enforce them
(often inappropriately).

>The thing is that... Well... I have software that blows that (and most
>all other copy guard tricks) away. I don't use it often, but I do have
>it (I use it mostly for copying legit stuff, From time to time I make
>DVD's for my daughter, These are made from Video tape which I shot, of
>performances which she directed) Copying with DVD-Shrink is easy, It
>can shrink some DVD's down to a VCD or two.

I've used DVDshrink and found very few problems. I wonder how it'll
work with double-layer recordable discs.

> Very handy It can shrink
>an "oversize" Dvd down to a standard DVD (Some quality loss) and it
>ignores every copy protection scheme to date.
>
>But DNNA does not know this program exists and I think it's been ruled
>illegal to distribute... Of course if you already have a copy

I see more business (in this case, the copyright owners) controlled
government interferance (consider that with TV, nobody cares if you
get to see the shows, they just care about commercials).

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:55:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Well... To point 1: Agreed 100%

As to point 2: Depends on many things, If you are talking about copying
a multi layer/side DVD to a single side blank,,, It will shrink, like it
always does. Will it do dual sided or dual layer blanks? I do not know

I do know my burner won't

Mark Lloyd wrote:

>
> Like I explained more in another post, I respect copyrights but don't
> care for the sh#$ caused by dumb mackines trying to enforce them
> (often inappropriately).
>

>
> I've used DVDshrink and found very few problems. I wonder how it'll
> work with double-layer recordable discs.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 6:00:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Missed this in my earlier post.

Every commericial Television station has a sales staff, All the
commericial networks (IE: ABC, NBC, CBS. UPN, FOX, et-al) Have sales staff

Do these staff sell shows? NO, they sell commericial time

Thus (voice of doom on) "The Product" (Voice of doom off) is the
commericial... The show is simply the bait the station airs so they can
switch you to the commericial (Ever hear of "Bait and Switch")

Of course,,, With the replay... One button away from more filler and
less product (Very evil grin) though just now I'm watching Live via
Replay (Tru Calling, alas it's being recorded on the 55, not the 50 so I
cna't share it with anyone)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> I see more business (in this case, the copyright owners) controlled
> government interferance (consider that with TV, nobody cares if you
> get to see the shows, they just care about commercials).
>

--
John F Davis, WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net in Delightful Detroit
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 6:10:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark, It's worse than that... Though I don't get into this much with
Video, if I do a lot of audio work (Hazard of having a classical
musician for a daughter and a bunch of friends who sing in the chior at
church... (Daughter plays flute.. Daddy sings bass)

Sony has what they call SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) here is how
it works

Recording made from an ANALOG source: OK TO COPY

Recording made from a DIGITAL source: May not copy digitally

Recording copied from an analog original: May not copy digitally

(note: You may make an analog copy by feeding the line out of one player
into the line in of a recorder, this re-sets SCMS to "Analog original"
Note 2: It is possible to make a recording set to "May copy generation
after generation"

The problem is: I make original recordings of her playing her flute, or
me and the rest of the chior doing what we do

And then I edit out the trash and make a "Master Recording" (Digital
copy of the desired portions of the original copies) now... I can't
make production copies using the digital stand alone audio hardware (I
can with the computer but that is another issue)

When you can't copy your own work.. That is taking it too far.

One thing I do say about copyguard.. I've seen recordings, starting with
a Terminal Program (Term 40) For the VIC-20 I used to use. Which said
"Since our copy guard system makes it impossible for you to copy the
software should anything happen ...blah...blah...blah"

Well.. Do understand I smashed their copy guard 7 ways to glory, had
recorders which were able to copy it, and figured out how to totally
disable it and modify the software (Since they left a feature out)

Took me all of 10 minutes to break it.. It was my first "Crack"

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> I'm not interested in "pirating". I support the copyright
> restrictions, but DEFINATELY believe that machines (hardware and/or
> software) should never be allowed to try to enforce them. They lack
> the knowledge and intelligence (and other abilities) to do this
> properly. For example, your recorder might know it's being fed a
> copyrighted signal, but has no idea of what you intend to do with your
> copy. There's no detectable difference (by that recorder) between one
> personal copy (to watch once then delete) and the beginning of
> millions of unauthorized copies to sell.
>

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:25:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 01:55:24 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Well... To point 1: Agreed 100%
>
>As to point 2: Depends on many things, If you are talking about copying
>a multi layer/side DVD to a single side blank,,, It will shrink, like it
>always does. Will it do dual sided or dual layer blanks? I do not know
>

I guess you missed the word "recordable" in my post. I was referring
to copying a double-layer DVD to a double-layer blank (something I may
not do until DL prices become reasonable). I already have a recent
Nero, which is supposed to be able to handle DL media.

