# DirecTV’s HD tuner set to debut with Windows 7?



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

It is being reported that Windows 7 contains a native driver for the "DirecTV HDPC20"!!!


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

good news......


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Well....that takes care of 1/2 the holdup........


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

That's encouraging info. I figured that had gotten moth-balled.


----------



## epi (May 18, 2006)

I had not seen this posted here yet. Ed Bott at zdnet.com has an article on the Directv's HD tuner in Windows 7.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=597


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

epi said:


> I had not seen this posted here yet. Ed Bott at zdnet.com has an article on the Directv's HD tuner in Windows 7.
> 
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=597


Despite the rumblings at the time, and more every time some 'sighting' of one piece or another of this, up to the current sloberings (my term) over DirectPC2TV over in the DVR forum, the upshot of ALL and ANY of this to the typical consumer is....

ZERO. Let me say that again, as one of the first people to get an MCSE (after years with Novel, CompTIA, Cisco, certs et. al.), in the real 'non-techie' world, ZERO.

There may be folks here in this forum that desire to 'play around' with such things, but the vast majority of DirecTV folks out there could CARE LESS.

Before I retired, most folks I worked around, and in fact most of my neighbors I talk to on a weekly basis (9 of 10 have DirecTV), want nothing whatsoever to do with a computer in their home, much less connected to their sat TV or home theater system.

These are not anti-tech folks. In fact, about half of them are either Boeing or Microsoft engineers!

When DirecTV rolls out MRV, they say 'give us a call; don't bother us until then'.

I agree, even as I sit here at the rear of my home theater surrounded by four networked high-end PC's, listening/watching a 'New Order' concert DVD blare (511, a really superb DTS mix) out from my HD monitor and 2KW surround speaker system.

Until then, every little off-track 'project' they get involved with is... a total waste of time and effort. As I've run many major projects (software and hardware) over the years, I don't buy the argument that all these off-shoots are 'stepping stones' to MRV. It's a waste of time, effort, and (especially now) money.

And Vapor-Ware, as the article correctly points out.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

1948GG said:


> Until then, every little off-track 'project' they get involved with is... a total waste of time and effort.


So because they're not completely focused on providing the feature you want, they're wasting their time with everything else? Give me a break.

And if you don't think DirecTV2PC is a stepping stone to MRV, then you obviously don't understand the underlying technology very well at all.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

1948GG said:


> Despite the rumblings at the time, and more every time some 'sighting' of one piece or another of this, up to the current sloberings (my term) over DirectPC2TV over in the DVR forum, the upshot of ALL and ANY of this to the typical consumer is....
> 
> ZERO. Let me say that again, as one of the first people to get an MCSE (after years with Novel, CompTIA, Cisco, certs et. al.), in the real 'non-techie' world, ZERO.
> 
> ...


I'm terribly sorry we bore you with our excitement...

Give me a media center PC with storage limited only by the size of the drives I put in it and a DirecTV tuner and I will be extremely happy, but then again, we wouldn't want to bore you with any of this..


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> So because they're not completely focused on providing the feature you want, they're wasting their time with everything else? Give me a break.
> 
> And if you don't think DirecTV2PC is a stepping stone to MRV, then you obviously don't understand the underlying technology very well at all.


Excuse me, but first of all, you and others apparently don't talk to real users. If you did, you'd see the same lack of excitement for anything to do with 'PC' attachment to DirecTV systems, period. I have yet to meet a SINGLE person who would do it, outside of this forum.

And to not understanding the 'underlying technology', excuse me there as well. I helped develop the ORIGINAL Mpeg2 encoders for DirecTV at Compression Labs (San Jose, CA), in the late 80's/early 90's. So, I think I have a bit more than passing grip on exactly what is 'necessary'. BTW, we developed some of the original networked digital video systems that are now used by Cisco in their video teleconferencing systems.

So, in the real world, users are waiting for, like I said, a real, USABLE, networked system, SANS PC's. I stand with them; when it's ready, give us a call.


----------



## mjones73 (Jun 20, 2006)

Don't call us then, we'll call you...


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

mjones73 said:


> Don't call us then, we'll call you...


+1


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

1948GG said:


> Excuse me, but first of all, you and others apparently don't talk to real users. If you did, you'd see the same lack of excitement for anything to do with 'PC' attachment to DirecTV systems, period. I have yet to meet a SINGLE person who would do it, outside of this forum.
> *<snip>*
> *So, in the real world, users are waiting for, like I said, a real, USABLE, networked system, SANS PC's. I stand with them; when it's ready, give us a call*.


I undertand your concern.
In a sense that is what we are testing, yes we are using pcs as the reciever , and with media share the sender, but in the end, the whole MRV should be transparent to the average subscriber; maybe Dtv will provide the needed wirless units and set them up just like they do with the HR units.
MRV won't need pcs; and those with Windows7, hopefully it will be a plug-n-play.


----------



## terron (Oct 11, 2008)

That guy sure is grumpy :/


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

terron said:


> That guy sure is grumpy :/


Agreed, but lets keep the flame throwers in storage.

I like the fact that there is some news about this product, I have built my own PC's for quite some time and think that the user community can come up with a truly epic build (without the budget constraints that DIRECTV must keep in mind).

I'm a little disappointed that the first driver sighting was in Windows 7 but I can only hope (and pray) that there will be support for Windows Vista, or (even better), support all the way back to Windows XP MCE.


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

terron said:


> That guy sure is grumpy :/


 But I understand the frustration. Your "average" DIRECTV subscriber would probably like having a DVR that functions 100% of the time as a DVR, and possibly with the ability to interact with other DVRs on the same LAN (MRV, remote scheduling, etc.).

Most probably don't want a DVR that acts like a computer - personally I want something more stable and reliable than Windows based PCs have to offer now (and I have serious doubts about that stability and reliability getting much, if any closer to 100% in Windows 7 than in current versions).

On the other hand, I also am not looking for a PC to act like a DVR. I've been through Sage, GB-PVR, Meedio, Windows Media Center and others. My track record has shown that PCs make much better PCs than they do DVRs.

DIRECTV bought the ReplayTV technology - which included MRV (and it worked very well), remote scheduling (schedule a show on another DVR on the same LAN if there's a conflict) and more.

DIRECTV has access to a lot of technology and knowledge. First and foremost from that should be delivering a DVR that's stable and reliable close to 100% of the time. Then and only then, focus some resources on bringing a satellite tuner and software to the PC platform.

Just my $.02.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Draconis said:


> I like the fact that there is some news about this product, I have built my own PC's for quite some time and think that the user community can come up with a truly epic build (without the budget constraints that DIRECTV must keep in mind).
> 
> I'm a little disappointed that the first driver sighting was in Windows 7 but I can only hope (and pray) that there will be support for Windows Vista, or (even better), support all the way back to Windows XP MCE.


Draconis, I'm with you... I already know exactly what I will build to go with the HDPC-20 and love the fact that 1TB drive prices are falling thru the floor :lol:

As to the backward support, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope there, the issue appears to be H264 support, which for some unknown (at least to the community) was completely dropped from the Vista Media Center upgrade project and has never even been discussed for XP.

