# HR23-700 Sucks - It is so SLOW!! Ideas??



## farmdwg (Feb 5, 2007)

Okay, so I ordered another HD receiver for my other LCD TV and I have to say this thing blows chunks compared to my HR20. The HR23 is SO SLOW. You push any button on the remote, menu, list, exit, etc, and it seems like it takes so much time for it to respond to the command. I've tried two different remotes with the same behavior so I'm pretty certain it is the receiver.

Any ideas why it is so slow?


----------



## james hyde (Nov 6, 2009)

the h23-600 is fast and the hr23 is slow:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## farmdwg (Feb 5, 2007)

I love how I didn't have a choice in the matter. 

DirecTV is a bunch or morons to have a newer unit that is worse that its predecessors.


----------



## drpjr (Nov 23, 2007)

Just a couple of wild guesses. Have you tried resetting the box through the menu. Do you have "native" on? Switch to native off. That can sometimes help with the speed of a channel change. Have you switched the remote from IR to RF? Switching from one to the other sometimes helps. Replaced remote batteries? If you are networked try unplugging the cable. Like I said wild guesses, but they can't hurt to try.:lol:


----------



## farmdwg (Feb 5, 2007)

Native was off. I've switched to RF and will give that a shot. 

Thanks.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

It seems that the HR20 is the fastest (but not by much. The HR21/22/23 are supposed to be the same speed. I have my doubts - my 3 HR22s are so slow I don't think can all possibly this slow!


----------



## Sackchamp56 (Nov 10, 2006)

Ive never been bothered by the speed of mine. I hear that complaint a lot though.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I have an HR20 and an HR22, while the 20 is slightly faster, I dont see huge speed differences between the two...


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

The HR20 is a bit faster, due to having 2 separate Broadcom processors - a CPU and a video processor.

The HR21-23 all have a single-chip Broadcom solution, which costs less and uses less power, but runs a little slower.

The HR24 won't use Broadcom chips, and is supposed to be much faster. We'll see.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Just curious if those folks who are reporting slow performance on their HR22 or HR23 HD DVRs have the latest National Release firmware version.

The feedback from that seems to be a major noticeable improvement, and the HR23, in particular, is said by most to be quite "peppy".

0395 is the latest National firmware version....you might want to check on your setup/info screen. If not, you might want to download that version onto your unit.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Well, lets hope the new Directivo is here soon so we can return these buggy Hr2x's!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jal said:


> Well, lets hope the new Directivo is here soon so we can return these buggy Hr2x's!


The performance symptoms mentioned have already been addressed in the latest firmware, which is why I asked if folks had those installed on their boxes (since they just got them). Mostly not buggy, just slow on a few of the models.

There is more work planned to further improve things in those areas as well.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Just curious if those folks who are reporting slow performance on their HR22 or HR23 HD DVRs have the latest National Release firmware version.
> 
> The feedback from that seems to be a major noticeable improvement, and the HR23, in particular, is said by most to be quite "peppy".
> 
> 0395 is the latest National firmware version....you might want to check on your setup/info screen. If not, you might want to download that version onto your unit.


I was finally getting used to the crappy performance of my HR22s - then 0395 comes along. Big step backwards in performance. I don't think I'm alone. Why did the 'slow' POS threads start back up when 0395 started rolling out?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike Greer said:


> I was finally getting used to the crappy performance of my HR22s - then 0395 comes along. *Big step backwards in performance*. I don't think I'm alone. Why did the 'slow' POS threads start back up when 0395 started rolling out?


Perhaps you have something else going on there?

Most folks report improvement.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Perhaps you have something else going on there?
> 
> Most folks report improvement.


Could be - but it showed up with the update. I must have the same problem as the others that have started posting about their 'slow' receivers.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

we go down this road with Mike every update and receivers still (unless I missed it) have not been replaced to rule them out.
if that is true then this is all a waste of posts.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

farmdwg said:


> I love how I didn't have a choice in the matter.
> 
> DirecTV is a bunch or morons to have a newer unit that is worse that its predecessors.


All the HRs since the 20-700 are inferior to the 20-700. They are not morons, they just don't care about the customer. Not many big companies manage to get an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau. Takes a lot of work to do that. But they are making money and that's all they care about.

Rich


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

David MacLeod said:


> we go down this road with Mike every update and receivers still (unless I missed it) have not been replaced to rule them out.
> if that is true then this is all a waste of posts.


I guess everyone with a slow receiver should get them replaced? What should they be replaced with?

I know you're all tired of hearing about slow receivers but the there are only two choices for most. Change providers and give up or DirecTV needs to get it together.

Let's face it - I'm not the only one that thinks these receivers suck.

I'll shut up because you're right about these posts being a waste. It is just hard for me to hold my tongue when every person that posts about these crap receivers is told "The next version of software will fix it" or "Mine isn't slow must be something in your install".


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> I guess everyone with a slow receiver should get them replaced? What should they be replaced with?
> 
> I know you're all tired of hearing about slow receivers but the there are only two choices for most. Change providers and give up or DirecTV needs to get it together.
> 
> ...


You won't even replace them...you don't want help.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike Greer said:


> I guess everyone with a slow receiver should get them replaced? What should they be replaced with?
> 
> I know you're all tired of hearing about slow receivers but the there are only two choices for most. Change providers and give up or DirecTV needs to get it together.
> 
> ...


