Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

I've been a ReplayTV person for nearly 2 year and I love it! I claim
personal responsibility for nearly a dozen people buying units. That said,
I have just ordered a new HP Media Center PC. I am hoping to use it just
like I use my Replay and maybe even ditch my replay and monthly fee. Has
anyone here made this migration? How does media center work vs Replay?
Does the guide and programming cost anything? Any tips or ideas?
Thanks!

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Media Center PCs are just that -- PCs. So when something goes awry, you
have a computer to fix. I'm a computer professional, and I can build and
fix PCs, but I don't want to troubleshoot my "digital VCR" every time it
starts acting up. I'm not talking major failures, but little things like
computer noise suddenly getting picked up on recordings. Or a certain codec
causing the recording app to suddenly bomb. and you miss the episodes for
the evening. (There's no Poopli with a media PC!) Anyway, this is why I
will be retiring my two media PCs and replacing them with RTVs before long.
(One PC will become a video server.) Learning all about digital video,
audio/video codecs, and building/maintaining media PCs has been great fun
over the past 1.5 years I've been doing it. But I'm ready to move to a
solution that requires less "maintenance."

There was an article in PC Magazine a while back comparing computer-based
solutions to DVRs as well as a short favorable review of ReplayTV. In
short, they said that the video quality of a true DVR is going to be better
than that of a PC with a video tuner/capture card. I would have to agree
with them. For some reason, the tuners on these cards are not as sharp as
that in a ReplayTV (or my digital cable box) for that matter. That $299
lifetime activation may seem like a lot, but when you can buy the RTV for
~$100, the whole thing comes to ~$400, for a complete solution. It's cheap
compared to what a media PC will cost you. And that media PC has to be
pretty powerful, so then you deal with trying to control fan noise,
potential heat issues if you don't cool properly, and if you happen to have
a traditional audio rack, finding a "desktop" style case instead of a
"tower."

My two cents,

Margaret


"DeadClintons" <deadclintons@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:10bdffnspe7ul37@corp.supernews.com...
> I've been a ReplayTV person for nearly 2 year and I love it! I claim
> personal responsibility for nearly a dozen people buying units. That
said,
> I have just ordered a new HP Media Center PC. I am hoping to use it just
> like I use my Replay and maybe even ditch my replay and monthly fee. Has
> anyone here made this migration? How does media center work vs Replay?
> Does the guide and programming cost anything? Any tips or ideas?
> Thanks!
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

I just ditched my self-built "media center PC" in favor of the ReplayTV. I
got the refurbished 5040. I had the RTV for about 4 weeks now and I prefer
it much more than the PC. The RTV is quieter, the quality of the recordings
is much better, and it is cheaper. I bought the lifetime activation. I can
justify the cost - the first VCR I bought was over $400.00.

Jeff

"DeadClintons" <deadclintons@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:10bdffnspe7ul37@corp.supernews.com...
> I've been a ReplayTV person for nearly 2 year and I love it! I claim
> personal responsibility for nearly a dozen people buying units. That
> said,
> I have just ordered a new HP Media Center PC. I am hoping to use it just
> like I use my Replay and maybe even ditch my replay and monthly fee. Has
> anyone here made this migration? How does media center work vs Replay?
> Does the guide and programming cost anything? Any tips or ideas?
> Thanks!
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 28 May 2004 07:50:43 -0400, "Margaret Wilson"
<twokatmew@nospam.msn.com> wrote:

>Media Center PCs are just that -- PCs. So when something goes awry, you
>have a computer to fix. I'm a computer professional, and I can build and
>fix PCs, but I don't want to troubleshoot my "digital VCR" every time it
>starts acting up.

Right. The dedicated DVR will be much more reliable here. A PC is
still good for processing the files afterward (such as for DVD
recording), but It's better to lef the DVR actually make the
recording. This is true even when the source is a VCR.

