On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for. Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels, making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but why a TV?

I had a CRT that would go red after being on a few minutes. I took the
cover off and while it was on, poked around the components with a 2
foot wooden dowel until I found one that resolved the problem when I
held pressure on it. Unplugged the TV and checked that board from the
other side (staying well away from any big caps) and found a circular
crack in the solder around one leg of that component. I remelted the
solder and it was fine for several more years.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:05:08 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 16, 10:08*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
The real answer, sadly (it offends me to say this) that it's likely not
*worth* repairing, as you can likely get an equivalent size widescreen
1080i flat screen that won't require a DTV converter box for $300 or less.

Yeah, it's only *worth* repairing if that's what gets you off, but

That would be me. Once in college I ended up with an electric
percolator, but only the main piece. By the time I bought the pipe in
the middle and the basket and its lid, and maybe the pot's lid and
glass middle, and the cord, it cost more than a new coffee pot, even
in 1967

I wouldn't do exactly that again, but I've never regretted it. And I
don't even drink coffee.



then you become that weird TV guy whose house is stacked with old sets
awaiting repair, and your hair is sticking straight out from one too
many encounters with the high-voltage on the CRT.

The state of affairs is such that the low failure rate and low cost to
manufacture "durable" goods these days, that it's cheaper to replace
the few that fail with new units than it is to staff and stock a
repair facility.

On 1/17/2011 6:55 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:


Repair? In our town we get an 18 inch monitor for 79.00 on sale. What is
your hourly rate? Mine is 250.00 plus T&L minimum 2 hours.

Good for you. But, you wouldn't have many customers fixing consumer
electronics at that price.

For a reasonable price, putting a Viewsonic Flat Panel back in service
is worth it. Neither is it junk, nor is it worth sinking $500 in.

Myself, I don't have to charge $250/hr to feel like I have self
worth. Just how big is your hwang, Tony?

Jeff

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for. Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels, making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread. It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set. Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

On 1/17/2011 4:02 PM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
But only a 27 or 28 will fit the opening in an entertainment unit if
that's where he has the old TV. A 32 is too big.-

my wife wanted a entertainment center i refused, 5 months later the tv
died and we upsized, which would of been impossible with a
entertainment center

And, I'll bet, you've been going through a living hell ever since.

Remember, if you're unhappy and your wife is happy, you are still happier
than you be if you were happy and your wife unhappy.


You are a very wise man.

The key to a successful relationship is giving in completely.
Eventually she will get her way and you could have just avoided all that
suffering along the way.

Jeff

On 1/17/2011 5:55 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:


The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/17/2011 5:05 PM, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 1/17/2011 9:18 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/17/2011 7:46 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 1/17/2011 5:06 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/16/2011 10:25 PM, Tony Miklos wrote:
On 1/16/2011 9:18 PM, PE wrote:
Hi all: My 15-yr old Toshiba 27" crt television has recently
developed a
problem which is that approx 15 minutes after being turned on, the
picture
bows inward on the left and right sides. Then, after a few more
minutes,
the picture resolves and returns to normal and remains perfect for
the
remaining time the tv is on. If the symptom described above means
the
crt
is wearing out, so be it, the set will soon be history. However,
I'm
wondering whether some other, replaceable part, might be going bad
and
causing the temporarily distorted picture.

Would appreciate any suggestions re. probable cause(s) of symptom
described
above. Am basically novice, but handy and with soldering skills,
and
have
done a few simple tv repairs in the past. Thanks for your replies!


I'll bet it is a bad capacitor, fixed hundreds of video game
monitors
with similar symptoms. Most of the time we don't even test the caps,
look for parts of the circuit board that look like they run hot,
then
replace all caps in that area. Also replace all caps rated for 100
volts
or higher, they go bad much more often. Also if you know your way
around
a monitor, be sure to change the caps in the vertical and horizontal
circuitry. For newbies in the video game monitor repairs, lot's of
people put together a list of all the common caps that fail on that
particular model and sell you a bag of caps and a picture showing
what
goes where. The "cap kits" will fix several problems at once,
including
problems you didn't notice yet but are about to go.

Actually my TV is doing the same as yours but it stays that way.
When it
quits I'll probably take a look inside, but chances are I'll toss it
and
get a new one instead of fixing mine. TV's have a lot more
components
than cheap video game monitors and aren't as easy to fix (not for me
anyway).

OH, no way is that a sign of a bad CRT, and no way is the yoke
itself
bad, just the circuitry that powers the yoke.

You beat me to the bad capacitors. 15 years is a darn good life for
consumer grade electrolytic capacitors. I had a customer who's
Viewsonic
LCD monitor on his server/office computer died after a year.
I thought it a shame to toss a nice monitor so a little Google search
turned up a common problem with an electrolytic in the power circuit
on the main circuit board.