I agree that folks should avoid making this personal.

Then again...if there is any specific user or small group of users repeatedly getting results contrary to mainstream users, it does raise question as to a potential unique situation in their locations. It warrants posting, just like anyone else, but if this happens over time...then perhaps another solution may be in order if it continues.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I agree that folks should avoid making this personal.
> 
> Then again...if there is any specific user or small group of users repeatedly getting results contrary to mainstream users, it does raise question as to a potential unique situation in their locations. It warrants posting, just like anyone else, but if this happens over time...then perhaps another solution may be in order if it continues.


The thing is - I don't think it is a specifice user or small group. Last go around people were beating me into the ground because 'it must be in my setup' the polls were hands down that the receivers were slow.

oops - sorry I said I'd shut up. I'll try to opt-in and out of MRV a few times, restart them etc one more time then I'll give up and suspend my account in the hopes that they'll do something to fix them.

Happy TV watching!


----------



## farmdwg (Feb 5, 2007)

Well whenever the DirevTivo gets here, I'm pushing the EJECT button. BYE BYE DirecTV DVR....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> The thing is - I don't think it is a specifice user or small group. Last go around people were beating me into the ground because 'it must be in my setup' the polls were hands down that the receivers were slow.
> 
> oops - sorry I said I'd shut up. I'll try to opt-in and out of MRV a few times, restart them etc one more time then I'll give up and suspend my account in the hopes that they'll do something to fix them.
> 
> Happy TV watching!


You really should have bought at least one 20-700 on eBay or Craigslist. The owned ones are there, you just need patience to find them. I've managed to find five and have purchased all of them.

Rich


----------



## drpjr (Nov 23, 2007)

It sure seems ironic to me that after 4 new model HRs to replace the Tivo that the first one, which was hated at the time, turns out to be the best of the bunch. And that in a forum filled with very intelligent people have no real solution for the TS(OP). Maybe not ironic just sad??


----------



## bagreene (Oct 6, 2008)

My HR22-100 has also slowed down with 0x395. I was having the delayed button press problems (slow guide scrolling in response to the inputs, channel inputs not working quickly enough to get all 3 numbers entered, etc.) that others have seen, but they were greatly reduced to a very tolerable level with 0x368. Now with 0x395 they have reared their ugly head again. They've added some nice features this time around, but I would really love for them to take a step back from new feature additions and clean up existing code for existing features to make this thing work as efficiently as possible with the given hardware constraints.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

drpjr said:


> It sure seems ironic to me that after 4 new model HRs to replace the Tivo that the first one, which was hated at the time, turns out to be the best of the bunch. And that in a forum filled with very intelligent people have no real solution for the TS(OP). Maybe not ironic just sad??


Or a deliberate business decision. The 20-700 was the most expensive HR to manufacture, from what I've been told and read.

Rich


----------



## woodenspoke (Feb 8, 2010)

Mike Greer said:


> I guess everyone with a slow receiver should get them replaced? What should they be replaced with?
> 
> I know you're all tired of hearing about slow receivers but the there are only two choices for most. Change providers and give up or DirecTV needs to get it together.
> 
> ...


I have two HR21's and they have been getting slooower and sloooooower with every software upgrade. I cringe with every update to my HR's.

Actually because of this, the $5 lease charges (I love that one) and loosing Versus I am on the Verge of switching to Dish. My neighbor has dish and even though I though the remote was a bit strange I could learn to live with it given that the receiver was like lightening.

I like changing channels I wish the receiver did too..LOL


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

It truly is a shame that after all the years the Hr2xs have been out, folks are experiencing these problems.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

jal said:


> It truly is a shame that after all the years the Hr2xs have been out, folks are experiencing these problems.


August 2006 correct?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

I have also noticed a SLIGHT decrease in response time on my HR-20 100 and the HR-20 700 since the last software update. 

I have never had a problem with the speed before, and it still isnt a bother really, it is however noticable (for me).


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Just to chime in, I recently got an HR23-700 as a replacement unit for a HR20-600. The menu response is slow enough that even my normally oblivious (to this sort of stuff) wife commented. By slow, I mean response to remote control commands. It is by far more noticeable than any of my other non HR23 receivers.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> August 2006 correct?


That was the month and year we settled on last year. Earl was the first one on the forum to get one in August of that year. I got my first three in November. What a nightmare!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> Just to chime in, I recently got an HR23-700 as a replacement unit for a HR20-600. The menu response is slow enough that even my normally oblivious (to this sort of stuff) wife commented. By slow, I mean response to remote control commands. It is by far more noticeable than any of my other non HR23 receivers.


That and all the other posts about the 23s makes me wonder. I had a new, never activated 23 sent to me by the CMG because a 22-100 that I made the mistake of buying last year went south after three weeks. I had to put the remotes a foot away from the 23 to get it to recognize the remote commands. And it wasn't the remotes. I've got a 20-700 in it's place and I use it for two TVs in two rooms and it works perfectly using the same remotes.

I did get D* to give most of the money back that I spent on the 22 and I have refused replacements. I'd rather buy my own on eBay. At least that way, you get models that work well.

