# The 622



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

From what my contacts tell me, or actually Dish just called me, the things I do know are this. Dish is working hard to produce this unit. More than a handful for that matter. They have a team of dedicated engineers to ensure for the stability of this product. The 622 specs are pretty much publically posted except from what I hear they may be a few added features. I feel the greatest thing will be for the capability of added features as they are developed, more than on previous models. Will it be totally bug free, probably not, but pretty close. The VIP series is the future for Dish and all of us. Once it hits the market, I think that is when demand will explode based on owners comments. Got to go my phone is ringing, must be them.


----------



## SatelliteFun (Jan 13, 2006)

Jeff McClellan said:


> From what my contacts tell me, or actually Dish just called me, the things I do know are this. Dish is working hard to produce this unit. More than a handful for that matter. They have a team of dedicated engineers to ensure for the stability of this product. The 622 specs are pretty much publically posted except from what I hear they may be a few added features. I feel the greatest thing will be for the capability of added features as they are developed, more than on previous models. Will it be totally bug free, probably not, but pretty close. The VIP series is the future for Dish and all of us. Once it hits the market, I think that is when demand will explode based on owners comments. Got to go my phone is ringing, must be them.


So, do you work for Dish or something? How can you know it will be "pretty close" to being bug free? Even the best Dish receiver has had its share of bugs.

Lets wait until its out and people have had a chance to use it before delcaring it the best thing since sliced bread.

Oh gotta go, my phone is ringing, maybe its Dish offering me the chance to upgrade two of my HD receivers to new mpeg4 ones.. haha yea right.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

Jeff McClellan said:


> From what my contacts tell me, or actually Dish just called me, the things I do know are this. Dish is working hard to produce this unit. More than a handful for that matter. They have a team of dedicated engineers to ensure for the stability of this product. The 622 specs are pretty much publically posted except from what I hear they may be a few added features. I feel the greatest thing will be for the capability of added features as they are developed, more than on previous models. Will it be totally bug free, probably not, but pretty close. The VIP series is the future for Dish and all of us. Once it hits the market, I think that is when demand will explode based on owners comments. Got to go my phone is ringing, must be them.


New features? I've been wondering why it says that we only have 25 hours of MPEG-4 recording with it, while it has a 320GB hard drive. That would suggest that half of it is not for our use. Which makes me think they want to ram some stupid VOD copy down our throats and charge us even more for the "service". Dish seems to want to go out of its way to ream its customers as much as possible.

I don't trust dish at all, for anything! :barf:


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

SatelliteFun said:


> So, do you work for Dish or something? How can you know it will be "pretty close" to being bug free? Even the best Dish receiver has had its share of bugs.
> 
> Lets wait until its out and people have had a chance to use it before delcaring it the best thing since sliced bread.
> 
> Oh gotta go, my phone is ringing, maybe its Dish offering me the chance to upgrade two of my HD receivers to new mpeg4 ones.. haha yea right.


 Well see you are new so welcome aboard. No dont work for Dish but I am a good spirited person and do have friends. Guess its my rump if I am wrong, but really dont think I am.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

jsanders said:


> New features? I've been wondering why it says that we only have 25 hours of MPEG-4 recording with it, while it has a 320GB hard drive. That would suggest that half of it is not for our use. Which makes me think they want to ram some stupid VOD copy down our throats and charge us even more for the "service". Dish seems to want to go out of its way to ream its customers as much as possible.
> 
> I don't trust dish at all, for anything! :barf:


I don't know but that would mean about 11 million folks dont know they are being reamed. Seems kind of illogical doesn't it.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

My guess is the 25 hours estimate is base on MPEG2. Remember the 622 does both MPEG2 and 4 so my guess is they went with the lower number to be conservative. As for the stupid VOD copy, from the description I heard I would not consider it a stupid copy of cable VOD. I would further guess the plan is to use the difference between the 942 and 622 drive sizes for VOD. But I could be wrong. 

