I remember looking at the Valentine web site several years ago, and it looks pretty much the same as it did then. Same little car diagram, etc.
I'm in the commercial website business and they need to swap out that old material.... IMHO.
Printable View
I remember looking at the Valentine web site several years ago, and it looks pretty much the same as it did then. Same little car diagram, etc.
I'm in the commercial website business and they need to swap out that old material.... IMHO.
I remember seeing a V1 like 14 years ago....I saw a picture of a 3.872 today and got de-ja-vu. I guess a new website just wouldn't be their style?
rc
They like the "oldie but goodie look.";)
Agreed. :dontknow: Why change something that has been at the top of the RD industry for so long?Quote:
Originally Posted by v1user
It has changed slightly over the years ...
He used to have a rant on there against Craig Peterson which is gone now.
He used to have some stuff about how POP was useless and "lesser" detectors were stupid for implementing it ... that changed when V1 added it, LOL.
The site looks the same as it did in 1999. Same pictures of the "The ONLY Detector with TWO Antennas!" and "All-around-your-car protection"
Internet Archive Wayback Machine
I like it for its simplicity. The width of the page is even optimized for a 640x480 screen. :lol:
It would be nice to see it get a makeover, but I'd hate to see it get too out of hand. We were just comparing some stuff today and it makes a good example. GM's OnStar website is too old and its hard to find info and features. Ford's SYNC website is the opposite, its new, colorfull and complex, so complex and colorful I can't find much for information so I'd hate to see VR get too carried away (but some actual videos would be nice).
Simplicity ftw :cool:
Who cares, my V1 looks great on my windshield. I never noticed it when I bought TWO of them.