Then D* tried to extend my commitment from the date I purchased the 22. I called Retention and politely asked how they could do that and it seems that, at least Retention, had the good sense to see my point of view and released me from any commitment. And I found out that in special cases, such as mine, Retention can now give you the model you want, just as the CMG can and has done on several occasions with me.

Rich


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

I just got a HR23 to replace a HR22. I'd say the 23 is faster than my 22 was, but it could be faster. It's been running less than 24 hours though so time will tell.

I do like that the 23 doesn't need to the b band converters. Those made my cables cramped in my cabinets.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Thanks guys - sounds like I'm not the only one that managed get even slower after the 'upgrade'.

Rich - I did try for a while to get at least 1 HR20-700 but after calling on about 10 I finally quit looking. All the ones I called on were either new, never activated that would end up as a lease or were non-returned leases.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

I think some of this is expectations and some of it is how we each use our DVR's (differently). _Note:_ I do have (2) HR20's (a 700 and a 100) so I can't speak for anything else.


*Expectations:* Not to start a Tivo discussion but I came from 2x SA Tivos and found them to be very slow in a lot of functional areas. Although they were very reliable and I loved them, by comparison, my HR20's are downright snappy. 
*Use:* I record everything (except sports) and therefore rarely if ever channel surf. In addition, I use 30skip instead of 30slip when watching recorded material. I find skip better anyway (if I wanted to watch the commercials, I'd watch 'em -- to each their own I guess) and certainly quicker. I have no problem with the speed of my DVR's.

_PS: Let me also say that their are certainly differences in what are supposed to be identical machines and there are certainly different environments -- although it's not always clear what the differences are.... All of this (and more) can make a difference._


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I have no issues with reliability, or how FF works with the HR23. My issue is, for example, when I push Guide, or List, and I have to sit there and count heartbeats before the screen displays. Scrolling through the guide, waiting a few heartbeats for a new page to display, then another before the channel data changes from the last one to the current one. It wasn't quite this bad when it was brand new in December, so I'm not sure what's going on.



lflorack said:


> I think some of this is expectations and some of it is how we each use our DVR's (differently). _Note:_ I do have (2) HR20's (a 700 and a 100) so I can't speak for anything else.
> 
> 
> *Expectations:* Not to start a Tivo discussion but I came from 2x SA Tivos and found them to be very slow in a lot of functional areas. Although they were very reliable and I loved them, by comparison, my HR20's are downright snappy.
> ...


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

I think this thread is a perfect example of one of the problems that DirecTV faces. Complaints are vague. My receiver is slow or POS is useless. You need to be specific about what you are trying to do and what the results are.

The HR2X's aren't the fastest things in around I won't deny that but on the other hand my HR 21 has been fast enough to be acceptable and the only real annoyance has been the occasional skip to the end when trying to skip/slip forward 30 seconds.

Your box may be running extremely slowly because of any number of issues related to the box or your system but half the time anyone posts about it you just get a number of people who just jump on the HR2x's suck bandwagon. A dying HD is one possibility I have seen. Another is signal problems. Yet another is network problems.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Personally, I believe it has an underpowered processor. It takes too long to process commands.



evan_s said:


> I think this thread is a perfect example of one of the problems that DirecTV faces. Complaints are vague. My receiver is slow or POS is useless. You need to be specific about what you are trying to do and what the results are.
> 
> The HR2X's aren't the fastest things in around I won't deny that but on the other hand my HR 21 has been fast enough to be acceptable and the only real annoyance has been the occasional skip to the end when trying to skip/slip forward 30 seconds.
> 
> Your box may be running extremely slowly because of any number of issues related to the box or your system but half the time anyone posts about it you just get a number of people who just jump on the HR2x's suck bandwagon. A dying HD is one possibility I have seen. Another is signal problems. Yet another is network problems.


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

evan_s said:


> I think this thread is a perfect example of one of the problems that DirecTV faces. Complaints are vague. My receiver is slow or POS is useless. You need to be specific about what you are trying to do and what the results are.
> 
> The HR2X's aren't the fastest things in around I won't deny that but on the other hand my HR 21 has been fast enough to be acceptable and the only real annoyance has been the occasional skip to the end when trying to skip/slip forward 30 seconds.
> 
> Your box may be running extremely slowly because of any number of issues related to the box or your system but half the time anyone posts about it you just get a number of people who just jump on the HR2x's suck bandwagon. A dying HD is one possibility I have seen. Another is signal problems. Yet another is network problems.


Sorry I disagree..partially. We may need to be more specific when pointing out issues, but it Directv's responsibility to thoroughly test their hardware. I'm a paying customer not a beta tester.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Thanks guys - sounds like I'm not the only one that managed get even slower after the 'upgrade'.
> 
> Rich - I did try for a while to get at least 1 HR20-700 but after calling on about 10 I finally quit looking. All the ones I called on were either new, never activated that would end up as a lease or were non-returned leases.


I'll send you a link to the next one I see for sale. I'll do it by PM so that every one doesn't bid on it and drive the price sky high.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evan_s said:


> I think this thread is a perfect example of one of the problems that DirecTV faces. Complaints are vague. My receiver is slow or POS is useless. You need to be specific about what you are trying to do and what the results are.


This seems to happen on most forums, not just this one. Don't know any way to stop it. We've asked for people to at least put down the whole model number, don't care about the HR part just the 2x-xxx part. If you look at the next paragraph of your post you'll see what I mean. I put it in red. 