Google might work. I fixed a couple of DTV converter boxes by googling
the problem and found a cap that failed in all of them. Likewise
replacing caps is a common problem in switching supplies (Mac supplies
in particular) although that is not the issue here. Claire is close to
having this nailed, the symptoms are almost classic.

Capacitors have gotten a lot smaller for the same ratings, I suppose
it's not to be unexpected that they would fail more often. The digital
stuff in particular as switching supplies are hard on them.

Not sure how long modern HV sections hold a charge, but some caution
should be exercised.

Jeff


I just reread his post and I've seen the same symptoms caused by cold
solder joints.

It's the bowing part that lead me to think cap, but you are right that
healing like that is not really a cap thing. I've got a friend who still
fixes TVs, though mostly it's all flat panel stuff now. I'll ask if I
get a chance...

After a warm up the device starts working correctly but
it will GRONK if you jar or slap it hard. I used to repair a lot of two
way radio gear and when I finished repairing a problem, I would smack
the unit against my carpet covered work bench much to the consternation
of the other techs in the shop. I explained to them that the radio was
going to get a lot rougher treatment in the field.


It's better to know sooner than later. Toward the end of my repair
"career" I was mostly fixing giant car amps. Nothing I could do to them
could come close to the abuse they would get later! Oh, the abuse!


I've also seen a lot
of very strange thermal intermittent malfunctions.

I've used more than my share of freon tracking them down. Or not
tracking them down!

Jeff


I got a call a little while ago from the customer who had the Viewsonic
monitor quit because of a bad electrolytic, an identical monitor on
another workstation just did the same thing. I have to pick it up today
and repair it.

TDD
Hmmm,
Repair? In our town we get an 18 inch monitor for 79.00 on sale. What is
your hourly rate? Mine is 250.00 plus T&L minimum 2 hours.
My hobby is fixing tube gears specially guitar amps for poor local
musicians. No chaege for them. Just I let them buy necessary parts.

I charge $85/hr for electronics, phone systems, network systems, access
control, computer repair, alarm systems, etc. Any low voltage is that
rate. The more mundane and simpler stuff is $65/hr. But for good
customers, the rate is flexible and someone who spends a lot of money
with me in a year gets a lot of favors. Besides, if they own a
restaurant, I never go hungry. I do a lot of national contract
installation and repairs too. Tomorrow, I'll be with some other guys on
a scissors lift pulling in 500 feet of MC cable to run two circuits up
in a 20 foot ceiling. I hope I can breath OK tomorrow.

TDD

Jeff Thies wrote:
On 1/17/2011 6:55 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:


Repair? In our town we get an 18 inch monitor for 79.00 on sale. What is
your hourly rate? Mine is 250.00 plus T&L minimum 2 hours.

Good for you. But, you wouldn't have many customers fixing consumer
electronics at that price.

For a reasonable price, putting a Viewsonic Flat Panel back in service
is worth it. Neither is it junk, nor is it worth sinking $500 in.

Myself, I don't have to charge $250/hr to feel like I have self worth.
Just how big is your hwang, Tony?

Jeff
Hi,
I am in large scale comm. system support. Worldwide there are ~100 of
them. I am officially retired. Still they bug me when in big trouble.

On 1/17/2011 7:45 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:


Jeff Thies wrote:
On 1/17/2011 6:55 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:


Repair? In our town we get an 18 inch monitor for 79.00 on sale. What is
your hourly rate? Mine is 250.00 plus T&L minimum 2 hours.

Good for you. But, you wouldn't have many customers fixing consumer
electronics at that price.

For a reasonable price, putting a Viewsonic Flat Panel back in service
is worth it. Neither is it junk, nor is it worth sinking $500 in.

Myself, I don't have to charge $250/hr to feel like I have self worth.
Just how big is your hwang, Tony?

Jeff
Hi,
I am in large scale comm. system support. Worldwide there are ~100 of
them. I am officially retired. Still they bug me when in big trouble.

I usually work for peasants and small merchants, I haven't done any work
for the royal family. :-)

TDD

On 1/17/2011 6:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

wrote
In considering a new tv a 32 will be more equivilant in height to your
27, you will be unhappy with a new 27. You can get a new 32 for 300,
and have HD, a digital HD tuner, and alot lot better picture, I would
not fix it, whats next to break. A new 32 might also use 1/4- 1/2 the
power as your clunker

But only a 27 or 28 will fit the opening in an entertainment unit if
that's where he has the old TV. A 32 is too big.

Ditch the entertainment center and get a 47". Bigger is definitely
better. I set out to buy a 42" and my wife was the 47" and said I want
THAT one! Done deal. Wish I could fit a 55.


By the way, do they still measure them diagonally?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:



wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for. Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels, making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for. Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels, making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

On 1/18/2011 12:40 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for.
Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels,
making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but
why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

Only techno-geeks and/or rich people have broadband fast enough to do
that, here in North America.