>I do know my burner won't
>

Mine won't either, although I see that prices of DL-capable burners
are reasonable (even Wal-Mart is selling then). The DL disks still
cost too much.

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>>
>> Like I explained more in another post, I respect copyrights but don't
>> care for the sh#$ caused by dumb mackines trying to enforce them
>> (often inappropriately).
>>
>
>>
>> I've used DVDshrink and found very few problems. I wonder how it'll
>> work with double-layer recordable discs.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:32:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:00:22 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Missed this in my earlier post.
>
>Every commericial Television station has a sales staff, All the
>commericial networks (IE: ABC, NBC, CBS. UPN, FOX, et-al) Have sales staff
>
>Do these staff sell shows? NO, they sell commericial time
>
>Thus (voice of doom on) "The Product" (Voice of doom off) is the
>commericial... The show is simply the bait the station airs so they can
>switch you to the commericial (Ever hear of "Bait and Switch")
>
>Of course,,, With the replay... One button away from more filler and
>less product (Very evil grin) though just now I'm watching Live via
>Replay (Tru Calling, alas it's being recorded on the 55, not the 50 so I
>cna't share it with anyone)
>

I don't use that button much, but it is good to have it available for
the more offensive (somethins that's just excessively repeated)
commercials.

BTW, one of that last type was the AOL commercial comparing the ham
and tuna sandwiches. I found that interesting the FIRST time. However,
that was JUST the first time. Considering THAT, I got another one of
those AOL CDs with Wednesday's paper. Looks like somebody thinks I
don't know much about AOL.

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> I see more business (in this case, the copyright owners) controlled
>> government interferance (consider that with TV, nobody cares if you
>> get to see the shows, they just care about commercials).
>>

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:44:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:10:43 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>Mark, It's worse than that... Though I don't get into this much with
>Video, if I do a lot of audio work (Hazard of having a classical
>musician for a daughter and a bunch of friends who sing in the chior at
>church... (Daughter plays flute.. Daddy sings bass)
>
>Sony has what they call SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) here is how
>it works
>
>Recording made from an ANALOG source: OK TO COPY
>
>Recording made from a DIGITAL source: May not copy digitally
>
>Recording copied from an analog original: May not copy digitally
>
>(note: You may make an analog copy by feeding the line out of one player
>into the line in of a recorder, this re-sets SCMS to "Analog original"
>Note 2: It is possible to make a recording set to "May copy generation
>after generation"
>

The analog copy will cause some loss of quality. This may not be too
important (with good equipment) yet, but it will be noticable when
copying HD video.

>The problem is: I make original recordings of her playing her flute, or
>me and the rest of the chior doing what we do
>
>And then I edit out the trash and make a "Master Recording" (Digital
>copy of the desired portions of the original copies) now... I can't
>make production copies using the digital stand alone audio hardware (I
>can with the computer but that is another issue)
>
>When you can't copy your own work.. That is taking it too far.
>

Don't you have a choice about enabling SCMS on your own recordings?

>One thing I do say about copyguard.. I've seen recordings, starting with
>a Terminal Program (Term 40) For the VIC-20 I used to use.

I've used that same program. Then I wrote my own. I seem to remember
how easy it was to make it better.

> Which said
>"Since our copy guard system makes it impossible for you to copy the
>software should anything happen ...blah...blah...blah"
>

Right, and the same kind of thing is happening now. I have one useless
copy of Windows, because of a missing CD-key. MS and the store that
sold the copy were completely unhelpful.