> The HR2X's aren't the fastest things in around I won't deny that but on the other hand my HR 21 has been fast enough to be acceptable and the only real annoyance has been the occasional skip to the end when trying to skip/slip forward 30 seconds.


I find my 21-700s to be very acceptable if I spend a lot of time watching one. But as soon as I switch to a 20-700 the difference becomes quickly apparent.



> Your box may be running extremely slowly because of any number of issues related to the box or your system but half the time anyone posts about it you just get a number of people who just jump on the HR2x's suck bandwagon. A dying HD is one possibility I have seen. Another is signal problems. Yet another is network problems.


Agreed, and it doesn't look like it's gonna change. People need a place to vent and you gotta admit that this is cheaper than a therapist. 

I will say this: There's a lot of people out there that really like the 23-700. But what makes some slower kinda baffles me. I did have one 23, but it had a bad remote sensor and was unusable with a remote in IR or RF. Worked off the front panel just fine. Perhaps there's a problem with the remote sensors in the 23s. Look what Toyota's going thru. Because of a bad gas pedal, suddenly the whole line of cars is thought to be junk.

Rich


----------



## lgb0250 (Jan 24, 2010)

Well said guys. My 23-700 is slow also. But everything is relevant. I haven't had another D* receiver to compare it to in over 3 yrs. Way slower than my VIP622 I had at E*. But then again, I really don't care. I get a great picture. It turns on when I push the button. It records what I ask it to. It was just plain too simple to upgrade the internal drive using my external 2TB drive. I can deal with slow. At my age I'm just glad to be here. Sit back and enjoy life a little more. Why's everyone always in a hurry to get somewhere? Just kidding everyone but really, relax and enjoy what you've got. JMHO.


----------



## Sartori (Nov 15, 2008)

farmdwg said:


> I love how I didn't have a choice in the matter.
> 
> DirecTV is a bunch or morons to have a newer unit that is worse that its predecessors.


Get yourself an HR21 Pro from Weaknees and your troubles will be over....or keep fighting these other receivers. Its your call....


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Sartori said:


> Get yourself an HR21 Pro from Weaknees and your troubles will be over....or keep fighting these other receivers. Its your call....


And Spend alot of Money doing what you can do for yourself.

Buy an HR2X and then add a large internal drive to it and you are good to go if you Own the HR2X. Make sure whomever has it Owns it and Verify it by getting the RID # and calling Directv's Access Card Dept. to verify it is owned by him.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lgb0250 said:


> Well said guys. My 23-700 is slow also. But everything is relevant. I haven't had another D* receiver to compare it to in over 3 yrs. Way slower than my VIP622 I had at E*. But then again, I really don't care. I get a great picture. It turns on when I push the button. It records what I ask it to. It was just plain too simple to upgrade the internal drive using my external 2TB drive. I can deal with slow. At my age I'm just glad to be here. Sit back and enjoy life a little more. Why's everyone always in a hurry to get somewhere? Just kidding everyone but really, relax and enjoy what you've got. JMHO.


I just read a review in HDTV magazine, I think that's where it was, about the $500 OPPO BD player. The reviewer said it loaded extremely quickly and that in itself seemed to be reason enough for him to recommend it. I put a BD disc in my Sony BD player the next day and timed it from the time the disc went in to the time it was done loading and a picture popped up. Way less than 30 seconds.

The reviewer admitted that the PQ was about the same as the rest of the BD players, which is what I've read and been told. So here he is justifying paying $500 for the OPPO as opposed to $109 for my Sony. To save a few seconds? Truthfully, I have loaded a couple movies that seemed to take forever, but for the most part, they load in less than half a minute. That's a $400 differential. For a few seconds? C'mon. Smell the roses.

Rich


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

tsduke said:


> Sorry I disagree..partially. We may need to be more specific when pointing out issues, but it Directv's responsibility to thoroughly test their hardware. I'm a paying customer not a beta tester.


I'm not saying that DirecTV shouldn't or doesn't test their hardware but a dying HD in a machine you've had for years is just a fact of life not an indicator that the entire platform is broken or poor quality. Because the Hr2x's had a rocky start everyone seems to just assume a problem with them must be just because they suck and not something that needs to be remedied. It doesn't help any that their reps seem to propagate this at times by just telling people that things are expected behavior or known issues just to get them off the phone. My point is that you need to take some time to either troubleshoot the issue on your own or be persistent enough to get DirecTV to help you do it.

If you look you can see plenty of stories where people finally replaced a receiver, or redid the connectors or replaced a switch or lnb or what ever and it finally fixed something that had been attributed to bad receiver or just the HR2x's suck. The entire system is a very complex thing and you need consider that when trying to troubleshoot issues.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

rich584 said:


> I'll send you a link to the next one I see for sale. I'll do it by PM so that every one doesn't bid on it and drive the price sky high.
> 
> Rich


Thanks!


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

evan_s said:


> I think this thread is a perfect example of one of the problems that DirecTV faces. Complaints are vague.


Huh?

How could the complaints be any more specific. After more than a year of the same complaints if DirecTV doesn't know specificly what the symptoms are they never will.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Mike Greer said:


> Huh?
> 
> How could the complaints be any more specific. After more than a year of the same complaints if DirecTV doesn't know specificly what the symptoms are they never will.