There is one thing to look forward to.. the early indications are that Windows 7 will be everything that Vista should have been... without any of the hassles...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> Give me a media center PC with storage limited only by the size of the drives I put in it and a DirecTV tuner and I will be extremely happy...


I would normally agree with this sentiment, except I'm troubled by the cost of the MCE's for each display. Right now I've got 7 displays hooked-up to DirecTV boxes. What will it cost me for 6 MCE's? /steve


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Steve said:


> I would normally agree with this sentiment, except I'm troubled by the cost of the MCE's for each display. Right now I've got 7 displays hooked-up to DirecTV boxes. What will it cost me for 6 MCE's? /steve


Steve,

The best MCE out there is the XBox360...at present it's also about the cheapest. Coupled with its other functions (DVD player, Netflix oh and some gaming) it's a decent deal. Unfortunately, it is big and can be noisy.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

Steve said:


> I would normally agree with this sentiment, except I'm troubled by the cost of the MCE's for each display. Right now I've got 7 displays hooked-up to DirecTV boxes. What will it cost me for 6 MCE's? /steve


I think that kinda misses the point... unless you and everybody in your household really, really likes messing with PC's. 
If you want a distinct box per TV, then for most households a combo of networked DVR's and HD-boxes will be the way to go.

Many households (not all, but many) need fewer D* receivers than TV's.
I think the PC-idea is that you stick X number of PC-based D* receivers in a stout PC with mega storage, and then distribute the content to the various TV's as needed.

In my case, the scenario is simple because the kids are grown and gone. Bigger households will have different needs.
But, for me, the situation is 4 HD TV's and 2 SD TV's for 2 people. (Some TV's are rarely used.)
Right now, 2 HD-DVR's + 2 HD-boxes + 2 SD-TIVO's = 6 boxes with 10 tuners; 8 of those 10 tuners are recordable.
If centralized, 3 recordable tuners would not only fully satisfy our current usage patterns, it would also be superior (e.g., football Saturdays).
So, for me, going from (6 boxes/10 tuners/8 recordable tuners) to 3 centralized recordable tuners would be a functional upgrade, and 4 centralized recordable tuners would be a major upgrade.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

1948GG said:


> And to not understanding the 'underlying technology', excuse me there as well. I helped develop the ORIGINAL Mpeg2 encoders for DirecTV at Compression Labs (San Jose, CA), in the late 80's/early 90's.


OK, so explain to me how that qualifies you to talk about UPnP/DLNA, DTCP, and the other technologies that go into MRV. Because it sounds to me like you were in the game 25+ years ago, got out of it, and somehow still think that you're qualified to talk about the new stuff that you really don't know anything about.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> There is one thing to look forward to.. the early indications are that Windows 7 will be everything that Vista should have been... without any of the hassles...


Isn't this the same "Kool-Aid" we've been fed since Windows 1.0?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I agree. . . I'll believe it when I see the product shipping.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

russdog said:


> I think that kinda misses the point... unless you and everybody in your household really, really likes messing with PC's.
> If you want a distinct box per TV, then for most households a combo of networked DVR's and HD-boxes will be the way to go.


Actually to me, the orignal promise of MCE was the concept of whole-home scheduling and networking. One PC with terabytes of storage and multiple tuners feeding content to all the displays in my home simultaneously.

I guess I'll have to wait for MRV and hope that at some point there will be a unified scheduler managing all the networked DVR tuners in my home, along with a unified playlist accessible from any STB attached to a display. /steve


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

Steve said:


> Actually to me, the orignal promise of MCE was the concept of whole-home scheduling and networking. One PC with terabytes of storage and multiple tuners feeding content to all the displays in my home simultaneously.


Right. 
But then I don't understand your concern about one MCE per display. 
It's one per PC, is it not?


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Steve,
> 
> The best MCE out there is the XBox360...at present it's also about the cheapest. Coupled with its other functions (DVD player, Netflix oh and some gaming) it's a decent deal. Unfortunately, it is big and can be noisy.


Would rather spend the extra and go with the PS3, combine that with the new netflix interface and sitting pretty. If the PS3 is not needed the Linksys DMA2100 ad the DMA2200 come in a hot second.

Currently running a custom Vista Ultimate 64 bit, 8GB memory, mirrored 320 GB boot drives, a Esata 15 drive raid external array, 1 PS3, 3 DMA2200's - now if the directv would interface 100 percent I will dump all my DVR's both Directivo and HR2X's and come out ahead.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

russdog said:


> Right.
> But then I don't understand your concern about one MCE per display.
> It's one per per PC, is it not?


1 MCE per TV


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> 1 MCE per TV


Didn't know that. Thanks.

That's very unfortunate.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

russdog said:


> Didn't know that. Thanks.
> 
> That's very unfortunate.


How is it unfortunate? Do you think that the TV will somehow magically be able to access the content from Media Center? Obviously an Extender will be needed.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> How is it unfortunate? Do you think that the TV will somehow magically be able to access the content from Media Center? Obviously an Extender will be needed.


It's unfortunate if one is required to purchase multiple licenses for a single product running on a single machine to serve multiple TV's, i.e. 1 per TV rather than 1 per PC.
Not sure if that will be the case or not, but that's what I meant.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> Would rather spend the extra and go with the PS3, combine that with the new netflix interface and sitting pretty. If the PS3 is not needed the Linksys DMA2100 ad the DMA2200 come in a hot second.
> 
> Currently running a custom Vista Ultimate 64 bit, 8GB memory, mirrored 320 GB boot drives, a Esata 15 drive raid external array, 1 PS3, 3 DMA2200's - now if the directv would interface 100 percent I will dump all my DVR's both Directivo and HR2X's and come out ahead.


Ya, but for me, that would cost anywhere from $1200-1500 for 6 MCE's, plus the cost of several DirecTV tuners for the MC PC (I'd want at least 3 or 4, to avoid conflicts).

That said, I guess you can't take it with you. :lol: /steve

PS: IIRC, there used to be a limit of 3 or 4 MCE's per MC server. Is that still true?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

wingrider01 said:



> Would rather spend the extra and go with the PS3, combine that with the new netflix interface and sitting pretty. If the PS3 is not needed the Linksys DMA2100 ad the DMA2200 come in a hot second.
> 
> Currently running a custom Vista Ultimate 64 bit, 8GB memory, mirrored 320 GB boot drives, a Esata 15 drive raid external array, 1 PS3, 3 DMA2200's - now if the directv would interface 100 percent I will dump all my DVR's both Directivo and HR2X's and come out ahead.


Why spend extra for the PS3? The XBox360 will do NetFlix and is a true Media Center Extender. Certainly the PS3 can play video, etc...but in some households the consider Media Center interface is important.
Not arguing XBox vs. PS3...just suggesting a low-cost MCE that has some nice capabilities.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Steve said:


> Ya, but for me, that would cost anywhere from $1200-1500 for 6 MCE's, plus the cost of several DirecTV tuners for the MC PC (I'd want at least 3 or 4, to avoid conflicts).
> 
> That said, I guess you can't take it with you. :lol: /steve
> 
> PS: IIRC, there used to be a limit of 3 or 4 MCE's per MC server. Is that still true?