> I'm not talking major failures, but little things like
>computer noise suddenly getting picked up on recordings. Or a certain codec
>causing the recording app to suddenly bomb. and you miss the episodes for
>the evening. (There's no Poopli with a media PC!)

But there are newsgroups, a more complete source anyway.

>Anyway, this is why I
>will be retiring my two media PCs and replacing them with RTVs before long.
>(One PC will become a video server.) Learning all about digital video,
>audio/video codecs, and building/maintaining media PCs has been great fun
>over the past 1.5 years I've been doing it. But I'm ready to move to a
>solution that requires less "maintenance."
>

Yes.

>There was an article in PC Magazine a while back comparing computer-based
>solutions to DVRs as well as a short favorable review of ReplayTV. In
>short, they said that the video quality of a true DVR is going to be better
>than that of a PC with a video tuner/capture card. I would have to agree
>with them. For some reason, the tuners on these cards are not as sharp as
>that in a ReplayTV (or my digital cable box) for that matter.

And you won't get as good a recording from a PC tuner. Consider that
this (video digitizing) is a realtime process, anything else running
on the PC can interfere with it.

>that $299
>lifetime activation may seem like a lot, but when you can buy the RTV for
>~$100, the whole thing comes to ~$400, for a complete solution. It's cheap
>compared to what a media PC will cost you. And that media PC has to be
>pretty powerful, so then you deal with trying to control fan noise,
>potential heat issues if you don't cool properly, and if you happen to have
>a traditional audio rack, finding a "desktop" style case instead of a
>"tower."
>

I had a PC in my A/V cabinet once, it used a mini-tower case. I guess
you could set a larger one on the floor next to it (but the dedicated
DVR is still a better idea).

>My two cents,
>
>Margaret
>
>
>"DeadClintons" <deadclintons@notmail.com> wrote in message
>news:10bdffnspe7ul37@corp.supernews.com...
>> I've been a ReplayTV person for nearly 2 year and I love it! I claim
>> personal responsibility for nearly a dozen people buying units. That
>said,
>> I have just ordered a new HP Media Center PC. I am hoping to use it just
>> like I use my Replay and maybe even ditch my replay and monthly fee. Has
>> anyone here made this migration? How does media center work vs Replay?
>> Does the guide and programming cost anything? Any tips or ideas?
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Mark Lloyd
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 28 May 2004 07:29:20 -0500, "Jeff Rusch" <nospam@nospam@com>
wrote:

>I just ditched my self-built "media center PC" in favor of the ReplayTV.

I did the same thing (although ever earlier).

> I
>got the refurbished 5040. I had the RTV for about 4 weeks now and I prefer
>it much more than the PC. The RTV is quieter, the quality of the recordings
>is much better, and it is cheaper. I bought the lifetime activation. I can
>justify the cost - the first VCR I bought was over $400.00.
>
>Jeff
>
>"DeadClintons" <deadclintons@notmail.com> wrote in message
>news:10bdffnspe7ul37@corp.supernews.com...
>> I've been a ReplayTV person for nearly 2 year and I love it! I claim
>> personal responsibility for nearly a dozen people buying units. That
>> said,
>> I have just ordered a new HP Media Center PC. I am hoping to use it just
>> like I use my Replay and maybe even ditch my replay and monthly fee. Has
>> anyone here made this migration? How does media center work vs Replay?
>> Does the guide and programming cost anything? Any tips or ideas?
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>

--
Mark Lloyd
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

My first VCR set me back $1000 and the blank tapes were over $20 each.

