# Why Can't Slow Receivers be Fixed?



## socal404

I know this subject has been discussed on other threads many times, but my search has not come up with an answer to my question. I have (2) R22-100s w/HD and an HR24-200. The R22-100s are extremely slow, especially when I first turn them on in the morning. I've done the RAM clearing, and they are still slow. It is obvious that DTV can and has corrected other flaws in the past. Why can't they seem to fix this glitch? I would appreciate any useful solutions to this problem. Also does anyone know if DTV is working on this problem? Thanks.


----------



## veryoldschool

It's going to be hard to overcome hardware limitations.
The R22 simply has the least "horsepower" of all the DVRs.


----------



## Richierich

veryoldschool said:


> It's going to be hard to overcome hardware limitations.
> The R22 simply has the least "horsepower" of all the DVRs.


+1.

They finally realized that the CPU and RAM weren't enough for all of the things they were trying to get the DVR to do so some just are Sluggish.

My HR24-500s are Very Fast!!!


----------



## Halo

They lack the skill. That was obvious to me years ago. Even 6 year old tech like the HR-20 is still remarkably fast. It is easily fast enough to handle all the duties of a HD-DVR (reliable and responsive) if properly designed.

Unless you've spent some time writing code for embedded systems it may be difficult to understand how much can be done in just 1 second. Hundreds of millions of instructions per second. 1 second is an eternity to a modern CPU. Especially with decoding duties handled by hardware there is absolutely no excuse for the user interface to ever become unresponsive. 

Blaming NVRAM or guide data for slowness is pathetic. If any of those things slow down you system then you didn't write it correctly. But yeah, just blame the hardware. I design both. The hardware is extremely capable.

Six years of development and they still don't have a handle on their hardware. They still have obvious bugs and incredible slowdowns. And they still draw a paycheck.


----------



## veryoldschool

Halo said:


> They lack the skill. That was obvious to me years ago. Even 6 year old tech like the HR-20 is still remarkably fast. It is easily fast enough to handle all the duties of a HD-DVR (reliable and responsive) if properly designed.
> 
> Unless you've spent some time writing code for embedded systems it may be difficult to understand how much can be done in just 1 second. Hundreds of millions of instructions per second. 1 second is an eternity to a modern CPU. Especially with decoding duties handled by hardware there is absolutely no excuse for the user interface to ever become unresponsive.
> 
> Blaming NVRAM or guide data for slowness is pathetic. If any of those things slow down you system then you didn't write it correctly. But yeah, just blame the hardware. I design both. The hardware is extremely capable.
> 
> Six years of development and they still don't have a handle on their hardware. They still have obvious bugs and incredible slowdowns. And they still draw a paycheck.


Maybe you should apply for a job.
The HR20 has a better chipset than the HR21-23. I've had both, and running the same firmware, the HR21 is a tad slower.
Not sure why, and it isn't "always the cure", but clearing the NVRAM has helped several/many times.

I once heard how much storage they had for the firmware and it was something incredibly small.


----------



## bpratt

Halo said:


> They lack the skill. That was obvious to me years ago. Even 6 year old tech like the HR-20 is still remarkably fast. It is easily fast enough to handle all the duties of a HD-DVR (reliable and responsive) if properly designed.
> 
> Unless you've spent some time writing code for embedded systems it may be difficult to understand how much can be done in just 1 second. Hundreds of millions of instructions per second. 1 second is an eternity to a modern CPU. Especially with decoding duties handled by hardware there is absolutely no excuse for the user interface to ever become unresponsive.
> 
> Blaming NVRAM or guide data for slowness is pathetic. If any of those things slow down you system then you didn't write it correctly. But yeah, just blame the hardware. I design both. The hardware is extremely capable.
> 
> Six years of development and they still don't have a handle on their hardware. They still have obvious bugs and incredible slowdowns. And they still draw a paycheck.


I have to agree with Halo. My HR10-250 is much faster than my HR21-700s which have a processor that is 4 or 5 times faster than the HR10. The code for the HR10 was written by TiVo. They knew what they were doing.


----------



## veryoldschool

bpratt said:


> I have to agree with Halo. My HR10-250 is much faster than my HR21-700s which have a processor that is 4 or 5 times faster than the HR10. The code for the HR10 was written by TiVo. They knew what they were doing.


I'm not going to disagree about TiVo's ability to code.
It would be more "apples to apples" to compare the THR22 to the HR21, than use an MPEG-2 receiver to compare to an MPEG-4 receiver, since this isn't "apples to apples".


----------



## billsharpe

After months of frustration over my slow HR20-700, my solution was to switch providers.

The NVRAM reset helped temporarily, but not much.


----------



## keith_benedict

veryoldschool said:


> I'm not going to disagree about TiVo's ability to code.
> It would be more "apples to apples" to compare the THR22 to the HR21, than use an MPEG-2 receiver to compare to an MPEG-4 receiver, since this isn't "apples to apples".


I disagree. Isn't there an ASIC that handles the MPEG decoding? The drawing of the guide and other menus in the UI should be handled separately from the MPEG decoding.


----------



## harsh

keith_benedict said:


> I disagree. Isn't there an ASIC that handles the MPEG decoding? The drawing of the guide and other menus in the UI should be handled separately from the MPEG decoding.


Most everything you see on the screen or hear is handled by hardware. What's left over the is database functions and that's something that still begs for improvement.


----------



## veryoldschool

keith_benedict said:


> I disagree. Isn't there an ASIC that handles the MPEG decoding? The drawing of the guide and other menus in the UI should be handled separately from the MPEG decoding.


MPEG-4 requires more memory and processing than MPEG-2.
You can see this with on your computer with video chips that handle MPEG-4 decoding which off loads the CPU's load.

Many years ago I played with an HD OTA tuner card, which worked with I think my 800 MHz Pentium III & an ATI 9600.
Moving to DirecTV2PC, I found I needed more of just about everything.
I had a 3 GHz Pentium 4 HT and nVidia 6600, which worked fine for MPEG-2 HD, but 1080 HD MPEG-4 wouldn't work.
720p MPEG-4 would bury the CPU at 100%, but played.
Overclocking the CPU to above 3.3 GHz would just get it to squeak by, but was marginal for 1080 MPEG-4.
Changing to an ATI 3650 [on board MPEG-4] let me "underclock" the CPU down to below 1.7 GHz and still have plenty of CPU left to use.


----------



## Supramom2000

For whatever reason, my two R22's are faster than my HR23.


----------



## veryoldschool

Supramom2000 said:


> For whatever reason, my two R22's are faster than my HR23.


I think there is some merit to which design you have [the maker's -xxx], though they do use the same core chipsets.


----------



## JonW

Halo said:


> They lack the skill. That was obvious to me years ago. Even 6 year old tech like the HR-20 is still remarkably fast. It is easily fast enough to handle all the duties of a HD-DVR (reliable and responsive) if properly designed.
> 
> Unless you've spent some time writing code for embedded systems it may be difficult to understand how much can be done in just 1 second. Hundreds of millions of instructions per second. 1 second is an eternity to a modern CPU. Especially with decoding duties handled by hardware there is absolutely no excuse for the user interface to ever become unresponsive.
> 
> Blaming NVRAM or guide data for slowness is pathetic. If any of those things slow down you system then you didn't write it correctly. But yeah, just blame the hardware. I design both. The hardware is extremely capable.
> 
> Six years of development and they still don't have a handle on their hardware. They still have obvious bugs and incredible slowdowns. And they still draw a paycheck.


I agree, alas it's always easier to pile on new code than it is to optimize or re-design existing code; and companies that don't derive their revenue directly from s/w may see it as little more than a necessary evil/marketing device.


----------



## TomCat

dupe deleted


----------



## TomCat

Halo said:


> They lack the skill...


I think that about sums it up.

There is support for this argument: If you have experience with DISH DVRs, they are generally all pretty snappy. Of course the trade-off there is they are also unreliable, and the DISH service is somewhat inferior in many ways (there are still top-market stations that are not in HD LIL, for one thing). So their coders have the skill to provide the speed, but lack the skill to make their DVRs very reliable. And all DVRs pretty much run on the same garden-variety off-the-shelf CPUs and decoder chips from the same sources, so that can't be used as any excuse.



bpratt said:


> I have to agree with Halo. My HR10-250 is much faster than my HR21-700s which have a processor that is 4 or 5 times faster than the HR10. The code for the HR10 was written by TiVo. They knew what they were doing.


Well, yes, in some ways it is faster, and Tivo made efforts to speed things up in some of their up revs as well, but at the expense of reliability, so maybe no coder has the chops to do both.

And the HR10, much-beloved as it is, is not really all that fast in many areas, although I agree it is faster in GUI response for many of the most frequent tasks. I just deleted a SP on my one remaining HR10 yesterday (out of a total of only 9 SPs), and it took over 4 minutes to recover. _More than 4 entire minutes_ of the "please wait" clockface logo staring back at me. It also takes 30-40 seconds to display the main GUI screen when I first access it each day, but this is likely due to the fact that it has to first parse failed mothership connection attempts for the last 1800 days.


----------



## peano

TomCat said:


> There is support for this argument: If you have experience with DISH DVRs, they are generally all pretty snappy. Of course the trade-off there is they are also unreliable....


I have owned six or seven different Dish models and all have worked flawlessly. I cannot say that about my HR22.

I definitely agree that DIRECTV's code writers are poor at best.


----------



## Supramom2000

veryoldschool said:


> I think there is some merit to which design you have [the maker's -xxx], though they do use the same core chipsets.


I have both an R22-100 and an R22-200. So far, both are faster than the HR23.

I'm not really sure why.


----------



## Podkayne

My HR 20-100 is still double pig-dog slow...done all of the usual stuff. I'm sure they're working on a fix. There has to be a huge installed base of these things and there's no way they can afford to replace them.


----------



## veryoldschool

Podkayne said:


> My HR 20-100 is still double pig-dog slow...done all of the usual stuff. I'm sure they're working on a fix. There has to be a huge installed base of these things and there's no way they can afford to replace them.


I once heard a rumor that they wanted to dump them with MRV/DECA, [one of the reasons being the strange configuration needed], but it was repeatedly "overruled", so we're still stuck with them.


----------



## beforesixbeers

To improve speed
Turn off Resolutions [Native Mode].
Turn off Scrolling Effects.
Disable ID
The remote's model ID sends remote information to receiver with each keystroke, narrowing options for remote-to-receiver programming.
Customers may need to disable Model ID if receiver is slow to respond to remote commands.
Press and hold Mute and Select until the green light flashes twice.
Enter 9-6-3 on numeric key pad. 
The green light on remote should flash twice.
Press the Channel Down key.


----------



## allenn

I'm retired, so speed is not an issue. It would be nice if D* would get the bugs fixed before introducing another DVR like the HR34. Read through the DirecTV threads in DBSTALK, and you will soon realize that D* needs to direct their resources to perfecting their current hardware and software. Have a great day!


----------



## veryoldschool

beforesixbeers said:


> To improve speed
> Turn off Resolutions [Native Mode].
> Turn off Scrolling Effects.
> Disable ID
> The remote's model ID sends remote information to receiver with each keystroke, narrowing options for remote-to-receiver programming.
> Customers may need to disable Model ID if receiver is slow to respond to remote commands.
> Press and hold Mute and Select until the green light flashes twice.
> Enter 9-6-3 on numeric key pad.
> The green light on remote should flash twice.
> Press the Channel Down key.


I'm sure all of these are good, but I've only ever turned off scrolling and leave all the other intact.
My old HR20-700s [from the early days where they were made in Mexico] were fine.
My HR21-200 [again the first run] was only about a half second slower than my HR20s.
Time has passed and now I only have the -500s.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

You know, people have different opinions about what constitutes "slow". I'm not saying your DVR is fast, but to many people it may be acceptable. There are a lot of other factors too... The health of the hard drive, the quality of the signal, the compression used at the back haul facility... There are a lot of factors.


----------



## beforesixbeers

guess beings i work for the company doesnt mean anything to anyone.


----------



## veryoldschool

beforesixbeers said:


> guess beings i work for the company doesnt mean anything to anyone.


I don't think I'd put it quite that way, but you may find a few here that work with those in El Segundo and know a bit too.


----------



## allenn

Stuart Sweet said:


> ........ There are a lot of other factors too... The health of the hard drive, the quality of the signal, the compression used at the back haul facility... There are a lot of factors.


Pretty much like any PC which a DVR really is. Also I would add price of the components and hardware as a factor. You want speed; then the price goes up. D* has to weigh price against benefit. Best wishes!


----------



## Chuck W

allenn said:


> I'm retired, so speed is not an issue. It would be nice if D* would get the bugs fixed before introducing another DVR like the HR34. Read through the DirecTV threads in DBSTALK, and you will soon realize that D* needs to direct their resources to perfecting their current hardware and software. Have a great day!


I've said this quite a few times here too. I sure peope are tired of reading about it as I've posted about it over and over, but it continues too be a problem on my HR20/21 but my biggest beef with these boxes is the CORE functionality. Simple things, like channel changes or just pulling up the guide in a timely fashion. They should be executed pretty much PERFECTLY every time, but they're not.

On my HR10-250 Tivo, I was NEVER sent to a wrong channel if it knew the digits I entered. If I entered 265, I would goto 265 every single time. On the HR20/21 I "could" end up at channel 265 OR I could end up at channel 26 or 5 because when the internal timer hits 0 and the box has only processed the 2 and the 6, it will try to change to 26 even tho it has the 5 in the buffer. Then after changing to 26, it realizes "hey! there's a 5 here... lets change to channel 5 now". :nono2: That is just shoddy programming.

