New monitor didn't expect this?

Ok, bought a Toshiba 32" tv for daughter for Christmas. I insured it had
a VGA Input connection thankfully cause she wanted somnething to watch
pc videos from couch rather than using desktop screen. Her pc has both
VGA and HDMI output, small footprint Lenova I5.

So unpack it and setup a Dell I5 small footprint desktop has both VGA
and HDMI output to test with before she takes it home, insure it works
and she knows how to connect it etc.

I first connected the HDMI, PC wanted to go to 1920x1024 res which is
what I expected. What I didn't expect was the guality was ****, text
almost unreadable and with part of the display off-screen even!!! Sound
worked fine.

So shut down and restarted using a VGA cable instead changing TV's input
appropriately. I also connected the additional sound connection
required. PC comes back alive but wanted res set to 13??x9xx (or there
abouts can't rememeber for sure), I take it to be SD quality rather than
the prior HD quality. Picture looks great with everything onscreen,
sound works as expected.

So question is "Is this behaviour to be what's I should expect using a
HDMI from PC connection, e.g. crap video guality and partially off
screen or did I not do something I should have?

I have three pc's all using the VGA connection and a pc. Problem is only
one of them has an HDMI output which I never bothered to test. Can I
expect similar from all of them. My Sony 32" likes SD as res, my Sieka
32" likes HD res. Both look fine but that's using VGA connection. I
didn't expect such a difference in quality across various brands
especially Toshiba which I take to be a "better" brand name.

pjp wrote:

Ok, bought a Toshiba 32" tv for daughter for Christmas. I insured it had
a VGA Input connection thankfully cause she wanted somnething to watch
pc videos from couch rather than using desktop screen. Her pc has both
VGA and HDMI output, small footprint Lenova I5.

So unpack it and setup a Dell I5 small footprint desktop has both VGA
and HDMI output to test with before she takes it home, insure it works
and she knows how to connect it etc.

I first connected the HDMI, PC wanted to go to 1920x1024 res which is
what I expected. What I didn't expect was the guality was ****, text
almost unreadable and with part of the display off-screen even!!! Sound
worked fine.

So shut down and restarted using a VGA cable instead changing TV's input
appropriately. I also connected the additional sound connection
required. PC comes back alive but wanted res set to 13??x9xx (or there
abouts can't rememeber for sure), I take it to be SD quality rather than
the prior HD quality. Picture looks great with everything onscreen,
sound works as expected.

So question is "Is this behaviour to be what's I should expect using a
HDMI from PC connection, e.g. crap video guality and partially off
screen or did I not do something I should have?

I have three pc's all using the VGA connection and a pc. Problem is only
one of them has an HDMI output which I never bothered to test. Can I
expect similar from all of them. My Sony 32" likes SD as res, my Sieka
32" likes HD res. Both look fine but that's using VGA connection. I
didn't expect such a difference in quality across various brands
especially Toshiba which I take to be a "better" brand name.

Now why didn't you post the exact Toshiba model number ?

It could be a 1366x768 native panel. That's what it sounds like to me.

As consumers, we're not supposed to buy those - to send
a "message" to the manufacturers to stop doing that... :-)

Paul

On 26/12/2018 02:22, pjp wrote:


Ok, bought a Toshiba 32" tv for daughter for Christmas. I insured it had
a VGA Input connection thankfully cause she wanted somnething to watch
pc videos from couch rather than using desktop screen. Her pc has both
VGA and HDMI output, small footprint Lenova I5.

So unpack it and setup a Dell I5 small footprint desktop has both VGA
and HDMI output to test with before she takes it home, insure it works
and she knows how to connect it etc.

I first connected the HDMI, PC wanted to go to 1920x1024 res which is
what I expected. What I didn't expect was the guality was ****, text
almost unreadable and with part of the display off-screen even!!! Sound
worked fine.

So shut down and restarted using a VGA cable instead changing TV's input
appropriately. I also connected the additional sound connection
required. PC comes back alive but wanted res set to 13??x9xx (or there
abouts can't rememeber for sure), I take it to be SD quality rather than
the prior HD quality. Picture looks great with everything onscreen,
sound works as expected.