:welcome_s SatelliteFun. Hmmm interesting first post. You are correct. Only time will tell if the 622 improves on the 942 in terms of reliability and stability in addition to features. I for one am looking forward to its arrival.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm waiting to see what happens Feb 1st... and waiting to hear more about the 622... as I am starting to become tempted to go to the 622 instead of the 211, even at $299 upgrade cost to me... since it also includes upgrades to the dishes.

Even if they leave my Dish500 + Dish300 instead of hooking in a Dish1000... they will still have to upgrade LNBs and/or switches to allow me to connect the 622, and if I understand correctly the cost of the LNBs/switches could add up a bit... so it may be to my advantage to opt for the 622 upgrade and get the LNB/switch upgrade as part of that one-time fee.

Right now I have 6000u and 501. I would keep the 501 for my other room, but the upgrades to the LNB/switches would not only make me 622 compatible but also allow for future upgrades to my second room more easily than my current configuration.

I've almost talked myself into the 622 at this point for those reasons alone, not to mention the HD-DVR part and the new MPEG4 channels.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

I suspect that the some if not all of the new mpeg4 programming is coming from 129, someone can correct me if I am wrong, so thats why the dish upgrade install is mentioned in most every case. The Dish 1000 gets you all 3 locations.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

normang said:


> I suspect that the some if not all of the new mpeg4 programming is coming from 129, someone can correct me if I am wrong, so thats why the dish upgrade install is mentioned in most every case. The Dish 1000 gets you all 3 locations.


It can also come from 61.5 - only the HD distants won't be mirrored on both.

JL


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

James Long said:


> It can also come from 61.5 - only the HD distants won't be mirrored on both. JL


Thanks James... I already have 61.5, so thats not an issue, it appears that if my assumption is correct for some mpeg4 programming coming from 129, then I will need a Dish 1000 upgrade..

Is the Dish 1000 a larger Dish than the 500 to accomodate the 3 locations, never paid any attention??


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If you have 61.5 you don't need 129 - unless something local shows up on 129.

Yes, the D1000 is slightly larger than the 500 but not huge like the SuperDish.

JL


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

James Long said:


> If you have 61.5 you don't need 129 - unless something local shows up on 129.
> 
> Yes, the D1000 is slightly larger than the 500 but not huge like the SuperDish.
> 
> JL


Interesting.. guess I'll find out when the time comes, but it would seem that eventually for HD Locals or something, I would need 129, maybe not, though somehow I would think all the locations come into play eventually.

Since I have a 942, I don't think I can do anything until April, and thats fine with me.. The only question I really have since I own my 942 is whether I can keep it and still get the $99 deal or will be $299. As I might move it up to another room, retire the 508 I have and get some sort of HD Monitor for that other location..


----------



## shaysweet (Jan 13, 2006)

normang said:


> I suspect that the some if not all of the new mpeg4 programming is coming from 129, someone can correct me if I am wrong, so thats why the dish upgrade install is mentioned in most every case. The Dish 1000 gets you all 3 locations.


well the reason there is a dish 1000 is not really about mpeg4.. its because in some states they are not allowing dish to install two dishes for "must carry" locals. and the second dish carries voom channels as well. so for it to be more economic they came out with a new satellite location that carries the hd channels from the 61.5 and 148 locations. so you dont need two dishes..but if you had them it shouldnt be a problem.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

shay,
It's not 'some states' it is the Congress of the United States and the FCC.

In December 2004 Congress passed a law that applies to ALL 210 markets in the US requiring all the analog locals in each market to be available on 'a single dish' (not nessisarily the same dish as other programming). The effective date of that law is coming up at the end of May. E* will also be using the new spotbeams on E10 to solve the single dish problem.

Your HD comment is a little off the mark as well, but I'll let that pass. 