--
aem sends...

On 1/18/2011 3:44 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:40 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for.
Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels,
making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but
why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

Only techno-geeks and/or rich people have broadband fast enough to do
that, here in North America.


I just watched most of The Green Hornet online, I'm not rich so I must
be a techno-geek. I watch most TV shows online and I just checked my
cable modem speed which is 6.88/0.49 Mbps. We did have the extra cost
turbo speed for a while and I would see speeds of 17/1.5 Mbps at times.
If I was rich or a lottery winner, I would start a "Save The Rednecks"
foundation to teach Rednecks how to use The Interweb and properly set
up a mobile home for broad band communications. :-)

TDD


"Tony Miklos" wrote

Ditch the entertainment center and get a 47". Bigger is definitely
better. I set out to buy a 42" and my wife was the 47" and said I want
THAT one! Done deal. Wish I could fit a 55.


By the way, do they still measure them diagonally?

Yes, but be careful. In the 16:9 ratio, the set is lower at say 19: compared
to a regular CRT. If making a direct replacement for a 19", I'd go with a
22 or 26"

On 1/18/2011 4:44 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:40 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for.
Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels,
making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but
why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

Only techno-geeks and/or rich people have broadband fast enough to do
that, here in North America.

And teenagers )

On 1/16/2011 9:18 PM, PE wrote:
Hi all: My 15-yr old Toshiba 27" crt television has recently developed a
problem which is that approx 15 minutes after being turned on, the picture
bows inward on the left and right sides. Then, after a few more minutes,
the picture resolves and returns to normal and remains perfect for the
remaining time the tv is on. If the symptom described above means the crt
is wearing out, so be it, the set will soon be history. However, I'm
wondering whether some other, replaceable part, might be going bad and
causing the temporarily distorted picture.

Would appreciate any suggestions re. probable cause(s) of symptom described
above. Am basically novice, but handy and with soldering skills, and have
done a few simple tv repairs in the past. Thanks for your replies!



I just wanted to some what you can realistically do.

This is likely a cap problem. If you look at the top of an electrolytic
cap it will have a cross scored "vent" on the top of the cap. Damaged
caps will often appear slightly bulged there. Look for one and replace
it with one of the same value and the same or higher voltage rating. The
negative end is marked, make sure the polarity is correct.

This may, or may not, fix your problem. But it is in the low dollars to try.

Jeff

On 1/18/2011 5:01 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/18/2011 3:44 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:40 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10
ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10,
'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width,
which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for.
Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels,
making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only
had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but
why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

Only techno-geeks and/or rich people have broadband fast enough to do
that, here in North America.


I just watched most of The Green Hornet online, I'm not rich so I must
be a techno-geek.

I wanted to watch the Sugar Bowl (alma mater playing) and it was not on
broadcast TV. But ESPN streamed it for free. Worked well enough for me.

Net Flix is fun to watch too.


I watch most TV shows online and I just checked my
cable modem speed which is 6.88/0.49 Mbps. We did have the extra cost
turbo speed for a while and I would see speeds of 17/1.5 Mbps at times.

That is still smoking speed (the down) for most streaming content.
Bandwidth is not free so this stuff is highly compressed.

After a long incubation and where the internet speeds and computer
speeds really weren't there, online video is catching on rapidly.


If I was rich or a lottery winner, I would start a "Save The Rednecks"
foundation to teach Rednecks how to use The Interweb and properly set
up a mobile home for broad band communications. :-)

We are not so far off that already the near homeless are watching on
their 4g phones. Crazy what people do and don't spend money on.

Jeff

TDD

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:18:08 -0800, PE wrote:

Hi all: My 15-yr old Toshiba 27" crt television has recently developed
a problem which is that approx 15 minutes after being turned on, the
picture bows inward on the left and right sides.

The effect's called pincushion; it's unlikely to be the CRT itself -
chances are a bad capacitor in the horizonal deflection or something
specific to the pincushion correction circuitry (bad transistor, bad
solder joint etc.)

See if you can find a schematic online. Might take a bit of digging
because some chassis are shared between manufacturers or between models
from a specific manufacturer, and the schematics are often filed by
chassis designation rather than whatever manufacturer / model number is
printed on the back of the set.

Gotchas:

1) TVs are about the worst-built of any consumer appliance; just about
everything's designed to be as low-cost as possible so that the TV works
when you buy it but doesn't necessarily last for long. Bad solder joints
aplenty, and cracked PCBs aren't unheard of. You may be looking for a
mechanical fault rather than component failure.

