If you are the sort of tv viewer who's scores a 9.8 or higher on the Rickie scale of channel surfing proclivity propensity (the scale is log based) and value, as I do, the ease by which channels can be scanned for entertaining programming at a speed that is only limited by your ability to perceive and quickly digest information (my own information processing rate, if I am not too unmodest, operates on the millisecond time scale), then I cannot in good conscience fail to warn you that Dish is your best alternative between the two, by a hugely large margin, irrespective of a difference in HD picture quality that is, for all practical, imperceptible to everyone but those who think they can tell a difference because they read about it in some obscure trade/aficionado organ.
YMMV
plug in a 55+" 1080p tv or so, sit at proper range, and compare a signal originally designed for 1080i broadcast at 19.2 mpbs mpeg2 that has been downressed and bitstarved to 1440x1020 (or worse) mpeg2 @ 5-6mbps or mpeg4 @ 5-6 mbps and ANYONE with vision in the 20/20 range (corrected or not) will notice INCREDIBLE difference in any* motion scene because the mpeg4 will suffer less macroblocking instances, and the macroblocks will be individually smaller, when they occur. the codec is simply that much more efficient. add in an extra 1-2 mpbs and almost all the macroblocking is gone entirely.
i'd like to inquire when you 1st got HD broadcasts? although i was medium-ish entryin 2003, i had a friend who had ota and cable since late 2001 and I have seen 1st hand the gradual decrease in hd quality as more and more compression/downressing/bitstarving have entered the marketplace to accomodate the 'quantity over quality' movement.
see
http://www.avsforum.com/a.../showthread.php?t=1008271 for examples of moving 18.x-19.2 mbps mpeg2 down to 12.x mbps mpeg2. then realize that at best, that 12.x mbps mpeg2 can be cut in half or so to mpeg4 and retain the same 'quality' i'd prefer to be closer to the 'above' rather than the 'below' on my screen in every instance. but maybe i'm just perceiving that horrible image degradation
ymwnv.
i will concede the hd-dvr guide is a bit slow, but other than that, i dont notice any difficulty in operating it. i will conced that i have read that the dish hd-dvr is generally rated more user friendly though.
whatevs
I happen to value the user interface over these other aspects of technical performance that are so important to you. Neither of us is right.
I simply felt compelled to point out this aspect of the Dish v Directv choice to our Colleague, Mr Hobbit.
And for my TV viewing habits, ease of channel surfing is way high up there in terms of user interface aspects that are important to me. It is not just how the remote itself functions, the differences between the two are almost trivial, though I still would rate the Dish remote superior to the Directv remote.
To be clear, what I find most attractive about the Dish user interface is how one can scan through current and coming programming on screen. And the HD pröñ channels.
I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference in quality on my equipment between the directv hd programming and the dish stuff....and if I could tell the difference, I doubt that would be as important to me as the channel surfing function. I don't have the best available technology for HD programming. I don't intend to pay for that until I'm sure I can pay for the future needs of my progeny, to whom I will each assure only one education, one car and one wedding. I've run the calculations, and highest end HD technology is incompatible with said objectives.
