|
||||||||
The Wonderful Humax Foxsat-HDR |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
|
The Wonderful Humax Foxsat-HDR
Just wondering if any of the Humax fan club can explain why my HDR just decided to reboot instead of recording Primeval? Not the first time this has occurred with an ITV 1 HD recording. Strange that certain members describe this box as having "rock-solid" firmware
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: kings lynn,norfolk
Posts: 1,410
|
Quote:
Just wondering if any of the Humax fan club can explain why my HDR just decided to reboot instead of recording Primeval? Not the first time this has occurred with an ITV 1 HD recording. Strange that certain members describe this box as having "rock-solid" firmware
![]() However I am happy to say that Primeval is currently recording for me on my(to quote you) on my wonderful Foxsat HDR,as it does every week !! |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants (New Forest)
Posts: 1,665
|
Oddly coincidental I've had a couple of Midsomers fail to record, but as I was not there have no idea whether a reboot was the cause. I don't stand over the box to know, so, Badvok, how are you sure it was a reboot?
Just thinking that the only rock solid firmware ( very) is likely to be a stone ( or brick).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
I think the firmware is almost rock solid - as far as crashes/reboots are concerned. However, I have had somewhere around 8 reboots in the 26 months I've had the device. (Never had a lockup, though.) There does not seem to be anything in common between these. In a couple of cases I was simply watching a recording. Nothing recording, starting to record, finishing recording, waiting to record and no buttons pressed. And the programme had been playing running for some time. When the box rebooted it was possible to FF to just before the failure and watch so it was nothing odd about the recording. Quote:
Originally Posted by goggled
Oddly coincidental I've had a couple of Midsomers fail to record ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sunny France (sometimes)
Posts: 1,019
|
A spontaneous reboot as described is most likely to be the result of a power fluctuation, either on the mains or due to some problem with the box's internal PSU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Worcester
Posts: 4,185
|
I've had my box from within the month they first went on sale and on sunday I witnessed a reboot as top gear was triggered to start recording last sunday. Fortunately I was there to watch the programme as it rebooteded.
One reboot in all that time is pretty solid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,537
|
Strange! My Foxsat rebooted too last Sunday as Top Gear was due to start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 103
|
I also have had the HDR reboot when it was just about to record a program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,918
|
Topgear. Primeval, Midsomer Murders......
Well I think I can spot the conection there. A bunch a absolute radge programmes. Obviously the Hummy has a built in 'taste' feature. Only joking, honest (well about TG and Primeval anyway). Mine has never rebooted in over 2 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,537
|
But it gives lie to the theory that it is always down to a power supply problem. Bad coding of the firmware leading to it not handling broadcast stream errors very gracefully in all circumstances is more likely. The Koreans are not very good at expecting the unexpected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
But it gives lie to the theory that it is always down to a power supply problem.
Quote:
Bad coding of the firmware leading to it not handling broadcast stream errors very gracefully in all circumstances is more likely. The Koreans are not very good at expecting the unexpected.
Yes but when it has happened to me whilst replaying a recording (no other events) I've always gone to just before it crashed and it's played perfectly.BTW, the Humax is not a micro-programmed device so the controlling program, running under a Linux like OS, is software, not firmware. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,537
|
The code is not loaded from disk but is stored in non-volatile memory so it is firmware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
The code is not loaded from disk but is stored in non-volatile memory so it is firmware.
Even so, all that means is that it's using some non volatile memory as an SSD from which to load the OS and software. If you define that that as firmware then the entire Windows system and everything it runs on my main system is 'firmware'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
Really? That is a very odd arrangement for a device like the Foxsat - although I suppose it would make some sense to build it like the non HDR which doesn't have a disk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
Why is it odd, it's the standard arrangement for pvr's, without this you could not simply stick in a new blank hdd and it will continue to function. Try doing that with your primary boot drive in Windows
![]() What I really meant was odd was that it would be odd to have the software running in non volatile - with an overall software architecture as complex as a PVR. As I said, in reality, the non-volatile is just an SSD from which the device boots so that it corresponds to the SSD in my system. All the things that the Foxsat stores on the HD (photo's, music and video) are, similarly, stored on a 'real' hard drive on my system. These terms do tend to drift with time but I'd resist using 'firmware' for software that includes a Linux like OS and has to go through a 30 second boot process to start. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 103
|
Quote:
BTW, the Humax is not a micro-programmed device so the controlling program, running under a Linux like OS, is software, not firmware.
