In a recent thread the subject of the relevant importance of fixing the bugs/odd features of the Humax PVR versus getting LAN functionality going came up.

It would be interesting to see what the split of opinions is here.

Could we have a poll along the lines:

What would you like Humax to do first:

1) Fix the known bugs and UI quirks.
2) Get LAN functionality working.

(I hope this is the correct way to ask for a poll).

2) Get LAN functionality working.

i think they should get this up and running now, i have had no problem with the box as such,

That's a good idea. It might also be interesting to get some idea as to how many people would actually use LAN functionality and how they think they would use it. Questions along the following lines might be useful.

Is your freesat box installed close enough to your router to easily connect to it?

If your HDR is not close to your router, do you intend doing the work needed to connect it to your LAN?

What would you like LAN functionality for?
- Access to iPlayer.
- Access to pay-per-view VoIP services, if available.
- Video streaming from HDR.
- Transfer of files between HDR and computer.
- Remote control of recording schedules.
- Purchasing goods on shopping channels.
- Providing feedback to broadcasters (TV polls, programme rating, viewing habits, etc).

deleted
Last edited by maxwech : 12-02-2009 at 11:41

Will I connect my hdr to my lan. Depends on what functionality turns up. If it's simply BBCi player I wont bother, simply because I have a virgin cable box (which I hardly ever use but came free with broadband/phone package). If it offers more than this then yes I will drop in a cat5e from the router upstairs in the study. It's a simple job to go up into the loft and route down the wall cable clipped to the existing terrestrial aerial and cat5e link to my av amp (for internet radio) and then to the hdr with the dish connections

My vote is for some attention to be given to the little quirks and bugs of the UI.

I'd love them to fix the dissappearing scheduled recordings once you scan for non-freesat channels. This is really irritating.

In fact, my preferred outcome would be for them to just merge both modes into one, as I believe is the case on the ALBA boxes.

As for the LAN functionality. What's the point of ploughing resources into this right now? There are no broadcasters who are able to implement this right now.

How about sort the bugs and then work on the other closer to the launch date of iplayer or any other use for a return path.

And for the record, I still think that the HDR is a great piece of kit even with it's strange behaviour.

I would definitely connect to a LAN if I could set recordings via a listings program.

I'd still prefer the UI 'things' sorted out first, though.

The box would seem more 'polished' that way.

I voted for "Fix the known bugs and UI quirks".

I would like LAN functionality for streaming video to PCs and transfer of files. However, it would need to be a pretty good implementation for it to be worth my while sorting out the connection and perhaps not even then. My router is at the other end of the house and it would not be easy to do a tidy job. As I live outside UK, I doubt if iPlayer will be much use to me. It'll probably be geoblocked, as it is at present.

This is a difficult one. I've not got one yet so I don't really know how obstructive any 'quirks' might be. However, what really excites me is the possibility of client/server streaming over the network, e.g. a large server box, maybe with 4 tuners, a large hard disk and the ability to set up 'user accounts'. Then a cheapo client box at each TV. Basically, a receiver and virtual DTR at each TV.

Whether this is what they have in mind and whether the existing DVR and receiver products can do this via a software upgrade, I don't know.

So it depends on what you mean by "enabling LAN functionality". It depends what use it will be put to. The potential is enormous but if it's only going to be used for software updates via web or iPlayer then I'd rather get basic functionality sorted.

I don't have an Alba box but I doubt this very much. The Freesat spec is likely to preclude this. Why would a broadcaster pay to get on the Freesat epg if the channel was freely available in Freesat mode ?

Seperating freesat and non-freesat into two very distinct operating modes accessed through the menu may well be a Humax design choice. There could be other ways of meeting the requirements of the freesat spec. A lot depends on what is actually specified.

I understand from what I've read in this forum that the Alba boxes have a button on the remote to toggle between freesat and non-freesat. Alternatively, when in freesat mode, you can enter a non-freesat channel number (5xxx) and the box will switch to that channel (and, presumably, into freesat mode). Likewise, entering a freesat channel number will take the box back to freesat. It may be that, in practice, the only spec requirement is that there should be two seperate EPGs.

From reading messages on here, I was under the impression that rather than two distinct modes of operation, the Alba boxes added non freesat-lineup channels to the same channel list, just with a number in the 5000+ region.

I'm more than prepared to be wrong about this, hopefully somebody with an Alba box could confirm this for us??

Liam

Sort out the UI.