Steve,

I think that limit would be based more on network capacity than the actual number you could have connected. I don't think there's any limitation on how many MCEs you can have on the network...just how many that could be hitting the server at the same time.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

russdog said:


> It's unfortunate if one is required to purchase multiple licenses for a single product running on a single machine to serve multiple TV's, i.e. 1 per TV rather than 1 per PC.
> Not sure if that will be the case or not, but that's what I meant.


MCE is a piece of hardware not software.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Steve,
> 
> I think that limit would be based more on network capacity than the actual number you could have connected. I don't think there's any limitation on how many MCEs you can have on the network...just how many that could be hitting the server at the same time.


Gotcha. It may have been an XP MC limit. I browsed the new Vista MC site and saw no limit on extenders, but did see a limit of 2 HD tuners and 2 SD tuners max. That could be a non-starter for me, because I'd want at least 3 HD tuners to resolve prime-time conflicts. /steve


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Steve,
> 
> I think that limit would be based more on network capacity than the actual number you could have connected. I don't think there's any limitation on how many MCEs you can have on the network...just how many that could be hitting the server at the same time.


Have 6 running at the office on a single Vista Ultimate box, but it is basicly a full blown server.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I tend to want to agree with the KISS crowd (keep it simple stupid). TV is TV, computers are computers. Each have their uses. Among the average person paying DirecTV varying amounts of $$$ per month, there is no interest in merging the two, and no need to do so.

For the small percentage of users who want the ability to totally integrate everything, great. I hope the hardware and software to support that comes along. But please don't expect me to help subsidize the cost of doing so in what I pay, as I have no interest or need in those capabilities. I like the direction I have seen DirecTV moving, and think they are on track to please the great majority of their customers.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Steve said:


> Gotcha. It may have been an XP MC limit. I browsed the new Vista MC site and saw no limit on extenders, but did see a limit of 2 HD tuners and 2 SD tuners max. That could be a non-starter for me, because I'd want at least 3 HD tuners to resolve prime-time conflicts. /steve


There is a 3rd party patch that allows more turners, take a look at the green button or the Australian Media center site for the patch. I believe the new "service pack" the MS reeleased to OEM builders native support more then the unenhanced version


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> I undertand your concern.
> In a sense that is what we are testing, yes we are using pcs as the reciever , and with media share the sender, but in the end, the whole MRV should be transparent to the average subscriber; maybe Dtv will provide the needed wirless units and set them up just like they do with the HR units.
> MRV won't need pcs; and those with Windows7, hopefully it will be a plug-n-play.





Jeremy W said:


> OK, so explain to me how that qualifies you to talk about UPnP/DLNA, DTCP, and the other technologies that go into MRV. Because it sounds to me like you were in the game 25+ years ago, got out of it, and somehow still think that you're qualified to talk about the new stuff that you really don't know anything about.


I thought about putting this in another thread, probably would have been a better thing to do. But maybe I can get the 'two birds with one stone' explaining a bit, and perhaps explaining a bit about project management as well.

I simply think (I may be wrong, won't be the first time!), that they (DirecTV) is going about this 'ass-backwards'. They have this neat plan to have all this networked stuff going along, and oh, by the way, the MRV component of it is simply this 'module' hanging off to the side over there.

Okay... But perhaps we should review some history (usually not a bad idea at any time) of just exactly how networks evolved in the first place. All this multi-machine, multi-protocol stuff didn't simply leap from the 'brow of zeus', so to speak. What exactly was the first networks, what did they do, and what was the goal? x machines in some homogeneous network sharing anything in a complex client/server or peering system?

Wow, far from it. The first networks were for PRINT sharing, nothing more. Printers were VERY expensive, particularly laser ones, circa late 70's. So of course were hard discs, but hold on a sec, lets get printing working first. Later would come 'true' client-server networks that would integrate printer/file sharing, in fact, doing that efficiently and cost effectively was the whole basis behind this small company in Utah, Novell. They held onto the top dog status for a good decade.

Microsoft and others were (as usual?), late to the game. Others were the trailblazers. As others have pointed out, the MRV part has been in existence on other DVR machines as we speak, and in fact, existed several years ago. Hmm, are we trying to re-invent the wheel?

So, the project manager comes out. Do we want to develop a supersonic jet transport before doing, say, a bi-plane..? In fact, if one looks back at the development of heavier-than-air aircraft, that's just about exactly what a LOT of folks tried to do up until (and past!) the turn of the 20th Century. Then these two brothers from Dayton, OH, thought jeez, lets get the wheel invented first before we leap off the cliff!

In my mind, DirecTV is trying to develop the supersonic jet transport FIRST, and do the 'simple stuff' later. Good Luck!

I wish them luck. So far, the track record is not good; any project manager worth their salt would say if the basics aren't proven and the foundation not set within around 6 months of kickoff, then your initial plan is suspect. DirecTV has been going at this for what, at least six years...?

As far as the 'technology changing' and some particular part of it being different than, say, 25+ years ago, then I guess anyone can't follow any new thoughts or advances about anything.

Here's an example; do you think any Physicist from, say, the 1930's (pre atom bomb) would not understand pretty quickly exactly what Oppenheimer and friends came up with circa 1945? Or say, going back to my airplane analogy, that the Wright brothers would understand within a couple of minutes (seconds?) how a 747 flies?

One of the greatest challenges in any career is keeping up. The biggest thing to learn as an undergraduate is.... to learn how to learn.

The basic rules of physics don't change; although my 'atom bomb' example is a bit of a stretch, as those folks were rewriting a lot of the textbooks of the era.

But the basics of project management don't change, whether we're talking about an 8-lane superhighway or a rocket to the moon. Wernher von Braun wasn't just a genius rocket designer, he was a suburb project manager. He had a rocket pre-Sputnik ready to go, but the DOD wanted a different rocket to go, which wasn't ready. 'Politics'.

I don't think this question may ever get answered, but I wonder what 'politics' at DirecTV is pushing the Supersonic Transport part of MRV before the simple biplane...? Oh well....

As an aside, my 'hero for the ages' is this guy, Leslie R. Groves. A lowly brigadier general (MG at the end of the war), running the BIGGEST (certainly the most expensive) government/military project of WW2. The Manhattan Project. A 'simple' Corps of Engineers branch graduate of West Point, he didn't know SQUAT about the physics of how Oppenheimer was going to accomplish his feat, but he knew how to manage the 130,000 people and $24B (in 2008 dollars) to support that effort to it's positive conclusion.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

If you had anything in that novel you wanted me to address, I would suggest posting it separately. Because I'm not reading all of that.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> If you had anything in that novel you wanted me to address, I would suggest posting it separately. Because I'm not reading all of that.