>I just ditched my self-built "media center PC" in favor of the ReplayTV. I
>got the refurbished 5040. I had the RTV for about 4 weeks now and I prefer
>it much more than the PC. The RTV is quieter, the quality of the recordings
>is much better, and it is cheaper. I bought the lifetime activation. I can
>justify the cost - the first VCR I bought was over $400.00.
>
>Jeff
>
>"DeadClintons" <deadclintons@notmail.com> wrote in message
>news:10bdffnspe7ul37@corp.supernews.com...
>> I've been a ReplayTV person for nearly 2 year and I love it! I claim
>> personal responsibility for nearly a dozen people buying units. That
>> said,
>> I have just ordered a new HP Media Center PC. I am hoping to use it just
>> like I use my Replay and maybe even ditch my replay and monthly fee. Has
>> anyone here made this migration? How does media center work vs Replay?
>> Does the guide and programming cost anything? Any tips or ideas?
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:09:44 -0500, Mark Lloyd
<mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:

>Right. The dedicated DVR will be much more reliable here. A PC is
>still good for processing the files afterward (such as for DVD
>recording), but It's better to lef the DVR actually make the
>recording. This is true even when the source is a VCR.

Absolutely agreed!

>>There was an article in PC Magazine a while back comparing computer-based
>>solutions to DVRs as well as a short favorable review of ReplayTV. In
>>short, they said that the video quality of a true DVR is going to be better
>>than that of a PC with a video tuner/capture card. I would have to agree
>>with them. For some reason, the tuners on these cards are not as sharp as
>>that in a ReplayTV (or my digital cable box) for that matter.
>
>And you won't get as good a recording from a PC tuner. Consider that
>this (video digitizing) is a realtime process, anything else running
>on the PC can interfere with it.

That's an 'it depends' type of thing. A Media Center, by definition,
has an MPEG encoder on it. An AMD Athlon 1800+ with an MPEG2 card can
easily record TV at 'best' quality and have 97% of the CPU left over
(ie it uses only 3% of the CPU to record), so I'd argue it isn't a
significant source of CPU usage.

If you have only a *software* encoder (ie not a Media Center PC) then
sure, it can drag the CPU if you select 640x480 with a DivX codec; a
modern CPU can handle MPEG2 encoding and other things, though.

>>that $299
>>lifetime activation may seem like a lot, but when you can buy the RTV for
>>~$100, the whole thing comes to ~$400, for a complete solution. It's cheap
>>compared to what a media PC will cost you. And that media PC has to be
>>pretty powerful, so then you deal with trying to control fan noise,
>>potential heat issues if you don't cool properly, and if you happen to have
>>a traditional audio rack, finding a "desktop" style case instead of a
>>"tower."

Agreed - I don't see the original poster's logic - $450 or so for a
ReplayTV that does what you want, flawlessly, forever (or until it
breaks, which is typically years away) or a Media Center PC - double
or triple the price. Granted, it can do a lot more, but would you
really do that (the ... much more stuff) if it's attached to your TV
in the living room?

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:46:39 GMT, pcsales_one
<pcsales_one@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:09:44 -0500, Mark Lloyd
><mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
>>Right. The dedicated DVR will be much more reliable here. A PC is
>>still good for processing the files afterward (such as for DVD
>>recording), but It's better to lef the DVR actually make the
>>recording. This is true even when the source is a VCR.
>
>Absolutely agreed!
>
>>>There was an article in PC Magazine a while back comparing computer-based
>>>solutions to DVRs as well as a short favorable review of ReplayTV. In
>>>short, they said that the video quality of a true DVR is going to be better
>>>than that of a PC with a video tuner/capture card. I would have to agree
>>>with them. For some reason, the tuners on these cards are not as sharp as
>>>that in a ReplayTV (or my digital cable box) for that matter.
>>
>>And you won't get as good a recording from a PC tuner. Consider that
>>this (video digitizing) is a realtime process, anything else running
>>on the PC can interfere with it.
>
>That's an 'it depends' type of thing. A Media Center, by definition,
>has an MPEG encoder on it. An AMD Athlon 1800+ with an MPEG2 card can
>easily record TV at 'best' quality and have 97% of the CPU left over
>(ie it uses only 3% of the CPU to record), so I'd argue it isn't a
>significant source of CPU usage.
>

Those numbers will mean nothing when that little bit of usage occurs
at the wrong time, producing a glitch it the recording. A hardware
encoder will significantly reduce this possability, but not eliminate
it.

