If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#971
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:
Tony Cooper: Actually, it's like saying that a BMW has better a re-sale than a Prius but that gain could be offset by the extra money you have spent on gasoline and repairs during your time of ownership. Sandman: Not at all - gasoline and repair are things invariably connected to the use of a car, and could actually be actual parameters. They are "Costs-during-use", not "Value-during-use". Uhhh...the whole discussion has been about a factor that is invariably connected with a computer: depreciation in value as it ages. Yes, but then you added another value to the mix; "value-during-use", which is hard to quantify for a computer. Then you added a third parameter to the mix: "Cost-during-use", which when it comes to gasoline consumption and repair costs of a specific car model is quantifiable. The corresponding parameters for computers (repairs, support, maintenance) are comparable when it comes to computers as well, and they always seem to favor the Mac. Value-during-use is a very viable point in a discussion about re-sale value because it may be a consideration when choosing what to purchase. It's the impossible quantifiability of the point that makes it irrelevant. I.e. year 2010, one photographer buys a computer and uses it for five years Option A: Purchase iMac: -$2,000 Costs-during-use -$1,000 Value-during-use +$? Money earned for five years: +$125,000 Sale price: +$1,000 Option B: Purchase PC: -$1,200 Costs-during-use: -$2,500 Value-during-use: +$? Money earned for five years: +$125,000 Sale price: +$0 Now, as you can see - the amount of money he earned as a photographer is the same. It's not like either platform makes him a more successful photographer. Sure, the computer can be more prone to problems causing downtime that may end up affecting deadlines, but probably rarely so, not to make a dent in the scope of five years. Now we have value-during-use. This is the value that option A *or* option B bestowed upon the photographer due to that specific choice. I.e. value above what he is already paid for his normal work which he can do on either platform. So what could this value be? Well, it could be time. computer malware, repairs, downtime and such may cause deadlines to be pushed, spare time suffering or things like that. But it's "only" time, and it's hard to quantify. Even if he did have to spend +X hours due to one of the options how do we determine the actual dollar value of that time? Again, it could be time he'd otherwise sit and binge-watch Game of Thrones while eating pizza, so no harm, right? Then we have costs-during-use. Perhaps one option led to him only feeling safe by having an annual $25 anti-malware suite? Maybe one option is more energy conservative than the other, perhaps one option spends less time in for repairs? Some of these are quantifiable, and many studies have been done that can give a hint about which of the two options that have the best TCO (total cost of ownership) figures. But the entire "value-during-use" remains a big fat question mark, unless it's just the inverse of "cost-during-use", i.e. the less costs it infers, the better value it has - in which case the Mac would win there as well. -- Sandman |
#972
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , PAS wrote:
Sandman: I hear you. I'm your typical "handy man". When we moved to a new house a year ago, the kitchen needed to be rebuilt. Since it was wall-to-wall with a huge bathroom, the decision was to tear down the wall and make a huge kitchen. Since there are drainage, electricity and plumbing involved, I hired a firm that took care of those parts, since it's actually illegal to do it yourself unless you're licensed here. Anyway, when they were done, I built the entire kitchen myself. Still expensive, but the money saved are enormous if you can do it. And while it took the better part of two months to do it, one could argue that my "time is worth money" but I disagree wholeheartedly. I enjoy doing it and it was time well spent. Here's the process: http://imgur.com/gallery/nChyf That is a beautiful kitchen you built there! Thanks! I'm very pleased with it! Very fun to build and it's a place everyone fits in. -- Sandman |
#973
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: No, it doesn't prove that the TV "can't" be used. It merely states that the TV must be used with extra device. The TV is still usable to receive television broadcast. a tv is a combination tuner/monitor, by definition. a monitor lacks a tuner and can only display video signals. a tv tuner is just the tuner, no display, which is also sold separately. My modern TV must be used with a external device. There is no built-in ability to receive signals without some sort of antenna or cable box. You're still being a twerp. A connection from the telly to the aerial on my roof or the satellite dish does not, within the meaning of the act, constitute an external device. Some sort of tuner does. You can define "external device" any way you choose to, but if something outside-the-set is needed, it's as good a term as any. you still don't get it. |
#974
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:15:52 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: Most modern TVs can only be used with something external to the set. Very few have built-in antennas. the days of rabbit ears are *long* gone and attaching an antenna doesn't change anything either. more of your ignorance. Of course it does. It allows the user to receive a signal. The antenna may be on a mast, a device on the window, in the form of a dish, or by cable. Without something, the TV will not receive a signal. You can still buy indoor antennas for digital TV reception, although most no longer actually look like "rabbit ears". http://www.dicksmith.co.nz/tv-video/...ndoor-antennas |
#975
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , PeterN
wrote: On 1/31/2016 10:24 PM, Your Name wrote: There was an item on the BBC tech-news show "Click" that I watched last night about a German company working on biodegradable electronics. So in 10 years time or so you may well be able to easily throw out your "old" mobile phone and get a new one, without clogging up landfills. I have several of them, that just sit there because nobody wants them. I would be happy to give them away. There's probably a few places that want / take old mobile phones. In New Zealand there's a charity (at least one) that collects old mobile phones. They clean up the usable ones and send them to people in Africa, etc. who can't afford to buy one. Less usable ones are used as parts to repair others, and the really broken rubbish sent for recycling. https://www.starship.org.nz/foundati...-phone-appeal/ Vodafone New Zealand also collects old mobile phones for recycling. Other providers probably do too. http://www.vodafone.co.nz/environment/mobile-recycling/ |