Don't worry about it Jeremy.. I read it and it lacks any content of importance to us.. he doesn't like DirecTV's development process.. thinks he could manage it better.. thinks they are incompetent... made a comparison to the Manhattan Project ???... completely off topic...

Lets cheer the fact that there is actually a driver in existence for the HDPC-20, which is way more than we have ever had before!!!


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> Lets cheer the fact that there is actually a driver in existence for the HDPC-20, which is way more than we have ever had before!!!


too bad there isnt a driver in vista sp2, anyway i cant wait for the hdpc20 to come out. i have already built a machine for it


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> Lets cheer the fact that there is actually a driver in existence for the HDPC-20, which is way more than we have ever had before!!!


Definitely. It's going to get here eventually.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> If you had anything in that novel you wanted me to address, I would suggest posting it separately. Because I'm not reading all of that.


QFT - will stay with ARPNet (or maybe MilNet) for the first external network use and a IBM 360 series with 327X green screens for the internel data network


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/11/10/windows-7-includes-a-driver-for-the-directv-hdcp-20-usb-tuner/


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/11/10/windows-7-includes-a-driver-for-the-directv-hdcp-20-usb-tuner/


\
That's what I'm talking about... Party!!!


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> Don't worry about it Jeremy.. I read it and it lacks any content of importance to us.. he doesn't like DirecTV's development process.. thinks he could manage it better.. thinks they are incompetent... made a comparison to the Manhattan Project ???... completely off topic...
> 
> Lets cheer the fact that there is actually a driver in existence for the HDPC-20, which is way more than we have ever had before!!!


I work with computers all day long. I don't want to sit at home in front of a computer to do my TV viewing. This development was something that you guys placed some greater importance over. For most of the common people they would rather have MRV from DVR to receiver/DVR.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

swans said:


> I work with computers all day long. I don't want to sit at home in front of a computer to do my TV viewing. This development was something that you guys placed some greater importance over. For most of the common people they would rather have MRV from DVR to receiver/DVR.


I'm either missing your point or you seem to be mixed up.
DirecTV2PC requires [in the simplest form] "sitting" in front of a computer.
HDPC-20 would be used with an HTPC which [normally] would be connected to an HD TV.
Would more customers be using HD DVRs and MRV? This would be my guess.
Are there some that would rather have their HTPC as a central server? "I think so".

Should DirecTV only work/develop "options" that I want/would use? 
Isn't this a bit self centered?


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

russdog said:


> Right.
> But then I don't understand your concern about one MCE per display.
> It's one per PC, is it not?


I think the confusion here (at least for me) is the terminology.

MCE = Media Center Edition, and typically refers to the PC iteself, of which you only need 1.

MCX = Media Center Extender, and is what you need at each TV. They can be as cheap as $150 now (Linksys and DLink) and you can have as many as you'd like connected to the MCE.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

swans said:


> I work with computers all day long. I don't want to sit at home in front of a computer to do my TV viewing. This development was something that you guys placed some greater importance over. For most of the common people they would rather have MRV from DVR to receiver/DVR.


"most" of us that want this, have pc's and htpc's hooked up to large hdtv's. its not like we will be sitting in front of 19'' computer monitors to watch tv from the hdpc20. right now, i use directv2pc as a mrv solution on my 2 main tv's with pc's hooked up to 2-62" dlps.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

carl6 said:


> I tend to want to agree with the KISS crowd (keep it simple stupid). TV is TV, computers are computers. Each have their uses. Among the average person paying DirecTV varying amounts of $$$ per month, there is no interest in merging the two, and no need to do so.
> 
> For the small percentage of users who want the ability to totally integrate everything, great. I hope the hardware and software to support that comes along. But please don't expect me to help subsidize the cost of doing so in what I pay, as I have no interest or need in those capabilities. I like the direction I have seen DirecTV moving, and think they are on track to please the great majority of their customers.


Carl,
Nowadays the computers are DVRs and the DVRs are computers. The TV is a computer and the computer is a TV. It will get simple...as the computer just takes more and different forms. You think that cellphone you use is a phone or a computer? 

So, yes many don't want to built an HTPC or even buy one...but they wouldn't think twice about buying a new A/V Receiver with all sorts of new functionality...or a "whole home DVR", etc. It's a question of interface and packaging.


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

swans said:


> I work with computers all day long. I don't want to sit at home in front of a computer to do my TV viewing. This development was something that you guys placed some greater importance over. For most of the common people they would rather have MRV from DVR to receiver/DVR.


Media Center and MCX do not require you watch TV from your PC. I have a dual-tuner, HD OTA Media Center setup in my house with 3 extenders and the PC is in my basement with no monitor, keyboard or mouse connected.

You watch TV from the set top box, XBOX360, or even some TVs now have the MCX software built in.

Simply put, Micorsoft has had MRV for about 5 or 6 years now (even before ReplayTV) with this setup, some of us have large investments in Media Center as a Recorded/Live TV solution and now we'd like to get DIRECTVHD content in there as well.

If you've never used the Media Center interface, you won't understand how EVERY other interface is behind, and while it does have it's problems, keep in mind that for the last 5 years we have had Photos, Music, Video, DVDs, Recorded TV, Live TV and Internet TV, HDTV in a single, amazingly elegant and usable interface while all other solutions have only ever offered a subset.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I'm either missing your point or you seem to be mixed up.
> DirecTV2PC requires [in the simplest form] "sitting" in front of a computer.
> HDPC-20 would be used with an HTPC which [normally] would be connected to an HD TV.
> Would more customers be using HD DVRs and MRV? This would be my guess.
> ...


VOS,

Do you have to sit in front of your DVR to watch content that it's playing? No...nor do you have to do so to see what is playing from a computer. It would be difficult today to find a HDTV that didn't have complete computer connectivity.


----------



## ToddD (Jun 14, 2006)

xzi said:


> I think the confusion here (at least for me) is the terminology.
> 
> MCE = Media Center Edition, and typically refers to the PC iteself, of which you only need 1.
> 
> MCX = Media Center Extender, and is what you need at each TV. They can be as cheap as $150 now (Linksys and DLink) and you can have as many as you'd like connected to the MCE.


Let me update your post with some good news...Amazon has the Linksys extender for $112.99

http://www.amazon.com/Linksys-Media...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1226341788&sr=8-2


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

ToddD said:


> Let me update your post with some good news...Amazon has the Linsys extender for $112.99
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Linksys-Media...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1226341788&sr=8-2


Damn. That's not good news for me I already bought my 2


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

xzi said:


> russdog said:
> 
> 
> > Right.
> ...


Thank you. That is helpful.
(In my ignorance, I thought maybe I had lost my mind ;-)


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Just saw this one on engadget....

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/11/10/windows-7-includes-a-driver-for-the-directv-hdcp-20-usb-tuner/

Good screenshot from a pre-beta release.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Ken S said:


> VOS,
> 
> Do you have to sit in front of your DVR to watch content that it's playing? No...nor do you have to do so to see what is playing from a computer. It would be difficult today to find a HDTV that didn't have complete computer connectivity.


Well I do have to sit in front of a monitor to be here. :lol: 
[which is also where I use DirecTV2PC the most]


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Another interesting article.

