The utterly dreadful new EPG has so many poorly thought out aspects that 
many will be begging to return to the sensible, wife and kids-friendly 
version.

Seriously, I am very concerned with the ease with which, on the same screen: 
"Adult" " listing of adult titles or Pin setting activities will appear. 
This is because the old EPG had a hierarchy and most people would not come 
across the adult section unless looking for it.

Progress!! Bigger screens, hundreds of programmes but if mini-tv enabled 
only six! listings per screen!! Colours are nauseating, can't scroll upwards 
to go back ie 101 at top could easly jump to 999 - not now.

My wife just will not use it! We are not all under 25. From about the best 
piece of software - completely intuitive - to the worst - overnight. Needs 
its own instruction manual!¬ Why can't we change the awful appearance? It 
looks soft and most un-HD in appearance. If this were on a computer I would 
delete it and revert to the old version.

I was told so many lies about the recall (that word really upset Pace) that 
I refused the exchange. The box needs really good ventilation - that's all. 
If it was not for the Sky Arts HD channels I would terminate my entire Sky 
system ASAP.

All those who agree, please tell Sky. I was told when I phoned that I was 
the first complaint. Oh really!

Peter

On Sun, 31 May 2009 09:29:08 +0100, "Peter M" 
wrote:

>The utterly dreadful new EPG has so many poorly thought out aspects that 
>many will be begging to return to the sensible, wife and kids-friendly 
>version.
>
>Seriously, I am very concerned with the ease with which, on the same screen: 
>"Adult" " listing of adult titles or Pin setting activities will appear. 
>This is because the old EPG had a hierarchy and most people would not come 
>across the adult section unless looking for it.
>
>Progress!! Bigger screens, hundreds of programmes but if mini-tv enabled 
>only six! listings per screen!! Colours are nauseating, can't scroll upwards 
>to go back ie 101 at top could easly jump to 999 - not now.
>
>My wife just will not use it! We are not all under 25. From about the best 
>piece of software - completely intuitive - to the worst - overnight. Needs 
>its own instruction manual!¬ Why can't we change the awful appearance? It 
>looks soft and most un-HD in appearance. If this were on a computer I would 
>delete it and revert to the old version.
>
>I was told so many lies about the recall (that word really upset Pace) that 
>I refused the exchange. The box needs really good ventilation - that's all. 
>If it was not for the Sky Arts HD channels I would terminate my entire Sky 
>system ASAP.
>
>All those who agree, please tell Sky. I was told when I phoned that I was 
>the first complaint. Oh really!

The world feels your pain.
-- 
-- Nick ICQ: 9235201 EMAIL & MSN: nickmooney@spamcop.net
-- Triumph Tiger 955i -- http://www.bgn.me.uk -- Touch - 
-- LOTR#4 SKOGA#8 DS#7 BOTAFOT#159 BOTM#2 FBOTY#06 PM#11

"Peter M"  wrote in message 
news:3MSdnfEXvO5Dor_XnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@bt.com...
> The utterly dreadful new EPG has so many poorly thought out aspects that 
> many will be begging to return to the sensible, wife and kids-friendly 
> version.

Firstly, I do sypathise, I think most people felt like this until they got 
used to it. But, if you think one level of a heirarchy (this translates to 
one button press once you're in the guide) prevented your kids from finding 
the adult section on the old EPG any more than the two left presses it now 
takes then I think you're wrong. Neither hide the adult section from kids in 
reality, but the new EPG hides it twice as well at least because you need 
twice as many button presses to find it. PIN protection is what is designed 
to hide adult content from kids.

> Progress!! Bigger screens, hundreds of programmes but if mini-tv enabled 
> only six! listings per screen!! Colours are nauseating, can't scroll 
> upwards to go back ie 101 at top could easly jump to 999 - not now.

I'm not sure what you mean about the colours - they're the same three shades 
of blue, white, and orange that they used on the old EPG.

Keeping the mini-tv enabled does take up screen yes, but appreciate the fact 
that it now instantly shows you the info of the program that's highlighted - 
no waiting 2 minutes for it to display when you hit the "i" button.