>If you have only a *software* encoder (ie not a Media Center PC) then
>sure, it can drag the CPU if you select 640x480 with a DivX codec; a
>modern CPU can handle MPEG2 encoding and other things, though.
>

If you don't have a hardware encoder, it would help some (but not
enough) to record to something that's not compressed and THEN encoding
in MPEG.

>>>that $299
>>>lifetime activation may seem like a lot, but when you can buy the RTV for
>>>~$100, the whole thing comes to ~$400, for a complete solution. It's cheap
>>>compared to what a media PC will cost you. And that media PC has to be
>>>pretty powerful, so then you deal with trying to control fan noise,
>>>potential heat issues if you don't cool properly, and if you happen to have
>>>a traditional audio rack, finding a "desktop" style case instead of a
>>>"tower."
>
>Agreed - I don't see the original poster's logic - $450 or so for a
>ReplayTV that does what you want, flawlessly, forever (or until it
>breaks, which is typically years away) or a Media Center PC - double
>or triple the price. Granted, it can do a lot more, but would you
>really do that (the ... much more stuff) if it's attached to your TV
>in the living room?
>

I'd rather have the recording done by a dedicated device (such as
Replay). It's better, but some people would rather have something
else.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:59:32 -0500, Mark Lloyd
<mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:46:39 GMT, pcsales_one
><pcsales_one@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:09:44 -0500, Mark Lloyd
>><mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Right. The dedicated DVR will be much more reliable here. A PC is
>>>still good for processing the files afterward (such as for DVD
>>>recording), but It's better to lef the DVR actually make the
>>>recording. This is true even when the source is a VCR.
>>
>>Absolutely agreed!
>>
>>>>There was an article in PC Magazine a while back comparing computer-based
>>>>solutions to DVRs as well as a short favorable review of ReplayTV. In
>>>>short, they said that the video quality of a true DVR is going to be better
>>>>than that of a PC with a video tuner/capture card. I would have to agree
>>>>with them. For some reason, the tuners on these cards are not as sharp as
>>>>that in a ReplayTV (or my digital cable box) for that matter.
>>>
>>>And you won't get as good a recording from a PC tuner. Consider that
>>>this (video digitizing) is a realtime process, anything else running
>>>on the PC can interfere with it.
>>
>>That's an 'it depends' type of thing. A Media Center, by definition,
>>has an MPEG encoder on it. An AMD Athlon 1800+ with an MPEG2 card can
>>easily record TV at 'best' quality and have 97% of the CPU left over
>>(ie it uses only 3% of the CPU to record), so I'd argue it isn't a
>>significant source of CPU usage.
>>
>
>Those numbers will mean nothing when that little bit of usage occurs
>at the wrong time, producing a glitch it the recording. A hardware
>encoder will significantly reduce this possability, but not eliminate
>it.

If you're encoding to show 50,000 people at the next Presidential
address, perhaps the potential for a glitch might matter, but from a
practical point of view, it's unlikely and immaterial enough that most
people will never notice. It works really, really well. It requires
800K-1Mb/s to write to disk - both that and the CPU requirements are
easily within the limits of even an old Celeron 700 system (and
older). Unless you're also doing very heavy CPU-usage programs (say,
encoding a divx for an hour or two) you're not likely to ever see a
problem. The writes are not as time-critical as I think you imagine
-- if a write is missed, it can be written in the next write (or more,
depending on caching) without any ill effect.

>>If you have only a *software* encoder (ie not a Media Center PC) then
>>sure, it can drag the CPU if you select 640x480 with a DivX codec; a
>>modern CPU can handle MPEG2 encoding and other things, though.
>>
>If you don't have a hardware encoder, it would help some (but not
>enough) to record to something that's not compressed and THEN encoding
>in MPEG.