Will the DirecTV HDPC-20 Arrive at 2009's CES?


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Microsoft - known for quality and reliability. They'll make the current DVR's look great. I know they are talking about a slightly different beast and use but I can't wait to see that forum.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

CTJon said:


> Microsoft - known for quality and reliability. They'll make the current DVR's look great.


Have you ever actually used Windows Media Center?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CTJon said:


> Microsoft - known for quality and reliability....


!rolling 
Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.
If Microsoft had done the software for the moon mission, NASA would still be waiting for a service pack and Neil Armstrong wouldn't have left footprints [yet].


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> !rolling
> Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.
> If Microsoft had done the software for the moon mission, NASA would still be waiting for a service pack and Neil Armstrong wouldn't have left footprints [yet].


Enjoy how everyone takes pot shots at Microsoft, not a perfect company by any stretch, but nevertheless used on over a billion PC's world wide.. I sit in front of a PC all day every day, imagine that, no problems... just does what it is supposed to do.

Anyway... check the history books, the "computer" on the LEM failed during Apollo 11's landing:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> Enjoy how everyone takes pot shots at Microsoft, not a perfect company by any stretch, but nevertheless used on over a billion PC's world wide.. I sit in front of a PC all day every day, imagine that, no problems... just does what it is supposed to do.
> 
> Anyway... check the history books, the "computer" on the LEM failed during Apollo 11's landing:lol: :lol: :lol:


And where did the "blue screen of death" come from?

BTW: the 1201 error [I think that was the #] was because the radar data was over loading the system. "Somebody" thought it would be good to have this data for a manual landing [if needed], yet nobody tried it, and it forced a manual landing instead.

Kind of reminders me of a missile launch that went "a rye". Someone didn't make a correction value absolute, so one way it corrected to center and the other way drove it off center further.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> And where did the "blue screen of death" come from?


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> What does that have to do with anything?


Agreed... besides, I haven't seen the BSOD since Vista arrived... oops, another imperfect product... :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> Agreed... besides, I haven't seen the BSOD since Vista arrived... oops, another imperfect product... :lol:


Three times [just today] TCPIPsys with Vista gave me the blue screen.

Jeremy W: "What does that have to do with anything?"

So we can't "wander" just a bit? [like EVERY other thread here]


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> So we can't "wander" just a bit? [like EVERY other thread here]


Wandering, which this thread has done a ton of, is fine. But that comment was completely off the wall, and really has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## RehabMan (Mar 11, 2007)

What software product is perfect? I know of none. Face it, writing good software is difficult. I get the feeling most of the people bashing Vista have never used it. I use it on two of my machines and it isn't as bad as the tech press would have you believe [Yes -- I like it better than XP].

I'm sure DirecTV is still shocked at the fact that they are still working on the software for the HR series -- another chunk of software not exactly known for its perfection. I'm sure the whole thing turned out to be much more difficult than they ever imagined. I wonder how long they will fund their own development team.

I too, am looking forward to seeing the HDPC20 and the support in Media Center, whenever it arrives. I see it as a potentially better alternative to DirecTV's MRV, both in flexibility and cost. Flexibility in the way it would put the DVR in an extensible/programmable platform (the Windows PC). And cost in that you won't have to pay "mirroring" fees to bring the content to different zones in the house, because you are using non-subscription based MCX boxes to feed remote zones (Media Center Extenders).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Wandering, which this thread has done a ton of, is fine. But that comment was completely off the wall, and really has nothing to do with anything.


Since I WAS replying to LarryFlower's reply, I wasn't "that far" into a "wander".
Have a short fuse today?


----------



## RehabMan (Mar 11, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Three times [just today] TCPIPsys with Vista gave me the blue screen.
> ...


On the other hand, my longest running Vista box has blue-screened only once in over 1.5 years of running pretty much 24/7 (it feeds Doug Brott's redh.com/dtv info).

Has it run perfectly? No -- I recently had to re-install Vista because WMP11 media sharing stopped working and nothing I could think of would bring it back... But I install/uninstall a lot of different software on the machine, so things might not have been so pristine [uninstall apps that people ship are generally pretty sloppy and under-tested].

My guess for you is that perhaps you have some sort of driver/network/corruption/hardware issue. Perhaps a re-install is in your [near] future  ...


----------



## iamqnow (Dec 26, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> OK, so explain to me how that qualifies you to talk about UPnP/DLNA, DTCP, and the other technologies that go into MRV. Because it sounds to me like you were in the game 25+ years ago, got out of it, and somehow still think that you're qualified to talk about the new stuff that you really don't know anything about.


Why so much "nastiness?" So some folks have other ideas about what should be. Let's not attack or belittle them.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RehabMan said:


> On the other hand, my longest running Vista box has blue-screened only once in over 1.5 years of running pretty much 24/7 (it feeds Doug Brott's redh.com/dtv info).
> 
> Has it run perfectly? No -- I recently had to re-install Vista because WMP11 media sharing stopped working and nothing I could think of would bring it back... But I install/uninstall a lot of different software on the machine, so things might not have been so pristine [uninstall apps that people ship are generally pretty sloppy and under-tested].
> 
> My guess for you is that perhaps you have some sort of driver/network/corruption/hardware issue. Perhaps a re-install is in your [near] future  ...


[Don't read this Jeremy W]

This Vista "box" has been pretty good. 
P2P program(s) seem to be it's weakness, and the fact that you can't "upgrade" a Vista Ultimate install, so this one seems to get a fresh install about ever 30-60 days.


----------



## mopzo (Jun 15, 2007)

1948GG said:


> Despite the rumblings at the time, and more every time some 'sighting' of one piece or another of this, up to the current sloberings (my term) over DirectPC2TV over in the DVR forum, the upshot of ALL and ANY of this to the typical consumer is....
> 
> ZERO. Let me say that again, as one of the first people to get an MCSE (after years with Novel, CompTIA, Cisco, certs et. al.), in the real 'non-techie' world, ZERO.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree. I can see the DVR on my PS3, on my laptop. To what benefit? I'm still trying to see the benefit of Direct2PC. Why watch a recording on a 15inch laptop screen when my 52 inch is right in front of me? When I can watch any recording anywhere with an internet connection. (without slingbox) .that's when I'll get excited.


----------



## iamqnow (Dec 26, 2007)

Why watch a recording on a 15inch laptop screen when my 52 inch is right in front of me? When I can watch any recording anywhere with an internet connection. (without slingbox) .that's when I'll get excited.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I've been trying to figure this one out too.


----------



## RehabMan (Mar 11, 2007)

Just remember, Steve Ballmer's own parents questioned the need to have a computer in the home. Now look where we are with PCs in the home.

These kinds of technologies are always adopted first by the techies. The early adopters. We help refine the technology. We show it to our friends... and the less techno savvy. When it is ready for mainstream, if it has benefits that outweigh the costs, they buy in.