You can get to 999 pretty easily, you're just not used to it yet. The Page 
(Channel) up/down buttons when in the planner will wrap around to the 
top/bottom of the list. When in the Guide (i.e. guide button then down one 
so you're in the channel list) you can type in a channel number, even if 
it's wrong, to get to that location. I.e. typing in 900 will take you to 
channel 901. This also makes it harder for kids to find the adult section 
through additional button presses when compared to the old EPG. To get to 
999 just type 999. This is usually the quickest way to get to a section of 
channels. Once you've done that once, you can scroll up and down normally 
and it'll wrap around.

> My wife just will not use it! We are not all under 25. From about the best 
> piece of software - completely intuitive - to the worst - overnight. Needs 
> its own instruction manual!¬ Why can't we change the awful appearance? It 
> looks soft and most un-HD in appearance. If this were on a computer I 
> would delete it and revert to the old version.

Again, this is normal for anything new. People said the same about 
Microwaves with a numerical keypad on them when they came out, phones with 
buttons instead of a rotary dial, the same about Windows 95 after Windows 
3.1, the same about Windows XP after Windows 98, and the same about Windows 
Vista after Windows XP. The original EPG came with a manual. Just give it a 
few weeks, learn the new shortcuts to do things quickly, and you'll wonder 
how you ever lived without it once you start noticing the less obvious new 
features.

There are some areas that need a bit of a polish - it's very slow in places, 
but the old EPG had it's quirks too - over time they were fixed or we learnt 
how to work around them. The same will happen with the new EPG.

--
Vincent

"Vincent" <nospam@reply.to.newsgroup> wrote in message 
news:gvtpfl0l8n@news7.newsguy.com...

> There are some areas that need a bit of a polish - it's very slow in 
> places, but the old EPG had it's quirks too - over time they were fixed or 
> we learnt how to work around them. The same will happen with the new EPG.

There is one change which is really annoying me.  If I am in a section for 
example documentaries, I used to be able to scroll through the channels and 
when I got to the end, keep on scrolling and it would start at the beginning 
of the list again.  This is useful when I am comparing docs on what to 
watch.  Now when I get to the end of the channel list it stops and I have to 
scroll all the way backwards again to get to the beginning of the list.

Well, you are all obviously spending a lot of time learning the new EPG. Why 
did we need it?. In my home we have 2 Sky boxes running different EPGs. (ie 
Sky+ and Sky+HD), that makes no sense to anyone trying to get used to a new 
EPG only to find themselves having to revert to the older one at a different 
time of day or whatever!

I will report back in a few weeks - if I still have Sky!

Changes should have been evolutionary not revolutionary. Intuitive is a word 
you could not use for the new EPG.

Thanks for comments even though their content reveals how much time has been 
spent examining and dissecting the number of key presses etc. I feel this 
rather proves my point.

Thanks anyway - but does anyone agree with me?

Peter

"Beck"  wrote in message 
news:4a2279ce$0$35398$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
> "Vincent" <nospam@reply.to.newsgroup> wrote in message 
> news:gvtpfl0l8n@news7.newsguy.com...
>
>> There are some areas that need a bit of a polish - it's very slow in 
>> places, but the old EPG had it's quirks too - over time they were fixed 
>> or we learnt how to work around them. The same will happen with the new 
>> EPG.
>
> There is one change which is really annoying me.  If I am in a section for 
> example documentaries, I used to be able to scroll through the channels 
> and when I got to the end, keep on scrolling and it would start at the 
> beginning of the list again.  This is useful when I am comparing docs on 
> what to watch.  Now when I get to the end of the channel list it stops and 
> I have to scroll all the way backwards again to get to the beginning of 
> the list.

Peter M wrote:
> Well, you are all obviously spending a lot of time learning the new
> EPG. Why did we need it?. In my home we have 2 Sky boxes running
> different EPGs. (ie Sky+ and Sky+HD), that makes no sense to anyone
> trying to get used to a new EPG only to find themselves having to
> revert to the older one at a different time of day or whatever!
>
> I will report back in a few weeks - if I still have Sky!
>
> Changes should have been evolutionary not revolutionary. Intuitive is
> a word you could not use for the new EPG.
>
> Thanks for comments even though their content reveals how much time
> has been spent examining and dissecting the number of key presses
> etc. I feel this rather proves my point.
>
> Thanks anyway - but does anyone agree with me?

Personally I can see both advantages and disadvantages to the new EPG, and, 
for me, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I do know several people, 
however, who think the new EPG is ghastly and much preferred the old one!