2) Some capacitors fail in an obvious way - sometimes with can-style
electrolytics they'll visibly bulge and split and show signs of
electrolyte leakage. But most don't die that way, and you'll need an ESR
meter to detect faults (the other approach is to trace the fault to the
most likely area and simply replace all caps in that area)

3) Serious voltages inside a TV, and stored after the set's switched off.
I've only been zapped by a TV's HV once, but it's not something I'd care
to repeat - unlike the brief ouch from an outlet shock, TV HV *hurts*. Be
careful (if you've been inside TVs before you probably know this, but I
figure it doesn't hurt to mention it :-)

There's a huge amount of useful info on the repair of TVs at:

http://www.repairfaq.org/samnew/tvfaq.htm


Anyway, yes, it's fixable - but only you can decide whether you want to
invest the time

cheers

Jules

On 1/18/2011 6:52 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 1/18/2011 5:01 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/18/2011 3:44 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:40 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony
wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10
ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10,
'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width,
which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for.
Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels,
making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only
had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but
why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and
yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El
Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

Only techno-geeks and/or rich people have broadband fast enough to do
that, here in North America.


I just watched most of The Green Hornet online, I'm not rich so I must
be a techno-geek.

I wanted to watch the Sugar Bowl (alma mater playing) and it was not on
broadcast TV. But ESPN streamed it for free. Worked well enough for me.

Net Flix is fun to watch too.


I watch most TV shows online and I just checked my
cable modem speed which is 6.88/0.49 Mbps. We did have the extra cost
turbo speed for a while and I would see speeds of 17/1.5 Mbps at times.

That is still smoking speed (the down) for most streaming content.
Bandwidth is not free so this stuff is highly compressed.

After a long incubation and where the internet speeds and computer
speeds really weren't there, online video is catching on rapidly.


If I was rich or a lottery winner, I would start a "Save The Rednecks"
foundation to teach Rednecks how to use The Interweb and properly set
up a mobile home for broad band communications. :-)

We are not so far off that already the near homeless are watching on
their 4g phones. Crazy what people do and don't spend money on.

Jeff

Breaking news, Apple introduces "The ipatch"! New technology that feeds
content directly to the optic nerve. It is being called the Borg mod in
some tech circles because it covers one eye making the user look like
the Star Trek cyborg villain. The new item is expected to break all
sales records and have people camping out in line at the retail
locations that will be selling the ipatch. :-)

TDD

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 04:06:37 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote:
15 years is a darn good life for consumer grade electrolytic
capacitors.

In a CRT TV environment, yes, not too bad - it does get pretty toasty
inside a TV, and heat's a real killer. I've got many computers that are
30 years old and still working without any capacitor issues though; a lot
of it depends on the environment and how close the working voltage is to
the limit of the capacitor.

At the place where I used to work, we had a computer from the early 60s
and that was still running with many of the original capacitors in the
power supplies (although some of them had been replaced over the years as
they went bad). Not bad for electronics that was pushing 50 years old,
though.

I had a customer who's Viewsonic
LCD monitor on his server/office computer died after a year. I thought
it a shame to toss a nice monitor so a little Google search turned up a
common problem with an electrolytic in the power circuit on the main
circuit board.

The modern stuff really doesn't seem to be built as well, that much is
true. And the less said about modern-era PCs and "capacitor plague" the
better :-)

cheers

Jules

On 1/18/2011 7:52 AM, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 04:06:37 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote:
15 years is a darn good life for consumer grade electrolytic
capacitors.

In a CRT TV environment, yes, not too bad - it does get pretty toasty
inside a TV, and heat's a real killer. I've got many computers that are
30 years old and still working without any capacitor issues though; a lot
of it depends on the environment and how close the working voltage is to
the limit of the capacitor.

At the place where I used to work, we had a computer from the early 60s
and that was still running with many of the original capacitors in the
power supplies (although some of them had been replaced over the years as
they went bad). Not bad for electronics that was pushing 50 years old,
though.

I had a customer who's Viewsonic
LCD monitor on his server/office computer died after a year. I thought
it a shame to toss a nice monitor so a little Google search turned up a
common problem with an electrolytic in the power circuit on the main
circuit board.

The modern stuff really doesn't seem to be built as well, that much is
true. And the less said about modern-era PCs and "capacitor plague" the
better :-)

cheers

Jules

I have an original IBM PC or two somewhere that still worked the last
time it/they was/were turned on. The originals were built like tanks
with high quality components that were of at least commercial grade
specs. The 4 to 5 thousand dollar price tag of the computers was not
really that far out of line considering the low production volume and
build quality. The quality of PC's didn't really slip until they became
commodity items and were produced in massive quantities. A good example
is the Delco 8-track tape players that were installed in GM vehicles
years ago. The Delco player was a substantially robust unit built with
very high quality components. When the market became flooded with tons
of cheaply made imported tape players, no one wanted to pay the price
for the expensive Delco units. It's like anything else, you can buy an
electronic item that will last and last but it will cost a whole lot
more than your typical consumer electronic unit.

