Grundig Freesat box

The Grundig Freesat box has had a software download to allow the viewing of non-Freesat channels. However, you have to manually add channels by keying in the multiplex details. Oh dear. Can't see Joe Public liking that.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The Grundig Freesat box has had a software download to
allow the viewing of non-Freesat channels. However, you
have to manually add channels by keying in the multiplex
details. Oh dear. Can't see Joe Public liking that.

So no different to the BSkyB box then?...

BTW, please don't post multi-part (HTML) messages to Usenet.

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
BTW, please don't post multi-part (HTML) messages to Usenet.

I don't know what you're on about and I don't care.

Bill

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

BTW, please don't post multi-part (HTML) messages to Usenet.

I don't know what you're on about

You did something different in that article that caused it to have an
HTML copy attached to it. This is a pointless waste of bandwidth, and
you don't usually do it, so presumably you made a mistake.

and I don't care.

Oops, too late.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
BTW, please don't post multi-part (HTML) messages to Usenet.

I don't know what you're on about and I don't care.


do though...

Bill Wright wrote:
The Grundig Freesat box has had a software download to allow the
viewing of non-Freesat channels. However, you have to manually add
channels by keying in the multiplex details. Oh dear. Can't see Joe
Public liking that.

I installed the Bush (clone of Grunding and Goodman's) HD Freesat box
last night.

Unpacked it, and connected up to a Sony 40 inch Bravia. Initially using
just a Scart lead. Didn't bother with the supplied Scart lead, it looks
useless, and has the thinnest cable I've ever seen on one.
This box is replacing a Sky box, that already had a nice chunky cable,
so I swapped to that one.

Switched on, and a Freesat Welcome screen appeared, along with a signal
strength bar graph. This read 90% in my case.
It then proceed to download software (not sure if this was box firmware,
or EPG/transponder data ?) The progress bar leapt to the 5% position
then stayed there for 3-4 mins. I'd almost given up hope, then it
started moving. Took about 10 mins to reach 100% After that the box
said it would reboot after 3 mins. This it did, and then it started on a
transponder scan. That took another 10 mins. Finally it started
displaying pictures. They were hideous, covered in patterning and clock
pulses, and in PAL. I opened the menus, but could find no mention of
RGB. I then connected an HDMI cable. The SD channels then looked clean,
but still washed out, and not a patch on the Sky box's versions. I
assume it has a very cheap upconverter. I switched to BBC HD (the whole
reason for the box) and the image was fine. As good as both a Humax
HDI-2000, and Sky HD box. I was expecting it to boot up from applying
power like a Sky box, a couple of mins quietly booting, then ready for
action. This box, and presumably the other Freesat boxes, operate quite
differently.
What happens when a new channel comes along. Will it auto magically add
it (a lá Sky), or do you need to faff about Freeview style ?

Conclusion: Don't use it on the Scart; not that you would, because
there's no point buying the box unless you have an HD capable display.
For watching the BBC HD channel via HDMI it's fine. No HDMI cable is
supplied, I used a 4 quid one from CPC. Not seen any ITV HD stuff on it
yet, and their HD schedule seems to be some sort of state secret !

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

BTW, please don't post multi-part (HTML) messages to Usenet.

I don't know what you're on about

You did something different in that article that caused it to have an
HTML copy attached to it. This is a pointless waste of bandwidth,

Could you please tell me how much bandwidth it wasted on that one occasion,
and what the consequences of that wastage would be in real terms?

and
you don't usually do it, so presumably you made a mistake.
I would have thought that if this sort of thing bothers you a better tactic
would be to wait until the offender had established a pattern of offending.
A one-off sounds like a glitch, which most likely will never be repeated.
Mentioning this after one incident sounds almost as if you enjoy pointing
such things out. I'm sure that isn't the case of course.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Sigs waste bandwith. Please don't do this again.

Bill

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
BTW, please don't post multi-part (HTML) messages to Usenet.

I don't know what you're on about and I don't care.

do though...

Good job he's not using AIOE, they'd ban the group!

Steve Terry

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

BTW, please don't post multi-part (HTML) messages to Usenet.

I don't know what you're on about

You did something different in that article that caused it to have
an
HTML copy attached to it. This is a pointless waste of bandwidth,

Could you please tell me how much bandwidth it wasted on that one
occasion, and what the consequences of that wastage would be in real
terms?

You doubled the size of your message, now think what that means if
1,000 people posted multi-part messages, now think what it would mean
is 10,000 people did it, what about 50,000 did - this means that many
servers will start dropping older messages sooner than they otherwise
should due to the extra storage space the multi-part messages use
(some servers might only hold a few days-worth of 'archive' messages),
the other problem is that some servers will delete multi-part messages
'on sight' meaning that your message might not be seen by all.... The
other problem with multi-part messages is that it's very easy for the
sender or a Trojan to hide a virus within the HTML (just as can happen
with web pages) and a onLoad script.


and
you don't usually do it, so presumably you made a mistake.
I would have thought that if this sort of thing bothers you a better
tactic would be to wait until the offender had established a pattern
of offending. A one-off sounds like a glitch, which most likely will
never be repeated. Mentioning this after one incident sounds almost
as if you enjoy pointing such things out. I'm sure that isn't the
case of course.


It was a polite pointing out what you had done, your "I don't care"
response was what generated the heat and not the original 'offence',
all you needed to say was "Sorry"...

Bill Wright wrote:
The Grundig Freesat box has had a software download to allow the
viewing of non-Freesat channels. However, you have to manually add
channels by keying in the multiplex details. Oh dear. Can't see Joe
Public liking that.

Bill

All Freesat boxes made by Alba have this feature now, ie. Grundig, Bush etc.
--
^..^ This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.