expensive london
pIN-UP pOPE
Passengers urged to go Oyster as fares rocket
By Ruth Holmes
Oyster cards prove a cheaper option as ticket prices soar.
NEW YEAR fare hikes on buses, trains and the Tube threaten to make
London the world's most expensive capital to travel in, with a single
underground fare costing almost four times as much as in New York.
A single on the Tube will cost £4 under the new pricing system which
came into force today - compared with the equivalent of £1.07 in New
York and the European average of £1.37.
The increases - of up to 33 per cent on buses and underground trains -
have come under fierce attack, with rail operators accused of trying to
price passengers out to combat overcrowding.
news.ntlworld.com
>have come under fierce attack, with rail operators accused of trying to
>price passengers out to combat overcrowding.
Only way of keeping all the bloody tourists off the Tube and letting the
locals get around.
Runge
"pIN-UP pOPE" <michael...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1167754961.5...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Viking
More likely the reverse.
Deeply Filled Mortician
<michael...@yahoo.com> writted:
>http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.1098587.0.passengers_urged_to_go_oyster_as_fares_rocket.php
>
>Passengers urged to go Oyster as fares rocket
>By Ruth Holmes
>
>Oyster cards prove a cheaper option as ticket prices soar.
>
>NEW YEAR fare hikes on buses, trains and the Tube threaten to make
>London the world's most expensive capital to travel in, with a single
>underground fare costing almost four times as much as in New York.
>
>A single on the Tube will cost £4 under the new pricing system which
>came into force today - compared with the equivalent of £1.07 in New
>York and the European average of £1.37.
That is just fucked up.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Gregory Morrow
Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
Yeah...
I live in an expensive US city (Chicago) where a single one - way
public transit fare is $2.00, but those London public transit fares are
roughly equivalent to *taxi* fares here...GAWD...!!!
I know the yanqui dollar is very low against the UK Pound, but I
sometimes *really* wonder how people can live in London, let alone the
UK...
[I know that London is a very rich place with the requisite demographic
so that explains the prices...]
Even "average" UK resto prices strike me as outrageous...
--
Best
Greg "posting from his pied a terre in St. John's Wood..."
Runge
"Gregory Morrow" <gregor...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1167788847.1...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David Johnstone
> public transit fare is $2.00, but those London public transit fares are
> roughly equivalent to *taxi* fares here...GAWD...!!!
A better comparison would be with the £1.50 Oyster fair, which
is still not cheap.
Clearly the outrageous £4.00 cash fare for a zone 1 single
is an attempt to force people to use Oyster rather a serious
price structure which anyone could justify.
Interestingly London Transport put a positive image to it on their
website "Travel in London is cheapest with Oyster" etc.:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=1021
David
The Reid
<gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I know the yanqui dollar is very low against the UK Pound, but I
>sometimes *really* wonder how people can live in London, let alone the
>UK...
>
>[I know that London is a very rich place with the requisite demographic
>so that explains the prices...]
I think you answered your own question!
--
Mike Reid
UK Walking - photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain Walking -food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"
The Reid
wrote:
>Clearly the outrageous £4.00 cash fare for a zone 1 single
>is an attempt to force people to use Oyster rather a serious
>price structure which anyone could justify.
I think that's what Ken wants but for someone like me who hardly ever
uses tube/bus they are creating a barrier I'm not going to bother to
break down. I'll just use a cab.
B Vaughan
wrote:
>> I live in an expensive US city (Chicago) where a single one - way
>> public transit fare is $2.00, but those London public transit fares are
>> roughly equivalent to *taxi* fares here...GAWD...!!!
>
>A better comparison would be with the £1.50 Oyster fair, which
>is still not cheap.
I thought the cheapest Oyster fare was now 2 pounds.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
ALAN HARRISON
"B Vaughan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:199np2psbapogonva...@4ax.com...
> On 3 Jan 2007 03:09:29 -0800, "David Johnstone" <davi...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> I live in an expensive US city (Chicago) where a single one - way
>>> public transit fare is $2.00, but those London public transit fares are
>>> roughly equivalent to *taxi* fares here...GAWD...!!!