TDD

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:38:18 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote:
I have an original IBM PC or two somewhere that still worked the last
time it/they was/were turned on.

If you ever feel like parting with them, shout - although I suspect
shipping costs might be phenominal, even within the US :-)

I had an original PC (the 5150) and also an XT (5160) but got rid of them
before moving over to the US as I was trying to cut down on weight of
things to ship over - I've always regretted losing them, though. It took
me a while to get hold of them as they were down on the insurance policy
of the original owners as still being worth several thousand bucks,
despite my getting them in the early 90s - so I know exactly what you
mean about the price tag ;-)

My pair had a (very) minor claim to fame in that they were used for
photos in Gordon Laing's "Digital Retro" book - I remember running around
like a nut on the morning of the shooting trying to find a full
complement of case screws, as they'd all gone walkabout over the years :-)

The quality of PC's didn't really slip until they became
commodity items and were produced in massive quantities.

true, although IBM's design and choice of CPU was always a bit
questionable, and sales relied on marketing pressure more than anything.
"mechanically" they were very good, though.

A good example
is the Delco 8-track tape players that were installed in GM vehicles
years ago.

I've never had an 8-track - I should really get one for the old truck.
They weren't particularly common back in the UK; older vehicles had
radios only, and later made the jump to compact cassette.

The Delco player was a substantially robust unit built with
very high quality components. When the market became flooded with tons
of cheaply made imported tape players, no one wanted to pay the price
for the expensive Delco units. It's like anything else, you can buy an
electronic item that will last and last but it will cost a whole lot
more than your typical consumer electronic unit.

I'm not sure it's always true, though. There comes a point where you just
can't throw money at the problem because no company is able to make a
quality product and still survive in the marketplace, so the product that
you want doesn't exist; the only solution is to keep existing better-
engineered products going, or to completely make from scratch (but good
luck with doing something like that with a PC, say :-)

Maybe it's always been like that, but it seems more true in these times
of low-quality products on short replacement cycles.

cheers

Jules

Jeff Thies wrote in
:

On 1/17/2011 4:02 PM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
But only a 27 or 28 will fit the opening in an entertainment unit
if that's where he has the old TV. A 32 is too big.-

my wife wanted a entertainment center i refused, 5 months later the
tv died and we upsized, which would of been impossible with a
entertainment center

And, I'll bet, you've been going through a living hell ever since.

Remember, if you're unhappy and your wife is happy, you are still
happier than you be if you were happy and your wife unhappy.


You are a very wise man.

The key to a successful relationship is giving in completely.
Eventually she will get her way and you could have just avoided all
that suffering along the way.

Jeff


they're called SWMBO; She Who Must Be Obeyed.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jeff Thies wrote in
:

On 1/16/2011 9:18 PM, PE wrote:
Hi all: My 15-yr old Toshiba 27" crt television has recently
developed a problem which is that approx 15 minutes after being
turned on, the picture bows inward on the left and right sides. Then,
after a few more minutes, the picture resolves and returns to normal
and remains perfect for the remaining time the tv is on. If the
symptom described above means the crt is wearing out, so be it, the
set will soon be history. However, I'm wondering whether some other,
replaceable part, might be going bad and causing the temporarily
distorted picture.

Would appreciate any suggestions re. probable cause(s) of symptom
described above. Am basically novice, but handy and with soldering
skills, and have done a few simple tv repairs in the past. Thanks for
your replies!



I just wanted to some what you can realistically do.

This is likely a cap problem. If you look at the top of an
electrolytic cap it will have a cross scored "vent" on the top of the
cap. Damaged caps will often appear slightly bulged there. Look for
one and replace it with one of the same value and the same or higher
voltage rating. The negative end is marked, make sure the polarity is
correct.

yeah,if you don't,they burst and spray nasty,icky,smelly stuff (and
foil,too)all over...from personal experience! ;-)


This may, or may not, fix your problem. But it is in the low dollars
to try.

Jeff


you may also see a discolored cap body,compared to others on the board.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 1/18/2011 3:32 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:38:18 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote:
I have an original IBM PC or two somewhere that still worked the last
time it/they was/were turned on.

If you ever feel like parting with them, shout - although I suspect
shipping costs might be phenominal, even within the US :-)

I had an original PC (the 5150) and also an XT (5160) but got rid of them
before moving over to the US as I was trying to cut down on weight of
things to ship over - I've always regretted losing them, though. It took
me a while to get hold of them as they were down on the insurance policy
of the original owners as still being worth several thousand bucks,
despite my getting them in the early 90s - so I know exactly what you
mean about the price tag ;-)

My pair had a (very) minor claim to fame in that they were used for
photos in Gordon Laing's "Digital Retro" book - I remember running around
like a nut on the morning of the shooting trying to find a full
complement of case screws, as they'd all gone walkabout over the years :-)

The quality of PC's didn't really slip until they became
commodity items and were produced in massive quantities.

true, although IBM's design and choice of CPU was always a bit
questionable, and sales relied on marketing pressure more than anything.
"mechanically" they were very good, though.