So question is "Is this behaviour to be what's I should expect using a
HDMI from PC connection, e.g. crap video guality and partially off
screen or did I not do something I should have?

I have three pc's all using the VGA connection and a pc. Problem is only
one of them has an HDMI output which I never bothered to test. Can I
expect similar from all of them. My Sony 32" likes SD as res, my Sieka
32" likes HD res. Both look fine but that's using VGA connection. I
didn't expect such a difference in quality across various brands
especially Toshiba which I take to be a "better" brand name.

I found the same problem with an ASDA brand TV. The instructions say
that the HDMI (two-of) cannot be used for a PC. I tried connecting a
RaspberryPi to the HDMI, it worked but exibited the symptons you
describe (Start button off the screen, etc.).
The HDMI seems only to be used for particular devices.

The VGA on the machine works OK with the PC (as per the notice in the
Instructions).

BTW, having taken apart said machine, I found that the RF (Ariel) input
module was connected via another VGA socket. I have not got around to
testing wether IT will work with a PC's VGA!

In article , lid says...

pjp wrote:

Ok, bought a Toshiba 32" tv for daughter for Christmas. I insured it had
a VGA Input connection thankfully cause she wanted somnething to watch
pc videos from couch rather than using desktop screen. Her pc has both
VGA and HDMI output, small footprint Lenova I5.

So unpack it and setup a Dell I5 small footprint desktop has both VGA
and HDMI output to test with before she takes it home, insure it works
and she knows how to connect it etc.

I first connected the HDMI, PC wanted to go to 1920x1024 res which is
what I expected. What I didn't expect was the guality was ****, text
almost unreadable and with part of the display off-screen even!!! Sound
worked fine.

So shut down and restarted using a VGA cable instead changing TV's input
appropriately. I also connected the additional sound connection
required. PC comes back alive but wanted res set to 13??x9xx (or there
abouts can't rememeber for sure), I take it to be SD quality rather than
the prior HD quality. Picture looks great with everything onscreen,
sound works as expected.

So question is "Is this behaviour to be what's I should expect using a
HDMI from PC connection, e.g. crap video guality and partially off
screen or did I not do something I should have?

I have three pc's all using the VGA connection and a pc. Problem is only
one of them has an HDMI output which I never bothered to test. Can I
expect similar from all of them. My Sony 32" likes SD as res, my Sieka
32" likes HD res. Both look fine but that's using VGA connection. I
didn't expect such a difference in quality across various brands
especially Toshiba which I take to be a "better" brand name.

Now why didn't you post the exact Toshiba model number ?

It could be a 1366x768 native panel. That's what it sounds like to me.

As consumers, we're not supposed to buy those - to send
a "message" to the manufacturers to stop doing that... :-)

Paul

32" so thought native SD implied. That said it's a Toshiba 32AV502R.
Doesn't then explain why HDMI wants to do HD as it's native mode where-
as VGA wants SD?

What message can you send to manufacturers? I was in Costco other day
looking at really large tvs. NOT ONE of them had any decent number of
auxillary inputs. NOT ONE had a VGA connection with audio input. NOT ONE
had a proper analog audio out connection, instead just headphones and
optical. If it had a USB for input almost quaranteed it was restrictive
in formats one could use or for that metter even what would be
acknowledged when plugged in.

pjp wrote:
In article , lid says...
pjp wrote:
Ok, bought a Toshiba 32" tv for daughter for Christmas. I insured it had
a VGA Input connection thankfully cause she wanted somnething to watch
pc videos from couch rather than using desktop screen. Her pc has both
VGA and HDMI output, small footprint Lenova I5.

So unpack it and setup a Dell I5 small footprint desktop has both VGA
and HDMI output to test with before she takes it home, insure it works
and she knows how to connect it etc.

I first connected the HDMI, PC wanted to go to 1920x1024 res which is
what I expected. What I didn't expect was the guality was ****, text
almost unreadable and with part of the display off-screen even!!! Sound
worked fine.

So shut down and restarted using a VGA cable instead changing TV's input
appropriately. I also connected the additional sound connection
required. PC comes back alive but wanted res set to 13??x9xx (or there
abouts can't rememeber for sure), I take it to be SD quality rather than
the prior HD quality. Picture looks great with everything onscreen,
sound works as expected.

