Simple Frreview PVR
 

Chaps,

is this the right place to ask? Looking for a _simple_ PVR that has
Freeview tuner(s), hard drive and a DVD drive. Must be _simple_ to use -
its for my parents, to replace their VCR.

Thanks

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
Chaps,

is this the right place to ask? Looking for a _simple_ PVR that has
Freeview tuner(s), hard drive and a DVD drive. Must be _simple_ to use -
its for my parents, to replace their VCR.

Do you mean with a DVD recorder? That's not going to be very "simple" to
use, and none of them have twin tuners. The *simplest* way to replace a VCR
is with a DVD recorder with Freeview but without HDD.

But I think a 'pure' PVR (such as the Humax PVR-9150T) with twin tuners
would be a lot more useful and easy to use, as it can cope with the multiple
schedule clashes you get with the many Freeview channels.

And a cheap, separate DVD player if required.

Or will they want to make permanent recordings/recordings on removable media
too (for archiving/lending to friends and relations) too?

--
Max Demian

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Max Demian wrote:
"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
Chaps,

is this the right place to ask? Looking for a _simple_ PVR that has
Freeview tuner(s), hard drive and a DVD drive. Must be _simple_ to
use - its for my parents, to replace their VCR.

Do you mean with a DVD recorder? That's not going to be very "simple"
to use, and none of them have twin tuners. The *simplest* way to
replace a VCR is with a DVD recorder with Freeview but without HDD.

I'm inclined to say if they can use a VCR they'll be able to handle any
digital recorder. If they can't, though, the best solution is to have
another child. In 6 years time, he'll be able to do all that for them, and
will probably give them 10 good years of continuous use.

Simple Frreview PVR
 

On 16/04/2010 10:33, Brian Gaff wrote:
No such animal.

Too many menus and a new concept to learn.

Yes. Left a bit, up a bit, down a bit, fire ....

Hasn't anyone worked on a voice operated PVR yet (for all folks, not
just you Brian!)

--
Adrian C

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Norman Wells wrote:

I'm inclined to say if they can use a VCR they'll be able to handle any
digital recorder. If they can't, though, the best solution is to have
another child. In 6 years time, he'll be able to do all that for them,
and will probably give them 10 good years of continuous use.

Two points:

1. They can use a VCR as far as changing channels, hitting record and
play. Don't think they've ever programmed the timer.

2. Since I popped out nearly 39 years ago I think they'd make the medical
press if they had another one!

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Brian Gaff wrote:

No such animal.

Too many menus and a new concept to learn.

I'm afraid that was the point. Really need a PVR with controls to set a
channel, record and play. And that is it.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Max Demian wrote:


Do you mean with a DVD recorder? That's not going to be very "simple" to
use, and none of them have twin tuners. The *simplest* way to replace a
VCR is with a DVD recorder with Freeview but without HDD.

The attraction of having the hard drive is it avoids replacing the "where's
the tape" arguments with the "wheres the disk" argument.


But I think a 'pure' PVR (such as the Humax PVR-9150T) with twin tuners
would be a lot more useful and easy to use, as it can cope with the
multiple schedule clashes you get with the many Freeview channels.

And a cheap, separate DVD player if required.

Thank you. Good information. I was trying to avoid too many boxes.
They've got a new tv to avoid having to have an additional box. As they
have no DVD player and watch the odd DVD they do have on the PC (not
conveinient) I was trying to solve that one.

I'm wondering, although dearer (must shop around) whether the PVR-9300T
might be a better bet as it seems silly to use scart except for legacy kit
on an HDMI tv - even for standard definition. Thoughts?


Or will they want to make permanent recordings/recordings on removable
media too (for archiving/lending to friends and relations) too?


Although that would be nice its not a major issue.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:02:40 +0100, Peter Chant wrote:

I'm afraid that was the point. Really need a PVR with controls to set a
channel, record and play. And that is it.

