Humax PVR-9300T
 

"Paul D Smith" wrote in message
...
...snip...

The 9300 does not have a USB interface BTW.

You're not missing much. The 9200 acts as a "slave" to a PC master and
appears as a "special device" that requires extra software on the PC.
Downloading is both slow and not that reliable and I don't think you can
upload video at all. When I migrated there were a couple of films I
wanted to move from the 9200 to the HD box and it took 8 attempts (each
faster than realtime, but still around 4 hours total!) to download one 2
hour film, even using the freeware "better than the Humax offering"
software.

By contrast the newer HD boxes are real USB masters so drive a pen drive
(or external USB drive) directly using standard(ish) Linux. Much faster
and seem much more reliable.

I didn't know there was any way of customising the Humaxes. Is there
anything for the 9300?

Not that I'm aware. I don't know what the 9300s are based on but I
suspect it's a custom OS and not Linux. The give away would be if you
could find anything mentioning Linux or GPL in the docs. or on-screen
menus. If you use Linux there are restrictions that make you publish your
software

I don't know where you have got that idea from but it's rubbish.

There are thousands of products that use "embedded" Linux and an RTOS and
none of them publish the code for their real time application, it would be a
ridiculous restriction to impose.

tim

Humax PVR-9300T
 

Sadly, I've found Humax Customer Support to be anything but. One of the
worst companies IME for responding to queries and complaints.

Was that Humax or Humax Direct? The latter does respond but it can take a
day or two.

Paul DS.


Humax themselves.

I bought a 17" DTTV from them about 4 years ago when they still produced
TVs. This has the worst software of any appliance I have ever owned and
usually crashes on switching on despite having up to date software. As it
was installed on the bedroom wall with hidden cabling it involved a walk
down the landing, into the room behind the bedroom where the mains
connection was every time we wanted to use it.

I tried phoning, emailing and writing to see if there was a known software
problem with these TVs - no-one ever called back or responded. This went on
for over a year. I think the truth is that they produced something which was
so bad it embarrassed them.

I replaced it with a very cheap Tesco Technika 22" which is excellent and
the Humax now resides in the guest bedroom where it normally remains
unplugged!

Humax PVR-9300T
 

On Friday, September 30th, 2011 at 08:32:46h +0100, Tim.... wrote:

There are thousands of products that use "embedded" Linux

Including Samsung TVs.

Humax PVR-9300T
 

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:16:32 +0100, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:01:47 +0200, Martin wrote:

How do you get software updates for a Humac PVR? The cable system I am
connected to only provides updates to those who bought the PVR from
them at their special enormous rip off price.

I have had a few filing errors, otherwise I am very pleased with it.

On my freeview PVR they transmit updates over the air. They're
supposed to work automatically but I had to activate it manually.
Otherwise I can download the update and install it via a serial
interface (remember those?). Noone should be charging for updates.
I don't know much about cable TV tho.

I couldn't find updates to download. Do you have the URL?

http://www.humaxdigital.com/uk/suppo...port_intro.asp for all the
Humaxes.
http://www.humaxdigital.com/uk/suppo...ategory_seq=63
for the 9300T, version 1.00.26.

--
Max Demian

Humax PVR-9300T
 

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:56:23 +0100, "Paul D Smith"
wrote:

...snip...

The 9300 does not have a USB interface BTW.

You're not missing much. The 9200 acts as a "slave" to a PC master and
appears as a "special device" that requires extra software on the PC.
Downloading is both slow and not that reliable and I don't think you can
upload video at all. When I migrated there were a couple of films I wanted
to move from the 9200 to the HD box and it took 8 attempts (each faster than
realtime, but still around 4 hours total!) to download one 2 hour film, even
using the freeware "better than the Humax offering" software.

To transfer a file that large from a 9200 to a PC I split it into smaler
files: MenuRecordRecorded Programme(select programme with up/down
buttons)Edit Trim etc. With luck each file will transfer successfully
on the first attempt, but even when more than one attempt is needed the
overall time is shorter with, say, four files than with one.

I then stitch the sections together again (and get rid of ads) using
VideoReDo.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Humax PVR-9300T
 

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:26:04 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:06:47 +0100, "tim......"
wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:36:13 +0100, Steve Thackery
wrote:

Rob Gibson wrote:

I encountered one of these for the first time last week - indeed it
was
the first time I'd encountered any PVR! It seems to be just what I
want.
Any comments from the group?

Basically it's a minor evolution of the famous 9200 - a classic of its
day.

Bought one for my mum just a few months ago. Compared with the current
Fox models, it has rather a primitive user interface. Compared with
all its contemporaries, it's brilliant.

I'm talking like this simply because it's really quite old now. Having
said that, if you don't care about HD, then it's still (in my opinion)
the one to buy.

I (mostly) agree with this although in hindsight I may have gone for
the HD version for futureproofing.

The 9300 works well almost[*] all the time but does have some minor UI
issues. These may not bother you but I find some of them irritating.
The worse one is that is displays a large banner right in the middle
of the screen every time it starts to record /anything/. Sometimes it
also halts the picture/sound for a short time too. This applies even
if you are watching a different channel.

[*] Hopefully these issues are now fixed with the latest software
update.

Nope. The lastest software made it worse

In what way? I haven't noticed anything worse (yet).

Far more randomly missed recordings than before (if you don't us AR).
There's a new failure mode and I've been present when it does it. It flags
up the recoding as started but doesn't copy it to disk (or perhaps it does
copy it to disk but forgets to put the program details in the play list!).
(This is in addition to the "randomly deciding not to record something"
which it still does)

If you do use AR, a short experiment with it suggests that they have changed
the way they deal with overrunning programs clashing with another recording
by chopping it off at the booked end time so that it's ready to start the
second recording when it arrives. This even happened when the two programs
were on the same channel and there was no risk at all of the second
program's start flag being missed. So after the second time I
(unnecessarily) missed the final few minutes of a program I turned it off
(yet again) as (for me) this is the worst option that they could have
selected.

You'll note that they still prioritise collecting the live buffer in
preference to overlapping recording and you get the above annoyance even if
you have a spare tuner available for the second recording. They even do
this if the box is in standby where there is no possibility that someone is
utilising the live recording? This is a pants decision, but they just can't
see it! (Like their persistence with the stupid banner and muted audio when
a recording starts in the background).

My analysis is that the Humax is perfect for someone who records 6 programs
a week. It is not (perfect) for someone who records 10 a day. I suspect
Humax thinks that the second person doesn't exist. but he does!

You've investigated it more thoroughly than me. Personally it's a bit
better that it was but it has lost the beginning of one programme. I
don't want to turn off AR since programmes often run late.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.