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

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

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.

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

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/

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

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

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

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.

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.