So question is "Is this behaviour to be what's I should expect using a
HDMI from PC connection, e.g. crap video guality and partially off
screen or did I not do something I should have?

I have three pc's all using the VGA connection and a pc. Problem is only
one of them has an HDMI output which I never bothered to test. Can I
expect similar from all of them. My Sony 32" likes SD as res, my Sieka
32" likes HD res. Both look fine but that's using VGA connection. I
didn't expect such a difference in quality across various brands
especially Toshiba which I take to be a "better" brand name.
Now why didn't you post the exact Toshiba model number ?

It could be a 1366x768 native panel. That's what it sounds like to me.

As consumers, we're not supposed to buy those - to send
a "message" to the manufacturers to stop doing that... :-)

Paul

32" so thought native SD implied. That said it's a Toshiba 32AV502R.
Doesn't then explain why HDMI wants to do HD as it's native mode where-
as VGA wants SD?

What message can you send to manufacturers? I was in Costco other day
looking at really large tvs. NOT ONE of them had any decent number of
auxillary inputs. NOT ONE had a VGA connection with audio input. NOT ONE
had a proper analog audio out connection, instead just headphones and
optical. If it had a USB for input almost quaranteed it was restrictive
in formats one could use or for that metter even what would be
acknowledged when plugged in.

https://support.toshiba.com/support/...eeText=2805176

32av502r_om_e.pdf Owners manual 13,225,259 bytes
32av502r_spec.pdf Spec 488,671 bytes

The spec doesn't usually tell the whole story, and I was not
disappointed by starting there. But, there's less to slog through
with the spec. Fewer pages to browse.

32AV502R
720p HD LCD TV
with CineSpeed

LCD PANEL:
Resolution 720p [1280x720 @ 60Hz progressive scan]
CineSpeed Display Has an LCD Response Time of 8ms or less

JACK PACK:
HDMI v1.3a Digital Inputs 2
PC Input (15 Pin, D-sub) 1

PDF page 57 of the Owners Manual gives supported resolutions.

PC Input (VGA)
--------------

640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 (multisync)

1280x768 [ Overscan ??? Some lines lost??? Resampling this would suck,
in the process of making 720 lines out of it. ]

1360x768 [ The ill-fated weird panel choice of resolution is
supported, even if it has to be down-sampled.
Could suck like the previous choice might. ]

HDMI Input
----------
640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 (multisync)

1280x768 [ Overscan ??? Some lines lost??? Resampling this would suck. ]

1360x768 [ The ill-fated weird panel choice of resolution

Plus a series of modern choices

480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p 24Hz (movie) and 60Hz (otherwise)

The HDMI can run native at 720p and give you nice
sharp 1280x720 SD output.

Resampling a 1920x1080 signal, both the panel and signal are 16:9
so circles are circles. The numbers are far enough apart, the
aliasing might be manageable by the math.

*******

"I first connected the HDMI, PC wanted to go to 1920x1024 res which is
what I expected. What I didn't expect was the guality was ****, text
almost unreadable"

HDMI downsampled from 1920x1080 to 1280x720. Windows does a pretty
good job of this, perhaps with subpixel sampling or something. Not
sure how good a digital processor panel in a TV would do. Aspect
ratio is the same.

Go to the Display control panel and select 1280x720 and... enjoy
sharp picture. I think that choice is big enough to keep
every Windows "happy". (Some version of Windows doesn't like
1280x600 or so perhaps.)

*******

"So shut down and restarted using a VGA cable instead changing TV's input
appropriately. I also connected the additional sound connection
required. PC comes back alive but wanted res set to 1360x768 (or there
abouts can't rememeber for sure), I take it to be SD quality rather than
the prior HD quality. Picture looks great with everything onscreen,
sound works as expected."

1360x768 is slightly above SD, and is also slightly above native.
I've heard of TVs doing this resampling, from a res higher than native,
but I don't know what it looks like.

Using the display control panel and selecting 1280x720 @ 60Hz might make
for a better output. But you'll have to test and judge for yourself.