Ret

Vincent said in an earlier post that "I'm not sure what you mean about the 
colours - they're the same three shades
of blue, white, and orange that they used on the old EPG". I have a nearly 
brand new Panasonic LCD TV fed by a Sky+ box. You must be colour blind, 
Vincent -  the old EPG only uses orange for little arrows - nowhere else at 
all. The colours as are a pleasing mix of pastel blue and dark blue with 
black text on a selected item. I will not embarrass you by listing all the 
other colours - your post was simply wrong! I am a doctor - and am 
absolutely serious when I say that you need to be tested for colour 
blindness. Otherwise you are being deliberately misleading (surely not on 
this sensible and helpful group!) or your equipment is seriously amiss or 
you are writing from what you wrongly remember.

Peter


"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:b6udnYqWs8zEC7_XnZ2dnUVZ8s2dnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Peter M wrote:
>> Well, you are all obviously spending a lot of time learning the new
>> EPG. Why did we need it?. In my home we have 2 Sky boxes running
>> different EPGs. (ie Sky+ and Sky+HD), that makes no sense to anyone
>> trying to get used to a new EPG only to find themselves having to
>> revert to the older one at a different time of day or whatever!
>>
>> I will report back in a few weeks - if I still have Sky!
>>
>> Changes should have been evolutionary not revolutionary. Intuitive is
>> a word you could not use for the new EPG.
>>
>> Thanks for comments even though their content reveals how much time
>> has been spent examining and dissecting the number of key presses
>> etc. I feel this rather proves my point.
>>
>> Thanks anyway - but does anyone agree with me?
>
> Personally I can see both advantages and disadvantages to the new EPG, 
> and, for me, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I do know several 
> people, however, who think the new EPG is ghastly and much preferred the 
> old one!
>
> Ret

"Peter M"  wrote in message 
news:bdSdne7-ObZuEb_XnZ2dnUVZ8oCdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Well, you are all obviously spending a lot of time learning the new EPG. 
> Why did we need it?. In my home we have 2 Sky boxes running different 
> EPGs. (ie Sky+ and Sky+HD), that makes no sense to anyone trying to get 
> used to a new EPG only to find themselves having to revert to the older 
> one at a different time of day or whatever!
>
> I will report back in a few weeks - if I still have Sky!
>
> Changes should have been evolutionary not revolutionary. Intuitive is a 
> word you could not use for the new EPG.
>
> Thanks for comments even though their content reveals how much time has 
> been spent examining and dissecting the number of key presses etc. I feel 
> this rather proves my point.
>
> Thanks anyway - but does anyone agree with me?

Generally on the whole I am happy with it, it is just a few minor changes 
that are really annoying me.

"Peter M"  wrote in message 
news:ANCdnXvBudHtVL_XnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> Vincent said in an earlier post that "I'm not sure what you mean about the 
> colours - they're the same three shades
> of blue, white, and orange that they used on the old EPG". I have a nearly 
> brand new Panasonic LCD TV fed by a Sky+ box. You must be colour blind, 
> Vincent -  the old EPG only uses orange for little arrows - nowhere else 
> at all. The colours as are a pleasing mix of pastel blue and dark blue 
> with black text on a selected item. I will not embarrass you by listing 
> all the other colours - your post was simply wrong! I am a doctor - and am 
> absolutely serious when I say that you need to be tested for colour 
> blindness. Otherwise you are being deliberately misleading (surely not on 
> this sensible and helpful group!) or your equipment is seriously amiss or 
> you are writing from what you wrongly remember.

I believe the misunderstanding here is that you're talking about the 
different use of the colours, as opposed to the what colours are used. The 
previous EPG was mostly shades of blue with white text, as is the new EPG. 
The orange was used for arrows, yes, and is now used to show highlighted 
stuff you're selecting.

It's not like they've gone from shades of blue, white, and orange/gold to 
shades of bright pink, yellow, and pastel greens, and florescent yellows, 
which is what I meant. The colour palette used is pretty similar.

--
Vincent

I utterly disagree, so I think we should drop this topic - the overall 
colour impression is pastel in the old EPG and strong, bold and 
cheap-looking, ill-chosen colour palette in the new EPG. It would be really 
good to have a choice of  colour 'schemes'. I am watching on a properly 
calibrated almost new Panasonic LCD vis HDMI. Most people's HDTV's are not 
calibrated and look completely wrong. Mine did look dreadfully wrong until 
calibrated - perhaps that is why we are disagreeing so much.