A good example
is the Delco 8-track tape players that were installed in GM vehicles
years ago.

I've never had an 8-track - I should really get one for the old truck.
They weren't particularly common back in the UK; older vehicles had
radios only, and later made the jump to compact cassette.

The Delco player was a substantially robust unit built with
very high quality components. When the market became flooded with tons
of cheaply made imported tape players, no one wanted to pay the price
for the expensive Delco units. It's like anything else, you can buy an
electronic item that will last and last but it will cost a whole lot
more than your typical consumer electronic unit.

I'm not sure it's always true, though. There comes a point where you just
can't throw money at the problem because no company is able to make a
quality product and still survive in the marketplace, so the product that
you want doesn't exist; the only solution is to keep existing better-
engineered products going, or to completely make from scratch (but good
luck with doing something like that with a PC, say :-)

Maybe it's always been like that, but it seems more true in these times
of low-quality products on short replacement cycles.

cheers

Jules

It's interesting to note that cheap electronics can be reliable because
of integrated circuits. If a cheaply made item were made from discrete
components, the MTBF of the individual cheap components would be horrid.

TDD

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:32:56 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:38:18 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote:
I have an original IBM PC or two somewhere that still worked the last
time it/they was/were turned on.

If you ever feel like parting with them, shout - although I suspect
shipping costs might be phenominal, even within the US :-)

I had an original PC (the 5150) and also an XT (5160) but got rid of them
before moving over to the US as I was trying to cut down on weight of
things to ship over - I've always regretted losing them, though. It took
me a while to get hold of them as they were down on the insurance policy
of the original owners as still being worth several thousand bucks,
despite my getting them in the early 90s - so I know exactly what you
mean about the price tag ;-)

I still have my "first day purchase" 5150, both monochrome and color monitors,
and an expansion unit and 10MB hard disk. The single-sided drive is long gone
(I think). It's also got 704K of memory in it.

My pair had a (very) minor claim to fame in that they were used for
photos in Gordon Laing's "Digital Retro" book - I remember running around
like a nut on the morning of the shooting trying to find a full
complement of case screws, as they'd all gone walkabout over the years :-)

The quality of PC's didn't really slip until they became
commodity items and were produced in massive quantities.

true, although IBM's design and choice of CPU was always a bit
questionable, and sales relied on marketing pressure more than anything.
"mechanically" they were very good, though.

It was a business decision (Intel vs. Motorola), not marketing.

A good example
is the Delco 8-track tape players that were installed in GM vehicles
years ago.

I've never had an 8-track - I should really get one for the old truck.
They weren't particularly common back in the UK; older vehicles had
radios only, and later made the jump to compact cassette.

The Delco player was a substantially robust unit built with
very high quality components. When the market became flooded with tons
of cheaply made imported tape players, no one wanted to pay the price
for the expensive Delco units. It's like anything else, you can buy an
electronic item that will last and last but it will cost a whole lot
more than your typical consumer electronic unit.

I'm not sure it's always true, though. There comes a point where you just
can't throw money at the problem because no company is able to make a
quality product and still survive in the marketplace, so the product that
you want doesn't exist; the only solution is to keep existing better-
engineered products going, or to completely make from scratch (but good
luck with doing something like that with a PC, say :-)

Maybe it's always been like that, but it seems more true in these times
of low-quality products on short replacement cycles.

You can't have high quality and high prices and billions sold (see:
McDonalds). There *will* be a race to the bottom. Particularly in this case,
I don't see that as a problem.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:40:01 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:



wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for. Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels, making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

On my laptop? Very little, and no, no movie watching. I have a TV for that.
Even YouTube is painful over my Internet connection.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:01:09 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/18/2011 3:44 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:40 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for.
Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels,
making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but
why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

Only techno-geeks and/or rich people have broadband fast enough to do
that, here in North America.


I just watched most of The Green Hornet online, I'm not rich so I must
be a techno-geek. I watch most TV shows online and I just checked my
cable modem speed which is 6.88/0.49 Mbps. We did have the extra cost
turbo speed for a while and I would see speeds of 17/1.5 Mbps at times.
If I was rich or a lottery winner, I would start a "Save The Rednecks"
foundation to teach Rednecks how to use The Interweb and properly set
up a mobile home for broad band communications. :-)

I'm lucky if I can get half the 768K I'm supposed to.

On 1/18/2011 9:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:01:09 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/18/2011 3:44 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:40 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10 ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10, 'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width, which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for.
Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels,
making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but
why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

Only techno-geeks and/or rich people have broadband fast enough to do
that, here in North America.


