I've been toying with the idea of whether or not to upgrade to Sky +. Has anyone here got it?
The general feeling seems to be that once you have one, you wonder how you got by without it. Is it all it cracks up to be?
PS: How come there is so much space below most peoples posts?
Sky+
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
I'd love Sky+. I have two questions: 'how much' and 'give it to me'.fusionlad wrote:I've been toying with the idea of whether or not to upgrade to Sky +. Has anyone here got it?
The general feeling seems to be that once you have one, you wonder how you got by without it. Is it all it cracks up to be?
PS: How come there is so much space below most peoples posts?
Oh yea... oops.CraigF wrote:That'll be because of avatars and the other info at the side.fusionlad wrote:PS: How come there is so much space below most peoples posts?
Gavin, have a look at http://www.sky.com/skyplus/
.
IMHO, the Sky+ is a fantastic idea, and a brilliantly useful thing to have, but it is prohibitively expensive.
If the Sky+ box (and LNB upgrade) itself were to cost £150 or less, and had no additional subscription
requirements, I would consider buying one. But, at the moment, the whole thing costs way too much.
I have pretty much the same sort of views about the iPod, and new Apple Macintosh computers.
If the Sky+ box (and LNB upgrade) itself were to cost £150 or less, and had no additional subscription
requirements, I would consider buying one. But, at the moment, the whole thing costs way too much.
I have pretty much the same sort of views about the iPod, and new Apple Macintosh computers.
My friend had Sky+ for some time when he used to have Sky, but apparently he got it as a cheap deal, they were given an older model of box and it was shite and he soon got rid of it for NTL. (He wanted broadband) But as long as you have the box they have on the ads and if you like your TV then I recommend you get it.
-
James Martin
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Sun 15 Feb, 2004 19.26
You can transfer the programme to tape to keep it although I would like to see maybe a DVD writer or Flash memory be introduced 4-5 years down the line.
This is one aspect that IMO, means that it'll still be quite some time before the conventional analog VCR is totallyChris wrote: Sky+ seems like a good idea but what happens if you
want to keep the programme you have recorded?
obsolete. Of course, once things such as the Sky+, and DVD recorders become more reasonably priced, and
more commonplace, the conventional analog VCR is essentially doomed!
TiVO . . . Hmmm . . . Something that was similar to Sky+, and also prohibitively expensive. Unfortunately for TiVoMarcus wrote: I love my TIVO. And I don't pay Rupert Murdoch a penny
though, it's turned out that Sky's marketing behemoth has turned the Sky+ into a much more successful system.
Ironically, before Sky introduced Sky+, the TiVO was recommended by . . . you guessed it . . . Sky Digital!
I've never used Sky+, but it does sound quite good. But I won't be getting it as long as it incurs an additional subscription. All the differences between Sky Digital and Sky+ are implemented in the Sky+ box - which you've allready paid for in order to get Sky+ in the first place. I can't actually recognise getting any specific product/service in exchange for the Sky+ subscription - you're just paying a monthly fee to use the features which allready exist in the equipment you have allready paid for. It's like buying a stereo but having to pay per month to use the CD player; it's ridiculous that this charge exists.
If it was down to just paying more to get the Sky+ box, then (when I'm in a position to get Sky again) I would probably go down the route if I could afford it, but no way am I getting it as long as you have to 'subscribe' to it also.
They may say that once you have it, you'll wonder how you ever lived without it, but as I've never had it, the cost advantage of using good old VHS and a manual timer to timeshift programmes is still too big for me to consider a change.
If it was down to just paying more to get the Sky+ box, then (when I'm in a position to get Sky again) I would probably go down the route if I could afford it, but no way am I getting it as long as you have to 'subscribe' to it also.
They may say that once you have it, you'll wonder how you ever lived without it, but as I've never had it, the cost advantage of using good old VHS and a manual timer to timeshift programmes is still too big for me to consider a change.
It won't be for a while that the analogue VCR dies out. However I think they should make the Sky+ a bit more useful - ie. make the hard drive swappable with another one. Sounds a bit ridiculous and far fetched come to think of it. And anyway, is it possible to upgrade the hard drive in your Sky+ if you want to store more for later?DJGM wrote:This is one aspect that IMO, means that it'll still be quite some time before the conventional analog VCR is totally obsolete. Of course, once things such as the Sky+, and DVD recorders become more reasonably priced, and more commonplace, the conventional analog VCR is essentially doomed!Chris wrote: Sky+ seems like a good idea but what happens if you
want to keep the programme you have recorded?
The whole notion of using the Sky+ as a video recorder is a bit stupid to me - you can't really keep anything unless you record it to a tape, which sort of defeats the object of having a Sky+ in the first place.