James


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

jsanders said:


> Which makes me think they want to ram some stupid VOD copy down our throats and charge us even more for the "service". Dish seems to want to go out of its way to ream its customers as much as possible.
> 
> I don't trust dish at all, for anything! :barf:


First people say Dish sucks because they do not have VOD like the cable companies. Now, when that capability is being developed people say Dish sucks because they don't want that stupid VOD. Can't please everyone. :nono2:


----------



## Tom-Tx (May 23, 2005)

Segregating part of the hard drive for VOD is perfectly acceptable IF I'm offered a choice to use it for VOD or recording my selections. This choice is particularly important for anyone who now owns or will own their receiver.


----------



## voripteth (Oct 25, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> My guess is the 25 hours estimate is base on MPEG2. Remember the 622 does both MPEG2 and 4 so my guess is they went with the lower number to be conservative. As for the stupid VOD copy, from the description I heard I would not consider it a stupid copy of cable VOD. I would further guess the plan is to use the difference between the 942 and 622 drive sizes for VOD. But I could be wrong.


Well the conspiracy theories that I've read say that MPeg4 is really MPeg2 with a MPeg4 wrapper. This would explain why there isn't any compression difference. Of course eventually it should be real MPeg4.

The 622 does have a larger drive than the 942 so it is still a mystery why that space isn't being used. I find myself running out of disk space VERY quickly and would really like to have as much storage as possible.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I dont see it as a mystery at all. Having VOD explains the mystery to me. As far as the MPEG4 headers for MPEG2, well it does look like there might be some truth to them.

Actually I don't think it has to do with MPEG4 headers on MPEG2, that is a seperate issue as I see it. I really think how much exact saving they will get with MPEG4 so they went with the more conservative number at this point. 

This is a big transitional period and I as I see it the MPEG4 on MPEG2 is temporary stop gap. I know a lot of people are upset and have come to the conclusion it is force us to get MPEG4 boxes. Personally I don't see it that way. From my vantage point, it looks like Dish does not want to give HD content to people and in a few months take it away and tell them it requires new hardware to get it back. If dish was to allow these channels on the MPEG-2 only receiver and later require a box change to get them cause more outrage in the consumer base. As for the people on the boards, I am sure they would understand this, but we are a small percentage of people out in the real world and those people would not like it. Yes, dish could explain it to the user when the order it, but later down the road when they have to pay 100 bucks or more to get back the user will forget that fact. 

Dish is going to have to make some tough calls as it transitions to MPEG4 and as it provides more HD. Some of the choices we will like, some we will not, some will be business based, some will be technology based. I love a conspiracy as much as the next guy, but I don't see one here. What i see is a transition plan being put in place and being execuated.


----------



## joebird (Sep 15, 2003)

Ron -- agreed. A lot of people are jumping to some pretty scary conclusions about MPEG2 w/MPEG4 headers, HD-Lite, etc. If you don't like what they are doing, there are other alternatives -- DirectTV and cable. If those alternatives don't look any better, then what are you going to do? Also, why not just wait until February 1st and see what's being transmitted then instead of complaining about what's being uplinked now that we cannot access anyway.


----------



## dwcobb (Oct 13, 2005)

The best thing they could do for their consumers is allow them to pay a little extra and get a version of the box with 2x the storage. I would pay an extra $100 for that, and a 250gig HD shouldn't cost them much more than $50 or $60 in the kinds of volume they would be buying in. Set it up as a RAID if managing it as 2 disks is too complicated for consumers.

I really want more memory for HD. It begins to feel like work to keep up with my regular programming, and that is my whole point of having a DVR - watching something when I feel like it, not when I MUST to make more space.


----------



## Airblair (May 1, 2003)

Did nobody get the memo? The 622 will allow you to attach USB2.0 hard drives to use as archiving space.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/59/cat/502


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Airblair said:


> Did nobody get the memo? The 622 will allow you to attach USB2.0 hard drives to use as archiving space.
> 
> http://www.satelliteguys.us/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/59/cat/502


How come I didn't see that information anywhere discussed on this site prior to this post?