Is it not even easier to go to an EPG and to "tick" the programs you want
to record?

Simple Frreview PVR
 

J G Miller wrote:

Is it not even easier to go to an EPG and to "tick" the programs you want
to record?

Perhaps - perhaps not.

It would be easier to stick with analog but I don't think the government
takes this view.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
Max Demian wrote:


Do you mean with a DVD recorder? That's not going to be very "simple" to
use, and none of them have twin tuners. The *simplest* way to replace a
VCR is with a DVD recorder with Freeview but without HDD.

The attraction of having the hard drive is it avoids replacing the
"where's
the tape" arguments with the "wheres the disk" argument.


But I think a 'pure' PVR (such as the Humax PVR-9150T) with twin tuners
would be a lot more useful and easy to use, as it can cope with the
multiple schedule clashes you get with the many Freeview channels.

And a cheap, separate DVD player if required.

Thank you. Good information. I was trying to avoid too many boxes.
They've got a new tv to avoid having to have an additional box. As they
have no DVD player and watch the odd DVD they do have on the PC (not
conveinient) I was trying to solve that one.

I'm wondering, although dearer (must shop around) whether the PVR-9300T
might be a better bet as it seems silly to use scart except for legacy kit
on an HDMI tv - even for standard definition. Thoughts?

If they only ever use "record" to record a program "live" I would suggest
not buying a Humax. It doesn't have the best user interface for this, in
particular it will not record a program that has already started, off the
EPG.

tim

Simple Frreview PVR
 

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
J G Miller wrote:

Is it not even easier to go to an EPG and to "tick" the programs you want
to record?

Perhaps - perhaps not.

It would be easier to stick with analog but I don't think the government
takes this view.

What's the Government got to do with the demise of video tape recording?

It is perfectly possible for the industry to offer a tape recorder for
digital TV, it is a commercial decision that makes this unavailable, not
government action

tim

Simple Frreview PVR
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:22 +0100, Peter Chant wrote:

It would be easier to stick with analog but I don't think the
government takes this view.

And neither do I.

Recording digital television sources is far easier and less prone to
degredation of the material during the recording or afterwards than
with analog.

Simple Frreview PVR
 

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
Max Demian wrote:

Do you mean with a DVD recorder? That's not going to be very "simple" to
use, and none of them have twin tuners. The *simplest* way to replace a
VCR is with a DVD recorder with Freeview but without HDD.

The attraction of having the hard drive is it avoids replacing the
"where's
the tape" arguments with the "wheres the disk" argument.

But I think a 'pure' PVR (such as the Humax PVR-9150T) with twin tuners
would be a lot more useful and easy to use, as it can cope with the
multiple schedule clashes you get with the many Freeview channels.

And a cheap, separate DVD player if required.

Thank you. Good information. I was trying to avoid too many boxes.
They've got a new tv to avoid having to have an additional box. As they
have no DVD player and watch the odd DVD they do have on the PC (not
conveinient) I was trying to solve that one.

I'm wondering, although dearer (must shop around) whether the PVR-9300T
might be a better bet as it seems silly to use scart except for legacy kit
on an HDMI tv - even for standard definition. Thoughts?

The HDMI upscaling on the 9300 is considered to be not very good. The TV
will do the upscaling OK on the SCART connection.

The main advantage of the 9300 is the extra HDD space and all the extra
connections - neither useful to your parents I would have thought.

--
Max Demian

Simple Frreview PVR
 

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Peter Chant
saying something like:

I'm wondering, although dearer (must shop around) whether the PVR-9300T
might be a better bet as it seems silly to use scart except for legacy kit
on an HDMI tv - even for standard definition. Thoughts?

It depends.
I'm surprised at how much better SD Sky is over scart-rgb that it ever
was on my old telly. This is on a Samsung 720p set which upscales in a
lovely fashion.