The only reason my HR25 is acceptable is because it has a fast enough processor to deal with the shoddy programming and can process the 265 fast enough before the internal timer runs out.

The problem is Directv isn't interesting in taking the time or money to gut their code and redesign it for efficiency. It is only concerned with cramming more and more features into it so it can add it to their advertising.


----------



## Mike Greer

I believe it is management’s fault. How often has DirecTV inflicted ‘bad’ updates on their customers? I can see mistakes happening once in a while but this is ridiculous! The same trouble with remote response/speed comes and goes as the ‘updates’ are forced on us. Shouldn’t the people responsible for this fiasco have been fired years ago? Wouldn’t that be management’s job?

You would think someone at DirecTV would have a little pride and get tired of the constant problems. I’d be embarrassed to have any of the HR2X series or even the HR34 as an example of my work.

I know, I know, the fix is coming soon!:lol:


----------



## mikemaxj

And it did for a while on my HR20. Then they turned it over to the "regular" programmers. With the first update since the origional HD updaate, my HR20 is slow again.

Mike


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> MPEG-4 requires more memory and processing than MPEG-2.


While what you say true, the processing is done in dedicated hardware so the "speed" of the DVR shouldn't be substantially impacted. There is very little comparison to TV cards of old that were digitizing and encoding instead of decoding. Comparing how things are done in computers isn't particularly applicable in the world of purpose-built DVRs.

Because MPEG4 requires less data, there's less of a load on the mass storage (shared among many functions) than with MPEG2.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> While what you say true, the processing is done in dedicated hardware so the "speed" of the DVR shouldn't be substantially impacted. There is very little comparison to TV cards of old that were digitizing and encoding instead of decoding. Comparing how things are done in computers isn't particularly applicable in the world of purpose-built DVRs.
> 
> Because MPEG4 requires less data, there's less of a load on the mass storage (shared among many functions) than with MPEG2.


Once again you seemed to have missed the point.
The TV card in question was an HD TV tuner card.
As for MPEG-4, it isn't the mass storage load, but the processing power required to decode the "less data" into HDMI.


----------



## Mike Greer

veryoldschool said:


> Once again you seemed to have missed the point.
> The TV card in question was an HD TV tuner card.
> As for MPEG-4, it isn't the mass storage load, but the processing power required to decode the "less data" into HDMI.


I don't see the MPEG4 decoding being the trouble. Because the decoding is being done with dedicated hardware it doesn't take a lot of work (processing power) to decode it.

A good example would be to tune to a music channel.... The DVR is still very slow to respond to the remote and scrolling through the lists is still painfully inconsistent. If the slowdown was/is being caused by decoding you'd expect the DVR to speed up when it isn't decoding MPEG4....

And this is on my HR24-500 - Ah, the good old days when my HR24s where quick....


----------



## dsw2112

Mike Greer said:


> ...A good example would be to tune to a music channel....


You would have to consider what's going on on the second tuner as well though (D* pushed programming.) I didn't realize how much programming was "pushed" until I started operating my R15 in single tuner mode. The R15 will go into screen saver mode when a push happens, and I noticed it happening much more.

Not that this is the specific issue with the receivers either, but something else to the puzzle. In the end, I think the code isn't all it can be. I learned on the old programming languages, and it's been my experience that the "newer stuff" is more bloated (and hardware demanding) for the same results. It's also my experience that a good programmer can make poor hardware look good, although there is always a "break even" point.


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Greer said:


> I don't see the MPEG4 decoding being the trouble. Because the decoding is being done with dedicated hardware it doesn't take a lot of work (processing power) to decode it.


As with the video card chips that offload the MPEG-4 decoding from the CPU, but the original point/reference was comparing an old TiVo MPEG-2 DVR to the current HR2x [MPEG-4] DVRs, which I still think isn't a valid "apples to apples" for TiVo and DirecTV, "where as" the HR22 and THR22 should be.


----------



## Mike Greer

dsw2112 said:


> You would have to consider what's going on on the second tuner as well though (D* pushed programming.) I didn't realize how much programming was "pushed" until I started operating my R15 in single tuner mode. The R15 will go into screen saver mode when a push happens, and I noticed it happening much more.
> 
> Not that this is the specific issue with the receivers either, but something else to the puzzle. In the end, I think the code isn't all it can be. I learned on the old programming languages, and it's been my experience that the "newer stuff" is more bloated (and hardware demanding) for the same results. It's also my experience that a good programmer can make poor hardware look good, although there is always a "break even" point.


The 'decoding' doesn't happen until you are actually viewing the program. It stays in its original MPEG2 or MPEG4 as it is received and stored in the case of a recording.

I agree with your bloated comment. It would seem that they just keep piling bad code on top of bad code....


----------



## dsw2112

Mike Greer said:


> The 'decoding' doesn't happen until you are actually viewing the program. It stays in its original MPEG2 or MPEG4 as it is received and stored in the case of a recording.


Try telling my HR22-100 that something isn't "going on" when it's recording on the second tuner and you're doing some "intensive" guide navigation (or menu actions.) :lol:

From what I understand the THR22 doesn't have this type of problem. Since the hardware is identical to my HR22-100, that means there's an obvious difference in coding. Since everyone's perception is a bit different I'd like to see the THR22 in action (to compare for myself.) Problem is, nobody I know will buy one :lol:


----------



## Mike Greer

veryoldschool said:


> As with the video card chips that offload the MPEG-4 decoding from the CPU, but the original point/reference was comparing an old TiVo MPEG-2 DVR to the current HR2x [MPEG-4] DVRs, which I still think isn't a valid "apples to apples" for TiVo and DirecTV, "where as" the HR22 and THR22 should be.


I see your point but because of the dedicated MPEG4 hardware in the HR2X receivers there shouldn't be much, if any, 'extra' burden to deal with when playing back MPEG4. One could even argue (I'm not!) that there is LESS work to for the DVR when recording and playing back MPEG4 because the compressed data is smaller and uses less bandwidth.

A good comparison for Apples to Apples to Apples may be comparing the speed/response of the HR22, the THR22 and even an old Dish receiver like the 622. I have not seen a THR22 (and even doubt they exist!:lol but I can tell you from firsthand experience that the 622/722 receivers from Dish Network beat the pants off any DirecTV DVR (even my HR24s when they used to be fast). I'm not claiming they are perfect but when it comes to speed the HR24 is 'slow' when running up against a five or six year old 622 from Dish Network. A 722k recording 4 simultaneous HD programs is even faster than the 622 is.... Leaves my HR24s in the dust...

I think the HR2X receivers COULD be fixed - I just don't think they WILL be fixed. It just doesn't seem to be a priority to DirecTV. If it was a priority to DirecTV they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot every time they do an 'update'. They figure as long as they keep the complaints under a certain level then they are 'good enough'... And they're probably right... Just wish they would take a little pride in their work...


----------



## Mike Greer

dsw2112 said:


> Try telling my HR22-100 that something isn't "going on" when it's recording on the second tuner and you're doing some "intensive" guide navigation (or menu actions.) :lol:
> 
> From what I understand the THR22 doesn't have this type of problem. Since the hardware is identical to my HR22-100, that means there's an obvious difference in coding. Since everyone's perception is a bit different I'd like to see the THR22 in action (to compare for myself.) Problem is, nobody I know will buy one :lol:


Didn't mean to say there wasn't anything going on - just not any MPEG4 going on!

I'm with you on the THR22 - I'd like to see one but doubt they even exist!


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Greer said:


> I see your point but...


I don't think we're "far off" here, but want to point out that it takes more memory to decode MPEG-4 [and one of the downsides discussed about HDTV in the early days with moving to MPEG-4 to reduce bandwidth].
I don't know the chips in the Dish receivers, so :shrug: "but" were they even using MPEG-4 five or six year ago? [another :shrug:]

"If DirecTV" wouldn't keep trying to "hit a moving target", we might see stability like we did in early '07 with the [then one an only] HR20-700.

I see them adding more "features" and having too many different "boxes", that are all trying to use a "one size fits all" approach to software.

OK now if nobody ever hears from me again, "you'll know why" !rolling

[as I duck into my bunker to wait out the wrath headed my way :lol:]


----------



## Mike Greer

veryoldschool said:


> I don't think we're "far off" here, but want to point out that it takes more memory to decode MPEG-4 [and one of the downsides discussed about HDTV in the early days with moving to MPEG-4 to reduce bandwidth].:]


Probably about right....



veryoldschool said:


> I don't know the chips in the Dish receivers, so :shrug: "but" were they even using MPEG-4 five or six year ago? [another :shrug:]:]


I'm not sure on the hardware differences either... Yep - the 622 came out in March of 2006 - I had one for a couple of years - they started MPEG4 with the locals if I remember correctly.



veryoldschool said:


> "If DirecTV" wouldn't keep trying to "hit a moving target", we might see stability like we did in early '07 with the [then one an only] HR20-700.
> 
> I see them adding more "features" and having too many different "boxes", that are all trying to use a "one size fits all" approach to software.
> 
> OK now if nobody ever hears from me again, "you'll know why" !rolling
> 
> [as I duck into my bunker to wait out the wrath headed my way :lol:]


The only 'wrath' headed your way would be from people that can't handle the truth!


----------



## Mike Greer

Speaking of wrath... You know, another step in the direction of fixing slow receivers would be...

To have 'testing' of new software done by someone other than the die-hard fans and the engineer's mothers!:lol:

If DirecTV engineering received and listened to honest criticism from 'un-biased' users we would be way ahead of how things are today.


----------



## sigma1914

Mike Greer said:


> Speaking of wrath... You know, another step in the direction of fixing slow receivers would be...
> 
> To have 'testing' of new software done by someone other than the die-hard fans and the engineer's mothers!:lol:
> 
> If DirecTV engineering received and listened to honest criticism from 'un-biased' users we would be way ahead of how things are today.


Naysayers (not an intended insult) like yourself and others are more than welcome to do CE testing.


----------



## Mike Greer

sigma1914 said:


> Naysayers (not an intended insult) like yourself and others are more than welcome to do CE testing.


Not taken as insult... But to me it doesn't seem like the CE process works. I don't see how the current problems that will be fixed 'soon' got through the process.

I think the biggest problem is that they don't want to hear about 'slow' for 48 hours and by the time the slow creeps back in the receivers are rebooting again for the next version.

Maybe they should change it so the CE is once a month?


----------



## veryoldschool

sigma1914 said:


> Naysayers (not an intended insult) like yourself and others are more than welcome to do CE testing.





Mike Greer said:


> Not taken as insult... But to me it doesn't seem like the CE process works. I don't see how the current problems that will be fixed 'soon' got through the process.
> 
> I think the biggest problem is that they don't want to hear about 'slow' for 48 hours and by the time the slow creeps back in the receivers are rebooting again for the next version.
> 
> Maybe they should change it so the CE is once a month?


Let's not go down this road in this thread/forum, please.

"I'm sure" there are decisions made that some may not agree with, and pressures that we don't know about.


----------



## rb5505

lots of great notes here. hopefully most if not all of them are also being emailed (link below) to or called into directv?

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/loyalty/loyalty.jsp


----------



## TomCat

beforesixbeers said:


> To improve speed
> Turn off Resolutions [Native Mode].
> Turn off Scrolling Effects.
> Disable ID
> The remote's model ID sends remote information to receiver with each keystroke, narrowing options for remote-to-receiver programming.
> Customers may need to disable Model ID if receiver is slow to respond to remote commands.
> Press and hold Mute and Select until the green light flashes twice.
> Enter 9-6-3 on numeric key pad.
> The green light on remote should flash twice.
> Press the Channel Down key.


Too little, too late.


----------



## TomCat

Podkayne said:


> ...I'm sure they're working on a fix...


!rolling


----------



## TomCat

beforesixbeers said:


> guess beings i work for the company doesnt mean anything to anyone.


Actually, no, I think many here including myself welcome your help and perspective. But they ARE slow, and none of what you suggested makes much difference, unfortunately. They are what they are. At the end of the day, compared to other DVRs, _they're slow!_


----------



## TomCat

veryoldschool said:


> I...it takes more memory to decode MPEG-4 ...
> [as I duck into my bunker to wait out the wrath headed my way :lol:]


No wrath, I save that for trolls. You're obviously a smart guy, VOS, and I respect you greatly. But on this point you apparently have a fuzzy understanding of what actually goes on here. It's not a point of shame to be uninformed, especially if you are willing to course correct when you are.

MPEG decoding of any flavor is not memory-intensive, in fact the only memory involved is the buffer inside the decoder chip. And again, that is a decoder chip, meaning all of the horsepower it needs to decode is right there on board. Compressed video goes in one side and decoded video comes out the other, and there is no load from that process impinging on the CPU running the GUI whatsoever.

The decoder runs on its own. Its smart about decoding, and dumb about everything else; it sees voltage and it starts trying to decode whatever is on the input and spitting out video and audio on its output. It neither receives nor obeys instructions; it just sits there and decodes or attempts to decode based on a hard-coded script until the power goes out.

And the workload on the HDD is actually less due to a lower mbps than MPEG-2.

The coders for DTV are not "bad" coders, but as some have said, they simply lack the skill. It's a rare skill, BTW; pro systems face the same challenges, but they fix it not with more-clever coding, but with high-dollar hardware. They throw money at it rather than expert coders. These days it takes about 3 racks full of enterprise-class HP Proliant servers to handle video recording and playback on a professional level, where unexpected pauses in the GUI can't be tolerated.