*******

If the PC end won't "make the resolution I want", remember
that every hardware device made in the last 40 years supports
custom resolution at the register level. Even the frame buffer
I built out of a CRT5027 had programmable registers for the
whole works, front porch, back porch, width, height. Even if the
display I was driving at the time only supported 640x480 (12MHz bandwidth) :-)

In some cases, custom resolutions are denied by math errors
in the video card driver. The NVidia FX5200 used to prevent
one choice from being made, due to a math error comparing the
constructed mode line to 135MHz clock. A later driver corrected
that and magically the resolution was then supported.

The custom resolution dialog may be hard to find.

This is where Entechtaiwan PowerStrip came in. It offered
an easy to use interface. Whereas bobbling around in the
various control panels and trying to figure out where the custom
input is hidden, is less fun. While most of the time,
there is an "OK" button after the res is supplied, I did
manage to shoot myself in the foot once, screen goes black
(it appears I "OKed" the choice, and I couldn't see anything).
Don't be in a rush when applying custom choices. If you don't
do anything, after 15 seconds the original resolution choice
should be restored. Hitting return or floundering about
(as I discovered), is a less-good choice :-)

Paul

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-12-25 23:35, pjp wrote:
[...]

I read your plaintive pleas, and I can relate. To watch Netflix on our
TV we have to go through the laptop and a VGA+audio. It's an _old_ tv, 8
years old now, so it has all kinds of inputs. Most of which are useless
these days. And the HDMI doesn't work correctly with the Bluray player.
Bah!

I'd guess that an older secondhand TV will probably meet your needs a
lot better than a brand new one.

32" so thought native SD implied.

If it's a TV, I'd expect 1280x720 for this size panel, but it could be a
1920x1080. Both of these are HD, not SD. If it's a monitor, I'd expect
1920x1080 or higher.

That said it's a Toshiba 32AV502R.
Doesn't then explain why HDMI wants to do HD as it's native mode where-
as VGA wants SD?

That's what the HD stands for in HDMI. IIRC, the minimum is 1280x720,
generally used in smaller panels = 32") Larger panels are generally
1920x1080. It's possible that the VGA input is upscaled to HD. In any
case, VGA handles several resolutions, that's why you will see
acceptable or better display when using the TV as a monitor for your
laptop.

Then there's 4K or "UHD"....

What message can you send to manufacturers? I was in Costco other day
looking at really large tvs. NOT ONE of them had any decent number of
auxillary inputs. NOT ONE had a VGA connection with audio input. NOT ONE
had a proper analog audio out connection, instead just headphones and
optical. If it had a USB for input almost quaranteed it was restrictive
in formats one could use or for that metter even what would be
acknowledged when plugged in.

AFAIK, the newest large TVs don't need all those inputs: the current
HDMI standard is enough. (Older HDMI is less capable). If you want to
connect an older playback device, you need a converter cable or box,
which IME are increasingly hard to find. OTOH, many newer TVs have
Ethernet as well, and can handle Ruko and similar plug-ins. Some now
come with Ruko built in. But USB on anything other than a computer is a
gamble. Eg, you'd think that plugging a flashdrive into the player's USB
port would enable playback. Not here, it doesn't.

As for outputs, if you want better than built in audio, these days
you're expected to get a Bluetooth speaker (or set). Most add-on
speakers still have an optical input, but it's becoming rarer.

But I don't think "they" don't want you to use the TV as a monitor. On
the contrary. One system to rule them all, that's the goal. The
technology is converging. We don't yet know what the final mix of
standards will be, so in the meantime adding a new component to an older
setup is certain to be at least a mild hassle, even if the components
are all the same brand.

BTW, Costco will on occasion specify product to meet a price point. If
the product isn't the exact same model as available from other sources,
you don't know what you're getting. Read the specs. :-)

PS: The above product information is based on reading all current sales
flyers, and extensive browsing in electronics stores/departments at the
mall whenever we get to one. I like to keep up. :-)


I've never bothered to study these in any detail. This
stuff is kooky. Almost as bad as "USB3.1 Rev1/Rev2" as a nomenclature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standa...ion_television

480i
576i

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-d...ion_television

720p ("HD Ready") 1280x720
1080p ("Full HD") 1920x1080

I guess I'll have to stop throwing around the notion
of SD and HD like that. I didn't realize 720p was
something special.