I'm sorry but I press a button on the remote and it is slow is not specific. Slow is subjective. I might consider 10 seconds fine while you might consider it slow and directv might consider it expected behavior but less than ideal.

Specific is stating I press the guide button and it takes 10 seconds. Or I press page down in the guide 3 times and it takes 30 seconds. Stating something like this you have something that can be tested and compared meaningfully to others.

Heck even stating that you try to enter a channel number and it takes so long it tries to change to the first digit of the channel I am entering before I can enter the second number is more specific.


----------



## Nicholsen (Aug 18, 2007)

Wow! 10 seconds to respond to the remote? 

I don't see how that could ever be reasonable for a DVR. 10 seconds? Not in the modern era.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

I have three HR23s and one HR20.....all -700 manufacturer....PACE. THE HR20 is faster but with new national release the HR23s are better. As one poster pointed out...turn off NATIVE.....also turn off SCROLLING EFFFECTS. I understand some folks may want NATIVE rez support but the Scrolling Effects IMHO is a useless/wasteful feature.....helps performance a very good bit.

Also, give DirecTV a chance to tweek....they are implementing alot in code and the HR23 is a new chipset...I remember when the HR20 itself was a dog.....much worse than HR23 is.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

thekochs said:


> I have three HR23s and one HR20.....all -700 manufacturer....PACE. THE HR20 is faster but with new national release the HR23s are better. As one poster pointed out...turn off NATIVE.....also turn off SCROLLING EFFFECTS. I understand some folks may want NATIVE rez support but the Scrolling Effects IMHO is a useless/wasteful feature.....helps performance a very good bit.
> 
> Also, give DirecTV a chance to tweek....they are implementing alot in code and the HR23 is a new chipset...I remember when the HR20 itself was a dog.....much worse than HR23 is.


All my HRs are in ''Native" and I've had the 20-700s since November of '06 and I've never had a speed problem unless the HDDs were full and that can be easily corrected. I do have the Scrolling Effects turned off, but only because so many folks suggested doing it. We also came to the conclusion that the 23 was, at heart, a 21-700 with a few modifications, such as not needing BBCs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evan_s said:


> I'm sorry but I press a button on the remote and it is slow is not specific. Slow is subjective. I might consider 10 seconds fine while you might consider it slow and directv might consider it expected behavior but less than ideal.
> 
> Specific is stating I press the guide button and it takes 10 seconds. Or I press page down in the guide 3 times and it takes 30 seconds. Stating something like this you have something that can be tested and compared meaningfully to others.
> 
> Heck even stating that you try to enter a channel number and it takes so long it tries to change to the first digit of the channel I am entering before I can enter the second number is more specific.


Agreed. But folks just won't do what you want them to do. Can't even get them to put the whole HR model number down. How many times do you see HR20? There's a big difference between the 20-700 and the 20-100 and just putting down HR20 tells us nothing.

Rich


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Nicholsen said:


> Wow! 10 seconds to respond to the remote?
> 
> I don't see how that could ever be reasonable for a DVR. 10 seconds? Not in the modern era.


I've been taught that any electronic device in general is supposed to respond within 100 milliseconds to any simple command (i.e. entering digits for a channel number). For more complex commands (i.e. the "guide" button), it should provide some immediate feedback (like a sound or hourglass icon) and execute the command within 5 seconds.

Now you're getting into psychology, and there have been numerous studies on how slow is too slow. Since you can't time 100 msec, all you have is perception. But if a simple task is so slow that you can time it, then it's too slow.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Nicholsen said:


> Wow! 10 seconds to respond to the remote?
> 
> I don't see how that could ever be reasonable for a DVR. 10 seconds? Not in the modern era.


10 seconds was just an arbitrary number I pulled outta thin air. I have never been bothered to time how long it takes for the guide to come up. My point was and is with out some sort of quantitative measurable information saying something is slow is just complaining.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

YES, Exactly! When you press a button, and the response time is such that you feel the need to press the button again, that's too slow. That is how my HR23 is.



bobcamp1 said:


> I've been taught that any electronic device in general is supposed to respond within 100 milliseconds to any simple command (i.e. entering digits for a channel number). For more complex commands (i.e. the "guide" button), it should provide some immediate feedback (like a sound or hourglass icon) and execute the command within 5 seconds.
> 
> Now you're getting into psychology, and there have been numerous studies on how slow is too slow. Since you can't time 100 msec, all you have is perception. But if a simple task is so slow that you can time it, then it's too slow.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> YES, Exactly! When you press a button, and the response time is such that you feel the need to press the button again, that's too slow. That is how my HR23 is.


Simply put, it shouldn't be that slow that you feel the need to complain about it. I don't have any complaints about my 20-700s and, while I do see a slight difference in speed when I use my 21-700s, it's really not enough to complain about.

Again I have to question the remote sensors in the 23s. Having had the bad experience that I had with mine, I have to wonder if it's not more widespread than seems possible. Do they just have bad remote sensors? Even the 22-100 that only worked well for three weeks was almost as fast as my 20-700s.