Also, with (floppy) disks they "protected" the software by putting a
defect on the disk. This would cause the drive to make a lot of
banging noise while trying to read the bad sector.

It was a good thing when most software companies stopped that.

>Well.. Do understand I smashed their copy guard 7 ways to glory, had
>recorders which were able to copy it, and figured out how to totally
>disable it and modify the software (Since they left a feature out)
>
>Took me all of 10 minutes to break it.. It was my first "Crack"
>

I did some of that, but with that it was easier to write a better
program (It was called Vterm, based on a friends comment about
"virtually anything").

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> I'm not interested in "pirating". I support the copyright
>> restrictions, but DEFINATELY believe that machines (hardware and/or
>> software) should never be allowed to try to enforce them. They lack
>> the knowledge and intelligence (and other abilities) to do this
>> properly. For example, your recorder might know it's being fed a
>> copyrighted signal, but has no idea of what you intend to do with your
>> copy. There's no detectable difference (by that recorder) between one
>> personal copy (to watch once then delete) and the beginning of
>> millions of unauthorized copies to sell.
>>

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:25:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:49:33 +0000 (UTC), General Kireiko
<douglas@panix.com> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
>: Mine won't either, although I see that prices of DL-capable burners
>: are reasonable (even Wal-Mart is selling then). The DL disks still
>: cost too much.
>
>I don't beleive that DL-Media will take-off. By the time it comes down
>in price, Blu-Ray will be on the street.
>

Maybe not. Anyway, I have used DVDshrink to copy onto regular DVD-R,
and the quality was more then sufficient.

>It costs what, almost $10 for a blank DVD-9?

That's about right. I just saw some for safe at Wal-Mart this morning.

> A blank DVD-5 costs $0.40
>at a biog box store (You can do better). Until a DVD-9 costs under $1, I
>will be sticking with DVD-5.
>
>I can afford $0.40 cent beer coasters, not $10.00 ones.
>

And I did get a series of those once. It turned out to be some
defective authoring software.

>-Doug

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 1:09:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> BTW, one of that last type was the AOL commercial comparing the ham
> and tuna sandwiches. I found that interesting the FIRST time. However,
> that was JUST the first time. Considering THAT, I got another one of
> those AOL CDs with Wednesday's paper. Looks like somebody thinks I
> don't know much about AOL.

Some years ago I purchased a PC-Magazine which had an AOL 3.0 disk
bundeled with it... The 3.0 on the disk label was in the 3:00 position
(Right side of disk) so you can guess what I did with it

Took it to a science fiction convention with the label "For counting up
the hours waiting for a connection to America OFF line"

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 1:13:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> The analog copy will cause some loss of quality. This may not be too
> important (with good equipment) yet, but it will be noticable when
> copying HD video.

Without a doubt, which is why I'm am ticked off by the need to do it
that way

> Don't you have a choice about enabling SCMS on your own recordings?

Today, yes, I have a choice, but in 2002 when I was using the Classic
CD-Recorder (Stand alone audio device with SCMS built in, I should
mention here that SCMS is not exclusive to SONY but is the result of an
agreement between ASCAP, RIAA and the hardware manufacturer's
associations. I did not have that choice, The recorder had no way for me
to tell it "Mark ok to copy" Only commercial grade hardware could do
that. And of course computers, they do it by default.

Today I burn those CD's with a computer so it's no longer a problem

(Back then it was not much of a problem.. I had work arounds)
--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:21:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:09:49 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> BTW, one of that last type was the AOL commercial comparing the ham
>> and tuna sandwiches. I found that interesting the FIRST time. However,
>> that was JUST the first time. Considering THAT, I got another one of
>> those AOL CDs with Wednesday's paper. Looks like somebody thinks I
>> don't know much about AOL.
>
>Some years ago I purchased a PC-Magazine which had an AOL 3.0 disk
>bundeled with it... The 3.0 on the disk label was in the 3:00 position
>(Right side of disk) so you can guess what I did with it
>

Floppies could be reformatted for something else. I had no shortage of
blank disks during the time AOL sent floppies.