I suppose this is no worse than 5G cell service.

Or the mess they're about to make of Wifi
(for dishonest marketing purposes).

Paul

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-12-25 23:35, pjp wrote:
[...]

I read your plaintive pleas, and I can relate. To watch Netflix on our
TV we have to go through the laptop and a VGA+audio. It's an _old_ tv, 8
years old now, so it has all kinds of inputs. Most of which are useless
these days. And the HDMI doesn't work correctly with the Bluray player.
Bah!

I wonder if a Roku streaming player might work better for you than relying
on the Bluray player. Seems to work well over here, but then again, I'm not
into the latest HD stuff. It's just running at 1080p resolution, which is
more than enough for me.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 13:37:24 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

On 2018-12-25 23:35, pjp wrote:
[...]
What message can you send to manufacturers? I was in Costco other day
looking at really large tvs. NOT ONE of them had any decent number of
auxillary inputs. NOT ONE had a VGA connection with audio input. NOT ONE
had a proper analog audio out connection, instead just headphones and
optical. If it had a USB for input almost quaranteed it was restrictive
in formats one could use or for that metter even what would be
acknowledged when plugged in.

AFAIK, the newest large TVs don't need all those inputs: the current
HDMI standard is enough.

I agree, but for a different reason than you give below. In my circles,
people don't use multiple inputs on the TV, so a single HDMI input is
good enough. That gets fed from the output of an AV receiver, where the
receiver becomes the central hub through which everything connects. The
receiver will likely have multiple HDMI inputs for everything from cable
or satellite boxes, BluRay players, Roku devices, media players, and
laptops. The receiver can also have a VGA input, as well as multiple
non-video (audio only) inputs and things like AM/FM radio and Internet
radio. Connect a decent set of speakers to the receiver, stereo at a
minimum or go whole hog with 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1, and you have the input
flexibility that a person wants, along with the sound quality that a
person expects. None of this has to cost an arm and a leg. AV receivers
still have multiple inputs even at the low end of the market.

(Older HDMI is less capable). If you want to
connect an older playback device, you need a converter cable or box,
which IME are increasingly hard to find. OTOH, many newer TVs have
Ethernet as well, and can handle Ruko and similar plug-ins. Some now
come with Ruko built in. But USB on anything other than a computer is a
gamble. Eg, you'd think that plugging a flashdrive into the player's USB
port would enable playback. Not here, it doesn't.

As for outputs, if you want better than built in audio, these days
you're expected to get a Bluetooth speaker (or set). Most add-on
speakers still have an optical input, but it's becoming rarer.

Bluetooth only if you absolutely need wireless, otherwise no.

But I don't think "they" don't want you to use the TV as a monitor. On
the contrary. One system to rule them all, that's the goal. The
technology is converging. We don't yet know what the final mix of
standards will be, so in the meantime adding a new component to an older
setup is certain to be at least a mild hassle, even if the components
are all the same brand.

That's where a receiver makes all the difference. No more hassle with
the TV because the receiver takes all of those various inputs and auto
converts them, as necessary, so that the TV never knows the difference.
And I agree that a TV as a monitor is something that should be assumed.
That's something that "they" want you to be able to do. On my setup, I
can plug in any of the laptops via HDMI or VGA, or the one desktop via
HDMI or VGA that's physically close enough for the cable to reach, and
it just works.

--

Char Jackson

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 20:44:51 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion, I've been thinking about Roku. The reviews
I've seen are vague to put it politely. Along the lines of "I plugged it
in and it worked."

That sounds about right. I have 3 Roku units and use two of them very
frequently. The third is only used for commercial-free music. I love the
units, and if they were stolen tonight, I'd immediately replace at least
two of them.

Yeah, sure, but exactly what did you get and no
longer get? How did the availability of TV channels change?

I'm not sure what those questions mean, but check out the Roku channel
store to see what's officially available. It's one of those dastardly
never-ending pages, so as you scroll down, more channels appear. They
claim to have over 3000 channels available, so use the search box near
the top of the page. If you're so inclined, there are also several
thousand unofficial channels available, but that's another topic.

https://channelstore.roku.com

How does Roku affect your cable/satellite sub?