I just watched most of The Green Hornet online, I'm not rich so I must
be a techno-geek. I watch most TV shows online and I just checked my
cable modem speed which is 6.88/0.49 Mbps. We did have the extra cost
turbo speed for a while and I would see speeds of 17/1.5 Mbps at times.
If I was rich or a lottery winner, I would start a "Save The Rednecks"
foundation to teach Rednecks how to use The Interweb and properly set
up a mobile home for broad band communications. :-)

I'm lucky if I can get half the 768K I'm supposed to.

768 would be a 2x upgrade for me. :^(

--
aem sends, slowly....

In message ,
" writes
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:40:01 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:


Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

On my laptop? Very little, and no, no movie watching. I have a TV for that.
Even YouTube is painful over my Internet connection.

Even 1.5Mb/s sometimes isn't sufficient for YouTube. It's better if you
pause the video long enough to allow the download to get well ahead of
the playback (or even complete). Or you can simply save the FLV (or MP4)
file, and play it back at leisure.
--
Ian

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

On my laptop? Very little, and no, no movie watching. I have a TV
for that. Even YouTube is painful over my Internet connection.

It must suck to be a member of the underprivileged class.

I signed up for Netflix streaming video a couple of weeks ago. I've finished
two seasons of a pay-tv series "The Tudors," and am now watching "Pillars of
the Earth" series from a novel by Ken Follett, plus a few interspersed
movies.

At 25-30Mbs (it varies), I'm in a happy place.

On 1/18/2011 7:52 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 1/18/2011 5:01 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/18/2011 3:44 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:40 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony
wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10
ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10,
'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width,
which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are 16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for.
Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels,
making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only
had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop, but
why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and
yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El
Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

Only techno-geeks and/or rich people have broadband fast enough to do
that, here in North America.


I just watched most of The Green Hornet online, I'm not rich so I must
be a techno-geek.

I wanted to watch the Sugar Bowl (alma mater playing) and it was not on
broadcast TV. But ESPN streamed it for free. Worked well enough for me.

Net Flix is fun to watch too.


I watch most TV shows online and I just checked my
cable modem speed which is 6.88/0.49 Mbps. We did have the extra cost
turbo speed for a while and I would see speeds of 17/1.5 Mbps at times.

That is still smoking speed (the down) for most streaming content.
Bandwidth is not free so this stuff is highly compressed.

After a long incubation and where the internet speeds and computer
speeds really weren't there, online video is catching on rapidly.


If I was rich or a lottery winner, I would start a "Save The Rednecks"
foundation to teach Rednecks how to use The Interweb and properly set
up a mobile home for broad band communications. :-)

We are not so far off that already the near homeless are watching on
their 4g phones. Crazy what people do and don't spend money on.

It is crazy. I put out $15 for a new cell phone. It works just fine.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:26:33 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message ,
" writes
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:40:01 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:


Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

On my laptop? Very little, and no, no movie watching. I have a TV for that.
Even YouTube is painful over my Internet connection.

Even 1.5Mb/s sometimes isn't sufficient for YouTube. It's better if you
pause the video long enough to allow the download to get well ahead of
the playback (or even complete). Or you can simply save the FLV (or MP4)
file, and play it back at leisure.

That's what I do and it's painful.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:42:17 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

On my laptop? Very little, and no, no movie watching. I have a TV
for that. Even YouTube is painful over my Internet connection.

It must suck to be a member of the underprivileged class.

AT&T customer, you bet. They're not as bad as Dish, though. The city is
supposed to be running "fiber to the house" sometime in the next couple of
years. Maybe that'll help.

I signed up for Netflix streaming video a couple of weeks ago. I've finished
two seasons of a pay-tv series "The Tudors," and am now watching "Pillars of
the Earth" series from a novel by Ken Follett, plus a few interspersed
movies.

At 25-30Mbs (it varies), I'm in a happy place.

The kid gets 18Mb. They got rid of their cable completely and watch "TV" over
the Internet.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:42:17 -0600, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

On my laptop? Very little, and no, no movie watching. I have a TV
for that. Even YouTube is painful over my Internet connection.

It must suck to be a member of the underprivileged class.

AT&T customer, you bet. They're not as bad as Dish, though. The city is
supposed to be running "fiber to the house" sometime in the next couple of
years. Maybe that'll help.

I signed up for Netflix streaming video a couple of weeks ago. I've finished
two seasons of a pay-tv series "The Tudors," and am now watching "Pillars of
the Earth" series from a novel by Ken Follett, plus a few interspersed
movies.

At 25-30Mbs (it varies), I'm in a happy place.

The kid gets 18Mb. They got rid of their cable completely and watch "TV" over
the Internet.
Hi,
That's it. Hook a laptop onto big flat panel TV with 7.1 home theater
set up. Audio, video is all HD. We seldom go to cinema any more.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:20:16 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:



wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:42:17 -0600, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

On my laptop? Very little, and no, no movie watching. I have a TV
for that. Even YouTube is painful over my Internet connection.