>>
>>A better comparison would be with the £1.50 Oyster fair, which
>>is still not cheap.
>
> I thought the cheapest Oyster fare was now 2 pounds.
No, the aim is to encourage Oyster use by increasing cash fares for single
journeys.
See http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/fares-tickets/2007/general.asp#newfares
Basically the cash fare for a single bus trip is now £2, with Oyster
remaining at £1, and the single fare for a tube journey in Zone 1 is £4, but
only £1.50 with Oyster. If using only buses on an occasional basis, as I was
today, the £3.50 one-day bus pass is now cheaper than two cash singles.
Alan Harrison
Iceman
> sometimes *really* wonder how people can live in London, let alone the
> UK...
Because 90% of them don't live in central London, and long-term
commuter passes are much cheaper on a monthly basis...and even
expensive mass transit is still a lot cheaper than having to own, fuel,
insure and repair a car.
> [I know that London is a very rich place with the requisite demographic
> so that explains the prices...]
London does have a large number of bankers and executives and
third-world millionaires, but the vast majority of Londoners are not
"very rich" by any means. At least as of the last calculation I saw,
London's overall per capita income is lower than some German,
Scandinavian, and Swiss cities. (Hamburg has the highest per capita
income in the EU IIRC.)
Like most cities, London has a whole range of housing, restaurants,
bars, clothing stores, etc. While the top of the range in London is
much more expensive than in most cities, there are huge numbers of less
expensive options.
> Even "average" UK resto prices strike me as outrageous...
They strike me as about average when compared to cities like New York,
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, or Tokyo.
B Vaughan
Someone said, and Iceman snipped the attribution:
>> Even "average" UK resto prices strike me as outrageous...
>
>They strike me as about average when compared to cities like New York,
>Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, or Tokyo.
I can't say much about the other cities, but New York has lots of
excellent dining options at reasonable prices.
Gregory Morrow
B Vaughan wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 12:01:03 -0800, "Iceman" <oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Someone said, and Iceman snipped the attribution:
>
> >> Even "average" UK resto prices strike me as outrageous...
> >
> >They strike me as about average when compared to cities like New York,
> >Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, or Tokyo.
>
> I can't say much about the other cities, but New York has lots of
> excellent dining options at reasonable prices.
In that respect it's one of the best dining cities in the world.
Chicago, LA, SF, and Houston are other places with great and reasonable
or even inexpensive dining, many of these places catering to an
immigrant clientele, e.g. Asian, Hispanic, etc....
--
Best
Greg
Deeply Filled Mortician
<oneo...@yahoo.com> writted:
>> I know the yanqui dollar is very low against the UK Pound, but I
>> sometimes *really* wonder how people can live in London, let alone the
>> UK...
>
>Because 90% of them don't live in central London, and long-term
>commuter passes are much cheaper on a monthly basis...and even
>expensive mass transit is still a lot cheaper than having to own, fuel,
>insure and repair a car.
Well, just what is 'central London'? Zone 1? Few would want to live
there. Zones 2 and 3 are much more comfortable and affordable.
>> [I know that London is a very rich place with the requisite demographic
>> so that explains the prices...]
>
>London does have a large number of bankers and executives and
>third-world millionaires, but the vast majority of Londoners are not
>"very rich" by any means. At least as of the last calculation I saw,
>London's overall per capita income is lower than some German,
>Scandinavian, and Swiss cities. (Hamburg has the highest per capita
>income in the EU IIRC.)
London seems to employ a lot of people that are prepared to work long
hours for shitty pay. It is well set up to receive them too after
having received many budget priced immigrants over the years.
>Like most cities, London has a whole range of housing, restaurants,
>bars, clothing stores, etc. While the top of the range in London is
>much more expensive than in most cities, there are huge numbers of less
>expensive options.
Really? The huge number of people on low salaries there means that not
only do prices rise for them, but standards lower.
>> Even "average" UK resto prices strike me as outrageous...
>
>They strike me as about average when compared to cities like New York,
>Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, or Tokyo.
Go to an average restaurant in each of those cities, and the London
restaurant will unlikely rate anywhere near the top.