Certain cable companies have a corresponding Roku channel, so in that
case a Roku can take the place of a set top box and potentially save you
a monthly rental fee. Other than that, Roku doesn't affect your
cable/satellite sub.

How easy is it to interface/connect with other devices? Etc and so on and so forth

What connectivity option(s) do you already have? Two of my devices have
(only) an HDMI port, so one plugs into the AV receiver in the living
room and the other plugs directly into a 24" monitor on my desk. The
third unit, an older model that I got after the other two, has composite
video and L/R stereo RCA jacks. I got that model because my office
stereo system doesn't have HDMI inputs.

So assuming you have an input port available, preferably HDMI but could
also be composite or USB (streaming stick), connecting takes seconds.
The units need external power, which comes via a small wall wart, and
Internet access via WiFi or Ethernet. That's it - just plug everything
in, activate the device if it's brand new, add one or more channels and
start using it.

Generally speaking, a Roku channel is not the equivalent of a cable/sat
channel. With those services, there's programming in progress at all
times and you can choose to tune in or not, but with most Roku channels,
there's nothing happening until you select something and decide to watch
it. At that point, it streams, but the details don't matter. Just decide
what to watch, then watch it. Most channels are free, and may have
commercials or may be of limited interest. Arguably, the best stuff
costs money, including Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Hulu+. Netflix
gives their blessing to share an account with another family member, and
the Netflix channel makes it easy to do so, offering to create accounts
for each person who shares. I share an account with my son (he pays).

Thing is, I want three (maybe four or five) TV channels, and don't care
about the others. If I can get them using Roku, I'm sold (subscriptions
are of course another issue). They are TVO, PBS (east and west), CBC
(with time shift), and maybe BBC and/or TSN.

I don't see TVO, TSN, or CBC in the Roku channelstore. PBS has a
channel, but it's not an East or West feed since those tags don't apply.
It just has all of the PBS programming available and you pick what you
want to watch.

BBC America (2 choices?)
https://channelstore.roku.com/detail...43/bbc-america

PBS (3 choices)
https://channelstore.roku.com/search/pbs

I'm willing to forgo the
latter, as sports is becoming rather boring these days. Maybe I'm just
jaded, I just don't get excited any more when I hear GOOOOOAAAALLLL!!!!!

Netflix? Maybe, but mainly because my family like to watch it, and it
would be nice to have it easily available here when they visit.

Netflix is there. Heck, the newer Roku remotes have dedicated buttons
for Netflix and Amazon. Those two are a single button-click away.
Speaking of remotes, they also have voice search and a headphone jack
right on the remote.

I'm sure there are a bunch of folks here who use Roku. If you have any
more questions, ask away.

Random anecdote: A few years ago, we hosted a Christmas party here at
the house. After the football game was over, instead of turning the
system off, I switched to a channel that appears as just a burning
fireplace, complete with sound effects. There's another channel that
appears as a fish aquarium. Anyway, I put on the fireplace channel and
it was a big hit. Since then, a couple of folks request that channel
when they come over.

--

Char Jackson

In article ,
lid says...

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 20:44:51 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion, I've been thinking about Roku. The reviews
I've seen are vague to put it politely. Along the lines of "I plugged it
in and it worked."

That sounds about right. I have 3 Roku units and use two of them very
frequently. The third is only used for commercial-free music. I love the
units, and if they were stolen tonight, I'd immediately replace at least
two of them.

Yeah, sure, but exactly what did you get and no
longer get? How did the availability of TV channels change?

I'm not sure what those questions mean, but check out the Roku channel
store to see what's officially available. It's one of those dastardly
never-ending pages, so as you scroll down, more channels appear. They
claim to have over 3000 channels available, so use the search box near
the top of the page. If you're so inclined, there are also several
thousand unofficial channels available, but that's another topic.

https://channelstore.roku.com

How does Roku affect your cable/satellite sub?

Certain cable companies have a corresponding Roku channel, so in that
case a Roku can take the place of a set top box and potentially save you
a monthly rental fee. Other than that, Roku doesn't affect your
cable/satellite sub.