Your DVR is not a toaster. It is not as simple as an analog VCR. When I first started in electronics school they told me that even including PCs the basic garden-variety TV set was the most technically sophisticated item you could own outside of NASA, by a couple orders of magnitude over anything else.

And even with iPads and smart phones and HDTVs, the same could be said today for your DVR. It is actually a remarkable piece of technology, and does things that were technically unimaginable only 15 years ago. And it does them pretty darned well. Unfortunately, the DTV DVRs do it just a little slower than some others do.


----------



## veryoldschool

TomCat said:


> No wrath, I save that for trolls. You're obviously a smart guy, VOS, and I respect you greatly. But on this point you apparently have a fuzzy understanding of what actually goes on here. It's not a point of shame to be uninformed, especially if you are willing to course correct when you are.


You're right. Some things I know to the core, while other things not so well.
When I watch a video conference on the aspects/implementation of HD by industry leaders, and they point out the cost factor of needing more memory per unit to move to MPEG-4, "I believe them".
In the simplest analogy, MPEG-2 video on a PC could be done with 64 megs of onboard memory. MPEG-4 video cards [to work with DirecTV2PC] require 256 megs min, and 512 megs recommended.


> When I first started in electronics school...


I cut my teeth on airborne electronic warfare systems, so I didn't start with "toasters" either.


----------



## Mike Greer

Yikes – did you all just feel the chill in the air?!


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> As for MPEG-4, it isn't the mass storage load, but the processing power required to decode the "less data" into HDMI.


This is done entirely in custom hardware. You're completely missing the dividing line between what is done as a CPU process and what isn't.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> This is done entirely in custom hardware. You're completely missing the dividing line between what is done as a CPU process and what isn't.


And you're still missing the load on the memory, that doesn't get the magically, but at this point... what is the point? 
This all started with someone comparing how well a HR10-250 works compared to the HR2x, and "how good" TiVo codes verses what DirecTV does.
Apples, oranges, and lemons, until someone compares the THR22 to a HR21/22. Then the next thing to look at is what does one do that the other doesn't.

The firmware resides in a chip not much bigger than a BIOS chip.

Now maybe some TiVo users can reply about where the TiVo software resides, as "I think" it's on the hard drive.


----------



## JonW

TomCat said:


> When I first started in electronics school they told me that even including PCs the basic garden-variety TV set was the most technically sophisticated item you could own outside of NASA, by a couple orders of magnitude over anything else.


Given TV technology originated in 1920 using vacuum tube technology, I think they umm exaggerated. 

TVs do use mixed signal technology, much like our DVRs include a satellite receiver and PC tech, but that's really not a great hurdle for either device.

It's no longer enough for a piece of consumer equipment to do it's job, it must also do it very responsively. Anything less is simply no longer acceptable in this day and age.


----------



## JonW

veryoldschool said:


> The firmware resides in a chip not much bigger than a BIOS chip.


Which doesn't really mean anything other than that BIOS's have become bloated with features such as quick-boot-versions of Linux and that the cost of a flash ROM chip is reasonably low.

The original IBM PC BIOS used to fit in what ... 8 K bytes? Of course it was written in assembly language.

According to RedH, the DVRs are using anywhere from 16.1MB (HR20) up to 20.5 MB (HR34).

Basically they've managed to fill up the equivalent of 2 entire IBM-XT's hard disks with firmware code.

True that's not much by modern PC operating system standards, but for an embedded system it's still quite a lot.


----------



## veryoldschool

JonW said:


> According to RedH, the DVRs are using anywhere from 16.1MB (HR20) up to 20.5 MB (HR34).


That's the install file size, but the firmware is down round 1 Meg [wish I remembered the exact statement, in a chatroom several years ago].


----------



## BoostedBlazer

socal404 said:


> I know this subject has been discussed on other threads many times, but my search has not come up with an answer to my question. I have (2) R22-100s w/HD and an HR24-200. The R22-100s are extremely slow, especially when I first turn them on in the morning. I've done the RAM clearing, and they are still slow. It is obvious that DTV can and has corrected other flaws in the past. Why can't they seem to fix this glitch? I would appreciate any useful solutions to this problem. Also does anyone know if DTV is working on this problem? Thanks.


Best response I can form on this is, for all intensive purposes the R22 was never "intented to be an HD DVR" it was and still is considered a SD DVR that was created to operate in MPEG-4 transitional markets. It's capable of handling the signal in HD but not designed for it. Still one of my Fav boxes though! They're tough!


----------



## Mike Greer

BoostedBlazer said:


> Best response I can form on this is, for all intensive purposes the R22 was never "intented to be an HD DVR" it was and still is considered a SD DVR that was created to operate in MPEG-4 transitional markets. It's capable of handling the signal in HD but not designed for it. Still one of my Fav boxes though! They're tough!


The R22 is an HR22 with a different model number.... EXACTLY the same hardware.

The HR22 was never intended to be a DVR at all if you ask me!:lol:


----------



## Mike Greer

veryoldschool said:


> That's the install file size, but the firmware is down round 1 Meg [wish I remembered the exact statement, in a chatroom several years ago].


Not sure what you mean by 'install file size'?

It it realley down to 1 meg? That's pretty tiny!


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Greer said:


> The R22 is an HR22 with a different model number.... EXACTLY the same hardware.
> 
> The HR22 was never intended to be a DVR at all if you ask me!:lol:


"Close", but it's the HR21 because the drive is smaller being that it was for SD.


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Greer said:


> Not sure what you mean by 'install file size'?
> 
> It it realley down to 1 meg? That's pretty tiny!


I was in a chat with "the folks" from DirecTV and it is that small. They were proud [for good reasons] at the time, that they could get it all in that small of a package.


----------



## dsw2112

veryoldschool said:


> ...Now maybe some TiVo users can reply about where the TiVo software resides, as "I think" it's on the hard drive...


That's the first time I've heard that, and would be interesting if true. I wonder if anyone with a THR22 can confirm that.


----------



## veryoldschool

dsw2112 said:


> That's the first time I've heard that, and would be interesting if true. I wonder if anyone with a THR22 can confirm that.


I've read that changing drives required cloning the drive first on the older TiVos, but never owned one, and don't know about the THR22, so :shrug:


----------



## dsw2112

veryoldschool said:


> ...until someone compares the THR22 to a HR21/22. Then the next thing to look at is what does one do that the other doesn't....


That comparison is what interests me as well. While I've seen people describe the THR22 in general terms, using words like quick and snappy, it would be neat to see a thorough comparison of the two.

Then there are the differences (the most obvious being MRV,) but I can recall my HR21 back before MRV was even in testing -- it was never a quick operator.


----------



## dsw2112

veryoldschool said:


> I've read that changing drives required cloning the drive first on the older TiVos, but never owned one, and don't know about the THR22, so :shrug:


I recall the older Tivo's having the software on the hard drive, but nobody I know will go for the THR22 (due to the lack of MRV and $5 fee.) I would be surprised to hear that the THR22 has the software on the hard drive since D* doesn't do it with their own DVR's, but anything is possible.


----------



## veryoldschool

dsw2112 said:


> I would be surprised to hear that the THR22 has the software on the hard drive since D* doesn't do it with their own DVR's, but anything is possible.


Which may have been part of the delay on the TiVo end in getting this puppy out. "We got to squeeze it into what?" !rolling


----------



## BoostedBlazer

beforesixbeers said:


> guess beings i work for the company doesnt mean anything to anyone.


Throw that around on here enough and you will find out it might mean more to someone than you think.... :nono2:


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> And you're still missing the load on the memory, that doesn't get the magically, but at this point... what is the point?


Again, you're attributing things to system RAM that placed in dedicated buffers. System RAM is all about housekeeping and database functions and doesn't see much difference between various resolutions of content.

The efficiency (or lack thereof) of the DIRECTV cobbled database code is noteworthy.


----------



## Podkayne

(Sigh....) My HR 20-100 is STILL DOUBLE PIG-DOG SLOW!!

My wife is calling Cin Bell Fioptic to see what they will offer us today...


----------



## Podkayne

That's 17+ years of uninterrupted DTV, about to go down the drain....


----------



## Richierich

Podkayne said:


> That's 17+ years of uninterrupted DTV, about to go down the drain....


Just go to Ebay and buy an Owned HR24-500 and Upgrade the Internal Drive and be done with it.


----------



## dsw2112

Podkayne said:


> (Sigh....) My HR 20-100 is STILL DOUBLE PIG-DOG SLOW!!


I have no idea what that means (expect for the slow part) :lol:



Richierich said:


> Just go to Ebay and buy an Owned HR24-500 and Upgrade the Internal Drive and be done with it.


As the HR20 has been a proven receiver (and has had seemingly more problems lately) I think this one can be fixed with coding (will it be, I don't know...)


----------



## Richierich

dsw2112 said:


> As the HR20 has been a proven receiver (and has had seemingly more problems lately) I think this one can be fixed with coding (will it be, I don't know...)


All 5 of my HR24-500s are Snappy Fast!!!


----------



## dsw2112

Richierich said:


> All 5 of my HR24-500s are Snappy Fast!!!


I'm sure the poster would take your money to follow the suggestion :lol:


----------



## Rich

TomCat said:


> When I first started in electronics school they told me that even including PCs the basic garden-variety TV set was the most technically sophisticated item you could own outside of NASA, by a couple orders of magnitude over anything else.


Even more "sophisticated" than Surface Search Radar or Fire Control Radar (a different technology than SSR)? And they were on a destroyer built in 1945. Whoever told you that had never served his country and got to play with almost unimaginable (for the times) technology. Cracks me up how all you IT guys and Geeks pass up the opportunity to play with a lot of really neat stuff. I can't even begin to imagine what you'd find on a ship today. Or in a tank. Or on a plane. Or in a missile system. Or in a space shuttle. I could go on and on, but a TV sure as hell isn't the most technically sophisticated piece of equipment and never was.

Well, maybe in 1920....:lol:

Rich


----------



## dsw2112

Rich said:


> ...Cracks me up how all you IT guys and Geeks pass up the opportunity to play with a lot of really neat stuff. I can't even begin to imagine what you'd find on a [...] ship...plane...


Not everyone is up for that challenge Rich  There's only a few jobs that rival the stress that accompanies repairing a down piece of equipment in a war zone. Oh, and for those that are electronics/RF geeks -- an E-2 or EA6B is like a puppy with two peters :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool

"The kids these days..." :lol:
Not sure I was or wasn't in a "war zone", but I did have a 2-5 min life expectancy if it started and if we "screwed up", everything within a 2 mile radius would cease to exist, so maybe I know a little about "pressure on the job" :eek2: !rolling

Now back to our regularly scheduled *****ing thread of slow receivers.


----------



## Rich

dsw2112 said:


> Not everyone is up for that challenge Rich  There's only a few jobs that rival the stress that accompanies repairing a down piece of equipment in a war zone. Oh, and for those that are electronics/RF geeks -- an E-2 or EA6B is like a puppy with two peters :lol:


I'm not sure that anyone just out of HS knows what an education you can get in the services. We had Radar Technicians who would stay on board just to play with the radar when they could have been on liberty or leave. Folks just don't know what they missed or are missing.

Rich


----------



## Podkayne

Richierich said:


> Just go to Ebay and buy an Owned HR24-500 and Upgrade the Internal Drive and be done with it.


Darn it, I shouldn't have to buy anything!! This HR 20-100 has been happily chugging away since Sept. 4, 2007 with the only glitch being the awful 771 issue a while back. DTV sent down the HDGUI, and slogged this DVR on to it's knees!! They broke it, they should fix it, and it shouldn't have to cost me anything!!


----------



## veryoldschool

Podkayne said:


> Darn it, I shouldn't have to buy anything!! This HR 20-100 has been happily chugging away since Sept. 4, 2007 with the only glitch being the awful 771 issue a while back. DTV sent down the HDGUI, and slogged this DVR on to it's knees!! They broke it, they should fix it, and it shouldn't have to cost me anything!!


I'd agree and work through Ellen's group to have them replace it.
[email protected]


----------



## Mike Greer

Richierich said:


> Just go to Ebay and buy an Owned HR24-500 and Upgrade the Internal Drive and be done with it.


And if/when he pays for HR24-500s like I did and he gets what I got with the HDGUI update what does he do then?


----------



## Mike Greer

veryoldschool said:


> "Close", but it's the HR21 because the drive is smaller being that it was for SD.


Well.... not that I would ever open up a receiver but.... I did see with my very own eyes that the R22 and HR22 have identical boards - including part numbers in them....


----------



## Mike Greer

Richierich said:


> All 5 of my HR24-500s are Snappy Fast!!!


All 3 of my HR24-500s are not!!!


----------



## Mike Greer

dsw2112 said:


> I recall the older Tivo's having the software on the hard drive, but nobody I know will go for the THR22 (due to the lack of MRV and $5 fee.) I would be surprised to hear that the THR22 has the software on the hard drive since D* doesn't do it with their own DVR's, but anything is possible.


Yep the old DirecTivos had the OS on the hard drive... You could not just replace drive and have it work - you had to copy the OS from the old drive to the new.

I would also like to see an THR22 but I don't know anyone that has one or plans on getting one...


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Greer said:


> Well.... not that I would ever open up a receiver but.... I did see with my very own eyes that the R22 and HR22 have identical boards - including part numbers in them....


And so, the "big upgrade" of the HR22, was a larger hard drive. :lol:
The 23 was the change in SAT tuner chips so they don't need the BBC on a non SWiM.


----------



## dsw2112

veryoldschool said:


> ...The 23 was the change in SAT tuner chips so they don't need the BBC on a non SWiM...