If DirecTV is moving in a direction to allow and even encourage Media Center capability (entertainment computer in the living room), then I'd like to encourage them and congratulate them for helping move things forward.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

iamqnow said:


> Why watch a recording on a 15inch laptop screen when my 52 inch is right in front of me? When I can watch any recording anywhere with an internet connection. (without slingbox) .that's when I'll get excited.


i have directv2pc installed on my htpc's and watch it on 62'' dlp's. its very nice as i have access to 6-hr2x's on those 2 hdtv's and i can watch whatever i want off of any of those receivers. thats why im excited


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

mopzo said:


> I tend to agree. I can see the DVR on my PS3, on my laptop. To what benefit? I'm still trying to see the benefit of Direct2PC. Why watch a recording on a 15inch laptop screen when my 52 inch is right in front of me? When I can watch any recording anywhere with an internet connection. (without slingbox) .that's when I'll get excited.


youll be happy to know that vista media center already does this too with a free microsoft plugin, webguide. works on the lan or over internet with live transcoding.

if you really want to blow your mind check out www.lifextender.com too


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Whoa, maybe now I can consider putting together a HTPC with BluRay and this thing DirecTV and Microsoft are putting together, eh?


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

smiddy said:


> Whoa, maybe now I can consider putting together a HTPC with BluRay and this thing DirecTV and Microsoft are putting together, eh?


I'm right there with you. I've got a quad system here waiting. Looks like an upgrade from Vista Ultimate to Windows 7 will be required, though.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Three times [just today] TCPIPsys with Vista gave me the blue screen.
> 
> Jeremy W: "What does that have to do with anything?"
> 
> So we can't "wander" just a bit? [like EVERY other thread here]


BSOD is caused by a fault at teh kernel level, since you mentioned the TCP stack, you might want to investigate your drivers for the associated items.

as far as MCE and MCX's go have had 6 Vista Ultimate systems with a cobbled together directv feed to them running consistantly for close to a year with a grand total of 2 reboots to add new devices and 1 hardware failure. They service 4 media center extenders each and those are runnig close 24x7 usage. they serve up movies and TV to each of the locations at the office.


----------



## Arative (Jan 8, 2008)

The HDPC-20 was one of the reasons I switched to Direct TV last year, just the rumor they would have one. That and the massive amount of HD channels. Good to see that it is coming along nicely. This will just give me an excuse to upgrade my HTPC.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Arative said:


> The HDPC-20 was one of the reasons I switched to Direct TV last year, just the rumor they would have one. That and the massive amount of HD channels. Good to see that it is coming along nicely. This will just give me an excuse to upgrade my HTPC.


If that's the main reason you're upgrading, I'd still wait at least another 6-12 months, until the HDPC-20 actually ships. I say this because the way CPU prices historically drop, any HTPC you buy today will probably cost you 33% less 12 months out, or, for the same money you'll spend today, you should be able to buy an even higher-performance box at that time. Just my .02. /steve


----------



## dbsdave (May 1, 2007)

Since the betas floating around of windows 7 are remarkably stable and complete already (they clearly have been working on ditching vista longer than we thought), I wonder if us testing geeks will be able to do anything with directv and windows 7 before either the hdcp 20 or windows 7 is officially released.

Lets hope they finally get this right, trying to get microsoft and directv on the same page has been like trying to get an elephant and porcupine to mate.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

dbsdave said:


> Since the betas floating around of windows 7 are remarkably stable and complete already (they clearly have been working on ditching vista longer than we thought), I wonder if us testing geeks will be able to do anything with directv and windows 7 before either the hdcp 20 or windows 7 is officially released.
> 
> Lets hope they finally get this right, trying to get microsoft and directv on the same page has been like trying to get an elephant and porcupine to mate.


The reason W7 pre-Beta is more stable and feature complete that other OSes post-Beta is that it is basically Vista with a few tweaks. Microsoft has decided not to do the mini-kernel rewrite for W7 and are sticking with the Vista kernel. This will help device driver writers in the short run, but will hurt performance in the long run.


----------



## dbsdave (May 1, 2007)

I suppose you are right...but it looks quite a bit different anyway. You would think they would just concentrate on eliminating the technical complaints people would have with vista.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Ya. They should have bit the bullet and done a total re-write and just offered a compatibility window to give developers time to catch-up. Worked for Apple with 0S-X. Good article on this here.

That said, there may still be some kernel changes, or a change in the order non-critical processes are loaded, because they claim that out of the box, 7 is going to run applications faster than Vista on the same h/w.

/steve


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> Ya. They should have bit the bullet and done a total re-write and just offered a compatibility window to give developers time to catch-up. Worked for Apple with 0S-X.


It worked for a company with a drastically smaller marketshare, and no huge corporate customers to answer to.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It worked for a company with a drastically smaller marketshare, and no huge corporate customers to answer to.


But with today's multi-core CPU's, running a _competent_ compatible VM is an advantage that even Apple didn't have, and they pulled it off. Their big application developers had less to gain from re-writes, due to smaller market share, and they still re-wrote, even though it cost them as much as would to re-write their Windows apps, with a larger user base to pay for upgrades.

As long as Microsoft continues down a road of trying to stay backwards compatible with 20 years of legacy apps, they're giving Linux a chance to gain marketshare in corporate America that they don't have to. It's already started happening in corporate Europe and with a lot of gov't institutions in the US. If I was a Microsoft shareholder, I'd be seriously ticked-off. /steve


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Steve said:


> But with today's multi-core CPU's, running a _competent_ compatible VM is an advantage that even Apple didn't have, and they pulled it off. Their big application developers had less to gain from re-writes, due to smaller market share, and they still re-wrote, even though it cost them as much as would to re-write their Windows apps, with a larger user base to pay for upgrades.
> 
> As long as Microsoft continues down a road of trying to stay backwards compatible with 20 years of legacy apps, they're giving Linux a chance to gain marketshare in corporate America that they don't have to. It's already started happening in corporate Europe and with a lot of gov't institutions in the US. If I was a Microsoft shareholder, I'd be seriously ticked-off. /steve


I am, and I am.


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

MS probably held off on releasing H.264 support for Windows 7 to offer an incentive for us to switch.

I know opinions are like arm pits... everyone has them and they all stink, but...

I see standard MRV being for the mainstream and PC based DVR for more advanced users. Once you get the content onto a PC, you have limitless ability with it.

There are an endless supply of Media Center Extenders ready to pipe DirecTV from a DirecTV enabled PC-DVR. Hopefully they'll let us put 6 or more tuners on one of these boxes.

It would certainly be less costly (in terms of actual cost, not what the consumer pays) to have a bunch of PC based tuners than to video capture standalone receivers.

A PC provides a more complex, yet more powerful environment. A standalone (or even networked) provides a simpler environment.


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

russdog said:


> Right.
> But then I don't understand your concern about one MCE per display.
> It's one per PC, is it not?


Yes, you just need 1 MCE PC, the rest just need media center extenders.


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> MCE is a piece of hardware not software.


Darn acronyms... MCE is Media Center Edition.... what to call a Media Center Extender?