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

well I was about to say, that I was speaking to a HD tech at dish a couple nights ago and asked about the space used for VOD, and getting it back. I agree it makes no sense for a 320 drive to only be 25 hours, but I guess that could be being safe. Figure the higher the rate, the lower the recording time right? hmm 

on the VOD front, it was mentioned this is not in HD, so if they spool 20 or even 40 hours of VOD on your drive, it's not more than an hour or so of HD content, so not much to worry about. then I asked about an enternal drive, and the USB was mentioned, and that there was no "official" statement during the training class that day when that specific question was asked. But the answer was left hanfing in the air in such a way as to suggest there is the intention of allowing for extrnal drives for storage  And that would be great for sure!!


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

ebaltz said:


> How come I didn't see that information anywhere discussed on this site prior to this post?


Mentioned here on the 11th...

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=50581&page=7


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> Mentioned here on the 11th...
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=50581&page=7


Not about the 622, but about the USB that might/will be active and able to transfer to external drive. Didn't see anything about that fact.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

ebaltz said:


> Not about the 622, but about the USB that might/will be active and able to transfer to external drive. Didn't see anything about that fact.


Look for post Post #160 in that thread. Page 7. Provides links to some pictures that states archival support for both the 942 and the 622. There are thread here about USB and 942. Search should provide some threads.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

ebaltz said:


> Not about the 622, but about the USB that might/will be active and able to transfer to external drive. Didn't see anything about that fact.


There have been posts that the ablity to transfer to/from an external USB hard drive on here. This is something that was even planned for the 942 last year but hasn't made it out yet.

Everything I've read indicates that the 622 is pretty much a 942 with MPEG4 support, in fact I've seen it posted here that prior to Dish coming up with the VIP series of names this receiver was going to be a 962, since it is so similar to a 942. With that in mind I would hazard to guess that Dish wouldn't take away anything that was already on the 942 or anything they were working on for the 942, i.e. NBR, USB hard drive support, ability to record on all 3 tuners at the same time, 30 second skip, etc ...

Personally my expectation of the 622 is a 942 that can do MPEG4, and will have extra hard drive space for VOD. But then again, this is just my guess and I could be wrong


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Good guess though Rob.  That has been my guess for a long time. As to if the 622 ever planned to be be called the 962 or if perhaps the 962 might have just been a internal name Dish used to distinguish from the 942. Mystery that may go down in history along with "Who is barried in Grants tomb".


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

ebaltz said:


> How come I didn't see that information anywhere discussed on this site prior to this post?


Because they sometimes get information first, good information. Sometimes we do. Both sides have their contacts and the main thing for all of you is you will get it at some point. Truce here guys, ok. If they post it first, more power to them and good work, as long as its accurate. If we do, same thing. What the heck any of you care is ridiculous, as long as you get it. Let the 2 sites battle it out like any business competitors would do. But, for this site, it will be about respect for all here and all you state about other places. Each has its on mission statement and so be it. But we come here not in a competitive mode, but more in a information gathering mode. We all will make our little spikes at each other, but as I stated in a thread about DBS websites, it is ultimately up to, YOU, to decide where you go for information. All I want is, more of you to register and participate so others can interact with you. Probably isn't any different elsewhere.

But please join us, we want you, not your shadow.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

So any word as to what USB drives they plan on supporting? I am starting to think about purchasing a network/USB combination and sure would be nice if the 622 supported it.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

Tid bit, BREAKING NEWS, Dish on Demand is for real on the 622. Now you know the discrepancy in HD space over total recording space.


----------



## Airblair (May 1, 2003)

Jeff McClellan said:


> Tid bit, BREAKING NEWS, Dish on Demand is for real on the 622. Now you know the discrepancy in HD space over total recording space.


Is it true as *Rogueone* said that this will be only in SD and not HD?

P. S. Sorry for bringing the other site into this thread, one of my new year's resolutions was to not start online holy wars :sure:


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

That I cant answer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

IIRC: The Pocketdish only does SD but I've seen no such limit on an external USB 2.0 hard drive.

JL


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

ebaltz said:


> How come I didn't see that information anywhere discussed on this site prior to this post?