Iceman
> Let is be knownst that on 3 Jan 2007 12:01:03 -0800, "Iceman"
> <oneo...@yahoo.com> writted:
>
> >> I know the yanqui dollar is very low against the UK Pound, but I
> >> sometimes *really* wonder how people can live in London, let alone the
> >> UK...
> >
> >Because 90% of them don't live in central London, and long-term
> >commuter passes are much cheaper on a monthly basis...and even
> >expensive mass transit is still a lot cheaper than having to own, fuel,
> >insure and repair a car.
>
> Well, just what is 'central London'? Zone 1? Few would want to live
> there. Zones 2 and 3 are much more comfortable and affordable.
I just meant that the vast majority of people don't live in the posh
areas (which are a tiny part of the overall metro area). I don't want
to get into specific neighborhoods.
> >> [I know that London is a very rich place with the requisite demographic
> >> so that explains the prices...]
> >
> >London does have a large number of bankers and executives and
> >third-world millionaires, but the vast majority of Londoners are not
> >"very rich" by any means. At least as of the last calculation I saw,
> >London's overall per capita income is lower than some German,
> >Scandinavian, and Swiss cities. (Hamburg has the highest per capita
> >income in the EU IIRC.)
>
> London seems to employ a lot of people that are prepared to work long
> hours for shitty pay. It is well set up to receive them too after
> having received many budget priced immigrants over the years.
London has a large low-wage working-class, of which a significant
percentage are immigrants or of immigrant origin. The relatively low
labor costs keep London from being more expensive than it is.
> >Like most cities, London has a whole range of housing, restaurants,
> >bars, clothing stores, etc. While the top of the range in London is
> >much more expensive than in most cities, there are huge numbers of less
> >expensive options.
>
> Really? The huge number of people on low salaries there means that not
> only do prices rise for them, but standards lower.
London has loads of inexpensive ethnic restaurants, thrift stores,
cheap outdoor markets, and reasonably priced pubs - I wouldn't say the
standards are lower because of the large low-wage population - rather,
the quantity and variety are higher.
> >> Even "average" UK resto prices strike me as outrageous...
> >
> >They strike me as about average when compared to cities like New York,
> >Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, or Tokyo.
>
> Go to an average restaurant in each of those cities, and the London
> restaurant will unlikely rate anywhere near the top.
Well, I certainly agree with that. I realize it might be my own bias
towards Asian food, but IMO the "average" restaurants in Tokyo and Hong
Kong are better than the average restaurants in the major cities of the
US and Europe.
myuni...@yahoo.com.au
Iceman wrote:
> Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
> > Let is be knownst that on 3 Jan 2007 12:01:03 -0800, "Iceman"
> > <oneo...@yahoo.com> writted:
> >
> > >> I know the yanqui dollar is very low against the UK Pound, but I
> > >> sometimes *really* wonder how people can live in London, let alone the
> > >> UK...
> > >
> > >Because 90% of them don't live in central London, and long-term
> > >commuter passes are much cheaper on a monthly basis...and even
> > >expensive mass transit is still a lot cheaper than having to own, fuel,
> > >insure and repair a car.
> >
> > Well, just what is 'central London'? Zone 1? Few would want to live
> > there. Zones 2 and 3 are much more comfortable and affordable.
>
> I just meant that the vast majority of people don't live in the posh
> areas (which are a tiny part of the overall metro area). I don't want
> to get into specific neighborhoods.
I've lived in Zone 1 before. There seems to be an impression that
'central' london is all businesses, and plush crash-pads. However, if
you willing to look around, there are a number of niche, cheaper,
comfortable, safe areas to live in in zone one. We loved it. And what's
more in zone 1 were able to walk everywhere (15-20 min to oxford st),
thus saving on the (I agree) expensive travel system.
.....about that... I guess Ken has to start getting money from
somewhere to pay for the tube upgrades required for the games!?
myuni...@yahoo.com.au
Good theory - however I can't see it being any more successful than the
congestion charge reducing the number of motorists!. Either way, I
The Reid
>and even
>expensive mass transit is still a lot cheaper than having to own, fuel,
>insure and repair a car.
not that most Londoners don't use a car away from the centre, which I
suppose reinforces your point about the tourists atypical view.
