Hi, I read every single one of your suggestions, and decided that it'd
probably be worth it to ditch the Apex and RCA options that were previously
recommended to me and spend $100-150 more on a better quality TV. After
doing some research and looking at some of your suggestions, I've
tentatively narrowed it down to 3 models:

Sony KV27FS100
Toshiba 27AF43
Panasonic CT27SL13

Any additional thoughts on the above models are appreciated. Also, I'd
appreciate some thoughts on whether spending a bit extra for a 27" TV with
the PIP option is worth it and some suggestions for a reasonably priced 27"
PIP TV. And for the guy who suggested I get that 32" Toshiba TV in the same
price range, my thinking is that, as a single, apartment dweller who moves
around a bit, a 27" TV would be a bit easier than a 32" for a single person
to manuever around (in terms of a 27" being a bit lighter and easier to grip
and carry since they are a bit smaller than 32" TVs).

Julie...

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:15:00 -0500, "Jose Luiz"
wrote:


Hi, I read every single one of your suggestions, and decided that it'd
probably be worth it to ditch the Apex and RCA options that were previously
recommended to me and spend $100-150 more on a better quality TV. After
doing some research and looking at some of your suggestions, I've
tentatively narrowed it down to 3 models:

Sony KV27FS100
Toshiba 27AF43
Panasonic CT27SL13

Any additional thoughts on the above models are appreciated. Also, I'd
appreciate some thoughts on whether spending a bit extra for a 27" TV with
the PIP option is worth it and some suggestions for a reasonably priced 27"
PIP TV. And for the guy who suggested I get that 32" Toshiba TV in the same
price range, my thinking is that, as a single, apartment dweller who moves
around a bit, a 27" TV would be a bit easier than a 32" for a single person
to manuever around (in terms of a 27" being a bit lighter and easier to grip
and carry since they are a bit smaller than 32" TVs).

That is certainly a consideration, which is why I mentioned that you
might not be interested in a 32 inch TV. They are pretty large and
heavy.

One thing to consider is that HDTV is going to be the only option for
broadcast in about 3 years (there will still be some workarounds and
your current TV won't be totally obsolete). So, do you really want to
drop a load of money into a TV that won't be able to take advantage of
the current standard? You're welcome to spend up to $500 on a 27 inch
TV, but I'm not sure if it's money well-spent (but only *you* can
decide that).

If you want to spend that much money, then you might want to listen to
what Mr. Oberlander said about Panasonic. I've never seen the flat
screen Toshiba but it looks pretty cool but, like I said, the picture
quality on my lower-tiered 32 inch TV (not totally flat-screened), is
quite good. If you're going to go Toshiba, check at Target - they
might be having a sale. My model:

http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html...sin=B000093URE

lists for the same as the flat screen 27 inch, but I got it for only
$350 in-store a few months ago. You might find the same sort of price
differential.

I watch TV in a pretty small room and, size notwithstanding, I would
never go back to the 27 in. TV that I left behind, even to get a flat
screen. The difference in the picture is that great (and of course,
I'd *love* to have a really large screen TV, but I'm waiting for the
prices to equalize in the HD arena).

Just the random thoughts from someone who has bought a TV in the past
6 months or so.

One thing to consider is that HDTV is going to be the only option for
broadcast in about 3 years (there will still be some workarounds and
your current TV won't be totally obsolete). So, do you really want to
drop a load of money into a TV that won't be able to take advantage of
the current standard? You're welcome to spend up to $500 on a 27 inch
TV, but I'm not sure if it's money well-spent (but only *you* can
decide that).

You know...it's funny. People said the same thing 5 years ago, and it never
happened, and probably won't happen for at least another 5 years, and here
is why. Television production is still learning how to deal with the whole
HD thing. Many people don't want to switch over. Even more than that, the
general public doesn't want to switch over. Why? Because the TV's are too
damn expensive. The major networks are expecting people to buy the HDTV's
now, and then do all of their shows in HD. The problem is, most people can't
justify spending money on an HDTV, when there are only a few shows shot on
HD, and rightfully so. I think getting an HDTV at this point is not a good
idea. If HDTV does become the standard in the near future, the prices of the
HD capable televisions will come down to a reasonable price. THAT will be
the time to get one. There is no way they can be just as expensive then as
they are now if everyone is going to have to switch over.


My question is, what is going to happen to all of the TV's that are out
there right now that will be obsolete if HD does become the standard, and
these TV's are no longer good. All the dumpsters in America will be full of
TV's...

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:49:38 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

One thing to consider is that HDTV is going to be the only option for
broadcast in about 3 years (there will still be some workarounds and
your current TV won't be totally obsolete). So, do you really want to
drop a load of money into a TV that won't be able to take advantage of
the current standard? You're welcome to spend up to $500 on a 27 inch
TV, but I'm not sure if it's money well-spent (but only *you* can
decide that).