This one should have a "Ba dum tssshhh" after it :lol:

A more expensive tuner only to paradigm shift to a SWM infrastructure. I'm guessing the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing


----------



## dsw2112

Rich said:


> ...We had Radar Technicians who would stay on board just to play with the radar when they could have been on liberty or leave...


You could do some fun things with radar when the higher ups weren't around :lol:



veryoldschool said:


> "The kids these days..." :lol:
> Not sure I was or wasn't in a "war zone", but I did have a 2-5 min life expectancy if it started and if we "screwed up", everything within a 2 mile radius would cease to exist, so maybe I know a little about "pressure on the job" :eek2: !rolling


I had an O-3 that threatened to destroy everything within a 2 mile radius once; I think he's now in Leavenworth :lol:

But yeah, back to "*****ing"


----------



## m4p

beforesixbeers said:


> To improve speed
> Turn off Resolutions [Native Mode].
> Turn off Scrolling Effects.
> Disable ID
> The remote's model ID sends remote information to receiver with each keystroke, narrowing options for remote-to-receiver programming.
> Customers may need to disable Model ID if receiver is slow to respond to remote commands.
> Press and hold Mute and Select until the green light flashes twice.
> Enter 9-6-3 on numeric key pad.
> The green light on remote should flash twice.
> Press the Channel Down key.


Thanks for the tips. I tried turning off ID but after entering 9-6-3 on the keypad, the green light didn't flash twice. I tried it again to make sure, and it still didn't flash twice.


----------



## makaiguy

m4p said:


> Thanks for the tips. I tried turning off ID but after entering 9-6-3 on the keypad, the green light didn't flash twice. I tried it again to make sure, and it still didn't flash twice.


Just to be sure, that's the three digit sequence 963, not 9 dash 6 dash 3.


----------



## Citivas

With my HR22's something new has happened recently to make them CRAWL. And it wasn't the HD UI. When that first hit the performance actually improved to moderately slow and annoying to reasonably fast. But now the boxes are getting close to unusual. The performance isn't consistent but it's not unusual to have to wait 20+ seconds for it to respond to hitting select or the down arrow, etc. I am not exaggerating. I used to enjoy that these were faster than the old DirecTivo's (especially after changing season passes!) but they are now slower than those ever were. And the lag really seems to be specific to processing commands. It hasn't caused lag in just watching shows for example. Or if I hit the 30-second advance 4 times it will take 15 seconds to initially do anything but once it starts it will advance at the expected speed... Yes I've reset the boxes...


----------



## Rich

dsw2112 said:


> This one should have a "Ba dum tssshhh" after it :lol:
> 
> A more expensive tuner only to paradigm shift to a SWM infrastructure. *I'm guessing the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing*


Be thankful D* doesn't make airplanes....:lol:

Seriously, you've pointed out something that's been obvious for a long time. There seems to be no long range plan. Or it changes weekly if there is one. I can just see them all clustered together in some meeting room right now trying to figure out how to integrate NetFlix into their "long range plan", now that it has become obvious that NF is gonna partner with some provider.

Rich


----------



## Rich

dsw2112 said:


> You could do some fun things with radar when the higher ups weren't around :lol:


Yeah, one of our radar techs turned on the surface search radar while we were in Norfolk and shut down the TV reception for the whole city. We were playing poker on the top deck when the antenna began turning and we all looked at each other and wondered why. Figured it was something to do with lubrication.

Couple minutes later a van with a revolving antenna pulled up to our ship and demanded to see the Captain. Seems our boy turned the radar on. He didn't leave the ship for a long time.

Powerful, SSR is.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Citivas said:


> With my HR22's something new has happened recently to make them CRAWL. And it wasn't the HD UI. When that first hit the performance actually improved to moderately slow and annoying to reasonably fast. But now the boxes are getting close to unusual. The performance isn't consistent but it's not unusual to have to wait 20+ seconds for it to respond to hitting select or the down arrow, etc. I am not exaggerating. I used to enjoy that these were faster than the old DirecTivo's (especially after changing season passes!) but they are now slower than those ever were. And the lag really seems to be specific to processing commands. It hasn't caused lag in just watching shows for example. Or if I hit the 30-second advance 4 times it will take 15 seconds to initially do anything but once it starts it will advance at the expected speed... Yes I've reset the boxes...


Patience, gotta have patience.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Mike Greer said:


> All 3 of my HR24-500s are not!!!


My 3 HR24-500s are a mixed bag. sometimes they operate just lickety split for whatever I'm doing with them at the time, and then the next thing you know the 'slow dog' comes out to hunt and everything is a crawl.

Damned irritating!


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Patience, gotta have patience.
> 
> Rich


Why? If history of software updates in the past and the HRs prior to the 24s is any indicator, the story will be the same one we've heard for years. 'the next upgrade' will fix the speed issues, maybe even followed by glowing reports in 'first looks' or the CE crowd.

I don't expect that D* will ever figure out the speed issue. Is it poorly designed hardware trying to do what it can't, or is is poor programming that can't get the most out of the hardware? The answer is most likely both.

Regardless, slower DVRs are what we really can expect imo.


----------



## bluegrassbubba

I've noticed the same thing after recent HR34 update 0x4cd, I wouldnt think that should have affected the 22.



Citivas said:


> With my HR22's something new has happened recently to make them CRAWL. And it wasn't the HD UI. When that first hit the performance actually improved to moderately slow and annoying to reasonably fast. But now the boxes are getting close to unusual. The performance isn't consistent but it's not unusual to have to wait 20+ seconds for it to respond to hitting select or the down arrow, etc. I am not exaggerating. I used to enjoy that these were faster than the old DirecTivo's (especially after changing season passes!) but they are now slower than those ever were. And the lag really seems to be specific to processing commands. It hasn't caused lag in just watching shows for example. Or if I hit the 30-second advance 4 times it will take 15 seconds to initially do anything but once it starts it will advance at the expected speed... Yes I've reset the boxes...


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Why? If history of software updates in the past and the HRs prior to the 24s is any indicator, the story will be the same one we've heard for years. 'the next upgrade' will fix the speed issues, maybe even followed by glowing reports in 'first looks' or the CE crowd.
> 
> I don't expect that D* will ever figure out the speed issue. Is it poorly designed hardware trying to do what it can't, or is is poor programming that can't get the most out of the hardware? The answer is most likely both.
> 
> Regardless, slower DVRs are what we really can expect imo.


I've participated in the "history" of all things HR and it does take some time to iron out the problems. Look at the 20-700s. I've got eight of them and they're almost as fast as my 24s. In '06-'07, I was going berserk about the 20-700s and now they are fine. I'd advise a bit of patience, but my HRs are merely responding to the new GUI and everything else is as speedy as it was. I'm not sure I'm having any other problems such as you see.

History shows us that every major NR causes problems for a lot of folks, but they get ironed out. Just takes time.

Rich


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> Be thankful D* doesn't make airplanes....:lol:


In the grand scheme, DIRECTV doesn't make DVRs either. They simply write the hardware specs and try to correct their oversights with software.


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> In the grand scheme, DIRECTV doesn't make DVRs either. They simply write the hardware specs and try to correct their oversights with software.


OK, be thankful that D* isn't supplying specs for the airplane industry, that better?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> I've participated in the "history" of all things HR and it does take some time to iron out the problems. Look at the 20-700s. I've got eight of them and they're almost as fast as my 24s. In '06-'07, I was going berserk about the 20-700s and now they are fine. I'd advise a bit of patience, but my HRs are merely responding to the new GUI and everything else is as speedy as it was. I'm not sure I'm having any other problems such as you see.
> 
> History shows us that every major NR causes problems for a lot of folks, but they get ironed out. Just takes time.
> 
> Rich


About 4 1/2 years ago or so, I switched from E* to D*. Got an HR20 that for some reason just would not work in my installation. Went through 3 or 4 of them in the first few weeks with no improvement. They then switched me to HR21, which did work for the rest of the 2 years stint. But it was a tad slow at first and proceeded to get slower with nearly each and every 'update' that D* threw at it. When it got to the 2 year point, and I was at the 'throw the remote through the window' point, I switched to E*.

After 2 years with them, and my adult son moving back home, I switched to D* last August for the NFLST free deal and made sure to get nothing but the latest and greatest, the HR24-500. Was tickled to see that even though they were slightly slower than my Vip722k had been, it was plenty fast enough in all operations. From my personal point of view, they should have not done diddly with 'updates' because everything worked and the speed and remote response was fine.

Enter the HDGUI. At first it was slightly slower for some things but much quicker in the various lists. But then a few short weeks after that, and after a second 'update', things got slower overall, including in lists. But it isn't consistent.

That brings us up to today. I'm not thrilled with the performance, but I have a few months before switching back makes any sense at all. But come August 16th of this year, my discounts drop off and if D* has not got the issues fixed to my satisfaction, I will be dropping D*.

I'll lose Showtime Extreme HD and pickup BBCA in HD in the switch, and even with a $240 ETF at that time, I will save an additional $240 in the switch and have equipment that I feel will operate correctly. And that would be the Hopper/Joey, one of each will replace the 6 tuners I now have available, will be quicker in operation and have central management. And by August there will be enough reports on how it all works to make that call. Frankly I fully expect to make it.

IF D* has the operation of the HRs up to snuff (solely decided by me), and if they are then willing to let me switch to an HR34 for a price that is decent, I'll stick with D* even though it would cost more than E*.


----------



## raott

Rich said:


> I've participated in the "history" of all things HR and it does take some time to iron out the problems. Look at the 20-700s. I've got eight of them and they're almost as fast as my 24s. In '06-'07, I was going berserk about the 20-700s and now they are fine. I'd advise a bit of patience, but my HRs are merely responding to the new GUI and everything else is as speedy as it was. I'm not sure I'm having any other problems such as you see.
> 
> History shows us that every major NR causes problems for a lot of folks, but they get ironed out. Just takes time.
> 
> Rich


If history repeats itself (and I hope it doesn't) we will have to be very patient. It literally took years for D* to get it kind of right and for my receivers (which included an HR20-700) to finally become adequate from a speed standpoint and for the keybounce issues to disappear. With the HD GUI, it took about three steps back.


----------



## Rich

raott said:


> If history repeats itself (and I hope it doesn't) we will have to be very patient. It literally took years for D* to get it kind of right and for my receivers (which included an HR20-700) to finally become adequate from a speed standpoint and for the keybounce issues to disappear. With the HD GUI, it took about three steps back.


I sure hope it gets better. Think back to the DLB NR, that was a beauty too.

Rich


----------



## JonW

veryoldschool said:


> That's the install file size, but the firmware is down round 1 Meg [wish I remembered the exact statement, in a chatroom several years ago].


The only thing that would even make sense is if they had 15 or so redundant images of the same firmware packed together to deal with drops in the transmission.

It is likely that they break their code up in to multiple images. Maybe the kernel/OS portion is just 1MB, and their application code is 14MB or some such.


----------



## veryoldschool

JonW said:


> The only thing that would even make sense is if they had 15 or so redundant images of the same firmware packed together to deal with drops in the transmission.
> 
> It is likely that they break their code up in to multiple images. Maybe the kernel/OS portion is just 1MB, and their application code is 14MB or some such.


We are at a level here that I don't know in minuet details, "but" given you can swap a drive out with a blank one, everything [important] needs to fit that 1 Meg chip.


----------



## swyman18

"lparsons21" said:


> About 4 1/2 years ago or so, I switched from E* to D*. Got an HR20 that for some reason just would not work in my installation. Went through 3 or 4 of them in the first few weeks with no improvement. They then switched me to HR21, which did work for the rest of the 2 years stint. But it was a tad slow at first and proceeded to get slower with nearly each and every 'update' that D* threw at it. When it got to the 2 year point, and I was at the 'throw the remote through the window' point, I switched to E*.
> 
> After 2 years with them, and my adult son moving back home, I switched to D* last August for the NFLST free deal and made sure to get nothing but the latest and greatest, the HR24-500. Was tickled to see that even though they were slightly slower than my Vip722k had been, it was plenty fast enough in all operations. From my personal point of view, they should have not done diddly with 'updates' because everything worked and the speed and remote response was fine.
> 
> Enter the HDGUI. At first it was slightly slower for some things but much quicker in the various lists. But then a few short weeks after that, and after a second 'update', things got slower overall, including in lists. But it isn't consistent.
> 
> That brings us up to today. I'm not thrilled with the performance, but I have a few months before switching back makes any sense at all. But come August 16th of this year, my discounts drop off and if D* has not got the issues fixed to my satisfaction, I will be dropping D*.
> 
> I'll lose Showtime Extreme HD and pickup BBCA in HD in the switch, and even with a $240 ETF at that time, I will save an additional $240 in the switch and have equipment that I feel will operate correctly. And that would be the Hopper/Joey, one of each will replace the 6 tuners I now have available, will be quicker in operation and have central management. And by August there will be enough reports on how it all works to make that call. Frankly I fully expect to make it.
> 
> IF D* has the operation of the HRs up to snuff (solely decided by me), and if they are then willing to let me switch to an HR34 for a price that is decent, I'll stick with D* even though it would cost more than E*.


Agreed on the disappointing slowdown of the HR24-500. I got mine in 2010 and with the standard GUI it was lightning quick, pretty much never had to do a restart, guide flush, RAM clearing or anything. Now since the HDGUI, it has gotten sluggish. The usual remedies help a bit for a week or so, but it's definately not the same as it used to be. It's too bad.