>Took it to a science fiction convention with the label "For counting up
>the hours waiting for a connection to America OFF line"

I did use AOL for awhile, that's how I know I don't want to anymore.
That was during the time they had that "America OFF Line" problem. Of
course, that was far from the only problem with AOL.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:21:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:13:38 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> The analog copy will cause some loss of quality. This may not be too
>> important (with good equipment) yet, but it will be noticable when
>> copying HD video.
>
>Without a doubt, which is why I'm am ticked off by the need to do it
>that way
>
>> Don't you have a choice about enabling SCMS on your own recordings?
>
>Today, yes, I have a choice, but in 2002 when I was using the Classic
>CD-Recorder (Stand alone audio device with SCMS built in, I should
>mention here that SCMS is not exclusive to SONY but is the result of an
>agreement between ASCAP, RIAA and the hardware manufacturer's
>associations. I did not have that choice, The recorder had no way for me
>to tell it "Mark ok to copy" Only commercial grade hardware could do
>that. And of course computers, they do it by default.
>

That's not right. They shouldn't be including a restrictive feature
without giving you a choice (at LEAST with your own recordings).

If I had a choice, I'd make it illegal to include restrictive
unfeatures in equipment (maybe with an exception for something like
national security).

>Today I burn those CD's with a computer so it's no longer a problem
>
>(Back then it was not much of a problem.. I had work arounds)

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:59:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Well... A bit of history:

Back before there was AOL there was a company called (if I spell it
right) Quantum Communications. Their service, which was started using
seed money from Commodore Business Machines, makers of the very popular
Commodore 64, was called Q-Link, and if you were a commodore user it WAS
the place to be. PC's not welcome, in fact PC's could not log in, only
C=64's. The software was Playneet by the way, re-skinned.

It was great, they had dang near everything I wanted in an online
servie, Shopping mall, Encypoedia (Comptons) Forums or Special Interest
Groups (not unlike Usenet) They never gatewayed to the internet though.

At the end for their first year, even though they were the fastest
growing service on the planet, they needed some expansion cash, So they
sold annual and lifetime memberships, I purchased annual (All I could
afford) but would have gone lifetime if I could have... Several of my
friends did.

Then, about a year and a half later (One Halloween in fact) They pulled
the plug, changed their name and today are kown as America Off Line.

Of course you can't AOL with a commodore 64, got to have a Poor Computer

Well... Just cause they did it once, don't mean they are going to do it
again, right... Actually, right.

However... Even before Q-link there was another service, this was a pure
teltext service (all plain text, no html, no fonts, very little
formatting ) called COMPUSERVE, It was owned by H&R Block the tax
folks. While H&R Block owned it they made some major changes.
effectively locking out my C64 and forcing me into PC's (Minimum was an
80286 or actually an NEC-V20) But this service was, if anything, even
better than Q-link, for one thing, in it's glory days I coudl access
with ANYTHING capable of sending text, A VIC-20, C-64, IBM PC, Texis
Insturment Silent-700 Teletype/printer, CRAY super computer, since
Compuserve only delat with ASCII, and 7 bit ASCII at that, ANYTHING
could access it (They did have libraries and a standard "Trick" for
doing 8 bit library stuff) Bit pricy at 30 dollars an hour day and six
at night but hey, Man was it flexable, They had all the services I've
listed above and much much more, Gateways to MedLine, MicroNet
(Telephone number database, very useful for a police dispatcher) and
more. And the single greatest collection of forums anywhere

Well, in a 3-way deal H&R block sold COmpuserve, lock, stock, computers
and modem network to AOL, which then re-sold the communications (modem)
network to MCI-WOrldcom so they could pay H&R Block for the deal.

So what did AOL Web Properties do with Compuserve?