You know...it's funny. People said the same thing 5 years ago, and it never
happened, and probably won't happen for at least another 5 years, and here
is why. Television production is still learning how to deal with the whole
HD thing.

Well, they are mandated to be 100% compliant by the year 2006. That's
only 3 years away.

Many people don't want to switch over. Even more than that, the
general public doesn't want to switch over. Why? Because the TV's are too
damn expensive.

That is already changing. prices will continue to fall as the
percentage of HD TVs sold rise against conventional TVs. You're
already seeing this sort of price pressure. That's why *I'm* waiting
another couple of years. Theoretically, HD TVs shouldn't be too much
more expensive than conventional TVs are now (excluding factors like
inflation, of course).

The major networks are expecting people to buy the HDTV's
now, and then do all of their shows in HD. The problem is, most people can't
justify spending money on an HDTV, when there are only a few shows shot on
HD, and rightfully so. I think getting an HDTV at this point is not a good
idea.

We're in agreement there. For others with more expansive budgets, it
probably doesn't matter that much.

If HDTV does become the standard in the near future, the prices of the
HD capable televisions will come down to a reasonable price. THAT will be
the time to get one.

Agreed, as i pointed out.

There is no way they can be just as expensive then as they are now if
everyone is going to have to switch over.

My question is, what is going to happen to all of the TV's that are out
there right now that will be obsolete if HD does become the standard, and
these TV's are no longer good. All the dumpsters in America will be full of
TV's...

Well, they aren't going to be made totally obsolete. Broadcasts after
2006 will be required to be available 100% in digital, but AFAIK, NTSC
will be simulcast until 2010. After 2010, those signals go away
completely. Even so, there should be converters available to allow
non-HD televisions to at least display HD signals, if not to the HD
standard.

Dave Weil wrote:


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:49:38 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

One thing to consider is that HDTV is going to be the only option for
broadcast in about 3 years (there will still be some workarounds and
your current TV won't be totally obsolete). So, do you really want to
drop a load of money into a TV that won't be able to take advantage of
the current standard? You're welcome to spend up to $500 on a 27 inch
TV, but I'm not sure if it's money well-spent (but only *you* can
decide that).

You know...it's funny. People said the same thing 5 years ago, and it never
happened, and probably won't happen for at least another 5 years, and here
is why. Television production is still learning how to deal with the whole
HD thing.

Well, they are mandated to be 100% compliant by the year 2006. That's
only 3 years away.

Many people don't want to switch over. Even more than that, the
general public doesn't want to switch over. Why? Because the TV's are too
damn expensive.

That is already changing. prices will continue to fall as the
percentage of HD TVs sold rise against conventional TVs. You're
already seeing this sort of price pressure. That's why *I'm* waiting
another couple of years. Theoretically, HD TVs shouldn't be too much
more expensive than conventional TVs are now (excluding factors like
inflation, of course).

The major networks are expecting people to buy the HDTV's
now, and then do all of their shows in HD. The problem is, most people can't
justify spending money on an HDTV, when there are only a few shows shot on
HD, and rightfully so. I think getting an HDTV at this point is not a good
idea.

We're in agreement there. For others with more expansive budgets, it
probably doesn't matter that much.

If HDTV does become the standard in the near future, the prices of the
HD capable televisions will come down to a reasonable price. THAT will be
the time to get one.

Agreed, as i pointed out.

There is no way they can be just as expensive then as they are now if
everyone is going to have to switch over.

My question is, what is going to happen to all of the TV's that are out
there right now that will be obsolete if HD does become the standard, and
these TV's are no longer good. All the dumpsters in America will be full of
TV's...

Well, they aren't going to be made totally obsolete. Broadcasts after
2006 will be required to be available 100% in digital, but AFAIK, NTSC
will be simulcast until 2010. After 2010, those signals go away
completely. Even so, there should be converters available to allow
non-HD televisions to at least display HD signals, if not to the HD
standard.









In at least one area, that of rear projection TV sets, prices, even for
"HD-ready" sets have come down pretty significantly. My rear projection set, a
Mitsubishi, that I had owned for about 12 years, finally died, and rather than
foot a very expensive repair bill, I decided to look around for a replacement.
For over $ 500 less than what I had paid for a 50" Mitsubishi TV 12 years ago,
I was able to get a 55" HD-ready Mitsubishi TV today. If/when there are enough
HD broadcasts to make this important, the cost of an HD-converter is about $
200 - 300.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Dave Weil wrote:

In at least one area, that of rear projection TV sets, prices, even for
"HD-ready" sets have come down pretty significantly. My rear projection
set, a
Mitsubishi, that I had owned for about 12 years, finally died, and rather
than
foot a very expensive repair bill, I decided to look around for a
replacement.
For over $ 500 less than what I had paid for a 50" Mitsubishi TV 12
years ago,
I was able to get a 55" HD-ready Mitsubishi TV today. If/when there are
enough
HD broadcasts to make this important, the cost of an HD-converter is
about $
200 - 300.

http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...ex.asp?layout=
document&doc_id=129898&spacedesc=news

Wait another year and they will be even cheaper and perhaps even
better. DLP kicks butt over classic projection.
If LCOS is even better, that's great.
Still I was noticing our cable company (Cox) is
now listing the HD broadcasts on the TV-Guide channel and
there wasn't nearly enough there to warrant a new TV IMO.
Many hours listed only one program. Sometimes 2.