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

Steve said:


> Gotcha. It may have been an XP MC limit. I browsed the new Vista MC site and saw no limit on extenders, but did see a limit of 2 HD tuners and 2 SD tuners max. That could be a non-starter for me, because I'd want at least 3 HD tuners to resolve prime-time conflicts. /steve


I believe the update increased to to 4 of both... though the DirecTV solution would clearly be something different.


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

It would be simpler for DirecTV to do the PC based DVR than networked DVR... MS already did all of the dirty work in terms of handling the networking, the interfaces, etc. DirecTV just needs to plug in to the MCE... which I know isn't trivial.

Now the solution overall would be more complex for the standard user.


----------



## RehabMan (Mar 11, 2007)

mhammett said:


> Darn acronyms... MCE is Media Center Edition.... what to call a Media Center Extender?


MCE - Media Center Edition... note: this is really only applicable to XP, because in Vista...
VMC - Vista Media Center (software in Vista providing Media Center functionality, including the ability to serve MCX boxes)
MCX - Media Center Extender (hardware, w/ software aboard that can talk to a Media Center server, these days usually VMC).


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

mopzo said:


> I tend to agree. I can see the DVR on my PS3, on my laptop. To what benefit? I'm still trying to see the benefit of Direct2PC. Why watch a recording on a 15inch laptop screen when my 52 inch is right in front of me? When I can watch any recording anywhere with an internet connection. (without slingbox) .that's when I'll get excited.


The size of the screen is unimportant, it's how far away you are from that screen. I'm typing on my 22" screen that is maybe 18" from me. To have that same ratio in my living room, I'd need a... 25' screen.

We network gurus can already use Direct2PC remotely... just gotta know what you're doing and have the bandwidth to back it up.

You won't be able to have high quality remote viewing on a standard DSL or cable connection... just not enough upstream capacity.


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

Steve said:


> Ya. They should have bit the bullet and done a total re-write and just offered a compatibility window to give developers time to catch-up. Worked for Apple with 0S-X. Good article on this here.
> 
> That said, there may still be some kernel changes, or a change in the order non-critical processes are loaded, because they claim that out of the box, 7 is going to run applications faster than Vista on the same h/w.
> 
> /steve


As the move to x64 and Vista has shown us... you can't depend on developers for squat. The third party developers dragging their feet is mostly what gives Microsoft a bad name.


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

RehabMan said:


> MCE - Media Center Edition... note: this is really only applicable to XP, because in Vista...
> VMC - Vista Media Center (software in Vista providing Media Center functionality, including the ability to serve MCX boxes)
> MCX - Media Center Extender (hardware, w/ software aboard that can talk to a Media Center server, these days usually VMC).


Yeah, I hadn't yet caught up to your previous post on the matter, though this one did provide more information.


----------



## Kapeman (Dec 22, 2003)

I for one, would like to see the type of MRV that DISH has utilizing the existing coax infrastructure in your house. I don't want to have to run cat5 or 6 to every TV in the house and wireless won't cut it.

Also, and I may regret this but,

Jeremy, why do you have to be such a *jackass*?

If you don't agree, fine. If you want to debate, fine. There is no need to be such a jerk!

There, I feel better!


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Kapeman said:


> I for one, would like to see the type of MRV that DISH has utilizing the existing coax infrastructure in your house. I don't want to have to run cat5 or 6 to every TV in the house and wireless won't cut it.


Dish's 2-TV receivers limit the TV2 output to standard def, which is rapidly making them obsolete. Right now, CAT5 gives lots of options, is relatively inexpensive, and is a worldwide standard.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

IIP said:


> Dish's 2-TV receivers limit the TV2 output to standard def, which is rapidly making them obsolete. Right now, CAT5 gives lots of options, is relatively inexpensive, and is a worldwide standard.


Also isn't Dish still using the Ku [only] SATs? If they are and [like DirecTV] use the 950-1450 MHz, there is a lot of the cable bandwidth not being use, compared to DirecTV.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Kapeman said:


> Jeremy, why do you have to be such a *jackass*?
> 
> If you don't agree, fine. If you want to debate, fine. There is no need to be such a jerk!
> 
> There, I feel better!


If you really want to get into this with me, feel free to PM me. I wouldn't suggest you do that, though. And that's all I'm going to say about that in this thread.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

mhammett said:


> As the move to x64 and Vista has shown us... you can't depend on developers for squat. The third party developers dragging their feet is mostly what gives Microsoft a bad name.


I respectfully disagree. The developers all made themselves "Windows NT" compatible with the advent of Win2K several years ago. And they're now re-compiling and tweaking their major apps to run on Linux for Corporate Europe. Most modern code is written in high-level languages and is relatively portable, so rewriting is not as big a deal as it used to be. The major Mac apps were all ported within 6 months of 0S-X (including Microsoft's and Adobe's). Besides that, the customers foot most of the bill for this anyway, having to pay for the upgrades.

And the fact of the matter is with the power of today's multi-core processors, the ability to run legacy apps in an XP virtual machine would make the transition to a new core much less painful all around.

The multi-core processors are also what's hiding this issue, somewhat, because as bloated as Vista is, it still runs reasonably well because the brute force computing power now available overcomes it's inefficiencies. But it's like making a baseball heavier and heavier and putting the players on more and more steroids so they can still hit it as far. At some point, you'll reach a point of diminishing returns. /steve


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Steve said:


> I respectfully disagree. The developers all made themselves "Windows NT" compatible with the advent of Win2K several years ago. And they're now re-compiling and tweaking their major apps to run on Linux for Corporate Europe. Most modern code is written in high-level languages and is relatively portable, so rewriting is not as big a deal as it used to be. The major Mac apps were all ported within 6 months of 0S-X (including Microsoft's and Adobe's). Besides that, the customers foot most of the bill for this anyway, having to pay for the upgrades.
> 
> And the fact of the matter is with the power of today's multi-core processors, the ability to run legacy apps in an XP virtual machine would make the transition to a new core much less painful all around. /steve


Steve,

He's talking mostly about the the driver developers for things like printers, video cards etc. Some of them had over two years before the release of Vista to have drivers ready and didn't bother. Then when they do it they don't bother to do drivers for older devices (meaning the one they sold an hour ago)...they then blame the problem on Microsoft and hope the customer buys a new device.
The corporate side of things is far different...some update their applications quickly others will stay with an old app and OS to support it for years and years. I know of one major airline that was still running their ticketing application on Windows 3.1 in 2004. That's not a bad thing if it still works, but it does leave them open to security risks.

The other big issue with drivers is how many developers won't bother to get them certified for XP or Vista. Instead they instruct their users to bypass the warning and just install. That might be fine for their driver, but it really does instruct customers to avoid one of the better security/stability features that XP/2003/Vista/2008 offer.

Anyway, back on thread...I talked with a contact recently (same guy that told me in April that DirecTV drivers probably weren't coming until Windows 7) his belief was the delay was not on Microsoft's part...he wouldn't give specifics but did ask me how many HDPC-20s I had ever seen. He kind of intimated that DirecTV was in no rush to get this thing out.