The Reid
>> Go to an average restaurant in each of those cities, and the London
>> restaurant will unlikely rate anywhere near the top.
>
>Well, I certainly agree with that. I realize it might be my own bias
>towards Asian food, but IMO the "average" restaurants in Tokyo and Hong
>Kong are better than the average restaurants in the major cities of the
>US and Europe.
but when they run competitions London is always over represented. I
think at the budget end its not too good, but that's partly because it
an expensive place and a lot of tourists probably cant afford the
going rate.
The Reid
>. I guess Ken has to start getting money from
>somewhere to pay for the tube upgrades required for the games!?
the whole system suffered from underinvestment through the myopic
Thatcher years, its going to be expensive to put that right.
The Reid
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>Well, just what is 'central London'? Zone 1? Few would want to live
>there. Zones 2 and 3 are much more comfortable and affordable.
I would live there if I could afford it. Either live in a penthouse
overlooking the river or get out to the outer suburbs, the shitty
places are between the two.
rors...@stofanet.dk
Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
> >
> >A single on the Tube will cost £4 under the new pricing system which
> >came into force today - compared with the equivalent of £1.07 in New
> >York and the European average of £1.37.
>
> That is just fucked up.
The single fare is irrelevant. A one-day, off-peak travelcard cost
£5.10. For longer stays, a 7-day travelcard is £23.20. Both prices
are for zones 1&2.
This isn't about cashing in on high fares, it's about reducing the need
for ticket sellers.
Volker Hetzer
> Good theory - however I can't see it being any more successful than the
> congestion charge reducing the number of motorists!.
Just curious.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
For email replies, please substitute the obvious.
The Reid
<firstname...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> Good theory - however I can't see it being any more successful than the
>> congestion charge reducing the number of motorists!.
>The congestion charge doesn't work?
>Just curious.
they say its reduced congestion but it seems much the same to me.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:56:33 +0100, Volker Hetzer
> <firstname...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> Good theory - however I can't see it being any more successful than the
> >> congestion charge reducing the number of motorists!.
> >The congestion charge doesn't work?
> >Just curious.
>
> they say its reduced congestion but it seems much the same to me.
People I know who live in the centre do say they've noticed a
difference. As drivers as well as pedestrians. I think it should be
trebled, just to make sure...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
The Reid
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>People I know who live in the centre do say they've noticed a
>difference.
. It will be interesting to see what happens when they extend to the
west, a lot of people who live there might use cars more, not less. no
doubt in ten years there will congestion charges everywhere, and most
people will still use cars. Its interesting how they sell it as an
pollution tax, when of course the most green tax is fuel duty, the
near perfect test of emission production. While congestion charges are
the same for a mini or a hummer (Livingstonesque contortions aside).
> I think it should be trebled, just to make sure...
you would! I'm all for a long haul air fuel tax of course, anything
further than Spain, say :-) Lets make it about the same burden as car
taxes!
Bruce K.
Doesnt the weekly transport pass (Zones 1 and 2) make more sense than
Oyster?
See:
I'm somewhat confused.
Please explain. Thanks
Bruce
On 2 Jan 2007 08:22:41 -0800, "pIN-UP pOPE" <michael...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.1098587.0.passengers_urged_to_go_oyster_as_fares_rocket.php
>
>Passengers urged to go Oyster as fares rocket
>By Ruth Holmes
>
>Oyster cards prove a cheaper option as ticket prices soar.
>
>NEW YEAR fare hikes on buses, trains and the Tube threaten to make
>London the world's most expensive capital to travel in, with a single
>underground fare costing almost four times as much as in New York.
>
>A single on the Tube will cost £4 under the new pricing system which
>came into force today - compared with the equivalent of £1.07 in New
>York and the European average of £1.37.
>
ALAN HARRISON
"Bruce K." <brucea...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:65eqp2dojarggqjnm...@4ax.com...
>I am Planning to spend a week in London .
> Doesnt the weekly transport pass (Zones 1 and 2) make more sense than
> Oyster?