----------



## m4p

Quote:
Originally Posted by m4p 
Thanks for the tips. I tried turning off ID but after entering 9-6-3 on the keypad, the green light didn't flash twice. I tried it again to make sure, and it still didn't flash twice.



makaiguy said:


> Just to be sure, that's the three digit sequence 963, not 9 dash 6 dash 3.


Yep, that's how I did it.


----------



## dsw2112

Rich said:


> Be thankful D* doesn't make airplanes....:lol:
> 
> Seriously, you've pointed out something that's been obvious for a long time. There seems to be no long range plan. Or it changes weekly if there is one. I can just see them all clustered together in some meeting room right now trying to figure out how to integrate NetFlix into their "long range plan", now that it has become obvious that NF is gonna partner with some provider.
> 
> Rich


The change in tuners on the HR23 always bothered me -- it just wasn't a well thought out decision. Here's the timeline:

SWMLnb first look -- May 2008
HR23 first look -- Nov 2008
Folks start reporting SWMLine Dish installs -- 1'st qtr 2009
SWMLine Dish is officially standard on HD installs -- October 2009

The release of the HR23 followed shortly by the transition to SWM does display a lack of planning. Now, I have no idea how long the HR23 was in development (may have been years), but the overall decision still looks poor in retrospect. Then there's the R22...but I won't even touch that one :lol:


----------



## Richierich

swyman18 said:


> Agreed on the disappointing slowdown of the HR24-500. I got mine in 2010 and with the standard GUI it was lightning quick, pretty much never had to do a restart, guide flush, RAM clearing or anything. Now since the HDGUI, it has gotten sluggish. The usual remedies help a bit for a week or so, but it's definately not the same as it used to be. It's too bad.


Well, that puzzles me as all 5 of my HR24-500s perform Fast with no problems so I wonder why others report these sluggish problems unless it is related to a bad hard drive or a bad or marginal power supply.


----------



## Mike Greer

Richierich said:


> Well, that puzzles me as all 5 of my HR24-500s perform Fast with no problems so I wonder why others report these sluggish problems unless it is related to a bad hard drive or a bad or marginal power supply.


Or... Wait for it.... Bad programming by DirecTV engineering?


----------



## Richierich

Mike Greer said:


> Or... Wait for it.... Bad programming by DirecTV engineering?


So I Guess In The Near Future All 5 Of My HR24-500s Will Start To Experience Sluggishness!!! 

Well, I will report back to you if it happens!!! :lol:


----------



## Mike Greer

Richierich said:


> So I Guess In The Near Future All 5 Of My HR24-500s Will Start To Experience Sluggishness!!!
> 
> Well, I will report back to you if it happens!!! :lol:


I certainly hope not!

But in the poll "What receivers are sluggish with the new HDUI?" there are currently 785 votes and only 208 votes are for "Working as expected, no complaints" the other 577 votes are for 'sluggish'. It's obviously not possible to know how ALL the receivers are working since DirecTV's latest firmware debacle but according to this poll there are likely more people in the 'slow boat' rather than in your 'speed boat'!

The worst thing about it is that the new HDGUI was touted as a 'fix for the sluggish' but for many of us all it did was slow things down that were fine before... Oh, and the 'look' changed but didn't use any of the additional screen real estate for anything... Same limited view of the playlists and guides.


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Greer said:


> I certainly hope not!
> 
> But in the poll...


We might need another poll for who didn't bother to vote [because mine aren't slow]  :lol:


----------



## lparsons21

Mike Greer said:


> I certainly hope not!
> 
> But in the poll "What receivers are sluggish with the new HDUI?" there are currently 785 votes and only 208 votes are for "Working as expected, no complaints" the other 577 votes are for 'sluggish'.
> 
> touted as a 'fix for the sluggish' but for many of us all it did was slow things down that were fine before... Oh, and the 'look' changed but didn't use any of the additional screen real estate for anything... Same limited view of the playlists and guides.


What speed differences are out there among the various users leads one to believe that the hardware specs may be a bit on the marginal side and when some part/parts are just a smidgen away from the ideal, then we get the slow/sluggish operation.

When talk of the new HDGUI was first starting up with 'it is all new code' and 'optimized for speed' comments, I questioned it. An HDGUI is not going to be faster on the same hardware in general. All those full color logos and nifty graphics come at a price and that price is needing hardware with more oomph!

then we get the suggestions for fixes, the one I like is make sure you don't have the HD too full. Why? It is based on Linux and the Linux file system is not a slouch on other platforms doing a hell of a lot more work than these little DVRs. So what are the programmers doing with that file system that makes a fuller HD slow down so much?

And overall, the HDGUI didn't bring anything to the table as you noted. Just a bit prettier with no increase in useability and no taking advantage of the space in an efficient manner. Basically lipstick on a pig. And they didn't need it on the HR24s since the SDGUI was very fast on all HR24s. I don't remember complaints about speed on the HR24s with the SDGUI.


----------



## jimmie57

I wrote to them and suggested that they use the USB port to plug in a Flash Drive for all of the HD receivers and store the graphics on them. Then even the HD receivers could have all the graphics that the HD DVRs have and speed everything up if memory was a problem.

They wrote back and told me that they would be infringing on someone's patent if they did that at this time.
It sure would be a cheap and easy fix for a lack of memory if that has anything to do with the speed.


----------



## veryoldschool

jimmie57 said:


> I wrote to them and suggested that they use the USB port to plug in a Flash Drive for all of the HD receivers and store the graphics on them. Then even the HD receivers could have all the graphics that the HD DVRs have and speed everything up if memory was a problem.
> 
> They wrote back and told me that they would be infringing on someone's patent if they did that at this time.
> *It sure would be a cheap and easy fix for a lack of memory if that has anything to do with the speed*.


It would seem the USB bus speed would keep this from helping any memory problems.
The main difference with the 21-23s is they have a slower memory bus, than the 20s.


----------



## Mike Greer

veryoldschool said:


> We might need another poll for who didn't bother to vote [because mine aren't slow]  :lol:


If everyone on this board were like you I'd agree - need a new poll&#8230; But there are plenty people here that jump at the chance to boost up DirecTV in just about everything they do. I doubt there are many people like you that didn't vote for 'no complaints' if they didn't have trouble.

You never know I guess - maybe the 577 votes for 'sluggish' are the only sluggish receivers out there.:lol:


----------



## Mike Greer

lparsons21 said:


> What speed differences are out there among the various users leads one to believe that the hardware specs may be a bit on the marginal side and when some part/parts are just a smidgen away from the ideal, then we get the slow/sluggish operation.
> 
> When talk of the new HDGUI was first starting up with 'it is all new code' and 'optimized for speed' comments, I questioned it. An HDGUI is not going to be faster on the same hardware in general. All those full color logos and nifty graphics come at a price and that price is needing hardware with more oomph!
> 
> then we get the suggestions for fixes, the one I like is make sure you don't have the HD too full. Why? It is based on Linux and the Linux file system is not a slouch on other platforms doing a hell of a lot more work than these little DVRs. So what are the programmers doing with that file system that makes a fuller HD slow down so much?
> 
> And overall, the HDGUI didn't bring anything to the table as you noted. Just a bit prettier with no increase in useability and no taking advantage of the space in an efficient manner. Basically lipstick on a pig. And they didn't need it on the HR24s since the SDGUI was very fast on all HR24s. I don't remember complaints about speed on the HR24s with the SDGUI.


Could be... I for one would much rather go back to old GUI so my HR24s would go back to the speed they had. I guess that would be one way to 'fix' at least the HR24s!


----------



## jimmie57

veryoldschool said:


> It would seem the USB bus speed would keep this from helping any memory problems.
> The main difference with the 21-23s is they have a slower memory bus, than the 20s.


That is strange since when you look at the poll the HR23 is the least reported slow in the HR series of receiver.
I am happy with mine. It is definitely better with the f update to the software.

Maybe it is the Transfer rate that the Hard Drives are capable of that is the difference in the speed ?
Some drives have more buffer than others and it seems to make a difference .


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Greer said:


> If everyone on this board were like you I'd agree - need a new poll&#8230; But there are plenty people here that jump at the chance to boost up DirecTV in just about everything they do. I doubt there are many people like you that didn't vote for 'no complaints' if they didn't have trouble.
> 
> You never know I guess - maybe the 577 votes for 'sluggish' are the only sluggish receivers out there.:lol:


I will say, I've given up on trying to even get into slow verses "not" with these receivers.
Because of the testing, mine get rebooted weekly for the most part.
I read posts that might be due to HDMI handshake issues.
I have a friend with a HR24 that has needed to reboot every two weeks when he first got it [few months back] as he could watch it bog down to nothing.
I've seen issues with channels that have scoreguide on them.
I've seen where clearing NVRAM speeds mine back up, but I've also seen where it didn't make a difference, and when it did, what the hell caused it in the first place? 
I've read "solutions" [or causes] that make little to no sense to me as having any effect.
It just seems that there are so many different setups [TVs, etc.] and ways the users use these [channels they watch], that some will always find that these "suck", while others don't, and if yours does "suck", the last thing you want to hear is someone saying theirs doesn't.


----------



## veryoldschool

jimmie57 said:


> That is *strange* since when you look at the poll the HR23 is the least reported low in the Hr series of receiver.
> I am happy with mine. It is definitely better with the f update to the software.
> 
> *Maybe* it is the Transfer rate that the Hard Drives are capable of that is the difference in the speed ?
> Some drives have more buffer than others and it seems to make a difference .


"Strange" and "maybe" have been around since the first HR20. :lol:


----------



## dsw2112

jimmie57 said:


> That is strange since when you look at the poll the HR23 is the least reported low in the Hr series of receiver.


I believe they didn't make as many HR23's, so that may play into the stats on this.


----------



## jimmie57

dsw2112 said:


> I believe they didn't make as many HR23's, so that may play into the stats on this.


Yep, that is very possible.


----------



## Rich

Richierich said:


> Well, that puzzles me as all 5 of my HR24-500s perform Fast with no problems so I wonder why others report these sluggish problems unless it is related to a bad hard drive or a bad or marginal power supply.


My issues are only with the GUI and commands that use the GUI, for instance, when erasing multiple episodes of a series one by one it definitely is slower. That's just one example, but there are more.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Richierich said:


> So I Guess In The Near Future All 5 Of My HR24-500s Will Start To Experience Sluggishness!!!
> 
> Well, I will report back to you if it happens!!! :lol:


I see no sluggishness and I'm sure you're seeing the same thing I am with GUI related commands. Even my MRV has been affected. If I want to watch a program that wasn't recorded on my 500, it takes much longer to access it. Aside from the GUI related commands, I have eight 20-700s and three 24s that are a bit quicker than they were. And a 21-200 that is now quick. I can wait for the GUI related stuff to be fixed.

Rich


----------



## jimmie57

Rich said:


> My issues are only with the GUI and commands that use the GUI, for instance, when erasing multiple episodes of a series one by one it definitely is slower. That's just one example, but there are more.
> 
> Rich


I don't have one to test but if you leave a folder closed for a series, can't you press the red button and delete the whole folder ?

How does it work for you if you press the yellow button and mark several episodes and then delete the marked programs ?


----------



## Rich

dsw2112 said:


> I believe they didn't make as many HR23's, so that may play into the stats on this.


They gave up on that one very quickly. Wasn't what the First Look said it would be. Mine lasted about a week or so. Hardware problems.

Rich


----------



## Rich

jimmie57 said:


> I don't have one to test but if you leave a folder closed for a series, can't you press the red button and delete the whole folder ?


Yeah, but that takes longer than it used to also.



> How does it work for you if you press the yellow button and mark several episodes and then delete the marked programs ?


Dunno, I'll try it and get back to you.

Rich


----------



## PCampbell

My HR24s are fast whan on a normal channel, with scoreguide they slow down. My HR20 the guide got much faster with the HDGUI the rest stayed about the same. My hope is if they could speed up the very slow guide they can start to work on the other parts.


----------



## Rich

jimmie57 said:


> I don't have one to test but if you leave a folder closed for a series, can't you press the red button and delete the whole folder ?
> 
> How does it work for you if you press the yellow button and mark several episodes and then delete the marked programs ?


You'd have to see the size of my UPL to see why I don't use this method much. From reading your post I thought they might have changed the method of using the Yellow button, but it still starts at the top of the UPL and it would take me a while just to get to some of my folders.

Rich


----------



## jimmie57

Rich said:


> You'd have to see the size of my UPL to see why I don't use this method much. From reading your post I thought they might have changed the method of using the Yellow button, but it still starts at the top of the UPL and it would take me a while just to get to some of my folders.
> 
> Rich


I counted awhile ago and I have 13 shows recorded, most ever. I usually have less than 10 all the time. I recorded a few extra that I thought my grand daughter would like when I pick her up from school once in awhile.

I think my low count must contibute to the speed of operation that i have also.
I know that even on my super fast I7 processor PC that when I go to the pictures folder I can see it slow down vs the other folders that are just files.


----------



## proud2bnerdy

m4p said:


> Thanks for the tips. I tried turning off ID but after entering 9-6-3 on the keypad, the green light didn't flash twice. I tried it again to make sure, and it still didn't flash twice.


Just to clarify; its 963 channel down then flash


----------



## JonW

I don't believe the speed issue is any one thing, but rather all the things we're making these DVRs do:

1) Large eSATA hard disks filled way beyond the original intended 150MB or so of recordings (assuming 2/3 full or so).