Well... Let's just say it's not so nice any more, Dial up is possible,
Just, for forum access (I used to be able to use an offline reader, a
quick couple of mintues connected, and it was all on my computer) and
you need a "recent" browser. Lots of ads, graphics, and the like that
are a total waste of time It is now "Just another web page"

And of course that 80286 can't go there, an 80486 sx25 is likely going
to not make it, Windows 9x or NT equivlent is necessary (or LInux or Mac
though Mac users are reporting issues)

now, undestand that in a manner of speaking I work for these fools
(Actually I work for the membership in a couple of forums helping to
manage message flow... A job that is much easier now that there is a
fraction of the message flow there used to be)

So... Do I like AOL NO

Will I ever install their software on my computer YES, it is part of
the windows install package, Will I delete it as part of the post
install clean up YES I use Trillian for IM and don't do AOL other than
http://community.compuerve.com forums (That url may not work, or it
may default to forum centeral, I don't know, I always add a slash and a
web tag like this http://community.compuserve.com/sflit

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:09:49 GMT, John in Detroit
> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, one of that last type was the AOL commercial comparing the ham
>>>and tuna sandwiches. I found that interesting the FIRST time. However,
>>>that was JUST the first time. Considering THAT, I got another one of
>>>those AOL CDs with Wednesday's paper. Looks like somebody thinks I
>>>don't know much about AOL.
>>
>>Some years ago I purchased a PC-Magazine which had an AOL 3.0 disk
>>bundeled with it... The 3.0 on the disk label was in the 3:00 position
>>(Right side of disk) so you can guess what I did with it
>>
>
>
> Floppies could be reformatted for something else. I had no shortage of
> blank disks during the time AOL sent floppies.
>
>
>>Took it to a science fiction convention with the label "For counting up
>>the hours waiting for a connection to America OFF line"
>
>
> I did use AOL for awhile, that's how I know I don't want to anymore.
> That was during the time they had that "America OFF Line" problem. Of
> course, that was far from the only problem with AOL.
>

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:59:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <TOv3e.17065$DW.2948@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Well... A bit of history:
>
> Back before there was AOL there was a company called (if I spell it
> right) Quantum Communications. Their service, which was started using
> seed money from Commodore Business Machines, makers of the very popular
> Commodore 64, was called Q-Link, and if you were a commodore user it WAS
> the place to be. PC's not welcome, in fact PC's could not log in, only
> C=64's. The software was Playneet by the way, re-skinned.
>
> It was great, they had dang near everything I wanted in an online
> servie, Shopping mall, Encypoedia (Comptons) Forums or Special Interest
> Groups (not unlike Usenet) They never gatewayed to the internet though.
>
> At the end for their first year, even though they were the fastest
> growing service on the planet, they needed some expansion cash, So they
> sold annual and lifetime memberships, I purchased annual (All I could
> afford) but would have gone lifetime if I could have... Several of my
> friends did.
>
> Then, about a year and a half later (One Halloween in fact) They pulled
> the plug, changed their name and today are kown as America Off Line.

And within all of that, before America Online, they hosted a service
called Personal AppleLink, if I recall.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:59:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <TOv3e.17065$DW.2948@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> However... Even before Q-link there was another service, this was a pure
> teltext service (all plain text, no html, no fonts, very little
> formatting ) called COMPUSERVE, It was owned by H&R Block the tax
> folks. While H&R Block owned it they made some major changes.
> effectively locking out my C64 and forcing me into PC's

Not at all. I frequently accessed Compuserve with a Radio Shack Model
100.

CIS was a text based service, accessible with any terminal device. I
even accessed them by dialing up from a dumb terminal at my university,
way back when.

And, of course, I was dialing them up with my Macintosh running Red
Ryder and then White Knight (terminal software). That was from 1988
until I ditched the service sometime after 1995.

No PC required.

They eventually added a graphical interface to things, and then by the
late 90s had ditched the terminal access completely in favor of the
graphical interface--all because "that's what AOL did, and look at how
successful they are!"

BTW, the Information Service wasn't the only thing hosted by Compuserve.
They were still selling their computing power on a time share basis.
Compuserve's infrastructure hosted the Borland BBS, even; you dialed up
the Compuserve number, and at the prompt typed borbbs. You were routed
to the Borland BBS instead of the Compuserve Information Service.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:59:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 11:59:47 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Well... A bit of history:
>
>Back before there was AOL there was a company called (if I spell it
>right) Quantum Communications. Their service, which was started using
>seed money from Commodore Business Machines, makers of the very popular
>Commodore 64, was called Q-Link, and if you were a commodore user it WAS
>the place to be. PC's not welcome, in fact PC's could not log in, only
>C=64's. The software was Playneet by the way, re-skinned.
>

Yes, I remember that now. I had Q-Link. for awhile I didn't know it
had anything to do with AOL then.