Peter
"Vincent" <nospam@reply.to.newsgroup> wrote in message 
news:gvutei01bk8@news7.newsguy.com...
> "Peter M"  wrote in message 
> news:ANCdnXvBudHtVL_XnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Vincent said in an earlier post that "I'm not sure what you mean about 
>> the colours - they're the same three shades
>> of blue, white, and orange that they used on the old EPG". I have a 
>> nearly brand new Panasonic LCD TV fed by a Sky+ box. You must be colour 
>> blind, Vincent -  the old EPG only uses orange for little arrows - 
>> nowhere else at all. The colours as are a pleasing mix of pastel blue and 
>> dark blue with black text on a selected item. I will not embarrass you by 
>> listing all the other colours - your post was simply wrong! I am a 
>> doctor - and am absolutely serious when I say that you need to be tested 
>> for colour blindness. Otherwise you are being deliberately misleading 
>> (surely not on this sensible and helpful group!) or your equipment is 
>> seriously amiss or you are writing from what you wrongly remember.
>
> I believe the misunderstanding here is that you're talking about the 
> different use of the colours, as opposed to the what colours are used. The 
> previous EPG was mostly shades of blue with white text, as is the new EPG. 
> The orange was used for arrows, yes, and is now used to show highlighted 
> stuff you're selecting.
>
> It's not like they've gone from shades of blue, white, and orange/gold to 
> shades of bright pink, yellow, and pastel greens, and florescent yellows, 
> which is what I meant. The colour palette used is pretty similar.
>
> --
> Vincent
>

"Beck"  wrote in message 
news:4a22ef6e$0$35402$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
> "Peter M"  wrote in message 
> news:bdSdne7-ObZuEb_XnZ2dnUVZ8oCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Well, you are all obviously spending a lot of time learning the new EPG. 
>> Why did we need it?. In my home we have 2 Sky boxes running different 
>> EPGs. (ie Sky+ and Sky+HD), that makes no sense to anyone trying to get 
>> used to a new EPG only to find themselves having to revert to the older 
>> one at a different time of day or whatever!
>>
>> I will report back in a few weeks - if I still have Sky!
>>
>> Changes should have been evolutionary not revolutionary. Intuitive is a 
>> word you could not use for the new EPG.
>>
>> Thanks for comments even though their content reveals how much time has 
>> been spent examining and dissecting the number of key presses etc. I feel 
>> this rather proves my point.
>>
>> Thanks anyway - but does anyone agree with me?
>
> Generally on the whole I am happy with it, it is just a few minor changes 
> that are really annoying me.

The only thing which really annoys me is the continuing use of the 12 hour 
clock. Surely the completely unambiguous 24 hour clock could have been a 
'Settings' option?

"Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
news:fCLUl.268019$Ec5.267951@newsfe27.ams2...

> The only thing which really annoys me is the continuing use of the 12 hour 
> clock. Surely the completely unambiguous 24 hour clock could have been a 
> 'Settings' option?

This is the UK, not continental Europe!  ;-)

Ian

"Ian F."  wrote in message 
news:78hfo8F1m4lapU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
> news:fCLUl.268019$Ec5.267951@newsfe27.ams2...
>
>> The only thing which really annoys me is the continuing use of the 12 
>> hour clock. Surely the completely unambiguous 24 hour clock could have 
>> been a 'Settings' option?
>
> This is the UK, not continental Europe!  ;-)
>
> Ian

My inference from your comment is that you believe the UK to be a land of
confusion and ambiguity (and I would not disagree!).

This planet rotates on its axis to create a complete day/night cycle every
24 hours. The arbitrary definition of noon as 12:00pm and midnight as
12:00am results in ludicrous ambiguities and confusion. To set a 10 minute
manual recording from 5 minutes before to 5 minutes after 01:00am  the
settings are:

Start time 12:55am
Stop time 01:05am

Is 01:05 minus 12:55 really 00:10 ?? Confusing or what?

If we could get this right then perhaps we should start on properly
eliminating pounds and ounces. Then all that remains is to convert the
Americans, but perhaps this is too difficult to contemplate!

"Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
news:M9NUl.27072$oi1.18816@newsfe30.ams2...

> If we could get this right then perhaps we should start on properly
> eliminating pounds and ounces. Then all that remains is to convert the
> Americans, but perhaps this is too difficult to contemplate!