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Seven-day travelcards are normally loaded
on an Oyster card "except when bought at national railway stations". See
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/fares-tickets/2007/season/travelcard-adult.asp
What you will need to decide is whether you will do enough travelling in the
course of a week to make the seven-day ticket cheaper than paying for
individual journeys on the Oyster card, subject to the daily price cap
guarantee with the latter option.
Alan Harrison
Volker Hetzer
> I am Planning to spend a week in London .
> Doesnt the weekly transport pass (Zones 1 and 2) make more sense than
> Oyster?
However, last time I was there the weekly transport pass became unreliable
after three days.
It was still valid but I always had to "seek assistance" because the
machines stopped accepting it. Oysters are more durable.
In all that oyster information I have come across mentionings of
"putting a travelcard on an oyster card". If this is possible
that's what I'll probably try.
Jesper Lauridsen
> I am Planning to spend a week in London .
> Doesnt the weekly transport pass (Zones 1 and 2) make more sense than
> Oyster?
>
The Oyster information on http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/ is quite poor. I
tried to find an introduction, but kept ending up at the same pages,
which all assumed that I knew what the Oyster was.
I ended up going to Wikipedia instead...
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> On 2007-01-04, Bruce K <brucea...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > I am Planning to spend a week in London .
> > Doesnt the weekly transport pass (Zones 1 and 2) make more sense than
> > Oyster?
> >
> > I'm somewhat confused.
>
> The Oyster information on http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/ is quite poor.
I agree. Terribly designed.
On the subject of user interfaces, I bought a twin digital receiver with
HD recorder over the weekend for £100. I didn't even need to open the
smal manual- everything was completely intuitive. I was impressed, and
that's pretty much at the low end of the market!
Deeply Filled Mortician
d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) writted:
>Jesper Lauridsen <rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-01-04, Bruce K <brucea...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> > I am Planning to spend a week in London .
>> > Doesnt the weekly transport pass (Zones 1 and 2) make more sense than
>> > Oyster?
>> >
>> > I'm somewhat confused.
>>
>> The Oyster information on http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/ is quite poor.
>
>I agree. Terribly designed.
>
>On the subject of user interfaces, I bought a twin digital receiver with
>HD recorder over the weekend for £100. I didn't even need to open the
>smal manual- everything was completely intuitive. I was impressed, and
>that's pretty much at the low end of the market!
Give it to Mike for the real test.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 9 Jan 2007 22:54:29 +0100,
I think he'd figure it out. Once he switched on the power! :)
The Reid
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>>On the subject of user interfaces, I bought a twin digital receiver with
>>HD recorder over the weekend for £100. I didn't even need to open the
>>smal manual- everything was completely intuitive. I was impressed, and
>>that's pretty much at the low end of the market!
>
>Give it to Mike for the real test.
does the name start in i? :-)
My DVD drawer is still opening at random.
I bought a freeview box a while ago, much easier to use than a video.
The only annoying thing has been it was advertised as twin tuner but
the paperwork said you had to download software to make it work, huh?
Why does everything I buy need a bloody download before it works? You
have to set it to a certain channel on Sunday morning, which I did but
it still only does one channel. A bit of fiddling and I can record
one on the VCR and one on the Box, but i'll have to look at it again.
I bet David will get an iPhone?
The Reid
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>> Give it to Mike for the real test.
>
>I think he'd figure it out. Once he switched on the power! :)
did the manual say do that? :-)
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:01:17 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
> <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>
> >>On the subject of user interfaces, I bought a twin digital receiver with
> >>HD recorder over the weekend for £100. I didn't even need to open the
> >>smal manual- everything was completely intuitive. I was impressed, and
> >>that's pretty much at the low end of the market!
> >
> >Give it to Mike for the real test.
>
> does the name start in i? :-)
>
> My DVD drawer is still opening at random.
>
> I bought a freeview box a while ago, much easier to use than a video.
> The only annoying thing has been it was advertised as twin tuner but
> the paperwork said you had to download software to make it work, huh?
The one I bought at argos at the weekend certainly didn't. I figured out
everything (time shifting, advance recording, picture-in-picture etc.)
all from the remote.
[]
> I bet David will get an iPhone?