I seem to remember that being discussed as a planned feature even for the 942. I believe it was even mentioned on a chat in the past. Heck I think it was even planned for the 522 at one point. But I have been wrong before.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Ron Barry said:


> Good guess though Rob.  That has been my guess for a long time. As to if the 622 ever planned to be be called the 962 or if perhaps the 962 might have just been a internal name Dish used to distinguish from the 942. Mystery that may go down in history along with "Who is barried in Grants tomb".


Just look at Scott's picture of the 'ViP622' in full resolution, then you could read OFFICIAL label with serial number, main Board number and _the_ model name. It is REALLY DVR962.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> ... then you could read OFFICIAL label with serial number, main Board number and _the_ model name. It is REALLY DVR962.


The model number of the receiver being released *IS* the ViP-622.

It's a shame that E* didn't black out the label on the beta unit on display at the show. Just like the ViP-211 and ViP-222, the ViP-622 had a different name when development was first begun. The ViP-211 was initially called the 411. Not much of a leap to understand that the ViP-222 was initially called the 422, despite what others have said. 

Anyways, it's a ViP-622 and will remain so.

JL


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> My guess is the 25 hours estimate is base on MPEG2. Remember the 622 does both MPEG2 and 4 so my guess is they went with the lower number to be conservative.


Good point. Any idea how much more recording time capacity for MPEG-4 vs. MPEG-2?


----------



## snidely (Mar 11, 2003)

ebaltz said:


> How come I didn't see that information anywhere discussed on this site prior to this post?


 At CES I asked the Motorola people (demonstrating the 6412 box I am temporarily using until I decide what to do permanently) - if they had any plans to activate the SATA port for connection to an external drive for any of their cable clients. The answer was a definite "NO". As an aside one rep said "one does run out of space rather quickly when recording HD". 
Moto was demonstrating the 6412 as part of a unit showing off a "home media center". Home media distribution was one of the big "buzz words" at CES.

I tried asking the same question at the DISH booth. Either they didn't know, or wouldn't answer. No one at DISH said anything more than, in effect, is was possible to add the ability to add an external drive - but no plans in the forseeable future. Of course D* isn't even coming out w. a box for several months. I don't think i posed the question there. 
My guess is everyone is afraid of the potential copyright problems and the movie industry.

...mike


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The way the external HD was explained was that programs could be archived there for later playback by the receiver. I believe that E* will be implementing enough security on the files that one will not be able to transfer the content. I would not be suprised if they locked it so only the writing DVR could read the content.

That is about as close as they can come to making the royalty people happy.

JL


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

P Smith said:


> Just look at Scott's picture of the 'ViP622' in full resolution, then you could read OFFICIAL label with serial number, main Board number and _the_ model name. It is REALLY DVR962.


My point being.... Was the 962 just an internel named that was leaked out or was it actually planned to be called the 962 and was changed.. Thus the Mystery... (Tongue and Cheek) ... as to the label I am well aware of the label on the back. Saw it on the demo video that Allen shot.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

boylehome said:


> Good point. Any idea how much more recording time capacity for MPEG-4 vs. MPEG-2?


Nope.. Depends on a lot of factors and I am sure Dish is still tweaking MPEG4 to optimize it..


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Does it really matter whether or not the ViP622 was ever called a 962 or 942+ or anything internally or "potentially renamed"?

I mean, it has been now announced as ViP622... so does any potential previous name actually have any relevance at this point worth arguing about?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Nope.... Not really....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> Does it really matter whether or not the ViP622 was ever called a 962 or 942+ or anything internally or "potentially renamed"?


Only to historians.

BTW: Those that used the "942+" label were not referring to a new MPEG4 version replacing the 942 but to an "upgrade" version of the 942 (physically changing 942's into 942+'s). That evolved out of the wishful thinking that 942s could be upgraded and not just replaced.