Simple Frreview PVR
 

On 16/04/2010 19:59, J G Miller wrote:

Recording digital television sources is far easier and less prone to
degredation of the material during the recording or afterwards than
with analog.

Yeah you may say that, but with some, recording digital television
sources is far more prone to user error with regard to accidental
deletion and finger trouble.

Some of these VCR users get on very easily with setting recordings on
their machines. I've seen it ...

Step 1. Insert 4 hour tape
Step 2. Change VCR Channel
Step 3. Wait until 8pm
Step 4. Press Record/Play
Step 5. Go down club.

And I don't blame them. When the recording has finished, the tape can be
ejected and kept in a safe place for replay later. The programmes are
not lost in a maze of video game adventure graphics that require the
skills of bomber command to navigate through.

Some of the GUI interfaces of PVRs and television sets really need some
work with some so muddled between different modes of installation &
configuration, favourites, personal settings and control.

--
Adrian C

Simple Frreview PVR
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:40:46 +0100, Adrian C wrote:

Some of the GUI interfaces of PVRs and television sets really need some
work with some so muddled between different modes of installation &
configuration, favourites, personal settings and control.

No argument there -- some interfaces are quite good and user friendly,
others are just horrific, and the designers have obviously never had
any [or effective] training in GUI design.

Basically, a modern TV / PVR offers many choices of action (compared
to an old analog TV of push button 1,2,3,4 or press the record button)
and it is how these choices are presented to the user in an inuitive
sequence or not, via the decision steps of the menus, is crucial as to
whether or not using the device is user friendly or an excercise
in futility.

Simple Frreview PVR
 

In message , Peter Chant
wrote
Norman Wells wrote:

I'm inclined to say if they can use a VCR they'll be able to handle any
digital recorder. If they can't, though, the best solution is to have
another child. In 6 years time, he'll be able to do all that for them,
and will probably give them 10 good years of continuous use.

Two points:

1. They can use a VCR as far as changing channels, hitting record and
play. Don't think they've ever programmed the timer.

2. Since I popped out nearly 39 years ago I think they'd make the medical
press if they had another one!


"Which?" under the guise of Ricability have some recommendations on PVRs
based on ease of use (geared towards older users)
http://www.ricability-digitaltv.org.uk/about-us.htm

If you are more comfortable with less than intuitive interfaces then
this sites recommendations may not suit your own needs for the features
you may require.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Alan wrote:


"Which?" under the guise of Ricability have some recommendations on PVRs
based on ease of use (geared towards older users)
http://www.ricability-digitaltv.org.uk/about-us.htm


Thanks - some stuff to look at. Pity that the EPGs on some are hard to
read, being overlaid on the tv picture.

If you are more comfortable with less than intuitive interfaces then
this sites recommendations may not suit your own needs for the features
you may require.

Its for my parents. They can design roofs and build staircases but are not
too hot on IT and modern consumer electronics.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

I'm wondering, although dearer (must shop around) whether the PVR-9300T
might be a better bet as it seems silly to use scart except for legacy kit
on an HDMI tv - even for standard definition. Thoughts?

It depends.
I'm surprised at how much better SD Sky is over scart-rgb that it ever
was on my old telly. This is on a Samsung 720p set which upscales in a
lovely fashion.

Interesting - I was thinking along the lines of the monitor I have in front
of me right now. On previous PC at least the difference between DVI and VGA
was night and day. Though I have seen reasonable VGA in other places.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

tim.... wrote:

It would be easier to stick with analog but I don't think the government
takes this view.

What's the Government got to do with the demise of video tape recording?


I was thinking government in the wider context including Ofcom / Radio
Telecommunications Agency etc.

It is perfectly possible for the industry to offer a tape recorder for
digital TV, it is a commercial decision that makes this unavailable, not
government action


Yes - but you can't buy one and the existing VCR does not have a digital
tuner. Yes you can record (unless macrovision stops you) from a set top box
and perhaps the digital tuner in the TV (not tried so not sure) - but that
is more complex that the analog situation.

