[pmalexander]

This may be a really minor issue, but when we had Sky + one thing that bugged my wife was imagine you had BBC1 on - channel 101, and then decided to use the down arrow to Sky 1 and you see Bones is on, and you then want to see what that episode is all about. You then press the information button, and guess what you get the information on the screen showing the program you are currently watching and not the Sky 1 program.

As we no longer have Sky, got rid of it on 23rd Oct, we have VM, and she loves the information button, it works as it should do, without having to go into the planner to press the info button.

It is about time Sky developed their 21st century equipment, like VM have done!!!

[Ajay737]

I agree about the Sky+ boxes. The EPG seems like very old technology now. Even the TUTV boxes EPG is better (when it works), just a shame the company is dire.
I've thought of VM myself when my Sky contract finishes in January but don't fancy the £75 for a V+HD box (which has to be returned if you cancel apparently) or their broadband traffic management but a discussion for the VM threads I think.

[Mystic Eddy]

Originally Posted by pmalexander

This may be a really minor issue, but when we had Sky + one thing that bugged my wife was imagine you had BBC1 on - channel 101, and then decided to use the down arrow to Sky 1 and you see Bones is on, and you then want to see what that episode is all about. You then press the information button, and guess what you get the information on the screen showing the program you are currently watching and not the Sky 1 program.

As we no longer have Sky, got rid of it on 23rd Oct, we have VM, and she loves the information button, it works as it should do, without having to go into the planner to press the info button.

It is about time Sky developed their 21st century equipment, like VM have done!!!

So what you have done there is have a rant a Sky for no reason. If you had bothered to look at all the new HD EPG threads, you would see that Sky have updated those boxes so you can now see information about others channels whilst watching something else.
The Sky+ haven't got the hardware that's capable of processing such information so it won't be rolled out to those boxes.
But yes, Sky's got more HD channels, works out cheaper (phone, BB and TV) and can do the things you've moaned about.

[coopermanyorks]

Seems you need a Sky HD box then you are comparing like for like and you will get the function you require

What next a complaint that the sky+ box didn't give you a few Hd channels like the V+ box does ?

Cable section is that way >

[pmalexander]

Originally Posted by Mystic Eddy

So what you have done there is have a rant a Sky for no reason. If you had bothered to look at all the new HD EPG threads, you would see that Sky have updated those boxes so you can now see information about others channels whilst watching something else.
The Sky+ haven't got the hardware that's capable of processing such information so it won't be rolled out to those boxes.
But yes, Sky's got more HD channels, works out cheaper (phone, BB and TV) and can do the things you've moaned about.

MysticEddy, I had a Sky + box not a Sky HD box, surely they can pump out firmware / software upgrades to these boxes.

Anyway yes we all know Sky like to HOG all the extra HD channels rather than allow V+ HD customers to enjoy, but then again you have the pleasure of paying £120 per year HD subs to enjoy them, plus pay for the sports and movies to get take full advantage. BB might be cheaper, but I prefer a fibre optic, speeds, rather than 'up to' speeds

Phone, I dont care about.

As for TV the XL package as apposed to all the entertainment packs Sky offer, (not the sports or movies), is better value, and ESPN HD is thrown in for £1 cheaper than skys price.

Im stating facts and the rant stands, there are thousands if not millions of Sky + boxes and its a little dated.

[bunsen_honeydew]

Originally Posted by pmalexander

MysticEddy, I had a Sky + box not a Sky HD box, surely they can pump out firmware / software upgrades to these boxes.

But your comparing it to the virgin box which is an HD box so your not comparing like with like. Why would Sky want to spend development money trying to get something to work on old technology that is slowly being phased out?

I think the fact that you started this thread says an awful lot about you

[pmalexander]

Originally Posted by bunsen_honeydew

But your comparing it to the virgin box which is an HD box so your not comparing like with like. Why would Sky want to spend development money trying to get something to work on old technology that is slowly being phased out?

I think the fact that you started this thread says an awful lot about you

True its an HD box. It may not be like for like. But you cant get a Virgin box that records that is not an HD box.

Anyway it was just to state something that was a pain, just surprised Sky could not have applied a small software change for the Sky + boxes, there is nothing wizardry about what the end result would have produced.

Yes I did start the thread, and I dont understand what you mean about it says an awful lot about me, whats your problem?

[Mystic Eddy]

Originally Posted by pmalexander

MysticEddy, I had a Sky + box not a Sky HD box, surely they can pump out firmware / software upgrades to these boxes.

Anyway yes we all know Sky like to HOG all the extra HD channels rather than allow V+ HD customers to enjoy, but then again you have the pleasure of paying £120 per year HD subs to enjoy them, plus pay for the sports and movies to get take full advantage. BB might be cheaper, but I prefer a fibre optic, speeds, rather than 'up to' speeds

Phone, I dont care about.

As for TV the XL package as apposed to all the entertainment packs Sky offer, (not the sports or movies), is better value, and ESPN HD is thrown in for £1 cheaper than skys price.

Im stating facts and the rant stands, there are thousands if not millions of Sky + boxes and its a little dated.