2) Multi-room viewing & networking in general

3) Merged play list from multiple DVRs

4) Recording or maintaining dual live buffer on two HD channels

5) Memory/resource leaks that build up as the unit is operated

6) Widgets that seemed kind of neat but now mostly waste memory and perhaps even introduce bugs

7) HD UI causing extra demands on the CPU and video processing

etc...

Some of these can actually be isolated if anyone cares to bother. Networks can be disconnected. eSATA drives can be disconnected. Even the satellite feeds themselves can be disconnected.


----------



## peano

I permanently disconnected the 110v plug on mine to solve the problems.


----------



## keith_benedict

JonW said:


> I don't believe the speed issue is any one thing, but rather all the things we're making these DVRs do:
> 
> 1) Large eSATA hard disks filled way beyond the original intended 150MB or so of recordings (assuming 2/3 full or so).
> 
> 2) Multi-room viewing & networking in general
> 
> 3) Merged play list from multiple DVRs
> 
> 4) Recording or maintaining dual live buffer on two HD channels
> 
> 5) Memory/resource leaks that build up as the unit is operated
> 
> 6) Widgets that seemed kind of neat but now mostly waste memory and perhaps even introduce bugs
> 
> 7) HD UI causing extra demands on the CPU and video processing
> 
> etc...


Of that list of 7, only numbers 5 and 7 apply (I'm assuming that the DLB isn't maintained if DoublePlay isn't deliberately enabled by pressing the down button twice).

I have an HR20 and HR21. They are both very slow. Calling up the List takes 5 - 10 seconds regularly. Same goes for the Guide. There's a 5 - 10 second delay playing a recording from the List. Getting back to the List after stopping a recording takes 5 - 10 seconds. Once I'm in the list, scrolling seems fine. For the most part, the Guide scrolls fine, but there are times where it just hangs for 30 seconds or more.

Further, while the HD guide may *look* nice, it's actually more difficult to navigate than earlier versions of the DVR software. Many features that used to be one or two clicks away are now buried several more clicks away (the ToDo list, parental blocking enabling/disabling).

My HR20 used to be quite fast. The HR21 was never fast. I wish I could disable a lot of these features and get the performance back that I used to have.


----------



## harsh

Unless you're engaged in the activities, I'm dubious that any of the aforementioned reasons are particularly valid. The graphics rendering is done with custom hardware whether it is HD or SD.

The problem that remains is the database functions and maybe a little bit of competition for data from the hard drive.


----------



## keith_benedict

harsh said:


> Unless you're engaged in the activities, I'm dubious that any of the aforementioned reasons are particularly valid. The graphics rendering is done with custom hardware whether it is HD or SD.
> 
> The problem that remains is the database functions and maybe a little bit of competition for data from the hard drive.


Unless they are using a VERY inefficient database, it's hard to imagine that the problems are database related.

The List and Guide are both very slow to load. They take about the same amount of time to load. Our stock HR20 hard drive has 70% of its capacity left. I can't imagine why it would take 5 - 10 seconds (usually 10 seconds) to load the few items we have in the list, even if they were storing the List in a sequential (non-indexed) file. Loading this data amount of data is trivial regardless of the storage mechanism.


----------



## CCarncross

Your stock HR20 could have a HDD on its way out. Most of what you are describing sounds like a marginal HDD. Its not the actual GUI itself that is causing these units to be slow, but it could be related to other code in the last update you received. Actually painting the screen should be no slower than it was with the old GUI....and parts of it-provided your HR is actually functioning correctly-should be faster.


----------



## skyboysea

My 4.5 years old HR20 got slower and slower after each new FW and the last made it unbearably slow. Few weeks ago I started having some issues with random blank recordings so I ask Directv for a replacement and they sent me another HR20. Right after installing the current NR, with no SL and nothing in the playlist, it was taking a few seconds to display the playlist. After adding some SL, pulling up the playlist took 5-8 seconds. After two weeks of using it, t he playlist takes up to 10 seconds even if only 40% of the disk is used.

I believe the problem many people are seeing are due mainly to poorly written software and new functionality (poorly written as well) that continue to be forced on user even if they do not want them. At this point the DRV part of the receiver is barely working while I have apps, pandora, youtube, mediashare that I do not care to have and never use. Why can't Directv sell a base DVR and have a premium DVR with all this add ons for who wants them?


----------



## Rich

skyboysea said:


> My 4.5 years old HR20 got slower and slower after each new FW and the last made it unbearably slow. Few weeks ago I started having some issues with random blank recordings so I ask Directv for a replacement and they sent me another HR20. Right after installing the current NR, with no SL and nothing in the playlist, it was taking a few seconds to display the playlist. After adding some SL, pulling up the playlist took 5-8 seconds. After two weeks of using it, t he playlist takes up to 10 seconds even if only 40% of the disk is used.
> 
> I believe the problem many people are seeing are due mainly to poorly written software and new functionality (poorly written as well) that continue to be forced on user even if they do not want them. At this point the DRV part of the receiver is barely working while I have apps, pandora, youtube, mediashare that I do not care to have and never use. *Why can't Directv sell a base DVR and have a premium DVR with all this add ons for who wants them?*


That's a question that has been asked many times by many people. Not in that form, but in other ways. It's a valid question, but D* isn't gonna change anything. With these big changes we're seeing the only solution is patience and faith that D* will fix all these nasty bugs.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

At the risk of repeating myself, when has an update ever resulted in a real speed up that lasted? Every poll or question that talks about 'speed' and D* HRs always comes out the same way. Majority slow, minority OK, none fast!

Of course, I'm old and my memory isn't what it once was, but outside of 'first looks' and announcements, I've never seen a single update that didn't slow things down.

So for me, I have 'faith' that D* won't solve the issue now or in the future based solely on past performance.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> At the risk of repeating myself, when has an update ever resulted in a real speed up that lasted? Every poll or question that talks about 'speed' and D* HRs always comes out the same way. Majority slow, minority OK, none fast!
> 
> Of course, I'm old and my memory isn't what it once was, but outside of 'first looks' and announcements, I've never seen a single update that didn't slow things down.
> 
> So for me, I have 'faith' that D* won't solve the issue now or in the future based solely on past performance.


I keep seeing "slow" and my HRs are running about as fast as they ever did when watching recorded material. It's when using the GUI that I see a definite slowness compared to the old GUI.

Rich


----------



## Chuck W

skyboysea said:


> My 4.5 years old HR20 got slower and slower after each new FW and the last made it unbearably slow. Few weeks ago I started having some issues with random blank recordings so I ask Directv for a replacement and they sent me another HR20. Right after installing the current NR, with no SL and nothing in the playlist, it was taking a few seconds to display the playlist. After adding some SL, pulling up the playlist took 5-8 seconds. After two weeks of using it, t he playlist takes up to 10 seconds even if only 40% of the disk is used.
> 
> I believe the problem many people are seeing are due mainly to poorly written software and new functionality (poorly written as well) that continue to be forced on user even if they do not want them. At this point the DRV part of the receiver is barely working while I have apps, pandora, youtube, mediashare that I do not care to have and never use. Why can't Directv sell a base DVR and have a premium DVR with all this add ons for who wants them?


You are on the same mindset as me with these things. I won't rehash my issues here except to say that it's been apparent to me for some time that Directv has forgotten about simple stability, performance and reliability of the CORE functionality of what a receiver is supposed to do, just so they can cram another over the top feature into their receivers for marketing purposes.

They need to take a breath, step back and clean up their code.


----------



## dbalone

The only real solution here is to contact Time Warner Cable and see if we can use there Navigator Guide. It looks like my kids designed it but I must say it is fast. You push a button and it happens almost immediately. It is not in HD in fact it might not be in SD either. Nice blue and yellow colors too.


----------



## Podkayne

keith_benedict said:


> Of that list of 7, only numbers 5 and 7 apply (I'm assuming that the DLB isn't maintained if DoublePlay isn't deliberately enabled by pressing the down button twice).
> 
> I have an HR20 and HR21. They are both very slow. Calling up the List takes 5 - 10 seconds regularly. Same goes for the Guide. There's a 5 - 10 second delay playing a recording from the List. Getting back to the List after stopping a recording takes 5 - 10 seconds. Once I'm in the list, scrolling seems fine. For the most part, the Guide scrolls fine, but there are times where it just hangs for 30 seconds or more.
> 
> Further, while the HD guide may *look* nice, it's actually more difficult to navigate than earlier versions of the DVR software. Many features that used to be one or two clicks away are now buried several more clicks away (the ToDo list, parental blocking enabling/disabling).
> 
> My HR20 used to be quite fast. The HR21 was never fast. I wish I could disable a lot of these features and get the performance back that I used to have.


This is the most elegant statement of the problem I have been experiencing since Feb. 9, the day my HR 20-100 downloaded 0x59e. The unit was transformed from a reliable, if a bit slow, perfectly satisfactory DVR into this nearly useless, DOUBLE PIG-DOG SLOW unit that is, unfortunately, the main DTV receiver in the house! Since a month has passed with no improvement, it's obvious there's not going to be a fix forthcoming.


----------



## eileen22

"CCarncross" said:


> Your stock HR20 could have a HDD on its way out. Most of what you are describing sounds like a marginal HDD. Its not the actual GUI itself that is causing these units to be slow, but it could be related to other code in the last update you received. Actually painting the screen should be no slower than it was with the old GUI....and parts of it-provided your HR is actually functioning correctly-should be faster.


I am having the exact same issue as keith_benedict with my HR20, and I have read many other posts on this forum who say the same. Ours takes 5-10 seconds to respond to most remote commands within the GUI, but it is perfectly fine and fast responding to trickplay commands during live and recorded shows. It is also fine when just watching live TV or recordings. I don't for one second think that it is a failing HDD. We were having none of these issues before the HD GUI. For the first time since 1999 we are seriously considering switching providers. There is no reason that this technology should be this unfriendly in 2012.


----------



## skyboysea

Rich said:


> That's a question that has been asked many times by many people. Not in that form, but in other ways. It's a valid question, but D* isn't gonna change anything. With these big changes we're seeing the only solution is patience and faith that D* will fix all these nasty bugs.
> 
> Rich


While I want to hope that that's going to happen, I am loosing my faith in it. The slow receivers were reported to Directv before the HD GUI went NR. The NR was sent out at a very slow pace and more negative feedback came back but still they uploaded the new FW on all the receivers. This is not the case of opss, we made a little mistake and we are going to fix it tomorrow, this is a case of poor management and total disregard for the customer. Directv knew of the problem and they didn't care. I am not sure they are going to care now.

Plus, even if this issue get solved, tomorrow there will be another update that add some other feature that is going to break something else. And we are back to square one. I just wish they would stop messing around with my receiver. I was happy with it, now I am not.


----------



## peano

DIRECTV has shown over the years that they have no intention of speeding up the older HR receivers.


----------



## allenn

Cost and benefit controls D*'s decisions just like most companies. They weigh the cost of speeding up their DVRs' with faster but costlier processors or adding marketing and sells gadgets like the HD-UI, MRV, and Nomad to name a few. I guess you know the winner, and it was not processor speed. It is all a compromise, no magic here, just good business sense. I guess one could change their media provider, but would the replacement company be any better than D*? 

I think the Hughes HR10-250 was a great box for its time. Leading edge technology, and it was built really well, but it cost $1000 plus $60 for the antenna. I wonder what D* could do today with a $1000 per unit box? 

No argument, just weighing in about the "Why Can't Slow Receivers be Fixed". Best wishes!


----------



## bobcamp1

dbalone said:


> The only real solution here is to contact Time Warner Cable and see if we can use there Navigator Guide. It looks like my kids designed it but I must say it is fast. You push a button and it happens almost immediately. It is not in HD in fact it might not be in SD either. Nice blue and yellow colors too.


Same with the FIOS QIP7232. The GUI isn't that pretty, but man it runs circles around my HR24-200. Not even remotely close in speed. Every button press is always instantaneous. And it is in HD and has a 2.5 hour guide as one of its four available guides.


----------



## onthecake

Just a thought but why are they trying to pile on add-ins that the older hardware obviously cant handle? I have not tried to install windows 7 on a computer from 1998 but I wouldn't expect it to run that great.

I have 2 HR21s and another HR24. The 21s are so slow its comical. I cant imagine anyone would think that 10-15 seconds just to change a channel is acceptable but that seems to be the case with directv.

I love the newer features but not at the cost of hardware being unusable.

If the only solution is to plop down another $400 and another 2 year lease then I know what my decision will be come August.


----------



## veryoldschool

allenn said:


> I guess one could change their media provider, but would the replacement company be any better than D*?


Take a test drive of U-who and their Motorola DVR. While "quick" it might be, doing things can be a nightmare.

Really folks, if you get a chance do checkout other providers. 
Some of you may like them better and you'll come out ahead. 
Some may only find out a reason why you stay with DirecTV.


----------



## mlh422

I am absolutely DISGUSTED with the slowness of my machines HR20s and 22s. All the new features aren't worth spit in comparison to the level of frustration raised when I can't pull up the guide or list of recorded programs, or hit PLAY on a recording and wait 30 to 60 seconds for the machine to respond. 

I am seriously considering jumping to FIOS.....I cannot tolerate having to wait for even the simplest commands to be executed. The other day, the machine was recording while in standby mode and I couldn't even get it to "wake up" for 60 seconds. TOTALLY FRUSTRATED AND DISAPPOINTED.


----------



## onthecake

veryoldschool said:


> Take a test drive of U-who and their Motorola DVR. While "quick" it might be, doing things can be a nightmare.
> 
> Really folks, if you get a chance do checkout other providers.
> Some of you may like them better and you'll come out ahead.
> Some may only find out a reason why you stay with DirecTV.