All my post really meant was that the status quo - analog - was the easiest
from my parents POV - but that is not an option. Analog has been switched
off.

Pete


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

J G Miller wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:22 +0100, Peter Chant wrote:

It would be easier to stick with analog but I don't think the
government takes this view.

And neither do I.

Recording digital television sources is far easier and less prone to
degredation of the material during the recording or afterwards than
with analog.

Not disagreeing at all. Don't panic - I'm not going to win the election,
replace all PC's with Imperial typewriters, replace mobile phone masts with
public call boxes and revert to analog!

My general though, which I had not articulated properly, was that although
we are gaining sophistication the complexity of the user interface is
growing to match.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

In message , Peter Chant
wrote
Alan wrote:


"Which?" under the guise of Ricability have some recommendations on PVRs
based on ease of use (geared towards older users)
http://www.ricability-digitaltv.org.uk/about-us.htm


Thanks - some stuff to look at. Pity that the EPGs on some are hard to
read, being overlaid on the tv picture.

If this is one reason not to buy it may be worth asking (via newsgroups
or forums) someone who owns a box if the observation is true. Sometimes
the overlay transparency is a user setting and could be adjusted down to
0.

Simple Frreview PVR
 

In article , Peter Chant wrote:
Interesting - I was thinking along the lines of the monitor I have in front
of me right now. On previous PC at least the difference between DVI and VGA
was night and day. Though I have seen reasonable VGA in other places.

In my experience the quality differences between video sources have much more
to do with the quality of the original material than anything else. All other
things being equal, if you can see any difference between DVI and VGA, there is
something wrong with one of them.

It happens that I have a situation where all other things can be made equal,
because the graphics card in my PC has both types of output and my 24"
widescreen monitor has both types of input, so I can connect both and switch
between them. Despite most of my working lifetime in television having been
concerned in some way with the assessment of picture quality, so that I am
therefore reasonably sure what to look for, I cannot see any difference between
them whatsoever.

It's a bit different in the case of the TV, which has several types of input,
of which I am using SCART for SD PVRs and HDMI for the output of a PC media
centre. Some of the amateur internet video material is pretty grim despite
presumably being "upscaled" to 1920x1080 for the HDMI feed, and some of the SD
video from DVDs can look very good. I don't think the cables or the types of
signals have much to do with it.

Rod
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Simple Frreview PVR
 

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...

My general though, which I had not articulated properly, was that although
we are gaining sophistication the complexity of the user interface is
growing to match.

A point I completely agree with. Despite (like many others here) looking
for a really simple PVR for my mum - as simple as a VCR - I realised there
simply isn't one.

Luckily she's fine with the one I got her (an early Digifusion, which is now
obsolete, so I can't recommend it). But there was a substantial learning
curve.

Old folk seem to become comfortable with the idea of a Program Guide
(because they use the Radio Times). Navigating around the guide with the
arrow buttons seems alien at first, but they get used to it and there is
surely no alternative.

Delays between key-presses and the highlight moving are a MAJOR source of
confusion, especially when they occur intermittently. They always say
"Oooh, what have I done wrong?". Unfortunately, every PVR I've seen does
this sometimes (shaving a dollar off the price by putting a barely-adequate
processor in there).

Once the program is highlighted, we have another problem. If the program is
in the future, the PVR offers to record it. If it's running now, the PVR
switches to it. Again, this is very confusing - two entirely different
things happen for the same button press. Very often there is an impossibly
subtle difference in the Guide between a program currently being
transmitted, and one in the future.

My mum seems to appreciate her machine having two different buttons: on hers
the Red button sets the program to record, and the Enter button selects that
channel to watch. But of course what happens when she presses the Enter
button on a program in the future (I actually can't remember, but the answer
isn't intuitively obvious).

I've noticed that a lot of people get in a muddle when they've finished with
the Program Guide (e.g. set a program to record later on). How do they get
rid of the Guide, which is still on the screen?