They don't 'hog' the channels as you put it, Virgin's just too tight (or too deep in the red) to be able to afford them. And with the phone side of things, I'm pretty sure you have to take a phone line to get the TV packages at a Sky comparable price.
I just don't want people coming on here thinking about getting Sky and ending up with an inferior offering from Virgin. Of course, all of that is IMHO.

[coopermanyorks]

Originally Posted by pmalexander

True its an HD box. It may not be like for like. But you cant get a Virgin box that records that is not an HD box.

Anyway it was just to state something that was a pain, just surprised Sky could not have applied a small software change for the Sky + boxes, there is nothing wizardry about what the end result would have produced.

Yes I did start the thread, and I dont understand what you mean about it says an awful lot about me, whats your problem?

Why didn't you start a thread in the cable forum stating your disdain with Vm who forced you into upgrading to a V+ box because they don't supply a box that records but is not an HD box ( equiv to a Sky+ box )

I may be wrong but you may have quite quickly slipped into the Vm is great,Sky is pants scenario even more so by not comparing the V+ function against the equiv Sky Hd box which clearly does the same function as the V+ does

Words like "Hog the Hd channels" and "Sky+ boxes are so pathetic" seem to enforce your new found negativity

Did you add on the required £11 phone line charge into your pricing comparison or are you basing the comparison on the higher monthly charge recently launched but without the phone line required ?

Maybe a breakdown of your actual charges may have helped to prove or disprove your cause

Its lucky you can have the choice,I would love the chance of at least trying Vm services but the closest they come is about 10 miles away

Fibre BB would be most welcome to but I can only dream.<sigh>.

good luck with VM

[pmalexander]

Originally Posted by coopermanyorks

Why didn't you start a thread in the cable forum stating your disdain with Vm who forced you into upgrading to a V+ box because they don't supply a box that records but is not an HD box ( equiv to a Sky+ box )

I may be wrong but you may have quite quickly slipped into the Vm is great,Sky is pants scenario even more so by not comparing the V+ function against the equiv Sky Hd box which clearly does the same function as the V+ does

Words like "Hog the Hd channels" and "Sky+ boxes are so pathetic" seem to enforce your new found negativity

Mmm, you may be right, I will totally admit I had no idea the Sky HD box could do the same function as the V+ HD box, I was only thinking about the Sky + box.

I am trying not to give the scenario between VM and Sky, and who is better. Both have their +'s and -'s.

I suppose at the end of the day you make your choice, if you have that choice, thankfully I have!

[Ajay737]

Originally Posted by Mystic Eddy

And with the phone side of things, I'm pretty sure you have to take a phone line to get the TV packages at a Sky comparable price.
I just don't want people coming on here thinking about getting Sky and ending up with an inferior offering from Virgin. Of course, all of that is IMHO.

VM TV is £21.50pm for XL (with free ESPN) with a phone line (£11PM) and £27.50 without when I looked earlier. I do think that the EPG search could be improved but very unlikely now as has been said, these are likely to be phased out.
Would stay with Sky if I was to change my BB from O2 (unlikely) and phone line from BT though.

[Urban Bassman]

Originally Posted by coopermanyorks

Seems you need a Sky HD box then you are comparing like for like and you will get the function you require

What next a complaint that the sky+ box didn't give you a few Hd channels like the V+ box does ?

Cable section is that way >

The VM box has had this ability for ages, even the standard box, and it really annoyed me when I had to switched to Sky that this wasn't available. (I moved to a non VM area).

There are many minor differences between Sky and VM that are irritating. IMO Virgin wins on certain things, the biggest being VOD and their EPG is much better. It's more logical (though it was a bit messed up with the position of Living cannels). I liked the fact that you go into the mini EPG and not only scroll through the channels to get the information but could also type in the channel number in the EPG and it displays the info without switching channel.

The SKY EPG is a mess and needs addressing. Like channels need to be grouped. I personally would put all the HD and +1 (etc) channels into seperated groups.

My biggest bug bear with the Sky + HD box is the lack of a front panel display of the Channel number. VM had this and after a time I could remember channel numbers. I don't want to look them up all the time.

As I said this has certainly been the case since I had VM digital (was NTL at the time). The EPG layout was originally a mess but they tidied it up - Sky needs to do the same. (I still hate the VM colours though)

However on the positive side for Sky the HD channels are great and the + facilities are also superb and easy to use (though my Mum still can't get head around them but she is 73 - bless her). The New HD+ EPG is certainly better than the old one. Also (and this is abig plus) the VM EPG does not not give 7 days. I like to set up my recording for the week on a Sunday - couldn't do this on VM and I sometimes missed progs. Thats where the decent OD service helped.

For me if Sky introduced a decent catch up or OD, it only needs the 5 main channels (for me), and sorted out the EPG then they would have a brilliant service. A logical EPG and I could probably live without the front panel display. Oh yes and the ability to look at other channels in the mini EPG by typing in the channel numbers without changing channel.

[Shoog]

Agree with pmalexander and Urban Bassman - the info thing is really annoying.

It doesn't matter that HD boxes do this or that, the fact is there are some annoying quirks with the Sky+ EPG which could very easily be fixed. Can't see Sky spending the money to sort them out now. They'd rather spend it on the HD boxes, understandably.