>It was great, they had dang near everything I wanted in an online
>servie, Shopping mall, Encypoedia (Comptons) Forums or Special Interest
>Groups (not unlike Usenet) They never gatewayed to the internet though.
>
>At the end for their first year, even though they were the fastest
>growing service on the planet, they needed some expansion cash, So they
>sold annual and lifetime memberships, I purchased annual (All I could
>afford) but would have gone lifetime if I could have... Several of my
>friends did.
>
>Then, about a year and a half later (One Halloween in fact) They pulled
>the plug, changed their name and today are kown as America Off Line.
>
>Of course you can't AOL with a commodore 64, got to have a Poor Computer
>

Although I once heard that somebody got internet access (including
email, usenet, web) working on a C64.

>Well... Just cause they did it once, don't mean they are going to do it
>again, right... Actually, right.
>
>However... Even before Q-link there was another service, this was a pure
>teltext service (all plain text, no html, no fonts, very little
>formatting ) called COMPUSERVE,

That's the other one I had then (it was all text, when Q-Link has
graphics).

> It was owned by H&R Block the tax
>folks. While H&R Block owned it they made some major changes.
>effectively locking out my C64 and forcing me into PC's (Minimum was an
>80286 or actually an NEC-V20) But this service was, if anything, even
>better than Q-link, for one thing, in it's glory days I coudl access
>with ANYTHING capable of sending text, A VIC-20,

"VIC-20: The Worlds' First Color Computer For Under $300". Of course
"under $300" was $299.99. I got mine for $268 and it was the first
computer I owned.

> C-64, IBM PC, Texis
>Insturment Silent-700 Teletype/printer, CRAY super computer, since
>Compuserve only delat with ASCII, and 7 bit ASCII at that, ANYTHING
>could access it (They did have libraries and a standard "Trick" for
>doing 8 bit library stuff) Bit pricy at 30 dollars an hour day and six
>at night

Unlimited access would be nice, but then there was America OFF Line.

>but hey, Man was it flexable, They had all the services I've
>listed above and much much more, Gateways to MedLine, MicroNet
>(Telephone number database, very useful for a police dispatcher) and
>more. And the single greatest collection of forums anywhere
>

A command Line. I always liked command lines better than this menu
stuff. Makes it look more like you're controlling the computer rather
than the other way around.

>Well, in a 3-way deal H&R block sold COmpuserve, lock, stock, computers
>and modem network to AOL, which then re-sold the communications (modem)
>network to MCI-WOrldcom so they could pay H&R Block for the deal.
>
>So what did AOL Web Properties do with Compuserve?
>
>Well... Let's just say it's not so nice any more, Dial up is possible,
>Just, for forum access (I used to be able to use an offline reader, a
>quick couple of mintues connected, and it was all on my computer) and
>you need a "recent" browser. Lots of ads, graphics, and the like that
>are a total waste of time It is now "Just another web page"
>
>And of course that 80286 can't go there, an 80486 sx25 is likely going
>to not make it, Windows 9x or NT equivlent is necessary (or LInux or Mac
>though Mac users are reporting issues)
>

Once I heard that the purpose of Windows was to sell computer
hardware.

>now, undestand that in a manner of speaking I work for these fools
>(Actually I work for the membership in a couple of forums helping to
>manage message flow... A job that is much easier now that there is a
>fraction of the message flow there used to be)
>
>So... Do I like AOL NO
>
>Will I ever install their software on my computer YES, it is part of
>the windows install package, Will I delete it as part of the post
>install clean up YES I use Trillian for IM and don't do AOL other than
>http://community.compuerve.com forums (That url may not work, or it
>may default to forum centeral, I don't know, I always add a slash and a
>web tag like this http://community.compuserve.com/sflit
>

A large number of programs will put AOL icons on your desktop (even
when the program you meant to install has nothing to do with AOL).
Sounds like an invasion of privacy.