Sorry Malcolm, can't agree. Call me old fashioned, but I'm an Imperial 
measures man.

The further we can distance ourselves from the EU norms, the better chance 
we have of retaining our independence. You'll be wanting euros next!

Ian

"Ian F."  wrote in message 
news:78hm28F1klg2kU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
> news:M9NUl.27072$oi1.18816@newsfe30.ams2...
>
>> If we could get this right then perhaps we should start on properly
>> eliminating pounds and ounces. Then all that remains is to convert the
>> Americans, but perhaps this is too difficult to contemplate!
>
> Sorry Malcolm, can't agree. Call me old fashioned, but I'm an Imperial 
> measures man.
>
> The further we can distance ourselves from the EU norms, the better chance 
> we have of retaining our independence. You'll be wanting euros next!
>
> Ian

I would infinitely prefer survival to independence. In the global scenario 
we have today a small island nation cannot survive independently (except 
possibly as a banana republic so perhaps climate change then would be on our 
side!)

"Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
news:M9NUl.27072$oi1.18816@newsfe30.ams2...
>
> "Ian F."  wrote in message 
> news:78hfo8F1m4lapU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
>> news:fCLUl.268019$Ec5.267951@newsfe27.ams2...
>>
>>> The only thing which really annoys me is the continuing use 
>>> of the 12 hour clock. Surely the completely unambiguous 24 
>>> hour clock could have been a 'Settings' option?
>>
>> This is the UK, not continental Europe!  ;-)
>>
>> Ian
>
> My inference from your comment is that you believe the UK to be 
> a land of
> confusion and ambiguity (and I would not disagree!).
>
> This planet rotates on its axis to create a complete day/night 
> cycle every
> 24 hours. The arbitrary definition of noon as 12:00pm and 
> midnight as
> 12:00am results in ludicrous ambiguities and confusion. To set 
> a 10 minute
> manual recording from 5 minutes before to 5 minutes after 
> 01:00am  the
> settings are:
>
> Start time 12:55am
> Stop time 01:05am
>
> Is 01:05 minus 12:55 really 00:10 ?? Confusing or what?
>
> If we could get this right then perhaps we should start on 
> properly
> eliminating pounds and ounces. Then all that remains is to 
> convert the
> Americans, but perhaps this is too difficult to contemplate!
>

Too many of our measures have been devalued and it is bad enough 
for shops to sell beer in 500 ml bottles (500 ml = 0.88 Imperial 
Pints).  However, American measures would be even worse (1 US 
fluid pint = 0.83 Imperial pints).

In the UK, we use the the 24-hour clock for bus and railway 
timetables.  It avoids confusion and for the same reason, I 
would welcome an option of using the 24-hour clock with the Sky 
EPG.

With regard to time, you have missed another crucial point.

a.m. stands for "Ante meridiem" - Latin words, which translate as 
"Before midday".
p.m. stands for "Post meridiem" - Latin words, which translate as 
"After midday".

It follows that Midday is neither a.m. nor p.m.   And by 
implication, it is ridiculous to refer to midnight as 12:00 a.m., 
because midnight occurs exactly 12 hours before AND exactly 12 
hours after midday.

Programme schedules, which show times as 12:00 a.m. or 12:00 p.m. 
are most confusing - and provide further proof of creeping 
Americanisation.  Such terms are almost as silly as describing 
American Budweiser as beer!

In <fCLUl.268019$Ec5.267951@newsfe27.ams2>, "Malcolm H"
 wrote:
>The only thing which really annoys me is the continuing use of the 12 hour 
>clock. Surely the completely unambiguous 24 hour clock could have been a 
>'Settings' option? 

Indeed. It should at least be an option, if not the default. I made the
same point ages ago when the first "sneak preview" screenshots were
posted.

"Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
news:M9NUl.27072$oi1.18816@newsfe30.ams2...
>
> "Ian F."  wrote in message 
> news:78hfo8F1m4lapU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
>> news:fCLUl.268019$Ec5.267951@newsfe27.ams2...
>>
>>> The only thing which really annoys me is the continuing use of the 12 
>>> hour clock. Surely the completely unambiguous 24 hour clock could have 
>>> been a 'Settings' option?
>>
>> This is the UK, not continental Europe!  ;-)
>>
>> Ian
>
> My inference from your comment is that you believe the UK to be a land of
> confusion and ambiguity (and I would not disagree!).
>
> This planet rotates on its axis to create a complete day/night cycle every
> 24 hours. The arbitrary definition of noon as 12:00pm and midnight as
> 12:00am results in ludicrous ambiguities and confusion. To set a 10 minute
> manual recording from 5 minutes before to 5 minutes after 01:00am  the
> settings are:
>
> Start time 12:55am
> Stop time 01:05am
>
> Is 01:05 minus 12:55 really 00:10 ?? Confusing or what?
>
> If we could get this right then perhaps we should start on properly
> eliminating pounds and ounces. Then all that remains is to convert the
> Americans, but perhaps this is too difficult to contemplate!
>


I run a "global data operation" and my policy is to use GMT (Winter / 
Universal Time) not BST for all time data even within the UK.

12H time gets even more daft once one takes into account the multiple time 
zones and that some objects will be moving across longitudes and latitudes!

Scientist/engineers like myself have no problem with 24H (GMT/UTC) but I see 
even people in IT depts quote stuff in local 12 hour time often without the 
AM/PM qualifier.

Mind you, if I quoted my SOP of UTC most ordinary people would think WTF as 
it happens.

"Ian F."  wrote in message 
news:78hfo8F1m4lapU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
> news:fCLUl.268019$Ec5.267951@newsfe27.ams2...
>
>> The only thing which really annoys me is the continuing use of the 12 
>> hour clock. Surely the completely unambiguous 24 hour clock could have 
>> been a 'Settings' option?
>
> This is the UK, not continental Europe!  ;-)
>
> Ian


Indeed, the UK: a collection of petty small nations (I refer to Dr Starkey's 
rants!). We're such a small country we don't even have multiple timezones.

Mike Henry <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >The only thing which really annoys me is the continuing use of the 12 hour 
: >clock. Surely the completely unambiguous 24 hour clock could have been a 
: >'Settings' option? 

: Indeed. It should at least be an option, if not the default. I made the
: same point ages ago when the first "sneak preview" screenshots were
: posted.

I can live with the 12/24 hour clock! I regard it as a minor issue compared 
to the Digibox's *OTHER* more serious issue with time and date!

I have some recordings dating back 2 years now and having a date format as 
"Mon 7th" (as it is is now) is just NOT helpful! Adding a MONTH would 
improve it dramatically - but how about simply going to 
"Monday 07/10/08 - or Monday 7th Oct 08" for example!

In <h00qkb$5e4$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, bkm@somewhere.ac.uk (Brian Mc) wrote:

>Mike Henry <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: >The only thing which really annoys me is the continuing use of the 12 hour 
>: >clock. Surely the completely unambiguous 24 hour clock could have been a 
>: >'Settings' option? 
>
>: Indeed. It should at least be an option, if not the default. I made the
>: same point ages ago when the first "sneak preview" screenshots were
>: posted.
>
>I can live with the 12/24 hour clock! I regard it as a minor issue compared 
>to the Digibox's *OTHER* more serious issue with time and date!

Yes. There are many, many minor issues. Most of them easily solved.

>I have some recordings dating back 2 years now and having a date format as 
>"Mon 7th" (as it is is now) is just NOT helpful! Adding a MONTH would 
>improve it dramatically - but how about simply going to 
>"Monday 07/10/08 - or Monday 7th Oct 08" for example! 

Eurgh, no. That's not even a Y2k-compliant date. Four digits for the year
or none at all, please!

Mike Henry <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >I have some recordings dating back 2 years now and having a date format as 
: >"Mon 7th" (as it is is now) is just NOT helpful! Adding a MONTH would 
: >improve it dramatically - but how about simply going to 
: >"Monday 07/10/08 - or Monday 7th Oct 08" for example! 

: Eurgh, no. That's not even a Y2k-compliant date. Four digits for the year
: or none at all, please!

I don't care! Anything would be better than the "Mon 7th" (what month?, 
what year?) that we now have!

"Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
news:M9NUl.27072$oi1.18816@newsfe30.ams2...
>
> If we could get this right then perhaps we should start on properly
> eliminating pounds and ounces. Then all that remains is to convert the
> Americans, but perhaps this is too difficult to contemplate!