I added LAN functionality into my Tivo that let me stream content to a PC in the kitchen and set recordings over the web. The streaming I used a lot for a while but it was always somewhat flaky and since iPlayer arrived, and USB Freeview tuners got so cheap and more +1 channels were added, when it broke i didn't bother fixing it.

Setting recordings over the web? Nice to show off when i'd got it set up and working but used only a couple of times. Again, when Tivo deleted my hacks folder it wasn't worth the effort of rebuilding it. Most of the stuff i watch has a narrative repeat.

The people on this forum will be much more biased in favour of LAN functions than the public at large and they're losing out 3:1 at the moment. that says a lot.

iPlayer via the box WOULD be really nice but it's still secondary to getting the basics as good as they can be.

It's not so much setting over the web as being able to use something like DigiGuide which is vastly better than the inbuilt EPG with its white on grey type and slow, jerky navigation.

One though occurs, though.

If LAN functionality is enabled and the box has to respond to packets over the net, how will that impinge on the standby/active situation?

I would love to have video on demand services such as iPlayer, ITV Player and possibly on demand movies etc, but i doubt we will be getting that any time soon

Isn't Freesat run by BBC and ITV though, or something to do with them at least so you would think they would do this to get their own services on it.

Oh well.

I would still prefer them to find some problems first though.

I suppose because i had Sky HD before i got Freesat i notice a lot of differences, but the things i miss is if you have been watching a program all the way through and decide you want to record it half way through, on Sky it would record the whole thing but on freesat it only records from where you press record which is a shame.

Oh another thing, does freesat do a remind thing to remind you when a program is about to start? I haven't looked into that much but i hope it does have it.

There was something else and i've forgot

Yes when you press the ok button on the epg the prompt asks if you want to watch or record

Hopefully the instant record failing to record the buffer should be sorted out in the next firmware upgrade. The 9200 freeview pvr does record the buffer and shares many features with Foxsat UI. When you press OK on the EPG there is a watch option which is the feature you want.

SNAP even to wording LOL

I'm just about to vote for the UI fixes over the LAN functionality but would also quite like the iPlayer functionality and hopefully streaming across the network as and when it finally arrives.

I have a wireless LAN right now and NO CHANCE of getting a CAT5 cable to my HDR from the router. I might well decide to invest in one of the mains networks as we have brand new wiring throughout the house. Looking back I should have CAT5'd too but thats life!

Jono

Sticking to the actual topic..........

Top of the list is the LAN functionality. The most relevant parts of this would be streaming of HDR content/backup (Lets face it, it couldn't be slower than the current USB backup option). The ability to schedule recordings via the network, and bearing in mind the whole standby issue, this facility should obviously wake the box up just enough to set the recording and then revert to standby. This may not necessitate waking the hard disk drive, but I'm not a programer. I player is way high on my list for all this too. The other "bugs" generally seem to be customer preference rather than an actual bug in the OS. Anyway, that's my vote on the actual question. As a side issue, make it all work more like a tivo. Now that really would be cool!!!!!!

Nick

It occurs to me that another option that could be useful all round is for Humax to release a version with the known bugs and UI quirks fixed and the LAN functionality working well enough for LAN fans to beta test it. If the LAN functionality was an unpublished feature it shouldn't affect the ordinary punter. Humax wouldn't even need to let us know it was present. It wouldn't be long before someone here discovered it.

That would be a very sensible option.

Humax get a bunch of diligent testers who are prepared to accept there will be bugs and the LAN fans get some functionality quickly.

Sounds like a win-win situation although it would depend on relatively how far down the line they were with each of the LAN/UI developments.

Maintaining seperate code bases brings its own headaches.

Don't I know it.




I wouldn't have thought that this would require seperate code bases, though - except, I suppose thy could use a snapshot of the beta release in case there was an easily fixed killer bug. Certainly not two code bases undergoing development, though. Unless I've missed something.

Personally I think they need to address all bugs first, otherwise when writing new functions into the coding you coudl simply be putting more bugs into a buggy code.

Secondly you don't want beta code, have been there with Netgear and it turns into a nightmare. Beta testers want more and it can send the implementers on a completely different tangant rather than first sort out any inherant issues and get the source code to work as it should out of the box.

Once code is released to the wild its only then that the obscure faults become apparant that a test envirement can find hard to produce or spot initially.

Fix the UI, only 20% voted for LAN and this is coming from a place where people are more likely to be geeky and interested in that. I bet the number would be 1-2% or even less when you count less techy people who dont even know this forum exists.