How easy is it to interface/connect with other devices? Etc and so on and so forth

What connectivity option(s) do you already have? Two of my devices have
(only) an HDMI port, so one plugs into the AV receiver in the living
room and the other plugs directly into a 24" monitor on my desk. The
third unit, an older model that I got after the other two, has composite
video and L/R stereo RCA jacks. I got that model because my office
stereo system doesn't have HDMI inputs.

So assuming you have an input port available, preferably HDMI but could
also be composite or USB (streaming stick), connecting takes seconds.
The units need external power, which comes via a small wall wart, and
Internet access via WiFi or Ethernet. That's it - just plug everything
in, activate the device if it's brand new, add one or more channels and
start using it.

Generally speaking, a Roku channel is not the equivalent of a cable/sat
channel. With those services, there's programming in progress at all
times and you can choose to tune in or not, but with most Roku channels,

And it still stutters etc. if you don't or can't get a fast enough
connection. You also can't just keep a local copy to do what you want
with easily, e.g. save it on a dvd or similar.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 03:31:32 -0400, pjp
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Generally speaking, a Roku channel is not the equivalent of a cable/sat
channel. With those services, there's programming in progress at all
times and you can choose to tune in or not, but with most Roku channels,

And it still stutters etc. if you don't or can't get a fast enough
connection.

That's a good point. I've had a good enough Internet connection since
1997, (I haven't had the Rokus that long!), but it's a good reminder
that not everyone else does. People with a slow or unreliable Internet
connection should probably think twice before getting a Roku.

You also can't just keep a local copy to do what you want
with easily, e.g. save it on a dvd or similar.

Right, it's a different mindset, one that I had to get used to. I built
a 40TB data storage server in 2010 and promptly filled it with
everything I own, but it's been a few years since I watched any of that.
Instead, I prefer to let others maintain the video library, and I just
access it whenever I want to. They have more time, storage space, and
access to titles that I've never owned. You remind me that I could
probably just dump my movie library, now that streaming is so easy. They
have everything that I have, plus a thousand times more.

--

Char Jackson

In article ,
lid says...

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 03:31:32 -0400, pjp
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Generally speaking, a Roku channel is not the equivalent of a cable/sat
channel. With those services, there's programming in progress at all
times and you can choose to tune in or not, but with most Roku channels,

And it still stutters etc. if you don't or can't get a fast enough
connection.

That's a good point. I've had a good enough Internet connection since
1997, (I haven't had the Rokus that long!), but it's a good reminder
that not everyone else does. People with a slow or unreliable Internet
connection should probably think twice before getting a Roku.

You also can't just keep a local copy to do what you want
with easily, e.g. save it on a dvd or similar.

Right, it's a different mindset, one that I had to get used to. I built
a 40TB data storage server in 2010 and promptly filled it with
everything I own, but it's been a few years since I watched any of that.
Instead, I prefer to let others maintain the video library, and I just
access it whenever I want to. They have more time, storage space, and
access to titles that I've never owned. You remind me that I could
probably just dump my movie library, now that streaming is so easy. They
have everything that I have, plus a thousand times more.

And I'm forced to go the other way given my internet connection. I've
tried with both my "smart" blue ray player and my pc and playback is
just not acceptable. As I live in very rural area (no neighbour for more
than a mile away) that's not likely to change anytime soon.

I've accumalated over 15,000 cds (complete), 1000+ live music concerts,
2000+ movies and almost as many documentaries. There's also a pile of
utube, wildlife cam videos etc. All stored on a couple of shared hard
disks so any pc (so any tv) in house can easily watch them without
stuttering or such non-sense.

One thing I got in the habit of doing was convert everything as I get it
to XVID 720x480 video (DVD guality) and 192Kps audio mp3's (better than
cd's 160Kbs). Did this mainly because sometime in the future I didn't
want to have to install "x" number of codecs everytime I got a new pc so
I could watch and/or listen to any of it. All mp3 files are checked by
playing them far enough to know they work ok in a very old version of
WinAmp (plays fine uses few resources).

BTW - it's also all backed up on burned verified dvds stored in a cool,
dry, dark place. Some of it also has duplicate copies on second, third,
fourth external drives.