I grew up with both imperial and metric being taught all the way through 
school from when I was 5. I have seen the gradual move over to metric... 
Celsius instead of Fahrenheit, CM instead of Inches, Grammes (Grams if 
you're not British) instead of Ounces, KG instead of Lbs, Metres instead of 
Feet, and the Americanisation of various things, such as 1,000,000,000 for a 
Billion, instead of 1,000,000,000,000.

In general, I find metric easier to use do to the more obvious and familiar 
connections to the physical world. 1 gramme of water is 1cm cubed, and takes 
1 calorie to raise its temperature by 1 Celsius. I find it easier to make a 
scale based on things I'm familiar with (e.g. with Celsius, freezing to 
boiling of water I'm familiar with and it has room temperature close to 25, 
hot tap water close to 50, but with Fahrenheit it starts at the temperature 
that a specific frigorific brine mixture stabilizes at - say what???).

But, what bugs me is the incomplete change to metric. Why are lengths of 
wood in B&Q sold in metres, but road signs still in miles? Why do we buy 
500g of mince in Tesco, but weigh ourselves in Stones and lbs? This I don't 
understand. Although there's an obvious expense to convert the entire road 
system to metric - I can't see that happening in my lifetime.

--
Vincent

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:32:25 +0100, "Vincent"
<nospam@reply.to.newsgroup> wrote:

>"Malcolm H"  wrote in message 
>news:M9NUl.27072$oi1.18816@newsfe30.ams2...
>>
>> If we could get this right then perhaps we should start on properly
>> eliminating pounds and ounces. Then all that remains is to convert the
>> Americans, but perhaps this is too difficult to contemplate!
>
>I grew up with both imperial and metric being taught all the way through 
>school from when I was 5. I have seen the gradual move over to metric... 
>Celsius instead of Fahrenheit, CM instead of Inches, Grammes (Grams if 
>you're not British) instead of Ounces, KG instead of Lbs, Metres instead of 
>Feet, and the Americanisation of various things, such as 1,000,000,000 for a 
>Billion, instead of 1,000,000,000,000.
>
>In general, I find metric easier to use do to the more obvious and familiar 
>connections to the physical world. 1 gramme of water is 1cm cubed, and takes 
>1 calorie to raise its temperature by 1 Celsius. I find it easier to make a 
>scale based on things I'm familiar with (e.g. with Celsius, freezing to 
>boiling of water I'm familiar with and it has room temperature close to 25, 
>hot tap water close to 50, but with Fahrenheit it starts at the temperature 
>that a specific frigorific brine mixture stabilizes at - say what???).
>
>But, what bugs me is the incomplete change to metric. Why are lengths of 
>wood in B&Q sold in metres, 
>
Sheet materials aren't, they're still 8' x 4'. The "metric feet" used
for timber were one of the first blatant methods of fiddling people
due to the increased amount of offcut caused.

>but road signs still in miles? 
>
As long as the speedos match, the units are in practice irrelevant.

>Why do we buy 
>500g of mince in Tesco, 
>
I don't, I buy quarter or half pounds of dead mammal in Sainsbury's or
Morrisons as AFAICT do most of the other people buying it "loose". A
lot of tinned goods are still sold in what are in practice 12 or 16oz
tins.

>but weigh ourselves in Stones and lbs? 
>
Because those are the units that babies are traditionally delivered to
their mothers in.

BTW you forgot to mention horses. ;-)

>This I don't 
>understand. Although there's an obvious expense to convert the entire road 
>system to metric - I can't see that happening in my lifetime.
>
Loose goods are still sold by the pound/pfund/livre in French and
German markets so possibly not in your grandchilden's lifetimes ?

In <h01i03$bpg$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, bkm@somewhere.ac.uk (Brian Mc) wrote:

>Mike Henry <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: >I have some recordings dating back 2 years now and having a date format as 
>: >"Mon 7th" (as it is is now) is just NOT helpful! Adding a MONTH would 
>: >improve it dramatically - but how about simply going to 
>: >"Monday 07/10/08 - or Monday 7th Oct 08" for example! 
>
>: Eurgh, no. That's not even a Y2k-compliant date. Four digits for the year
>: or none at all, please!
>
>I don't care! Anything would be better than the "Mon 7th" (what month?, 
>what year?) that we now have!

Take your pick from Jan, Apr or Jul last year! "20080107" - it takes
practice to read ISO dates but it's worth it because they sort in lists in
date order nicely :-)