Only the set top box functions are custom software (a monolithic, multithreaded program called "settop"). |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
It's not Linux-like, it is Linux. Linux is the kernel.
Given that Linux is about as 'Linux like' as you can get I thought that would keep me safe from the pedants (just because I am one doesn't mean I don't fear others. ).Seems I failed! |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,537
|
As a pedant you should be chiding all these people and organisations who disagree with what you think firmware is:-
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=5...Q&ved=0CBYQkAE |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
As a pedant you should be chiding all these people and organisations who disagree with what you think firmware is:-
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=5...Q&ved=0CBYQkAE ![]() Not to beat about the bush it is absurd to call Linux and a large program running under it 'firmware' because if you are going to refer to a full scale OS and a multi-threaded, multi-purpose application running under it 'firmware' then the term becomes meaningless - simply a synonym for 'software'. If you go through the definitions in the link you provided you'll notice that the common factor in virtually all of them is that the software actually runs in the(P)ROM. It is the fact that a device boots and loads it's program into RAM to execute it that is where the distinction really lies. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Perchede, France
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
Actually, most of those don't disagree with me at all.
![]() Not to beat about the bush it is absurd to call Linux and a large program running under it 'firmware' because if you are going to refer to a full scale OS and a multi-threaded, multi-purpose application running under it 'firmware' then the term becomes meaningless - simply a synonym for 'software'. If you go through the definitions in the link you provided you'll notice that the common factor in virtually all of them is that the software actually runs in the(P)ROM. It is the fact that a device boots and loads it's program into RAM to execute it that is where the distinction really lies. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 821
|
Quote:
I agree with you - the loader is the firmware, Linux is middleware, and settop is a application.
Personally I'd say it is firmware - according to wiki "firmware is a term often used to denote the fixed, usually rather small, programs and/or data structures that internally control various electronic devices." by modern day comparisons it is small and it is fixed. Things move on and get more complex, so does firmware. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
Its not middleware - middleware implies it is only facilitating communications between several independent systems.
Personally I'd say it is firmware - according to wiki "firmware is a term often used to denote the fixed, usually rather small, programs and/or data structures that internally control various electronic devices." by modern day comparisons it is small and it is fixed. Things move on and get more complex, so does firmware. The problem with using a useful term like 'firmware' to cover an ever wider gamut of software configurations is that it loses all meaning. I know several people who have laptops and desktops that only ever run a browser and email client. If you can can call the software in a complex device like a PVR 'firmware' there would be no conceivable reason not to call the software in these 'firmware'. And where does it end? They add some photo-processing and video playback. Still firmware? It's possible that that is, indeed, the way things will go and 'firmware' will become nothing more than a synonym for 'software'. But that will be a pity as it will mean that yet another useful term has lost its usefulness through general ignorance. Far better, I would have thought, to reserve the term 'firmware' for what it has always meant: Software that runs in (P)ROM and does not need to be loaded into RAM to execute. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Perchede, France
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
Its not middleware - middleware implies it is only facilitating communications between several independent systems.
Personally I'd say it is firmware - according to wiki "firmware is a term often used to denote the fixed, usually rather small, programs and/or data structures that internally control various electronic devices." by modern day comparisons it is small and it is fixed. Things move on and get more complex, so does firmware. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,537
|
Quote:
Its not middleware - middleware implies it is only facilitating communications between several independent systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
Middleware were I worked was used to describe the layer of software that provided application level access to OS services not normally supported.
How many people remember when a 'mainframe' referred to the processor, memory and controllers - the electronics that were in the main framework - and the opposite of 'mainframe' was 'peripheral'. Then DEC started making mini's that were often used as multiplexors for terminals - as such they were peripherals. Then people started using the mini's as standalone computers but retained the term 'mainframe' as a sort of opposite of mini. And thus the word 'mainframe' segued from one meaning to a quite different one. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:57.