#976
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: On 1/31/2016 10:16 PM, nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: Our main TV is a Sony XBR. It was a floor model I bought, I think in 1989. The CRT is starting to degrade, but is still usable. where 'usable' means 'can't be used as a tv anymore because it can't receive digital tv signals'. Wrong again. It works just fine with the cable box. But there you go, just being a jerk again, while ignoring the point. What's a cable box when it's at home? It's a TV tuner that is in a separate box and connects to your TV. Had a cheap one (talking $30 or so nothing bucks here!) for years, work well. In my case eventually did not actually need it for a new digital TV. But a similar one had a PVR function (you can record live TV via it) and it proved useful addition to the inbuilt tuner to the digital TV. It also gives the ability to watch one program and record another. Some such boxes can record more than one program at a time. Nowadays, there are excellent and much dearer boxes which market mainly as TV recorders with internal HDs. Mine is pretty classy and I should have let the moths fly out of where I keep my dough earlier. It not only records reliably more than one station but is on my WIFI network and can see all the catchup free to air TV programs available as well as get onto such as Netflix and other providers. Now, quite a few TVs have PVR recording built in, but a quality dedicated HD recorder has many advantages (the least of which is the actual internal HD). Too much information? I'm sorry Tim. I just can't help typing uncontrollably before breakfast. -- dorayme |
#977
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article ,
nospam wrote: then it's a monitor, not a tv. Why is it in *your* interest to be a dickhead? Or is it that you just can't help yourself. What this sort of thing shows is an uncontrollable smartypants streak in you. It actually shows a certain stupidity about language and common life. What is not the least bit smart is you sticking like glue to some objectively arbitrary decision you have made in language. Idiolects are just that. A TV that has a tuner that does not usefully work for some people in some places does not cease to be a TV. A TV that has had its tuner removed is still a TV, a TV being repaired in a shop is a TV being repaired no matter what stupid thing you want to say. -- dorayme |
#978
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article
, dorayme wrote: What's a cable box when it's at home? It's a TV tuner that is in a separate box and connects to your TV. Actually, having read more of this thread, it seems it might not be what I said, sound like what a friend of mine had from his cable TV provider to work with this old analogue TV. Some sort of electronics in a box to convert digital to analogue, the signal carrying the TV shows comes via a cable to the box first. Sorry Tim. -- dorayme |
#979
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: We still have a CRT TV in a spare bedroom that works just fine with the box. Why nospam says "can't be used as a tv anymore" is just a an example of ignorance. Not really. A TV is a device that can receive broadcast television. A CRT TV could do that in the past, but can no longer do that. It becomes just a low-quality monitor for a device that gives it low-quality video. Technically it is no longer a TV at that point. However, in general terms, most people would continue to call it a TV. "can't be used as" is the ignorant term. With the adapting thing, it is simply a usable TV with some of the electronics in a separate box. there's nothing ignorant about it. the fact that it needs an external adapter means it "can't be used as". that's *why* it needs an external box. If you can't articulate your point correctly, by adding "...without an external device", then don't blame others for thinking you ignorant. Most modern TVs can only be used with something external to the set. Very few have built-in antennas. Now you're being a twerp. I can't remember the last telly I saw that had a built-in aerial. Well, that's the point, Tim. I can't say that none exist because their may be one. But, the point is that all - if not most - TVs today require some outside-of-the-set device. There's nothing special about a TV connected to the adapter that Peter uses other than it's a different adapter. Something external is needed. an antenna is not a device nor is it an adapter. in its simplest form, an antenna is just a wire or piece of metal of a certain length. you can even stick an unbent paper clip into the coax jack, although it's not ideal. even if you hook up an external tuner to a monitor, you still need an antenna. a tv has a tuner. a monitor does not. his tv does have a tuner, but the tuner is analog and can't receive digital broadcasts, rendering it useless no matter what he plugs into it. that's why it can't be used as a tv. it can only be used as a monitor, which needs an external *video source*. you're in *way* over your head again. one more time, not that it will make any difference: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/19/a...-the-differenc e-between-a-hdtv-and-a-moni/ There are two main differences, a tuner and the resolutions. (some may say 3 if you include the connections) In order to be considered a HDTV or a TV for that matter the display must include a tuner, traditionally this meant a NTSC tuner, but today ATSC tuners are also required on most TVs and soon all TVs will require a ATSC tuner to get the name TV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television A standard television set is composed of multiple internal electronic circuits, including a tuner for receiving and decoding broadcast signals. A visual display device which lacks a tuner is correctly called a video monitor rather than a television. |
#980
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article
, dorayme wrote: then it's a monitor, not a tv. Why is it in *your* interest to be a dickhead? Or is it that you just can't help yourself. you're unaware of the bull**** tony and peter spew in rpd. they *love* to argue irrelevant details and get all bent out of shape when it's done to them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|