If google fiber's TV project actually does come to fruition that will probably be my next provider. Anything to stop my wife from complaining about the DVRs each day...


----------



## keith_benedict

eileen22 said:


> I am having the exact same issue as keith_benedict with my HR20, and I have read many other posts on this forum who say the same. Ours takes 5-10 seconds to respond to most remote commands within the GUI, but it is perfectly fine and fast responding to trickplay commands during live and recorded shows. It is also fine when just watching live TV or recordings. I don't for one second think that it is a failing HDD. We were having none of these issues before the HD GUI. For the first time since 1999 we are seriously considering switching providers. There is no reason that this technology should be this unfriendly in 2012.


Yes. Many of us complained about these issues prior to the release of the HD GUI and the typical response from those who weren't encountering the same issues was "Wait until the HD GUI comes out. It's much faster". The entire time I'm thinking, yeah, right. Since when has increasing the load on the processor (with higher resolution graphics and more pixels to draw) ever made anything faster?

Sadly, my suspicions were correct. No change. It's the same pig that it was prior to the "upgrade", only now, tasks that used to take 3 clicks now take 4, 5, or more. They've ruined the usability of the unit and traded form over function.


----------



## allenn

veryoldschool said:


> Take a test drive of U-who and their Motorola DVR. While "quick" it might be, doing things can be a nightmare........


Agree! I have seen U-Who in the AT&T store. It may be faster, but I will pass. I have had enough of AT&T no service with my iPhone and iPad. My Son has Dish. While visiting recently, I asked him where Search was located? He did not know he had Search; eventualy we found it, and I had a better appreciation for D*. Have a great day!


----------



## peano

Dish receivers are lightning fast. Search button is labelled on the remote. And they have more HD. 

I don't know how DIRECTV subs put up with the older HRs. I wanted to throw my remote out the window. Then I bought an HR24 and things were better but still slow enough to make me use my 722 almost exclusively now.


----------



## Rich

Podkayne said:


> This is the most elegant statement of the problem I have been experiencing since Feb. 9, the day my HR 20-100 downloaded 0x59e. The unit was transformed from a reliable, if a bit slow, perfectly satisfactory DVR into this nearly useless, DOUBLE PIG-DOG SLOW unit that is, unfortunately, the main DTV receiver in the house! Since a month has passed with no improvement, it's obvious there's not going to be a fix forthcoming.


Takes more than a month sometimes. The fix will come.

Rich


----------



## Rich

peano said:


> DIRECTV has shown over the years that they have no intention of speeding up the older HR receivers.


And yet, the 20-700s are almost as quick as the 24s. Yeah, the 20-100s and the whole 21 series running from the 21-700 to the 23-700 are slower than the 20-700s and the 24s, but that's been the case since they were introduced.

Rich


----------



## Rich

onthecake said:


> Just a thought but why are they trying to pile on add-ins that the older hardware obviously cant handle? I have not tried to install windows 7 on a computer from 1998 but I wouldn't expect it to run that great.
> 
> I have 2 HR21s and another HR24. *The 21s are so slow its comical*. I cant imagine anyone would think that 10-15 seconds just to change a channel is acceptable but that seems to be the case with directv.
> 
> I love the newer features but not at the cost of hardware being unusable.
> 
> If the only solution is to plop down another $400 and another 2 year lease then I know what my decision will be come August.


So, why do you still have the 21s? I had a bunch of them and got rid of all except one 21-200 that my granddaughter uses. I bought six 20-700s online and have only 20-700s and 24s that I use. I don't understand people complaining about slow 21s, they've always been slow, this is nothing new. When you put the 21s against the 20-700s and 24s they will always be slower.

Rich


----------



## Rich

veryoldschool said:


> Take a test drive of U-who and their Motorola DVR. While "quick" it might be, doing things can be a nightmare.
> 
> Really folks, if you get a chance do checkout other providers.
> Some of you may like them better and you'll come out ahead.
> Some may only find out a reason why you stay with DirecTV.


They should all be given Cablevision DVRs. That would stop the complaining about D*'s HRs. Unbelievably bad DVRs CV gives to its customers. I tried one last year and it was awful.

Rich


----------



## Rich

mlh422 said:


> I am absolutely DISGUSTED with the slowness of my machines HR20s and 22s. All the new features aren't worth spit in comparison to the level of frustration raised when I can't pull up the guide or list of recorded programs, or hit PLAY on a recording and wait 30 to 60 seconds for the machine to respond.
> 
> I am seriously considering jumping to FIOS.....I cannot tolerate having to wait for even the simplest commands to be executed. The other day, the machine was recording while in standby mode and I couldn't even get it to "wake up" for 60 seconds. TOTALLY FRUSTRATED AND DISAPPOINTED.


Aww, you have FIOS in Central NJ? I live in Piscataway and desperately want to drop Cablevision's Internet service, but we don't have FIOS. I'm surrounded by towns that have FIOS and we got nada, but CV.

I called up FIOS awhile back and asked how much they would charge to replicate my system. They laughed when I explained what my system consisted of. Never did give me a price because we can't get FIOS and Verizon doesn't bother with those of us that can't get it. Arrogant, they are!!!

Rich


----------



## onthecake

Rich said:


> So, why do you still have the 21s? I had a bunch of them and got rid of all except one 21-200 that my granddaughter uses. I bought six 20-700s online and have only 20-700s and 24s that I use. I don't understand people complaining about slow 21s, they've always been slow, this is nothing new. When you put the 21s against the 20-700s and 24s they will always be slower.
> 
> Rich


Simple. I had 2 HR20s that broke and were replaced with 21s. I asked for 20's but was told I would get what I would get.

Why would I be expected to pay yet even more money to get a receiver that worked correctly on top of what I paid originally and a monthly lease?

If the 21s are inferior then why does DTV still hand them out like candy?


----------



## JeffBowser

I can count on one finger the number of times I've disagreed with you (and this is it) :lol:

I don't much care what the other providers do or don't provide, personally I go with DirecTV to untether myself from a very poor local wire plant that rarely survives thunderstorms, let alone hurricanes.

The speed issues can be addressed by adding horsepower, silicon, clock cycles, you name your buzzword. Modern processing power has far outstripped most software demands, they should make use of it. Perhaps a "premium" DVR, I dunno. I just get tired of having to be so deliberate with my DVRs to ensure my requests get processed.



veryoldschool said:


> Take a test drive of U-who and their Motorola DVR. While "quick" it might be, doing things can be a nightmare.
> 
> Really folks, if you get a chance do checkout other providers.
> Some of you may like them better and you'll come out ahead.
> Some may only find out a reason why you stay with DirecTV.


----------



## Chuck W

onthecake said:


> Simple. I had 2 HR20s that broke and were replaced with 21s. I asked for 20's but was told I would get what I would get.
> 
> Why would I be expected to pay yet even more money to get a receiver that worked correctly on top of what I paid originally and a monthly lease?
> 
> If the 21s are inferior then why does DTV still hand them out like candy?


That's my beef at this point. They should only be sending HR24s as replacements. Stop regurgitating the old ones and move on to the newer ones.

I know when the installer was at my place on Monday installing my HR34, he said they only install HR24s these days. That's all he has on his truck.


----------



## Rich

onthecake said:


> Simple. I had 2 HR20s that broke and were replaced with 21s. I asked for 20's but was told I would get what I would get.


That's the reason I bought six 20-700s on eBay and CL. Didn't want anymore 21s.



> Why would I be expected to pay yet even more money to get a receiver that worked correctly on top of what I paid originally and a monthly lease?
> 
> If the 21s are inferior then why does DTV still hand them out like candy?


D* and its shills will say that the 21s are "functionally equivalent" to the 20-700s and 24s. That's how they get away with recycling the 21s. Twisted semantics, a little house cat is "functionally equivalent" to a lion or tiger, too.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Chuck W said:


> That's my beef at this point. They should only be sending HR24s as replacements. Stop regurgitating the old ones and move on to the newer ones.


I don't think we'll see that happen anytime soon. They've got to do something with all the returned 21s.



> I know when the installer was at my place on Monday installing my HR34, he said they only install HR24s these days. That's all he has on his truck.


But if you get a replacement mailed to you, it could be any model.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool

JeffBowser said:


> I can count on one finger the number of times I've disagreed with you (and this is it) :lol:
> 
> I don't much care what the other providers do or don't provide, personally I go with DirecTV to untether myself from a very poor local wire plant that rarely survives thunderstorms, let alone hurricanes.
> 
> The speed issues can be addressed by adding horsepower, silicon, clock cycles, you name your buzzword. Modern processing power has far outstripped most software demands, they should make use of it. Perhaps a "premium" DVR, I dunno. I just get tired of having to be so deliberate with my DVRs to ensure my requests get processed.


I can't say my 24s are slow. If they are to the U-who Motorola, it is slight, and may be due to using native with DirecTV, and not having the option with U-who. Two weeks of a test drive, has me getting ready to pack their crap up and send it back. I could go into details [anybody wanting them PM me], but every time I pick up my RC remote, it's like coming home, ahhhh............


----------



## sigma1914

veryoldschool said:


> I can't say my 24s are slow. If they are to the U-who Motorola, it is slight, and may be due to using native with DirecTV, and not having the option with U-who. Two weeks of a test drive, has me getting ready to pack their crap up and send it back. I could go into details [anybody wanting them PM me], but every time I pick up my RC remote, it's like coming home, ahhhh............


My UVerse DVR drives me nuts, too. Trickplay is annoyingly hit or miss, deleting crap takes forever, and setting up season passes is weird. It also misses recordings for no reason. I have only 5 series passes on it because of scheduling conflicts with DirecTV and it randomly won't record some.

It changes channels fast, but that's about it for its plusses.


----------



## Chuck W

Rich said:


> But if you get a replacement mailed to you, it could be any model.
> 
> Rich


True, but what I was just trying to point out was at least Directv is to the point now of not shocking new customers with slow antiquated equipment. They are at least making sure new customers get the better/more up to date equipment right from the start.

Now if they would just take care of their existing customers... :nono2:


----------



## veryoldschool

sigma1914 said:


> My UVerse DVR drives me nuts, too. Trickplay is annoyingly hit or miss, deleting crap takes forever, and setting up season passes is weird. It also misses recordings for no reason. I have only 5 series passes on it because of scheduling conflicts with DirecTV and it randomly won't record some.
> 
> It changes channels fast, but that's about it for its plusses.


This morning I was finally able to compare the same recorded show between the two services. Playback bit-rates show U-who's is only 66% of DirecTV's.
It's taken a while as the PQ does look good, but I've had a nagging dropping of frames and I think I've finally found why. Sometimes it's been really noticeable, and other times it's ever so slight.


----------



## sigma1914

veryoldschool said:


> This morning I was finally able to compare the same recorded show between the two services. Playback bit-rates show U-who's is only 66% of DirecTV's.
> It's taken a while as the PQ does look good, but I've had a nagging dropping of frames and I think I've finally found why. Sometimes it's been really noticeable, and other times it's ever so slight.


I compared PQ on sports during the NBA LP free preview. Any motion was noticeable on U. The detail around players on the court was a pixel mess.


----------



## veryoldschool

sigma1914 said:


> I compared PQ on sports during the NBA LP free preview. Any motion was noticeable on U. The detail around players on the court was a pixel mess.


I've mostly been watching non sports/movies/etc. and haven't seen one instance of pixelation. Not one.
HBO's Game Change, last Saturday had 3-6 places where DirecTV pixelated, but the part I watched/checked on U-who didn't. It still had frame dropping, which DirecTV didn't. Seems like each provider has biased their "error handling" differently. U-who simply drops more frames if there are errors, while DirecTV sends the frames with errors. It's hard to know if this is the encoder or the decoding that's doing this, since I can't separate the two.


----------



## sigma1914

veryoldschool said:


> I've mostly been watching non sports/movies/etc. and haven't seen one instance of pixelation. Not one.
> HBO's Game Change, last Saturday had 3-6 places where DirecTV pixelated, but the part I watched/checked on U-who didn't. It still had frame dropping, which DirecTV didn't. Seems like each provider has biased their "error handling" differently. U-who simply drops more frames if there are errors, while DirecTV sends the frames with errors. It's hard to know if this is the encoder or the decoding that's doing this, since I can't separate the two.


Maybe I used the wrong word. I meant I see overcompression/loss of detail.


----------



## veryoldschool

sigma1914 said:


> Maybe I used the wrong word. I meant I see overcompression/loss of detail.


When you're only using 66% of what the other system is using, "something has got to give".


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> And yet, the 20-700s are almost as quick as the 24s. Yeah, the 20-100s and the whole 21 series running from the 21-700 to the 23-700 are slower than the 20-700s and the 24s, but that's been the case since they were introduced.
> 
> Rich


The 20-700s are almost as quick as the slowed down HR24s is a more valid way to put it. The HDGUI on the HR24 took a great running DVR that was nearly as fast as Dish's, and slowed it down by quite a bit.

I figger a few more 'updates' and they'll have them all on par for speed, and that speed will be slow!


----------



## TBoneit

I have a guess that it is the speed of the drive that has an impact too.

But to really tell someone would have to Use an external enclosure and a SSD that they didn't mind accelerating the wear on to use for testing.

Is it definite that the SATA port is not SATA 1 (Slowest)?


----------



## TBoneit

lparsons21 said:


> The 20-700s are almost as quick as the slowed down HR24s is a more valid way to put it. The HDGUI on the HR24 took a great running DVR that was nearly as fast as Dish's, and slowed it down by quite a bit.
> 
> I figger a few more 'updates' and they'll have them all on par for speed, and that speed will be slow!