On 12/26/18 1:19 PM, Paul wrote:

[snip]

Â*Â* 720pÂ* ("HD Ready")Â* 1280x720
Â* 1080pÂ* ("Full HD")Â*Â* 1920x1080

720p used to be HD.

I guess I'll have to stop throwing around the notion
of SD and HD like that. I didn't realize 720p was
something special.

I suppose this is no worse than 5G cell service.

Or the mess they're about to make of Wifi
(for dishonest marketing purposes).

Â*Â* Paul


--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few
virtues" -- Abraham Lincoln

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 12/26/18 1:19 PM, Paul wrote:

[snip]

** 720p* ("HD Ready")* 1280x720
*| 1080p* ("Full HD") * 1920x1080

720p used to be HD.

Well, at least on this side of the pond (Europe/NL), Paul is correct
with his terms/resolutions:

"HD Ready" (720p):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_ready

"Full HD" (1080p):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

As the HD_ready article explains, the term "Full HD" was also abused,
but to a lesser extent than the term "HD" was abused for 720p devices.

In Europe/NL, it was/is not acceptable for a product to claim just
'HD', unless it's 1080p. (So my 2010 (or 2009?) TV is *really* HD
(1080p/i)! :-))

I guess I'll have to stop throwing around the notion
of SD and HD like that. I didn't realize 720p was
something special.

I suppose this is no worse than 5G cell service.

Or the mess they're about to make of Wifi
(for dishonest marketing purposes).

all THAT COPYING.

WELL, YOU CANT STOP RADIATION FROM DESTROYING THE HARD DRIVE.
a MAGNET WILL **** UP THE WHOLE MACHINE. lIKE, ALL YEE NEED IS
ELECTROMAGNET. zap, no more computer. Why do you think all these
stupid cars they make and sell for all kinds of ill prices, are not
worth a dam? If you look to the instructions on repair, just the
temperature of the vehicle, is crucial, to getting a proper reading off
of a sensor. And that by itself, is enough reason for you to not want
to buy one. What do you expect from these designers, that are with a
brain such as a child at sense.

On 12/27/2018 1:26 AM, pjp scribbled:
In ,
lid says...

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 03:31:32 -0400, pjp
wrote:

In ,
lid says...

Generally speaking, a Roku channel is not the equivalent of a cable/sat
channel. With those services, there's programming in progress at all
times and you can choose to tune in or not, but with most Roku channels,

And it still stutters etc. if you don't or can't get a fast enough
connection.

That's a good point. I've had a good enough Internet connection since
1997, (I haven't had the Rokus that long!), but it's a good reminder
that not everyone else does. People with a slow or unreliable Internet
connection should probably think twice before getting a Roku.

You also can't just keep a local copy to do what you want
with easily, e.g. save it on a dvd or similar.

Right, it's a different mindset, one that I had to get used to. I built
a 40TB data storage server in 2010 and promptly filled it with
everything I own, but it's been a few years since I watched any of that.
Instead, I prefer to let others maintain the video library, and I just
access it whenever I want to. They have more time, storage space, and
access to titles that I've never owned. You remind me that I could
probably just dump my movie library, now that streaming is so easy. They
have everything that I have, plus a thousand times more.

And I'm forced to go the other way given my internet connection. I've
tried with both my "smart" blue ray player and my pc and playback is
just not acceptable. As I live in very rural area (no neighbour for more
than a mile away) that's not likely to change anytime soon.

I've accumalated over 15,000 cds (complete), 1000+ live music concerts,
2000+ movies and almost as many documentaries. There's also a pile of
utube, wildlife cam videos etc. All stored on a couple of shared hard
disks so any pc (so any tv) in house can easily watch them without
stuttering or such non-sense.

One thing I got in the habit of doing was convert everything as I get it
to XVID 720x480 video (DVD guality) and 192Kps audio mp3's (better than
cd's 160Kbs). Did this mainly because sometime in the future I didn't
want to have to install "x" number of codecs everytime I got a new pc so
I could watch and/or listen to any of it. All mp3 files are checked by
playing them far enough to know they work ok in a very old version of
WinAmp (plays fine uses few resources).

BTW - it's also all backed up on burned verified dvds stored in a cool,
dry, dark place. Some of it also has duplicate copies on second, third,
fourth external drives.