----------



## mopzo (Jun 15, 2007)

mhammett said:


> The size of the screen is unimportant, it's how far away you are from that screen. I'm typing on my 22" screen that is maybe 18" from me. To have that same ratio in my living room, I'd need a... 25' screen.
> 
> We network gurus can already use Direct2PC remotely... just gotta know what you're doing and have the bandwidth to back it up.
> 
> You won't be able to have high quality remote viewing on a standard DSL or cable connection... just not enough upstream capacity.


I could be wrong....but doesn't slingbox send HD content upstream?


----------



## mopzo (Jun 15, 2007)

dave29 said:


> i have directv2pc installed on my htpc's and watch it on 62'' dlp's. its very nice as i have access to 6-hr2x's on those 2 hdtv's and i can watch whatever i want off of any of those receivers. thats why im excited


Goody for you.....I only have one set of eyes and only watch one thing at a time.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

mopzo said:


> I could be wrong....but doesn't slingbox send HD content upstream?


Only the new Slingbox Pro-HD does, but it requires at least 1.5mbps upstream bandwidth to do HD over the Internet.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Only the new Slingbox Pro-HD does, but it requires at least 1.5mbps upstream bandwidth to do HD over the Internet.


Now that must be HD-lite.


----------



## nyelton (Sep 4, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Also isn't Dish still using the Ku [only] SATs? If they are and [like DirecTV] use the 950-1450 MHz, there is a lot of the cable bandwidth not being use, compared to DirecTV.


I believe they actually go up to ~2GHz with their DishPro/DishProPlus because they stack either both polarities from the same satellite simulataneously (DP) or stack the signals for both DVR tuners on one coax (DPP). Or something like that. I used to have Dish in an old apartment but that was a while ago.

But in any case, the Dish solution for MRV seems to me to be basically: run a long cable to the tv in the other room. I can (and do!) do the same thing with Directv.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

nyelton said:


> I believe they actually go up to ~2GHz with their DishPro/DishProPlus because they stack either both polarities from the same satellite simulataneously (DP) or stack the signals for both DVR tuners on one coax (DPP). Or something like that. I used to have Dish in an old apartment but that was a while ago.
> 
> But in any case, the Dish solution for MRV seems to me to be basically: run a long cable to the tv in the other room. I can (and do!) do the same thing with Directv.


OK so they stack the "others" from 1550-2050 MHz [say] and still don't use the 250-750 MHz that DirecTV does.
What would you do if you had more than two TVs?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Now that must be HD-lite.


Depends on the display. Data rates as low as 768kbps usually look very "HD" on a 15" or smaller laptop screen, which is probably the primary Slingbox audience. And the smaller the screen, the less kbps you need. /steve


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Steve said:


> Depends on the display. Data rates as low as 768kbps usually look very "HD" on a 15" or smaller laptop screen, which is probably the primary Slingbox audience. And the smaller the screen, the less kbps you need. /steve


And people complain about the 3 Mb/s SD PQ. :lol:


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> And people complain about the 3 Mb/s SD PQ. :lol:


Ya, but when you're watching a Slingbox streaming video to your laptop, you have different expectations than sitting in your living room in front of a 50" display.  /steve


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Also isn't Dish still using the Ku [only] SATs? If they are and [like DirecTV] use the 950-1450 MHz, there is a lot of the cable bandwidth not being use, compared to DirecTV.


Dish only uses Ku sats; all of them being DBS sats except for 118.7, which is an FSS sat, and used for Internationals. But while Dish's "legacy" LNBs and switches only used 950-1450, their DishPro and DishProPlus equipment uses band-stacking, placing one bank of transponders on 950-1450 and the other on 1550-2050 Mhz. This eliminates the need for voltage switching to select odd or even transponders, as both come down the line at the same time. Eliminating voltage switching means the receivers output a fixed 19V, which allows much longer runs of cable. Further, it means that only one cable needs to be run from each LNB to an external multiswitch, where legacy systems require 2 per LNB. Given that Dish systems often need 3 or 4 orbital locations, that's a big difference. Imagine having to run 8 cables from the dish to the switch inputs.

With DishProPlus, the receivers work something like a 2 channel SWM system: the receiver will send control messages for both tuners to the switch, and the switch will select the appropriate bank of TPs needed for the channel used by each tuner, and will output that bank to the 950-1450 band for tuner 1, or to the 1550-2050 band for tuner 2. A DPP Separator, which is just a custom diplexer, separates the two frequency bands and feeds the appropriate one to each tuner. That's how one cable can feed two tuners on the same receiver, but also why it can't be "split" to feed two single-tuner receivers (it can only have one "control" signal).


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> OK so they stack the "others" from 1550-2050 MHz [say] and still don't use the 250-750 MHz that DirecTV does.
> What would you do if you had more than two TVs?


Dish doesn't have "MRV" in the sense that different receivers communicate with each other. What they have are dual (sat) tuner, dual-output receivers and DVRs that are designed to run 2 TVs. The second TV is output over coax, which is the only practical way to distribute the signal to rooms that may be on the far side of the house, etc. The remote for the second TV is RF, so if you're in a room connected to the TV2 output of the receiver, you have your own remote but no "box" in your room.


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

Kapeman said:


> I for one, would like to see the type of MRV that DISH has utilizing the existing coax infrastructure in your house. I don't want to have to run cat5 or 6 to every TV in the house and wireless won't cut it.
> 
> Also, and I may regret this but,
> 
> ...


So instead of running a new Ethernet based infrastructure, you have to install coax from your receiver to a second TV, instead of from a central distribution area.... sounds like more of a PITA to me.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mhammett said:


> So instead of running a new Ethernet based infrastructure, you have to install coax from your receiver to a second TV, instead of from a central distribution area.... sounds like more of a PITA to me.


And have only one DVR feeding two TVs. What would one do if they had more than one DVR?
Dish = MRV 1.0
DirecTV = MRV 2.0


----------



## nyelton (Sep 4, 2008)

mhammett said:


> So instead of running a new Ethernet based infrastructure, you have to install coax from your receiver to a second TV, instead of from a central distribution area.... sounds like more of a PITA to me.


More importantly, you can only watch two simulataneous programs from the DVR, and all remote locations are standard definition.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

nyelton said:


> More importantly, you can only watch two simulataneous programs from the DVR, and all remote locations are standard definition.


Curiously, FiOS TV"s initial MRV implemenation was also only SD to remote locations, even though it was networked based and the source was HD. This may be because the first client boxes were only SD, but I"m not sure. I believe now HD is available to all locations. /steve


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

mhammett said:


> So instead of running a new Ethernet based infrastructure, you have to install coax from your receiver to a second TV, instead of from a central distribution area.... sounds like more of a PITA to me.


To be fair, it usually isn't done that way. Normally, the TV2 signal is diplexed back into the satellite line to get the TV2 signal back to the central distribution area, and then diplexed out and connected to the line going to TV2. This is assuming that there are already home-runs in place for the TV2 room. If not, then, yes, often the solution is running a coax directly from the receiver to the TV2.


----------