Only if I think I'd like it. With something like this, I think I'd give
it time.
The Reid
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>> I bought a freeview box a while ago, much easier to use than a video.
>> The only annoying thing has been it was advertised as twin tuner but
>> the paperwork said you had to download software to make it work, huh?
>
>The one I bought at argos at the weekend certainly didn't. I figured out
>everything (time shifting, advance recording, picture-in-picture etc.)
>all from the remote.
yes, mines all obvious too, it just doesn't record two programmes.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:59:39 +0100, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >> I bought a freeview box a while ago, much easier to use than a video.
> >> The only annoying thing has been it was advertised as twin tuner but
> >> the paperwork said you had to download software to make it work, huh?
> >
> >The one I bought at argos at the weekend certainly didn't. I figured out
> >everything (time shifting, advance recording, picture-in-picture etc.)
> >all from the remote.
>
> yes, mines all obvious too, it just doesn't record two programmes.
Mine doesn't either- but I never thought it did.
The Reid
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>> yes, mines all obvious too, it just doesn't record two programmes.
>
>Mine doesn't either- but I never thought it did.
it said twin tuner, so if that means anything you should at least be
able to watch one and record another, otherwise what's it for?
But thats a thought, maybe I just havent pressed the right buttons to
record and watch something else? I'll check that out now.
BTW if you connect your video/DVD via a scart you can copy from the HD
to the DVD on Aux channels to make a permenent copy, also the
DVD/video can still record any channel it wants via the freeview, in
fact ive done that at the same time as the box was recording, now does
that use the two tuners? No, the one in the DVD I think? But you
probably knew all that.
JohnT
"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1hrq3hd.11z5h5fo0xj12N%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk...
> The Reid <don...@fellwalk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:01:17 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
>> <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>>
>> >>On the subject of user interfaces, I bought a twin digital receiver
>> >>with
>> >>HD recorder over the weekend for £100. I didn't even need to open the
>> >>smal manual- everything was completely intuitive. I was impressed, and
>> >>that's pretty much at the low end of the market!
>> >
>> >Give it to Mike for the real test.
>>
>> does the name start in i? :-)
>>
>> My DVD drawer is still opening at random.
>>
>> I bought a freeview box a while ago, much easier to use than a video.
>> The only annoying thing has been it was advertised as twin tuner but
>> the paperwork said you had to download software to make it work, huh?
>
> The one I bought at argos at the weekend certainly didn't. I figured out
> everything (time shifting, advance recording, picture-in-picture etc.)
> all from the remote.
>
> []
>> I bet David will get an iPhone?
>
> Only if I think I'd like it. With something like this, I think I'd give
> it time.
>
If you do get one, I will be inclined to refer to you as David iHorne.
JohnT
The Reid
wrote:
>If you do get one, I will be inclined to refer to you as David iHorne.
now if Jobs introduces an iHorn, that could be interesting. I must say
I quite like the look of the iHi Fi to go with the iPod.
JohnT
"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:ngq9q2lmt3306uaf2...@4ax.com...
>>news:1hrq3hd.11z5h5fo0xj12N%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>>
>>JohnT
>
I like it!
JohnT
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:22:05 +0100, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >> yes, mines all obvious too, it just doesn't record two programmes.
> >
> >Mine doesn't either- but I never thought it did.
>
> it said twin tuner, so if that means anything you should at least be
> able to watch one and record another, otherwise what's it for?
You said record two programmes. The box I have won't record two
simultaneously. Of course you can watch one and record the other.
Indeed, you can record a programme, and start to watch it before it's
finished recording, and even record other stuff at the same time. It's a
neat little thing- I'm surprised I didn't get one earlier...
> But thats a thought, maybe I just havent pressed the right buttons to
> record and watch something else? I'll check that out now.
> BTW if you connect your video/DVD via a scart you can copy from the HD
> to the DVD on Aux channels to make a permenent copy, also the
> DVD/video can still record any channel it wants via the freeview, in
> fact ive done that at the same time as the box was recording, now does
> that use the two tuners? No, the one in the DVD I think? But you
> probably knew all that.