Huh? We're talking about TV recording - it's not compressed, so
there's no uncompression step. Can you explain what you mean?

>>>>that $299
>>>>lifetime activation may seem like a lot, but when you can buy the RTV for
>>>>~$100, the whole thing comes to ~$400, for a complete solution. It's cheap
>>>>compared to what a media PC will cost you. And that media PC has to be
>>>>pretty powerful, so then you deal with trying to control fan noise,
>>>>potential heat issues if you don't cool properly, and if you happen to have
>>>>a traditional audio rack, finding a "desktop" style case instead of a
>>>>"tower."
>>
>>Agreed - I don't see the original poster's logic - $450 or so for a
>>ReplayTV that does what you want, flawlessly, forever (or until it
>>breaks, which is typically years away) or a Media Center PC - double
>>or triple the price. Granted, it can do a lot more, but would you
>>really do that (the ... much more stuff) if it's attached to your TV
>>in the living room?
>>
>
>I'd rather have the recording done by a dedicated device (such as
>Replay). It's better, but some people would rather have something
>else.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 04:05:46 GMT, pcsales_one
<pcsales_one@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:59:32 -0500, Mark Lloyd
><mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:46:39 GMT, pcsales_one
>><pcsales_one@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:09:44 -0500, Mark Lloyd
>>><mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Right. The dedicated DVR will be much more reliable here. A PC is
>>>>still good for processing the files afterward (such as for DVD
>>>>recording), but It's better to lef the DVR actually make the
>>>>recording. This is true even when the source is a VCR.
>>>
>>>Absolutely agreed!
>>>
>>>>>There was an article in PC Magazine a while back comparing computer-based
>>>>>solutions to DVRs as well as a short favorable review of ReplayTV. In
>>>>>short, they said that the video quality of a true DVR is going to be better
>>>>>than that of a PC with a video tuner/capture card. I would have to agree
>>>>>with them. For some reason, the tuners on these cards are not as sharp as
>>>>>that in a ReplayTV (or my digital cable box) for that matter.
>>>>
>>>>And you won't get as good a recording from a PC tuner. Consider that
>>>>this (video digitizing) is a realtime process, anything else running
>>>>on the PC can interfere with it.
>>>
>>>That's an 'it depends' type of thing. A Media Center, by definition,
>>>has an MPEG encoder on it. An AMD Athlon 1800+ with an MPEG2 card can
>>>easily record TV at 'best' quality and have 97% of the CPU left over
>>>(ie it uses only 3% of the CPU to record), so I'd argue it isn't a
>>>significant source of CPU usage.
>>>
>>
>>Those numbers will mean nothing when that little bit of usage occurs
>>at the wrong time, producing a glitch it the recording. A hardware
>>encoder will significantly reduce this possability, but not eliminate
>>it.
>
>If you're encoding to show 50,000 people at the next Presidential
>address, perhaps the potential for a glitch might matter, but from a
>practical point of view, it's unlikely and immaterial enough that most
>people will never notice.

Sounds like you're getting a small thing mixed up with a nonexistant
thing. The problem is small, but definately NOT absent..

> It works really, really well. It requires
>800K-1Mb/s to write to disk - both that and the CPU requirements are
>easily within the limits of even an old Celeron 700 system (and
>older).

Afaster CPU is still an advantage, for many things, including DVD
authoring.

> Unless you're also doing very heavy CPU-usage programs (say,
>encoding a divx for an hour or two) you're not likely to ever see a
>problem. The writes are not as time-critical as I think you imagine
>-- if a write is missed, it can be written in the next write (or more,
>depending on caching) without any ill effect.
>

For most things, not real-time processes such as analog recording.
This depends on a relativaly constant data rate (of course playback is
affected to, I tend to consider that less of a problem because it's
one time only, an error in recording effects every playback of that).