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:09:49 GMT, John in Detroit
>> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>>>BTW, one of that last type was the AOL commercial comparing the ham
>>>>and tuna sandwiches. I found that interesting the FIRST time. However,
>>>>that was JUST the first time. Considering THAT, I got another one of
>>>>those AOL CDs with Wednesday's paper. Looks like somebody thinks I
>>>>don't know much about AOL.
>>>
>>>Some years ago I purchased a PC-Magazine which had an AOL 3.0 disk
>>>bundeled with it... The 3.0 on the disk label was in the 3:00 position
>>>(Right side of disk) so you can guess what I did with it
>>>
>>
>>
>> Floppies could be reformatted for something else. I had no shortage of
>> blank disks during the time AOL sent floppies.
>>
>>
>>>Took it to a science fiction convention with the label "For counting up
>>>the hours waiting for a connection to America OFF line"
>>
>>
>> I did use AOL for awhile, that's how I know I don't want to anymore.
>> That was during the time they had that "America OFF Line" problem. Of
>> course, that was far from the only problem with AOL.
>>

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 5:13:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

I have been using Compuserve since 1983, it was about 1995/1996 that
they switched from the DECs that they originally set up to Windows NT
servers and dropped the pure ASCII interface in favor of one called HMI

There was still some limited ASCII access, but it appears, since you
said you dropped in in 95 that you dropped it just BEFORE the first
major change I spoke of.

As I said, I work in a couple of forums there what they call a sysop
(Though to me sysop means something else than what I do on Compuserve)

There is still a tiny bit of very limited ASCII access today I
understand, but all the forums have moved off to a hosting company (Even
though everyone knows what it is I'm not allowed to tell you) and now,
of course, those older hardware like you Mod-100 or my TI-Teletype,
totally useless in the forums.

I don't recall the exact time they dropped ASCII but I do know this.

I was diagnosed diabetic in 1988..... Put on oral meds. in 1994, I
'Graduated' to Insulin.... At that time I was still using a Commodore
64 (Actually a 128 in 64 mode) With vidtext software for Compuserve
access. A Sysop in the Commodore Arts and Games forum pointed me to the
Diabetes forum (I'm not the sysop for what's left of the Commodore arts
& games, and a few other Commodore 8 bit, forums, one section of Vintage
Computing forum). At this time I still used the 64, So it was after
1994 that they switched to HMI. I had to get a PC (Minimum 80286) and
the offline reader TAPCIS (6.0 and up) to access. When they begin the
change over most forums were still ASCII, it took at least a year to
convert all the forums to ASCII only, and then E-Mail and selected other
services remained ASCII. I think you can still do compuserve E-Mail
using ASCII if you are on "Old mail" but since I no longer have a
compuserve account (Even though I sysop there) I no longer track it. I
closed my Account when they moved to the new hosts, About a year and a
half ago.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <TOv3e.17065$DW.2948@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>However... Even before Q-link there was another service, this was a pure
>>teltext service (all plain text, no html, no fonts, very little
>>formatting ) called COMPUSERVE, It was owned by H&R Block the tax
>>folks. While H&R Block owned it they made some major changes.
>>effectively locking out my C64 and forcing me into PC's
>
>
> Not at all. I frequently accessed Compuserve with a Radio Shack Model
> 100.
>
> CIS was a text based service, accessible with any terminal device. I
> even accessed them by dialing up from a dumb terminal at my university,
> way back when.
>
> And, of course, I was dialing them up with my Macintosh running Red
> Ryder and then White Knight (terminal software). That was from 1988
> until I ditched the service sometime after 1995.
>
> No PC required.
>
> They eventually added a graphical interface to things, and then by the
> late 90s had ditched the terminal access completely in favor of the
> graphical interface--all because "that's what AOL did, and look at how
> successful they are!"
>
> BTW, the Information Service wasn't the only thing hosted by Compuserve.
> They were still selling their computing power on a time share basis.
> Compuserve's infrastructure hosted the Borland BBS, even; you dialed up
> the Compuserve number, and at the prompt typed borbbs. You were routed
> to the Borland BBS instead of the Compuserve Information Service.
>

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes
!