I haven't hooked it up to the DVD recorder yet.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:22:05 +0100, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >The Reid <don...@fellwalk.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:59:39 +0100, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne,
> >> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I bought a freeview box a while ago, much easier to use than a video.
> >> >> The only annoying thing has been it was advertised as twin tuner but
> >> >> the paperwork said you had to download software to make it work, huh?
> >> >
> >> >The one I bought at argos at the weekend certainly didn't. I figured out
> >> >everything (time shifting, advance recording, picture-in-picture etc.)
> >> >all from the remote.
> >>
> >> yes, mines all obvious too, it just doesn't record two programmes.
> >
> >Mine doesn't either- but I never thought it did.
>
> Are you going to tell us the make and model you bought?
The argos website should tell you- it was some generic sounding name,
and cost £100. Digihome or something.
Go Fig
<don...@fellwalk.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:22:05 +0100, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >> yes, mines all obvious too, it just doesn't record two programmes.
> >
> >Mine doesn't either- but I never thought it did.
>
> it said twin tuner, so if that means anything you should at least be
> able to watch one and record another, otherwise what's it for?
> But thats a thought, maybe I just havent pressed the right buttons to
> record and watch something else?
I've had a twin tuner DVR for about 5 years now, my receiver's tuners
have always been hardware based.
With a twin tuner you can record 2 shows and watch something from the
'library' at the same time.
Is your TV guide 'name' based or time based?
jay
Wed Jan 10, 2007
mailto:go...@mac.com
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> In article <ejk9q2dkdkmk3bhs0...@4ax.com>, The Reid
> <don...@fellwalk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:22:05 +0100, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne,
> > _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
> >
> > >> yes, mines all obvious too, it just doesn't record two programmes.
> > >
> > >Mine doesn't either- but I never thought it did.
> >
> > it said twin tuner, so if that means anything you should at least be
> > able to watch one and record another, otherwise what's it for?
> > But thats a thought, maybe I just havent pressed the right buttons to
> > record and watch something else?
>
>
> I've had a twin tuner DVR for about 5 years now, my receiver's tuners
> have always been hardware based.
>
> With a twin tuner you can record 2 shows and watch something from the
> 'library' at the same time.
All a twin tuner means here is that the box can receive two separate
signals. Whether you can record 2 shows simultaneously etc. depends on
the machine's hardware and software.
The Reid
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>Of course you can watch one and record the other.
>Indeed, you can record a programme, and start to watch it before it's
>finished recording, and even record other stuff at the same time. It's a
>neat little thing- I'm surprised I didn't get one earlier...
at the moment, once its recording something, it ignores any
instruction from the remote, if I want to watch something esle, I can
switch on the DVD, I dont think that should be neccessary. I must play
around with it to see if theres something i'm missing.
Its a vast improvement on the cable box, which put as back in the
stone age. You had to manually select which input channel you wanted,
which killed all the fancy features of the video/DVD stone dead. I
rang NTL to get a sophisticated box like what we ave now and was
surprised they didnt do one. I dont see where they are going if they
dont improve that. In fact I wonder about NTL, I emailed them to
cancel the TV part of the contract and they replied "ring this
number", which had a long queue, for f**** sake, I contacted your
company with an instruction, deal with it! Why do some businesses
regard email as some sort of second class communication to be ignored
at will? Maybe I should send a telegram :-) Also, about a week ago I
filled in the online request for broadband, it said I would be
contacted within 72 hours or something and asked for a desired
installation date, the last year requestable was 2006! Silence so far.
You mentioned all that time slip stuff, which is impressive, do you
actually use it?
The Reid
>With a twin tuner you can record 2 shows and watch something from the
>'library' at the same time.
that's what I thought it should be able to do. I'll settle for record
one, watch one, in fact I'll settle for record one and watch it!
The DVD can handle the rest, it can record two, timeslip and juggle
plates all at the same time.
>Is your TV guide 'name' based or time based?
Name based, although you can do it manually by time. I usually go into
the manual side and add 5 minutes, because programmes run late.
There's a "lock" instruction, not mentioned in the documentation,
which might somehow lock to the actual broadcast, something else to
investigate if I can be bothered.