(Cue the conspiracy nuts who believe that E* wants 942's back as part of the ViP-622 upgrade in order to turn them into "942+" models. :lol: )

JL


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

I don't care what # you put on it, I got $300 burning a hole in my pocket. I am ready for Emeril in HD....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

dpd146 said:


> I don't care what # you put on it, I got $300 burning a hole in my pocket. I am ready for Emeril in HD....


BAM!

Ok, I couldn't help myself. 

For the record... I doubt the 942+ thing was ever more than wishful thinking... but it would not surprise me if 962 was a name used until the Marketing team decided to make a more obvious differentiation in the MPEG4 receiver direction. Hence some 411 models being made before the rename, but the 962 never came to pass because they hadn't made any for sale yet.

But in the end, it's what hits the shelves that I'm interested in... and waiting to see how things shake out in the next few weeks before I jump on board to something new myself.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Fortunately E* finalized the model number on the ViP-622 before starting the first regular production run last month. Hopefully that sticker at CES will be the last we'll see of a "DVR962". The ViP-211 on display had the proper number on the label. 

JL


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

dpd146 said:


> I don't care what # you put on it, I got $300 burning a hole in my pocket. I am ready for Emeril in HD....


Only if it includes "smell-o-vision"


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

"...before starting the first regular production run last month."

They only started in December? I was hoping they'd been building up an inventory for a full quarter! So much for "full warehouses." I can see signing up to get in line for the right to get in line for a VIP622.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> Nope.. Depends on a lot of factors and I am sure Dish is still tweaking MPEG4 to optimize it..


Agreed. I do believe that there should be some gain in recording time but not until they actually start streaming MPEG-4.


----------



## Jon Spackman (Feb 7, 2005)

Given the fact that mpeg-2 is here now and going to be for some length of time, I can't see dish announces a mpeg-4 only number of HD hours the 622 can record. I would expect them to say something like "More than 25 hours of HD" or "Approximately 30 hours of HD." Then when mpeg-4 is going and it hold say 35 hours, then no one is upset that it doesn't hold some other number that was advertised.


Just my guess

Jon


----------



## AdamGott (Nov 30, 2005)

SatelliteFun said:


> Oh gotta go, my phone is ringing, maybe its Dish offering me the chance to upgrade two of my HD receivers to new mpeg4 ones.. haha yea right.


You must be able to tell that your phone is ringing by the caller id popup on your screen?

Ha... well it works usually on my two units but they go through phases where they don't even recognize the phoneline connection and give me the popup about hooking it up or else.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

After reading everything I can on the VIP622 is it worth getting?? I get two message one it is the greatest thing since the wheel the other is that if it is anything like the 942 save your money. Can anyone advise me??


----------



## TheBert (Dec 9, 2004)

Does the VIP622 have two tuners for Sat and one for OTA, or just 2 tuners period. I haven't been able to find the specs. Are they both HD tuners?


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

TheBert said:


> Does the VIP622 have two tuners for Sat and one for OTA, or just 2 tuners period. I haven't been able to find the specs. Are they both HD tuners?


That information is listed like 20 times on this site already. It is exactly like a 942, just with MPEG4 in addition to MPEG2, so 2 Sat and 1 OTA.


----------



## DVDDAD (Dec 21, 2002)

ebaltz said:


> That information is listed like 20 times on this site already. It is exactly like a 942, just with MPEG4 in addition to MPEG2, so 2 Sat and 1 OTA.


The ViP622 is NOT exactly like a MPEG4 version of the 942. It also has an ethernet port (for future use) and s-video connections.


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

Close enough. And since the 942 is very successful, the VIP622 being like it is a good thing.

I suspect the warning was "If it's anything like the 921..."

But no, tomcrown, you should hold off getting it
until after I've gotten mine


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

tomcrown1 said:


> After reading everything I can on the VIP622 is it worth getting?? I get two message one it is the greatest thing since the wheel the other is that if it is anything like the 942 save your money. Can anyone advise me??


 If you want more HD, mpeg 4, VOD, get the 622. If not, keep what you got.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

When the 622 is released, it should be ready for VOD.


----------

