Grass is greener?

[mentalis]

Apologies if someone has already started a thread like this, but is the grass greener with Sky, or does it just look that way?

After reading all the horror stories on here about the way Virgin TV is going and I thinking of jumping what appears to be a sinking ship.

I have the V+ with XL TV package (as well as Internet and phone but I may keep those - according to Samknows I would be almost better off with a dial up modem than ADSL as I live more than 2Km from the exchange).

I realise that I would lose VOD (which I don't watch so much anyway), the bigger storage of the V+, the three TV tuners and the fact the box is only rented, but it looks like I would get a nicer looking, probably much quieter, box, more HD channels, more SD channels (even though much is not worth watching) and become a customer of a company that has money to invest.

Also, I might be able to replace the old big white satellite wok/dish on the side of my house (was there when I bought the house - it's just for decoration) with a smaller Sky one.

My mum has Sky+ and has had no problems. Are there any horror stories with Sky?

[the-cable-guy]

Sky is miles better mate, when iv paid for Sky in the past i only had one problem a faulty Digibox & an engineer came out the next day to replace it. the only reason that i pay for VM is cuz i cant & dont have a land line. not all channels on Sky will be to everyones tastes but then everyone is different, but everyone is catered for.

[Hom3r]

Both have good point, both have bad.

I know people who have dumped one and gone to the other, stating that they will never go back.

[Shaun]

I found Sky to be 1000% better than VM for TV - BB, mmmmmm

[NO ONE]

Originally Posted by Shaun;

I found Sky to be 1000% better than VM for TV - BB, mmmmmm

i would go along with that and Sky b b is the best bette then any other Adsl provder inc bt and Orange

[the-cable-guy]

well once my subscription with VM is up im gonna get a second hand box subscription with Sky & then it'l be bye bye VM as far as tv is concerned yay lol

[Chrysalis]

for me the grass was greener but I went from analogue cable to sky digital and have never seen a digital cable tv service in action. But as I understand it sky have better interactive services like sky sports interactive and do have sky sport news. It depends if these things mean anything to you.

[the-cable-guy]

the picture quality on Sky is alot better then cable.

[brido bhoy]

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy

the picture quality on Sky is alot better then cable.

I have just moved to Sky HD from a V+ box and actually think the Virgin picture quality was much better on SD channels.

[the-cable-guy]

i was on about SD receivers not HD.

[WHISTLED]

the picture quality on Sky is alot better then cable.

See VM signal every day on crap TV's and have Sky at home on 3.5k plasma (SD box) and VM is much better. Fact

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy

i was on about SD receivers not HD.

Im sure the Samsung i had and the V+ i have now had the same picture quality on the non HD TV i have

[the-cable-guy]

i wouldnt know as iv never used Sky HD or V + i was on about Sky & V not Sky HD & V +

[basa]

I just moved from VM to Sky.

Picture quality on my old TV is the same. Reliability seems 150% better (no need to reboot every day). Functionality is about on par. Content is better (for us anyway). BB is waaaaaay better (I was on only 2Mb .. now on 8Mb and actually averages around 7Mb).

But the killer for us is cost. We were being screwed for around £82 per month, which for a better package from Sky is costing £52 per month !!

I now VM Retentions offered to match Sky's price but the TV line up and 8Mb BB were the decider for us.

[allsorts111]

As expected heavy rain and snow really do disrupt the otherwise perfect picture quality, there is more HD content choice, Sky+ works well and the Guide always works!
However, im now on the THIRD Sky box...