After that, how do they watch a program they've recorded? My mum's machine
offers a handy button which brings up a list of all recorded programs.
Would that all PVRs did that.

Oh, and one thing that must be left out: chase play. It seems to cause the
most abject confusion. Why is the news running ten minutes late? Why, when
I pressed the Stop button, didn't it stop, but jump forward instead?

I believe the problem is that the manufacturers want the biggest and best
feature list, which inevitably leads to a more complex interface. It must
take courage to leave out most of those features and build something with a
really simple, elegant user interface that has been comprehensively tested
in somebody's Usability Labs.

SteveT

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Alan wrote:


Thanks - some stuff to look at. Pity that the EPGs on some are hard to
read, being overlaid on the tv picture.

If this is one reason not to buy it may be worth asking (via newsgroups
or forums) someone who owns a box if the observation is true. Sometimes
the overlay transparency is a user setting and could be adjusted down to
0.

Thanks, a good suggestion.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:

In article , Peter Chant wrote:
Interesting - I was thinking along the lines of the monitor I have in
front
of me right now. On previous PC at least the difference between DVI and
VGA
was night and day. Though I have seen reasonable VGA in other places.

In my experience the quality differences between video sources have much
more to do with the quality of the original material than anything else.
All other things being equal, if you can see any difference between DVI
and VGA, there is something wrong with one of them.

It happens that I have a situation where all other things can be made
equal, because the graphics card in my PC has both types of output and my
24" widescreen monitor has both types of input, so I can connect both and
switch between them. Despite most of my working lifetime in television
having been concerned in some way with the assessment of picture quality,
so that I am therefore reasonably sure what to look for, I cannot see any
difference between them whatsoever.


I think sometimes there are just bad combinations. I remember connecting up
a PC and reasonable CRT monitor up that were probably five years apart (this
was some time back) and picture quality was nowhere near what it should have
been - for either. Connecting up a contemporary monitor and all was fine.

Work machine using VGA on LCD monitor is almost as/about as sharp as my one
at home using DVI. Minimal difference.

It's a bit different in the case of the TV, which has several types of
input, of which I am using SCART for SD PVRs and HDMI for the output of a
PC media centre. Some of the amateur internet video material is pretty
grim despite presumably being "upscaled" to 1920x1080 for the HDMI feed,
and some of the SD video from DVDs can look very good. I don't think the
cables or the types of signals have much to do with it.


Useful info. Sounds like its not worth getting too excited about trying to
use HDMI over Scart for standard definition.

My media PC is using S-video - TV is widescreen CRT - don't feel the need to
change it until it breaks. Also innards of PC are ancient. Did try making
a VGA to Scart cable - but given the set up I decided to stick with S-video,
a lot of hastle for probally a small difference that I'm happy to live with.



--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

In message , Steve Thackery
wrote

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...

My general though, which I had not articulated properly, was that although
we are gaining sophistication the complexity of the user interface is
growing to match.

A point I completely agree with. Despite (like many others here)
looking for a really simple PVR for my mum - as simple as a VCR - I
realised there simply isn't one.

But were VCRs that simple? The same arguments about the complexity of
VCRs a decade or so ago are just being repeated for PVRs today. I'll bet
the majority of PVR users don't touch more than about half a dozen
buttons of their remote on a regular basis.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Java Jive wrote:

Perhaps you are beyond this stage already, but the section on PVRs in
this document on my site may be of some assistance ...

http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi...TVInTheUK.html

Thanks. Where my parents are there was approximately one month from being
analog only to digital only - for terrestrial. There is no cable. Never
got around to satelite - however, now that they have digital terestrial
there is little incentive to go for satelite.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

On 16/04/2010 18:19, Peter Chant wrote:

Now if you want an easy to operate recorder forget the DVD variants.
Horrendously complicated and in my experience not reliable enough.
You have two choices:
1. Sky+ HD it has a big clear remote control, clear EPG, simple to operate.
1. Humax 9300T PVR. clear uncluttered epg, series link, press OK to
record in the future, press the red record button to record now.
The Humax costs £180 ish (one of payment), Sky+ £120 a year minimum.
I went for the Humax and I'm very pleased with it.
Don't buy the Thomson "top up tv" box that currently available cheap.
It's poo and unreliable even tho' it's mega cheap.
Dave
--
Blow my nose to email me

Simple Frreview PVR
 

In article , Alan wrote:
A point I completely agree with. Despite (like many others here)
looking for a really simple PVR for my mum - as simple as a VCR - I
realised there simply isn't one.

But were VCRs that simple? The same arguments about the complexity of
VCRs a decade or so ago are just being repeated for PVRs today. I'll bet
the majority of PVR users don't touch more than about half a dozen
buttons of their remote on a regular basis.

Many people just like what they're accustomed to and are reluctant to
change, even if it might mean an overall improvement. Also, if the ability
to learn about new equipment really is age-related, let's not forget that
the old people who are accustomed to old technology would have been younger
when they were becoming accustomed to it, and therefore better at learning,
so the old technology would have appeared to them to be easier.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Simple Frreview PVR
 

In article , Peter Chant wrote:
I think sometimes there are just bad combinations. I remember connecting up
a PC and reasonable CRT monitor up that were probably five years apart (this
was some time back) and picture quality was nowhere near what it should have
been - for either. Connecting up a contemporary monitor and all was fine.

Aren't you just comparing monitors here, not connections? I wouldn't find it
very surprising if two monitors five years apart performed differently.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Aren't you just comparing monitors here, not connections? I wouldn't find
it very surprising if two monitors five years apart performed differently.

No. Memory of exactly what I was doing was a bit hazy as it was a while
back however, I clearly remember something distinctly odd about the monitor
behaviour. Old monitor certainly had sharp focus and good brightness and
colour despite its age - I used it daily. It clearly demonstrated that on
one PC. Swapping it to another newer pc (or perhaps a VGA card change) and
it suddenly gave a very poor picture. Yet newer monitor was fine on that
newer PC. Yes, it is odd - and I assume that there must be impedance
specification in the VGA standard which should stop that sort of issue
arising.

Pete


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Kellerman "kellerman snot wrote:

On 16/04/2010 18:19, Peter Chant wrote:

Now if you want an easy to operate recorder forget the DVD variants.
Horrendously complicated and in my experience not reliable enough.
You have two choices:
1. Sky+ HD it has a big clear remote control, clear EPG, simple to
operate. 1. Humax 9300T PVR. clear uncluttered epg, series link, press OK
to record in the future, press the red record button to record now.
The Humax costs £180 ish (one of payment), Sky+ £120 a year minimum.
I went for the Humax and I'm very pleased with it.
Don't buy the Thomson "top up tv" box that currently available cheap.
It's poo and unreliable even tho' it's mega cheap.
Dave

Thanks. That Humax or its little brother (9150?) seem to be generally
recommended.

How does you comment on "record now" tie in with that of another poster who
said there was an issue with recording programmes that had already started -
ie you could not? Don't mind if the beginning is missing - ie stuff already
in the past.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

tim.... wrote:


If they only ever use "record" to record a program "live" I would suggest
not buying a Humax. It doesn't have the best user interface for this, in
particular it will not record a program that has already started, off the
EPG.

Will it record a programme that has already started not off the EPG? I.e.
on the channel currently selected?

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

"Kellerman" "kellerman snot wrote in message
o.uk...

1. Sky+ HD it has a big clear remote control, clear EPG, simple to
operate.

Actually, I think that's a really good suggestion. Although it galls me to
say so, having played around with Sky+ I would say that it does have the
best user interface I've used.

It is very widely used by all sorts of people, and I think it has been
developed very much with ease of use in mind.