Rich


----------



## Nicholsen (Aug 18, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> I've been taught that any electronic device in general is supposed to respond within 100 milliseconds to any simple command (i.e. entering digits for a channel number). For more complex commands (i.e. the "guide" button), it should provide some immediate feedback (like a sound or hourglass icon) and execute the command within 5 seconds.
> 
> Now you're getting into psychology, and there have been numerous studies on how slow is too slow. Since you can't time 100 msec, all you have is perception. But if a simple task is so slow that you can time it, then it's too slow.


I think you make an excellent point. A good interface gives the user some immediate positive feedback that his instruction has been received, then hopefully distracts him from the fact that the actual operation is somewhat slower (e.g., the dancing hourglass).

The user frustration is from not getting a prompt acknowledgment. The delayed "Please Wait" message on the HR2x just rubs salt in the wound.


----------



## Nicholsen (Aug 18, 2007)

evan_s said:


> 10 seconds was just an arbitrary number I pulled outta thin air. I have never been bothered to time how long it takes for the guide to come up. My point was and is with out some sort of quantitative measurable information saying something is slow is just complaining.


The fact you would use 10 seconds indicates it's just not an issue for you. That's cool. I don't buy my cars based on 0-60 acceleration, because it's not an issue for me. But I expect the DVR to be "snappy." By that I mean immediate response to the remote, and prompt completion of routine commands.

IMHO, the HR2x is simply underpowered.


----------



## gregchak (Jan 8, 2007)

And here I thought I was the only one. I have the national release firmware version 0x395. Since then there have been many times where I wonder if I pressed the button on my remote. I've been watching more closely recently and the blue light on the power button that will flash when it receives a remote code does flash. The delay is just way too long, so its receiving the command just not executing it in a timely manner. Sometimes it can be as long as 10 seconds.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

gregchak said:


> And here I thought I was the only one. I have the national release firmware version 0x395. Since then there have been many times where I wonder if I pressed the button on my remote. I've been watching more closely recently and the blue light on the power button that will flash when it receives a remote code does flash. The delay is just way too long, so its receiving the command just not executing it in a timely manner. Sometimes it can be as long as 10 seconds.


You dont know what you are talking about. The last 1 (wait sorry it is 2 now) NR fixed speed problems for "most" users. everything is fine, nothing to see here, have another glass of kool-aid. These slow IRD threads are created by machines /sarcasm


----------



## gregchak (Jan 8, 2007)

compnurd said:


> You dont know what you are talking about. The last 1 (wait sorry it is 2 now) NR fixed speed problems for "most" users. everything is fine, nothing to see here, have another glass of kool-aid. These slow IRD threads and created by machines /sarcasm


I certainly know what I am talking about and experiencing, and that's what I just described. I'm sorry you have an issue with what I posted and I'm glad you are not having problems. Some people apparently are or else there wouldn't be a thread like this. If you want to go back a couple of updates (as you sarcastically noted) I'd be happy to say that 2 updates back there was a noticeable increase in speed and responsiveness. This latest one though has made my STB rather sluggish. No two STB's are alike and I'm glad that the latest update fixed "most" users' speed problems. Again, as evidence of this thread, it has not helped all and may have actually made some worse. If only 1 person out of the millions of customers that D* has complains then sure disregard it and call it a fluke. But if the same problem starts adding up then maybe someone will take notice. We all know that D* does monitor this site and its a great way for the user community to give feedback. That's all we are trying to do here. Please don't disregard or try to discredit a problem that someone is experiencing just because you are not having the same problem and the release notes say we shouldn't be experiencing it.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

re-read the post, the sarcasm is meant to imply he actually agrees/supports you.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

:biggthump


----------



## gregchak (Jan 8, 2007)

:grin:


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Nicholsen said:


> I think you make an excellent point. A good interface gives the user some immediate positive feedback that his instruction has been received, then hopefully distracts him from the fact that the actual operation is somewhat slower (e.g., the dancing hourglass).
> 
> The user frustration is from not getting a prompt acknowledgment. The delayed "Please Wait" message on the HR2x just rubs salt in the wound.


How many people with a major in computer engineering and a minor in psychology work for a typical consumer electronics company? At my old company, the answer was "1".

But it wasn't me. This was the job of the guy who sat next to me. I asked him about this, and he said there have been numerous studies on this. He would write bug reports saying that the GUI was too "slow" and actually had numbers to define what "slow" was. One we implemented his two rules, we actually got feedback on how "zippy" this software release was from previous releases.

People hate a slow response time more than when the product occasionally messes up! It's unbelievably important.


----------



## dre2112 (Oct 12, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Just curious if those folks who are reporting slow performance on their HR22 or HR23 HD DVRs have the latest National Release firmware version.
> 
> The feedback from that seems to be a major noticeable improvement, and the HR23, in particular, is said by most to be quite "peppy".
> 
> 0395 is the latest National firmware version....you might want to check on your setup/info screen. If not, you might want to download that version onto your unit.


The update before 0395 (I believe it was 0368) sped up my system quite a bit but now it's as sluggish as ever. I really dislike it to the point of complaining to DTV and hope that with the upcoming HR24 that they can upgrade me because my experiences with my recent HR23 are simply unsatisfactory.