I didn't say the computer was unacceptable, I sadthe DVR was
PREFERABLE. The problem can be reduced (such as with a fast CPU and a
hardware encoder, but not eliminated (Windows just isn't that good for
real-time processes).

There may have been some misunderstanding here. It's mostly not the
MPEG encoding itself that would fail, but the analog to digital
conversion and the storage of the data that produces.

>>>If you have only a *software* encoder (ie not a Media Center PC) then
>>>sure, it can drag the CPU if you select 640x480 with a DivX codec; a
>>>modern CPU can handle MPEG2 encoding and other things, though.
>>>
>>If you don't have a hardware encoder, it would help some (but not
>>enough) to record to something that's not compressed and THEN encoding
>>in MPEG.
>
>Huh? We're talking about TV recording - it's not compressed, so
>there's no uncompression step. Can you explain what you mean?
>

I meant what I said, "not compressed" NOT "uncompressed" (the error is
usually the other way, when someone's using "un-" for "not" ). I meant
recording in a format that ISN'T COMPRESSED, at least not compressed
as much. "uncompressing" makes no sense here, since it hasn't been
compressed.

That's saving the CPU-intensive process (MPEG compression) for later
(on a system without a hardware compressor). I did that before I got
the networkable Replay 5xxx.

>>>>>that $299
>>>>>lifetime activation may seem like a lot, but when you can buy the RTV for
>>>>>~$100, the whole thing comes to ~$400, for a complete solution. It's cheap
>>>>>compared to what a media PC will cost you. And that media PC has to be
>>>>>pretty powerful, so then you deal with trying to control fan noise,
>>>>>potential heat issues if you don't cool properly, and if you happen to have
>>>>>a traditional audio rack, finding a "desktop" style case instead of a
>>>>>"tower."
>>>
>>>Agreed - I don't see the original poster's logic - $450 or so for a
>>>ReplayTV that does what you want, flawlessly, forever (or until it
>>>breaks, which is typically years away) or a Media Center PC - double
>>>or triple the price. Granted, it can do a lot more, but would you
>>>really do that (the ... much more stuff) if it's attached to your TV
>>>in the living room?
>>>
>>
>>I'd rather have the recording done by a dedicated device (such as
>>Replay). It's better, but some people would rather have something
>>else.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Wow- alot of thoughts on this...

Well, as the original poster, and having had a day of tinkering with my new
media center PC -I have some followup.
All of the recording and conflict features work very similar to the
ReplayTV. Very cool, very easy to use.
I'm no dummy either and I want to put my strategy into perspective....
I needed a new PC anyway. I am an IT person and PC literate
(hardware/software etc..) -
This unit is not sitting next to TV, the television work it will do is only
25% of it use to me.
I spent less than a grand for a P4 with all the whistles and bells that
seems to do all my Replay does for free.
In addition I get to work, browse the web, check emails, compose docs, edit
video, burn DVD/CDs, etc...
Those are alot of things that my replay doesnt do. That $400 vs $1000
doesnt look so good when you add all that up.
Of course I havent used it long enough to have to see all the glitches Marg.
mentions... I will report which, if any, of those I see.
The quality of the video is equal to that of my Replay.
Here are the potential pitfalls I see so far...
* Dealing with TV recording while I am working.
*This wacky new format MS has for the TV video files I am recording.. of
course, there is all sorts of content protection etc.. built in.
I would never have considered buying one of these INSTEAD of a Replay if I
didnt need a new PC anyway.
thanks all!

"DeadClintons" <deadclintons@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:10bdffnspe7ul37@corp.supernews.com...
> I've been a ReplayTV person for nearly 2 year and I love it! I claim
> personal responsibility for nearly a dozen people buying units. That
said,
> I have just ordered a new HP Media Center PC. I am hoping to use it just
> like I use my Replay and maybe even ditch my replay and monthly fee. Has
> anyone here made this migration? How does media center work vs Replay?
> Does the guide and programming cost anything? Any tips or ideas?
> Thanks!
>
>