It must suck to be a member of the underprivileged class.

AT&T customer, you bet. They're not as bad as Dish, though. The city is
supposed to be running "fiber to the house" sometime in the next couple of
years. Maybe that'll help.

I signed up for Netflix streaming video a couple of weeks ago. I've finished
two seasons of a pay-tv series "The Tudors," and am now watching "Pillars of
the Earth" series from a novel by Ken Follett, plus a few interspersed
movies.

At 25-30Mbs (it varies), I'm in a happy place.

The kid gets 18Mb. They got rid of their cable completely and watch "TV" over
the Internet.
Hi,
That's it. Hook a laptop onto big flat panel TV with 7.1 home theater
set up. Audio, video is all HD. We seldom go to cinema any more.

I still like the theater for some movies, though a lot less often since we're
no longer seniors. $9.50 a ticket is nuts for most of the garbage anymore.

On 1/19/2011 7:47 AM, Tony Miklos wrote:
On 1/18/2011 7:52 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 1/18/2011 5:01 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/18/2011 3:44 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:40 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:03:16 -0700, Tony
wrote:



zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In ,
writes


I got it and I'm happy with it. It is a 28" Hanspree 16:10
ratio (a
lot better than the "monitor" sizing of 16:9)

Isn't the other way around ('traditional' monitor 16:10,
'proper' TV
16:9)?
well if you buy a wide-screen monitor it is usually 16:9
A wide screen TV is usually 16:9
There are some 16:10 in each.
Mine is 16:10 - which means it is higher for the same width,
which in
my case is what I was looking for.
Most of the wide-screen monitors offered for sale today are
16:9 (I
guess so people can watch HDTV on them)

The HDTV standard is 16:9 so that's what most TVs are made for.
Computer
monitor makers are using the cheaper (economy of scale) TV panels,
making
16:10 monitors more uncommon (and even more expensive).

This TV was the only 28" 16:10 I could find "locally" - I only
had to
drive 68 miles one way to pick it up.

There is a bog difference between 16:10 and 16:9 on the desktop,
but
why a TV?
Hmm,
You can adjust display somewhat from full, h-full, zoom or 4:3 and
yet
you can adjust vertical height or horzontal spread.

And none will be right.

It's in the menu on
your TV set. If your set does not have this feature, must be El
Cheapo
set.

I know you're a moron. You need not advertise it.

Also when you go into dual diplay mode cloning laptop or your desk
top screen you need this feature useful.

My laptop is 16:10, but it's *never* been connected to a TV. It's not
"needed" in any case.
Hi,
No video streaming? No movie watching?

Only techno-geeks and/or rich people have broadband fast enough to do
that, here in North America.


I just watched most of The Green Hornet online, I'm not rich so I must
be a techno-geek.

I wanted to watch the Sugar Bowl (alma mater playing) and it was not on
broadcast TV. But ESPN streamed it for free. Worked well enough for me.

Net Flix is fun to watch too.


I watch most TV shows online and I just checked my
cable modem speed which is 6.88/0.49 Mbps. We did have the extra cost
turbo speed for a while and I would see speeds of 17/1.5 Mbps at times.

That is still smoking speed (the down) for most streaming content.
Bandwidth is not free so this stuff is highly compressed.

After a long incubation and where the internet speeds and computer
speeds really weren't there, online video is catching on rapidly.


If I was rich or a lottery winner, I would start a "Save The Rednecks"
foundation to teach Rednecks how to use The Interweb and properly set
up a mobile home for broad band communications. :-)

We are not so far off that already the near homeless are watching on
their 4g phones. Crazy what people do and don't spend money on.

It is crazy. I put out $15 for a new cell phone. It works just fine.

I've seen prepaid cells for as little as $9.00. Golly! I seem to
remember a hand held cellphone costing more than two grand. :-)

TDD

In article ,
" wrote:

I still like the theater for some movies, though a lot less often since we're
no longer seniors. $9.50 a ticket is nuts for most of the garbage anymore.

No longer seniors? How does that work?

Movies in my hometown are $3, $2 for children and seniors.

http://www.riverfallsjournal.com/eve...blisher_ID/19/

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:52:51 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

I still like the theater for some movies, though a lot less often since we're
no longer seniors. $9.50 a ticket is nuts for most of the garbage anymore.

No longer seniors? How does that work?

We got younger? ;-)

The senior ticket cut-off was 55; $4.50/ticket. They raised it to 65 a year
or so ago ($9.50) and we spend *way* less.

Movies in my hometown are $3, $2 for children and seniors.

http://www.riverfallsjournal.com/eve...blisher_ID/19/

First run?