The absolute worse is when I watch sports. My DVR is pretty much rendered useless until the reciever loads that scoreguide. It usually takes 5-10 seconds for the Scoreguide to come up, but until it does, the DVR is damn near unresponsive. And for someone who flips through several games with Center Ice and a frequent watch of the ESPNs, it's REALLY frustrating


----------



## farmdwg (Feb 5, 2007)

Argggg!!! Put a fork in me... this stinking box is slow 85% of the time.. Sometimes it takes 15 seconds to respond. When will DirecTV get their act together? What are my options??


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

farmdwg said:


> Argggg!!! Put a fork in me... this stinking box is slow 85% of the time.. Sometimes it takes 15 seconds to respond. When will DirecTV get their act together? What are my options??


I guess I haven't posted this in this thread so try this:

tune to channel 1

then press red, red, blue, blue, yellow, green on the remote quickly

You should see NVFash cleared in the lower left of the screen.

See if this helps.

If it doesn't, then about the only thing would be another DVR.
I haven't had a HR23, but have HR20, HR21, & HR24 and none have been this slow.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

I got 3 HR23's last spring for upgrading my HR10's, and had AM21's hooked up to each. They were so pathetically slow my wife threatened me! (she loved the speed navigation of the HR10's).

Turned Native "Off".
Turned Scrolling "Off"
Did the 961 trick (I think that was the sequence).

Still terrible response (relatively speaking), especially on OTA. I have had at least one of each of the HR2x's active on my account. I was able to get all 3 HR23's swapped for HR24's. What a night and day difference. Anyone ever compare the reboot time on a 24 compared to the rest?

I don't care who disputes my claims and others, I did side by side comparisons between all the HR2x IRD's, and the 23 was the worst.

The defining moment is when the tech support CSR I was talking to about the 23 said "Well they're supposed to be slower because they got the wide band tuners built in."

So for me, the list of HR2x receivers in order from fastest to slowest (based on what I have) is as follows:

HR24-100
HR20-700
HR20-100
HR21/HR22 same
HR23


----------



## Joe C (Mar 3, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> I guess I haven't posted this in this thread so try this:
> 
> tune to channel 1
> 
> ...


This does nothing for speed on the HR22.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Joe C said:


> This does nothing for speed on the HR22.


Nothing will. Get a 24. The whole 21 series is slow compared to the 20-700s and even quicker 24s. Hmm. You're from Jersey. Let me send you a PM.

Rich


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

One thing that causes confusion is the problem of sluggishness is very rarely "all the time". The boxes are being to asked to do a lot of things and when especially busy, can become quite sluggish. I have seen more than five second delays in responding to keystroke inputs on all of the following:

HR20-700
HR21-100
HR20-100

It is much less frequent on the HR20-700, but it still can and does happen. When it happens on the other two, it happens more often, and the symptoms are worse, and longer in duration.

The important thing for me, is *the sluggishness comes and goes*. Right now, all three are doing very well. The HR20-700 is, of course, the snappiest, but both the 21-100 and 20-100 are quite acceptable. Two days from now, I'll be dropping digits on input, suffering delays in scrolling the guide, etc. The sluggishness I'm referring to is in the GUI and accepting keystrokes from the remote for channel changing. I'm not complaining about native on channel surfing. I don't do it, and I don't care about it. All my surfing is in the guide, and it is *very obvious*, when one attempts to navigate the guide that the machine is "busy".

I have watched this problem for over a year on all three machines, both with CEs and National Releases. It comes and goes without any operator intervention. The units' random speed up or slow down is *not correlated* with a restart of the box.

My conclusion is that boxes are being asked to do more than they are capable of (lack horsepower), while maintaining acceptable speed in response to GUI navigation and channel input.

While the HR24 series is notably faster, they too occasionally suffer from sluggishness. It is much less frequent, and of much shorter duration, but it has been reported by several people.

This all keeps coming back to horsepower in the face of the demands of the box. If the box is busy (a process is hogging cpu cycles), the GUI slows down, and keystrokes are delayed, dropped or ignored.

On the margins, D* has made the problem better or worse with a given release, but for more than the last year, *sluggishness comes and goes*.

90% of the time I don't see it on the HR20-700, and it may last only a few hours.

70% of the time, I don't see it on the HR21-100, but it can last through the day and overnight.

(these are very rough estimates, just to get a feel for the issue).

They are both resolved *on their own*. No user intervention prevents the recurring sluggishness, and only very, very rarely will a menu restart improve things in the short term.

The only tricks I've seen that provide immediate (but not lasting) improvement:

1. Turn off the handshaking in the remote/receiver (963 trick).

2. Clearing the NVRAM (red red, etc. trick)

3. Turn of Scrolling

These have improved the performance of all my DVRs. *This in no way, however addresses the periodic sluggishness issue.*

Bottom Line:

The problem of occasional sluggishness is independent of receiver model, but is demonstrably less severe with some models than others. The problem is not going to be solved (best predictor of future performance is past performance). We need to find ways to live with the issue or find another provider.

To minimize the aggravation (but not completely cure the problem, because there is no permanent cure):

1. Acquire an HR24
2. Acquire an HR20-700

All the rest of the hand-wringing and discussion is full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. The problem is here, it ain't going away, we just have to deal with it.

N.B. when I refer to boxes, I'm referring to the HR20, HR21 series. I've never had an HR22 or HR23 (or HR24 for that matter).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Joe C said:


> This does nothing for speed on the HR22.