Although Peter C wanted a Freeview solution, I would recommend that you
consider this option.

SteveT

Simple Frreview PVR
 

Peter Chant wrote:


How does you comment on "record now" tie in with that of another poster
who said there was an issue with recording programmes that had already
started -
ie you could not? Don't mind if the beginning is missing - ie stuff
already in the past.

Just found the post which I got that impression - it related to recording
off the EPG. So if it does not affect recording of stuff on screen "now"
rather than on the EPG I suspect it would be no issue.

Pete
--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Simple Frreview PVR
 

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:

If they only ever use "record" to record a program "live" I would suggest
not buying a Humax. It doesn't have the best user interface for this, in
particular it will not record a program that has already started, off the
EPG.

Will it record a programme that has already started not off the EPG? I.e.
on the channel currently selected?

Yes, if you tune into a programme and press Record it will record the
current programme up to the end of the scheduled time. (You can extend the
end time in blocks of 10 minutes to allow for late finishing, but your
parents might find this a bit fiddly.) Having done this, you can change the
Humax to a different channel and the recording will continue. You can't set
it to record a channel continuously over more than one programme.

I really think you will have to persuade your parents to learn how to set
recordings from the EPG, whatever recording device you choose.

--
Max Demian

Simple Frreview PVR
 

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
Kellerman "kellerman snot wrote:

On 16/04/2010 18:19, Peter Chant wrote:

Now if you want an easy to operate recorder forget the DVD variants.
Horrendously complicated and in my experience not reliable enough.
You have two choices:
1. Sky+ HD it has a big clear remote control, clear EPG, simple to
operate. 1. Humax 9300T PVR. clear uncluttered epg, series link, press OK
to record in the future, press the red record button to record now.
The Humax costs £180 ish (one of payment), Sky+ £120 a year minimum.
I went for the Humax and I'm very pleased with it.
Don't buy the Thomson "top up tv" box that currently available cheap.
It's poo and unreliable even tho' it's mega cheap.

Thanks. That Humax or its little brother (9150?) seem to be generally
recommended.

How does you comment on "record now" tie in with that of another poster
who
said there was an issue with recording programmes that had already
started -
ie you could not? Don't mind if the beginning is missing - ie stuff
already
in the past.

See my other reply.

--
Max Demian

Simple Frreview PVR
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:

If they only ever use "record" to record a program "live" I would
suggest
not buying a Humax. It doesn't have the best user interface for this,
in
particular it will not record a program that has already started, off
the
EPG.

Will it record a programme that has already started not off the EPG?
I.e.
on the channel currently selected?

Yes, if you tune into a programme and press Record it will record the
current programme up to the end of the scheduled time. (You can extend the
end time in blocks of 10 minutes to allow for late finishing, but your
parents might find this a bit fiddly.) Having done this, you can change
the Humax to a different channel and the recording will continue. You
can't set it to record a channel continuously over more than one
programme.

And if you try to achieve this by going to the EPG and selecting the
following program to be recorded "normally" that recording may fail due to a
bug in the software. (As I've only tried this once I have no idea what
percentage of times it fails. I could have just got unlucky or it could be
100% of the time.)

tim

Simple Frreview PVR
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:00:31 +0100, Peter Chant
wrote:

Norman Wells wrote:

I'm inclined to say if they can use a VCR they'll be able to handle any
digital recorder. If they can't, though, the best solution is to have
another child. In 6 years time, he'll be able to do all that for them,
and will probably give them 10 good years of continuous use.

Two points:

1. They can use a VCR as far as changing channels, hitting record and
play. Don't think they've ever programmed the timer.

2. Since I popped out nearly 39 years ago I think they'd make the medical
press if they had another one!

They're waiting for the Grandkids to do it for them

It's always bewildered me that people (like my parents) have no
difficulty driving, operating fairly sophisticated cameras, etc. but
their brains fall over when faced with a VCR