<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Kevin Kuphal wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid440F500B.4050907@dls.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dag Nygren wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> And with 250GB SATA drives going
for less than $90 at times, all it takes is a few less cups of Starbucks
for many people to afford ample additional space :)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">It is not always that easy. My tiny Shuttle only has room for one
drive and I am already at 300G. Upgrading that starts being
a bit expensive....
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Every choice has a tradeoff. There's always USB or firewire external or
even network attached storage.
</pre>
</blockquote>
While I understand that disk storage is fairly inexpensive, why not
offer a choice that does not cost money. Earlier in this thread,
someone suggested having different options for livetv recordings, where
the user could choose to limit the size of livetv (thus having livetv
break into smaller parts which would auto expire, regardless of the
actual length of the program) or the user could choose to leave it as
is according to the programming guide. I know that someone else
responded negatively, but that response was based on a misunderstanding
of the suggestion (thinking that the suggestion would hold true for
everyone, as opposed to being an individual choice). I have no idea
what it would take to implement such an option, or if it is even
possible. That choice, though, would allow for something other than
one extreme (no livetv recording of material in the buffer) or the
other extreme (must record livetv to whatever extent the programming
guide dictates), and the individual user would then have control over
the extent of livetv (as opposed to having to accept all or nothing).<br>
<br>
mark<br>
</body>
</html>