WRONG!
VHS only won because it could provide six hours of recording time for the lazy-assed masses, much like yourself, who were willing to give up quality, just so they didn't have to get off their asses to change cartridges.
The ßeta format was FAR superior to the "M" wrap that the dropout-riddled VHS format, as evidenced by the widespread betacam use by professionals and television news all over the planet.
And, as usual, NavASS, you are speaking from that same part of your anatomy.
originally it was, but now it's priced similar to other products such as the zune or sandisk players.
But that was *obviously* what was important, perhaps not to you, but to the majority of purchasers.
Jerry
Headed for promotional giveaway status...
Yeah, I bought my first VCR in 1984. I was a fairly savvy shopper then and did my homework. I knew Beta had better video, but my needs were primarily time-shifting and watching rental movies. The VHS market lead was already in full swing by then, and the sole rental store within 15 miles of my house had a far better VHS selection than Beta, and the extra hour record time per tape was important in those days when blank tapes were $12-18 each!
John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Yeah....20 of your geek friends.
That's like saying noone's using Vista because of the 20 people I know that have a PC, none of them use Vista. And of the 20 PC's we have at work, none of them have Vista....
.....ergo......noone uses Vista.
Actually few use vista , some are kerflumixed by it and any hate it , using vista requires a "special" type of person rc on the other hand
atec 7 7 wrote in news:h1srnt$qqc$1 @news.eternal-september.org:
No, I'm sure a lot do.
130,000,000 Vista licenses sold........99% as OEM to system builders such as Dell, HP, and Compaq, etc. and most people that buy Dell, HP and Compaq, etc. have no clue as to installing an OS, and they do just suffer with what they get when they buy the PC.
I have two Vista PCs. I prefer XP, but upgraded one for compatibility with some games my son plays, the other was a laptop that came with it, that's primarily used for email and web browsing. Vista's prettier but slower than XP, and pretty much nothing to lose any sleep over overall.
In this part of the world most don't buy a brand name so they have to know how , buying one of the big ones seems to be a yank thing...
have no clue as to installing an OS, and they do just suffer
spose I shoudn't mention nix rules eh ? :)
>
Go download Win7rc you will thank me vista as it should have been done
such as Dell, HP, and Compaq, etc. and most people that buy Dell, HP and Compaq, etc. have no clue as to installing an OS, and they do just suffer with what they get when they buy the PC.
I'm running it in a VM on my main XP PC to get familiar with it. From what I undrstand, there won't be an easy upgrade path from RC to a RTM version, and I'd rather not have to do a complete reinstall for the final upgrade. Vista will be fine until a retail box version is available.
not bothered by that
it's a requirement of winblows isn't it ? once a year rebuilds
well if you have tried een a virtual model you know it's almost right .
Not suggesting you should be. I am, however.
I typically "rebuild" only when changing PCs completely. I've upgraded motherboards and hard drives and left existing installations in place.
It seems fine- like a less bloated Vista. As long as backwards compatibility issues are minor, I suspect I'll upgrade the two Vista PCs, and leave XP on the XP PCs as long as possible, until software I use forces an upgrade.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:30:07 +1000, atec 7 7 wrote in :
Agreed.
I sure am. Clean install of any new OS is a huge, time consuming task.
Nope. My ThinkPad T41 is still running the original now several years old Windows XP install.
A virtual install has benefits, but also has limitations.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.