I'm finding the commercial wars between Cox and ESPN
to be a real hoot. I think Cox is posturing for their TBA decision
to move ESPN to digital service forcing all the ESPN viewers
to upgrade. Personally, TV is slowly losing my interest
to the point I'm not sure it's worth $50 or 60 a month.

ScottW

In article . net,
says...

My question is, what is going to happen to all of the TV's that are out
there right now that will be obsolete if HD does become the standard, and
these TV's are no longer good. All the dumpsters in America will be full of
TV's...

Someone will sell a box to convert HDTV signals to regular tv signals.
-------------
Alex

Jose

I bought BOTH models recently, the Sony for the living room and the Toshiba
for a second set downstairs.

The Sony has an outstanding picture, although the geometry is far from
perfect. This is only noticeable when I am watching channels with text
boxes.

The Toshiba is not better on the geometry. And the sharpness, vividness,
and colour are no match for the KV27FS100. I got a helluva deal on it at my
local Sam's Club, but I took it back tonight for a refund. In fairness, I
doubt this set is aligned properly but I don't want to go through the hassle
of trying to get it serviced.

I would go for the Sony even if you have to pay $210 (Canadian) more than
for the Toshiba as I did

Orig

"Jose Luiz" wrote in message
...

Hi, I read every single one of your suggestions, and decided that it'd
probably be worth it to ditch the Apex and RCA options that were
previously
recommended to me and spend $100-150 more on a better quality TV. After
doing some research and looking at some of your suggestions, I've
tentatively narrowed it down to 3 models:

Sony KV27FS100
Toshiba 27AF43
Panasonic CT27SL13

Any additional thoughts on the above models are appreciated. Also, I'd
appreciate some thoughts on whether spending a bit extra for a 27" TV with
the PIP option is worth it and some suggestions for a reasonably priced
27"
PIP TV. And for the guy who suggested I get that 32" Toshiba TV in the
same
price range, my thinking is that, as a single, apartment dweller who moves
around a bit, a 27" TV would be a bit easier than a 32" for a single
person
to manuever around (in terms of a 27" being a bit lighter and easier to
grip
and carry since they are a bit smaller than 32" TVs).

Julie...

We just bought the Toshiba 27AF53 unit and are very pleased. We had a
hard time finding the 53 series but after some searching we found it.
Nice unit.

In article ,
says...

Any additional thoughts on the above models are appreciated. Also, I'd
appreciate some thoughts on whether spending a bit extra for a 27" TV with
the PIP option is worth it and some suggestions for a reasonably priced 27"
PIP TV.

If you have cable with a scrambler box or satellite systems, PIP doesn't
work unless you get a special box or a second box. Not really worth it.
Also, you will probably find that after the first week or ownership, you
will not use the PIP feature.

And for the guy who suggested I get that 32" Toshiba TV in the same
price range, my thinking is that, as a single, apartment dweller who moves
around a bit, a 27" TV would be a bit easier than a 32" for a single person
to manuever around (in terms of a 27" being a bit lighter and easier to grip
and carry since they are a bit smaller than 32" TVs).

A 27" tv will weigh about 75lbs. Not really easy to move around solo.
A 32" tv weighs over 100 lbs, which requires two people to move around.
----------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:


n article ,
says...

Any additional thoughts on the above models are appreciated. Also, I'd
appreciate some thoughts on whether spending a bit extra for a 27" TV with
the PIP option is worth it and some suggestions for a reasonably priced 27"
PIP TV.

If you have cable with a scrambler box or satellite systems, PIP doesn't
work unless you get a special box or a second box. Not really worth it.
Also, you will probably find that after the first week or ownership, you
will not use the PIP feature.

And for the guy who suggested I get that 32" Toshiba TV in the same
price range, my thinking is that, as a single, apartment dweller who moves
around a bit, a 27" TV would be a bit easier than a 32" for a single person
to manuever around (in terms of a 27" being a bit lighter and easier to grip
and carry since they are a bit smaller than 32" TVs).

A 27" tv will weigh about 75lbs. Not really easy to move around solo.
A 32" tv weighs over 100 lbs, which requires two people to move around.
----------------
Alex









If there is not a significant difference in price, and the picture quality is
judged by the viewer to be equivalent, I would opt for the bigger set. Unless
he plans to do all his moving, incliuding preeumably heavy furnire by himself,
the need for a 2nd helper for this one extra piece (even if using professional
movers) is not likely to make a difference in overall moving cost.



Bruce J. Richman