This would only help for some conditions, but not all.
I've used it on a HR24, H25, and H20, and it has, but still it's not a cure all, so at best it can only help.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hasan said:


> One thing that causes confusion is the problem of sluggishness is very rarely "all the time". The boxes are being to asked to do a lot of things and when especially busy, can become quite sluggish. I have seen more than five second delays in responding to keystroke inputs on all of the following:
> 
> HR20-700
> HR21-100
> ...


+1, and I'll add this is still the same for the HR24 & H25, though since they're faster, not as much.

When any of mine have gone into "slow mode", they've only been maybe 5 sec waiting, but never 10-15 sec.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> +1, and I'll add this is still the same for the HR24 & H25, though since they're faster, not as much.
> 
> When any of mine have gone into "slow mode", they've only been maybe 5 sec waiting, but never 10-15 sec.


My 24-500s have real problems with my UPL. Scrolling down the list is difficult. I end up sorting and then scrolling and even then they can't handle my huge UPL. I know this is mainly my own fault, but *Hasan* has a point when he talks about the lack of horsepower.

My 20-700s handle the UPL in about the same manner. If I go to Local Playlist on any of my HRs the problem goes away.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> My 24-500s have real problems with my UPL. Scrolling down the list is difficult. I end up sorting and then scrolling and even then they can't handle my huge UPL.* I know this is mainly my own fault*, but *Hasan* has a point when he talks about the lack of horsepower.
> 
> My 20-700s handle the UPL in about the same manner. If I go to Local Playlist on any of my HRs the problem goes away.
> 
> Rich


Which is why I "+1" to Hasan's post.
Here's a CPU chart, but even this doesn't show everything, since the differences listed don't completely show the differences users are seeing, so there must be more to it.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Important to say again... this doesn't show everything. It doesn't take into account all the subprocessors involved.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Which is why I "+1" to Hasan's post.
> Here's a CPU chart, but even this doesn't show everything, since the differences listed don't completely show the differences users are seeing, so there must be more to it.


As I said, and it would seem to be in line with your thoughts, when I go to Local Playlist, the sluggishness disappears. Gotta be that huge UPL screwing the works up. It also affects the Guide. I can live with it.

Rich


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Important to say again... this doesn't show everything. It doesn't take into account all the subprocessors involved.


I agree completely. The problem is competing demands. As the demands escalate (periodically), the boxes slow down.

We can fuss at the margins all we like, we can optimize with little tricks like 1/2/3 in my original post, but while sometimes significant, they do not and cannot solve the problem. Horsepower has proven to be the crux of the problem, along with some coding inefficiencies, or perhaps inefficient management of processes.

I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here, just facing the facts.

*If D* could have fixed the periodic sluggishness, they would have done it by now, and they haven't*

They have introduced a faster box, which helps, but does not completely solve the problem. From this I conclude that they can't fix it, and expect us to live with it, while they may or may not tweak the code around the margins.

Yes, a very large UPL would introduce further loads, but *it is not the basis for my observations and conclusion in my posts*, because I do not have large UPLs on any of my DVRs, including my 2 TB external on the HR20-700. The other two boxes use just their internal drives and both are > 80% free, nearly all the time.

The next time we see this thread surfacing with the question:

"Why is this HR*, POS so slow", let's just give the answer we know is right:

_The boxes are underpowered for the demands being placed on them, and you can do the following tricks to help, but nothing is going to ultimately solve it._

...and please note, I don't think any of my boxes are POSs. I understand their limitations, and more often than not, they are not sluggish. When they are, it's a PITA. There is no point in varnishing the truth.

...and again, there is *nothing, absolutely nothing that is going to cure the sluggishness problem for the long term.*

I'm not upset. I'm not irritated, I'm not disappointed. I'm resolved to live with the periodicity of the problem and therefore it no longer trips my trigger. If the sluggishness were to advance to the point that it was near half the time, or a real majority of the time, I'd be very dissatisfied. So far, that has not been the case *for me.*


----------



## cover (Feb 11, 2007)

rich584 said:


> My 24-500s have real problems with my UPL. Scrolling down the list is difficult. I end up sorting and then scrolling and even then they can't handle my huge UPL. I know this is mainly my own fault, but *Hasan* has a point when he talks about the lack of horsepower.
> 
> My 20-700s handle the UPL in about the same manner. If I go to Local Playlist on any of my HRs the problem goes away.
> 
> Rich


Same here. I do have a lot in my UPL - around 5 TB actually filled with programming. But, it is sluggish to the point that even my wife has commented on it. Even though that's a lot of storage, it is not really that much in terms of data in the UPL. I have to think that more RAM would help, but short of that I'd bet there's room for tighter, more efficient code or some pre-loading or other optimizations could help.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

cover said:


> Same here. I do have a lot in my UPL - around 5 TB actually filled with programming. But, it is sluggish to the point that even my wife has commented on it. Even though that's a lot of storage, it is not really that much in terms of data in the UPL. I have to think that more RAM would help, but short of that I'd bet there's room for tighter, more efficient code or some pre-loading or other optimizations could help.


I wouldn't be surprised if we found out, after much consideration, that just the UPL slows down the HRs, no matter how much you have on it. It's just another process that the HRs have to deal with.

Rich


----------

