The FOxsat PVR basically works but there are a lot of niggling issues with it. I do suspect that many paid the high price for the FOXSAT PVR based on the reasonable support for the other PVR's they produced. Sadly that confidence in FOXSAT was misplace. It is not a cheap product and it would not be unreasonable to exepect software support whilst the product is in production, instead they have largely washed there hands of it.

If support on this model has been poor it's hardly likely to be any better on any new model.

Don't really see the fascination with transferring films via USB. I'm more interested in it's functionality as a PVR and reliability of recordings.

You can compare them any way you wish.

I know it distresses you greatly when people point out that Sky can be extraordinarily poor value for money but, sadly for you and others of your ilk, that's just the way it is.

LOL, I saw the 'Bob' at the start of the user name out of the corner of my eye and assumed it was Bob_Cat. Then I read the text and thought, "This is refreshing honesty from a Humax employee".

Humax have really shot themselves in the foot with this product.

If anyone comes out with any of that "premium price for a premium product" nonsense in the future there is likely to be a resounding chorus of 'oh no it's not'.

A pity because if they had brought out an update within 3-4 months just addressing the actual bugs and major idiocies in the UI the vast majority would have been very happy.

As it is we are supposed (by those who seem to have a peculiarly sycophantic attitude to Humax) to ge grateful that we have something that almost works - or works most of the time.

Hmm you guys are tough critics.

I've used Sky+, TopUpTV and Freesat through a Foxsat HDR. Of the three the HDR is miles better than the others. Not perfect, but having gone through the pain of TopUpTV for the last year or so, believe me the HDR is a breath of fresh air.

The way I look at this is a bit like I look at mobile phones. With the exception of a few high end phones/PDAs most cannot be seriously upgraded and if they are it is mainly minor bug-fixes. You learn to live with their foibles and I do not expect a bug-fix unless the thing is a brick.

Yes the HDR has some bugs, but in several months of using it, I have experienced few issues. Mainly the "bugs" are in fact clunkiness with the interface, e.g. deleting things is a bit awkward. Whilst I would like to see this fixed it is not a massive issue. So I have to press a button or two extra. Big deal.

Coming back to TopUpTV - it is probably an unfair comparison but that is a seriously flawed box with bugs-a-plenty. The recording failure rate, reboots and general bugs are so common you come to expect it to have a problem every time you use it.

My experiences with Sky+ were also painful.

Now I admit its a weak argument that the HDR is not as crap as the crappiest box out there. However the point I guess I am trying to make is that I do not believe there are any good quality stable PVRs with interfaces that have no issues.

Until there is, for me the HDR is the best of them and whilst not perfect delivers most of the goodies.

How can you possibly know whether the great majority are happy or not.

Speaking personally I am very happy with my hdr and suspect so are the great majority. Satisfied users don't very often bother frequenting forums. Since last november out of hundreds of recordings only a handfull have failed and 99% of these were a screw up by the broadcaster.

Well, I suspect it's a reasonable assumption that already a majority are happy.

So it also seems reasonable that if they'd actually fixed the bugs (losing ITV HD after a rescan and failing to recover after a power fail) and a few of the most gross UI defects, then an even bigger majority would be happy.

Yes, it's just a guess but, as you mention below, satisfied users often don't post so it seems a perfectly reasonable assumption.


See, you make the same basic assumption I do.


Same here.

Apart from the HD/rescan and power fail bugs, even the ones where there's doubt it's probably down to the daft 'unknown reason' (which, as any programmer will tell you is nonsensical - the software must know why it did not attempt to record).

?????

As far as I'm aware, I didn't 'tell' anyone to do anything. It was just a suggestion that might help those who find power failures to be a problem for them. Calm down.

You implicitly claimed that the power fail problem was not an issue.

Your further comment of: "If recording tv programmes is that important to you", apart from being just a bit ditzy in a forum devoted to a device that records tv programmes , taken with your denial that it is an issue smacks of condescension but if you were just trying to be helpful ...


LOL, you may get irate of forum posts but I can't be bothered.

Perhaps you'd like to chill a little yourself?

It is resonable to say there are no single critical failing with the FOXSAT but the accumulation of bugs & issues do total upto to a critical issue


Given the number of significant issue it would not be unreasonable that by this time they had issued a bug fix patch to address most of them. Sadly they seem to have little interest in going so.

It leaves open the question as to just how commited to the PVR market Humax are.

They are the one company willing to invest in a Freesat PVR upfront, thats fairly committed.

This has got to be a troll !

Brilliant.

I don't doubt they are committed to the PVR market, it's their commitment to the current product that is now becoming questionable.

I was happy to be an early adopter on the basis of Humax's reputation.

Even though I am, in the main, very happy with the Foxsat, I would never be an early adopter of one of their products again.

I agree I can be quite Ditzy!

Also, I think my post could also have been read as a somewhat veiled criticism of the quality of television, although that wasn't in my thoughts at the time of posting.

I can be snappish!

Since the Humax PVR was launched, the new Sky EPG has been released. Though it pains me to have to say it, I consider the new Sky interface, and overall user experience, well ahead of the Humax. When you factor in the various issues with the Humax, I've all but given up on it. I'll be very slow to buy, or recommend, any Humax product again.

Same here, watch then delete is my motto. Nothing stays on my disk longer than a week and I don't watch repeats. Some people do like to archive stuff though - I'm just not sure if/when they ever watch most of it. I sometimes think maybe it's the digital equivalent of hording

Ah but it's not about value for money. It's about paying to get access to something. A box of Belgian chocolates or a decent bottle of wine is poor value for money but there's nothing wrong in paying the extra

Not that I'd put Sky in the same bracket but it does offer things that aren't available any other way. It's one of life's little luxuries and just something that some of us choose to pay for. No harm in that

Sad to say I learned this with one of their earlier models. I wasn't an early adopter of the 9200T DTT PVR but after over two years I'm still having to maintain a pen and paper copy of the timer list in order to recreate timers that spontaneously vanish.

A lot of Humax PVR owners find the standard built-in HDD inadequate to their requirements and have either replaced the HDD with a larger capacity unit or use an external USB HDD to (temporarily) archive recordings. As such, having the possibility of a 10x faster transfer speed would be a major benefit. Transfering a movie in 38 seconds instead of nearly 7 minutes makes a heck of a difference. It you have never found the need for more than the capacity of the HDD as is then I can understand you don't see the fascination but others do.

But surely (and stop calling me Shirley) it should be worth considering - how many PVR owners haven't already upgraded their machines with higher capacity HDDs (negating their guarantees at the same time) simply because Humax decided to only provide a standard 320 GB HDD - most of your customers would have been quite willing to pay a few pounds extra for the option of a larger HDD (and thereby keep their guarantee). So why not give your future customers at least the option of USB 3.0 ?

But for some people it is about value for money.

I can afford Sky and I dare say I would find things there to watch but as my current problem is not having the time to watch what's available for nothing the value would be abysmal.

It would be like a pointless exercise to get extra channels.


I didn't say there was any harm in it.

Nigel was trying to dictate how people made a comparison but how they do that is up to them.

I started this thread based on the exciting and positive prospects of the new USB 3.0 technology and what it could mean for file transfer and archiving. Unfortunately it seems to have deteriorated into a general mud-slinging match against Humax.

You are on digital spy, remember.

But just think.

Had they brought out a timely update to fix the bugs there would be far fewer people with mud to sling.

The phrase: 'own worst enemy' comes to mind.