Do you think that the Dish VIP series has faster hardware or better software coding or a combo, or just that they haven't loaded it down with unneeded junk applications that have no connection to the core business. Satellite TV IOWs.

I don't need or want YouTube or any other such junk on a DVR. I have a media player for that.


----------



## lparsons21

TBoneit said:


> Do you think that the Dish VIP series has faster hardware or better software coding or a combo, or just that they haven't loaded it down with unneeded junk applications that have no connection to the core business. Satellite TV IOWs.
> 
> I don't need or want YouTube or any other such junk on a DVR. I have a media player for that.


This is all guesswork on my part. But I do think that E* tends to spec the hardware to be a bit more hefty and then writes some pretty tight code, so I would guess combo. As to the apps, well E* doesn't have many that I remember, so I would say that has at least some bearing on it.

The new Hopper has more apps from what I've read, but its also got a pretty fast processor too.

I jokingly commented a long time ago that E* pirated the good code from TIVO and D* got the dregs of it, but I sometimes wonder if that isn't a bit true.

I think the issue with D* is that they spec the hardware a bit on the marginal side to save costs and hope to solve the issues with software. And then to stuff 'updates' that all too often are little more than Beta level releases on the subscribers and let us tell them what isn't working. IF, and that is one big IF, they actually listened to the subscribers they would be making different choices in software approach, imo.

Basically they should have gotten the TV watching/recording stuff all rock solid and fast before they added even one trivial app or addon to it. And let's face it, there isn't a single app or add on that isn't available already, and usually working better, on you TV or BluRay player or some such.

I really had to laugh at the thread about how Pandora changed your viewing habits. Well, Pandora has no video, so it had zero impact on viewing habits and who the hell cares to turn on the TV and AV gear to listen to poor quality music, quality not referring to the genre or bands playing.


----------



## Rich

Chuck W said:


> True, but what I was just trying to point out was at least Directv is to the point now of not shocking new customers with slow antiquated equipment. They are at least making sure new customers get the better/more up to date equipment right from the start.
> 
> *Now if they would just take care of their existing customers...* :nono2:


Truthfully, I can't say they haven't taken care of me. I haven't paid one cent to them in years for an HR and they've given me three 24s with no problem when I did have to replace other receivers. Actually two, now that I think of it, they gave me a 24 just for having DECA installed.

But, in July my commitment ends. Then, without a doubt, they'll be even nicer. That's what disturbs me. That lack of consistency has always annoyed me. Why should a new or out-of-commitment customer be treated better than a person who re-ups? That two year commitment costs me a bit more than $2400 a year, probably over $5000 for the two year commitment. Why don't they value in-commitment subs in the same way as new or out-of-commitment subs? I know the answer is they want more and more subs and will do just about anything to get a new sub or get some to re-up, just so their bottom line looks better. Not the best reason and certainly not one to inspire loyalty.

Rich


----------



## Rich

TBoneit said:


> I have a guess that it is the speed of the drive that has an impact too.
> 
> But to really tell someone would have to Use an external enclosure and a SSD that they didn't mind accelerating the wear on to use for testing.
> 
> Is it definite that the SATA port is not SATA 1 (Slowest)?


Should be SATA 2, no? From what I've read SATA 3 would be overkill.

Rich


----------



## Rich

TBoneit said:


> Do you think that the Dish VIP series has faster hardware or better software coding or a combo, or just that they haven't loaded it down with unneeded junk applications that have no connection to the core business. Satellite TV IOWs.
> 
> *I don't need or want YouTube or any other such junk on a DVR. I have a media player for that.*


Exactly the way I feel. I've had Pandora in every room for a couple years and YouTube right next to it with a myriad of other crap, didn't need or want any of them. Certainly don't need music channels, never listen to them. All I ever wanted was a DVR that was a step up from a VCR.

Rich.


----------



## JeffBowser

I've been out of commitment for a pretty long time now. They haven't made any overtures to me at all. On the other hand, I avoid at all costs calling them, so perhaps their degree of niceness relates to how squeaky the wheel is....



Rich said:


> But, in July my commitment ends. Then, without a doubt, they'll be even nicer.
> 
> Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Exactly the way I feel. I've had Pandora in every room for a couple years and YouTube right next to it with a myriad of other crap, didn't need or want any of them. Certainly don't need music channels, never listen to them. All I ever wanted was a DVR that was a step up from a VCR.
> 
> Rich.


Exactly!! 

I don't listen to music or watch bad videos from YouTube on my big screen plasma, I watch TV.


----------



## eileen22

"Rich" said:


> Takes more than a month sometimes. The fix will come.
> 
> Rich


Serious question: do you really think the fix will come to improve the speed of the HD GUI on the HR20s, and if so, why? Thanks.


----------



## Rich

JeffBowser said:


> I've been out of commitment for a pretty long time now. They haven't made any overtures to me at all. On the other hand, I avoid at all costs calling them, so perhaps their degree of niceness relates to how squeaky the wheel is....


You've got to make them want to keep you. Last time I was out of commitment, I got the DECA install and the new 24-500 and it didn't cost me a cent. I do avoid calling them as much as I can too, but sometimes it's worth the aggravation.

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Exactly!!
> 
> I don't listen to music or watch bad videos from YouTube on my big screen plasma, I watch TV.


Just got a new "smart" Panny plasma. Don't use the Net stuff at all. I don't even want speakers on my TVs or tuners. And 3D! How's that working out? The makers of TVs couldn't take a WAG and not jump on the 3D bandwagon?

This "loading the set with all the crap you can find" syndrome has even made it into cars. TV screens in the dashboard. Think of how many accidents a year that will cause.

Rich


----------



## Rich

eileen22 said:


> Serious question: do you really think the fix will come to improve the speed of the HD GUI on the HR20s, and if so, why? Thanks.


Yes. Why? History. D* simply fixes what they screw up. Takes them a while, but it gets fixed. Anybody who seriously thought the new GUI wouldn't screw things up for a while wasn't paying attention to the history of these things.

Don't you find it amazing that the 20-700s are what they are today? I sure do. I thought that they were the worst purchase (I know, lease) I ever made and here I sit with eight of them. History.

Rich


----------



## CCarncross

Rich said:


> Should be SATA 2, no? From what I've read SATA 3 would be overkill.
> 
> Rich


The HR20-22's I believe are all SATA1 speed(1.5Gb/s) drives and interface, dont know if they moved up to SATA2 or 3 in the later models, maybe in the HR34.


----------



## veryoldschool

CCarncross said:


> The HR20-22's I believe are all SATA1 speed(1.5Gb/s) drives and interface, dont know if they moved up to SATA2 or 3 in the later models, maybe in the HR34.


Considering what's being written/read, I doubt these are using 10% of the drive speed.


----------



## CCarncross

veryoldschool said:


> Considering what's being written/read, I doubt these are using 10% of the drive speed.


Maybe not as little as 10%, but nowhere near what the drives are capable of, I agree.


----------



## veryoldschool

CCarncross said:


> Maybe not as little as 10%, but nowhere near what the drives are capable of, I agree.


If you start with 1.5 Gb/s and divide by 10, you have 150 Mb/s. which would be close to 10 HD streams, so....


----------



## luckydob

"Rich" said:


> Yes. Why? History. D* simply fixes what they screw up. Takes them a while, but it gets fixed. Anybody who seriously thought the new GUI wouldn't screw things up for a while wasn't paying attention to the history of these things.
> 
> Don't you find it amazing that the 20-700s are what they are today? I sure do. I thought that they were the worst purchase (I know, lease) I ever made and here I sit with eight of them. History.
> 
> Rich


Selective history at best. Just look at the CIG issue that has not been fixed to date. Yes, history.


----------



## kevinwmsn

luckydob said:


> Selective history at best. Just look at the CIG issue that has not been fixed to date. Yes, history.


They got it better but definetly a long way from being fixed.


----------



## evan_s

CCarncross said:


> The HR20-22's I believe are all SATA1 speed(1.5Gb/s) drives and interface, dont know if they moved up to SATA2 or 3 in the later models, maybe in the HR34.


Really doesn't matter. Hard drivers can't transfer fast enough to saturate a SATA connection. The only thing that needs better than sata 1 right now is SSDs.


----------



## JonW

evan_s said:


> Really doesn't matter. Hard drivers can't transfer fast enough to saturate a SATA connection. The only thing that needs better than sata 1 right now is SSDs.


Correct. A typical WD Green drive can manage something like 80 MB/s write speeds. A 15Mbps HD feed would require less than 2 MB/s.

There's also going to be a hit when the disk fills up and the inner tracks are used more, but in terms of raw bandwidth, there's plenty.

Meaning there's plenty of bandwidth if all the data is written in one place.

Where things get bogged down is when you interpose a disk operating system and have to start seeking all around the disk updating various structures - or deal with the user requesting guide information off the disk, or playing back multiple recordings.

The worst case is the disk should be able to handle around 33 seek operations per second (without taking in to account the time to actually write data).

So, the real world capacity all depends how they structure the disk and perform writes.


----------



## bobcamp1

JonW said:


> Correct. A typical WD Green drive can manage something like 80 MB/s write speeds. A 15Mbps HD feed would require less than 2 MB/s.
> 
> There's also going to be a hit when the disk fills up and the inner tracks are used more, but in terms of raw bandwidth, there's plenty.
> 
> Meaning there's plenty of bandwidth if all the data is written in one place.
> 
> Where things get bogged down is when you interpose a disk operating system and have to start seeking all around the disk updating various structures - or deal with the user requesting guide information off the disk, or playing back multiple recordings.
> 
> The worst case is the disk should be able to handle around 33 seek operations per second (without taking in to account the time to actually write data).
> 
> So, the real world capacity all depends how they structure the disk and perform writes.


Defragmentation is not a problem. Even if it were, we're talking delays less than 20 milliseconds. Not noticeable to humans. Certainly doesn't account for the 10 second delay in bringing up the list of recordings.

Put another way, that type of delay would cause video and audio problems. Nobody has reported breakups in picture, so it's not happening.


----------



## bpratt

bobcamp1 said:


> Defragmentation is not a problem. Even if it were, we're talking delays less than 20 milliseconds. Not noticeable to humans. Certainly doesn't account for the 10 second delay in bringing up the list of recordings.
> 
> Put another way, that type of delay would cause video and audio problems. Nobody has reported breakups in picture, so it's not happening.


I've had a lot of picture and audio breakups since I received 59f. Yesterday while watching a recording of the Daily show, the picture froze for about 20 seconds but the audio continued. These problems started with 59f.


----------



## veryoldschool

bpratt said:


> I've had a lot of picture and audio breakups since I received 59f. Yesterday while watching a recording of the Daily show, the picture froze for about 20 seconds but the audio continued. These problems started with 59f.


Not sure which show you were watching, "but" there was one recently that had transmission problems and did this.


----------



## tomspeer46

bpratt said:


> I've had a lot of picture and audio breakups since I received 59f. Yesterday while watching a recording of the Daily show, the picture froze for about 20 seconds but the audio continued. These problems started with 59f.


I recorded that show on 59e. It was not the fault of the receiver or software.


----------



## Rich

tomspeer46 said:


> I recorded that show on 59e. It was not the fault of the receiver or software.


It was the broadcaster's error?

Rich


----------



## bpratt

tomspeer46 said:


> I recorded that show on 59e. It was not the fault of the receiver or software.


I had none of these problems on 59e, now that both of my HR21-700s are on 59f, I get a few video breakups or pixilation every day. I also am getting a few audio glitches also, where a few words are not understandable. If I rewind and then replay the problem areas, the problem still exists.


----------



## veryoldschool

bpratt said:


> I had none of these problems on 59e, now that both of my HR21-700s are on 59f, I get a few video breakups or pixilation every day. I also am getting a few audio glitches also, where a few words are not understandable. * If I rewind and then replay the problem areas, the problem still exists.*


While I don't know the channels/shows that you're watching, this is a sign of a problem in the feed. Maybe it's from the SAT, or maybe there is a problem with the reception, but if replaying it has it "still exist", this is a sign it was recorded that way.
Now if you replayed them and they didn't repeat, that would be another issue and may be related [more] to a software problem.


----------



## Rich

bpratt said:


> I had none of these problems on 59e, now that both of my HR21-700s are on 59f, I get a few video breakups or pixilation every day. I also am getting a few audio glitches also, where a few words are not understandable. If I rewind and then replay the problem areas, the problem still exists.


Both the audio and video?

Rich


----------



## bpratt

Rich said:


> Both the audio and video?
> 
> Rich


About 30% of the time when there is a vidio glitch the audio also has a problem.


----------



## PolkSDA

Well, it's good (or actually sad) to see I'm not the only one wondering what the hell happened to my HR23/700.

When the new GUI came out, I was in hog heaven, as the guide was considerably faster than the old POS. But... it's been getting slower... and slower... and is now back to the sluggish slow response I remember.

I've optimized the settings (native only, scroll settings, etc.), cleared the cache, done a reset.

Nope. Still a painful experience. Even using the PREV button to bounce back and forth between 2 channels is insanely slow.

Maybe I'm just fed up, but it seems just as miserable as the old GUI was in terms of system response to remote actions.

They need to fix the sh*t. They can keep all the extra crap like Pandora and just make the damned thing work at a reasonable speed.

It makes you wonder how many layers of bloated programming there are stacked on top of one another... but I thought this new GUI was rebuilt from scratch to be leaner?

Fail.


----------



## allenn

PolkSDA said:


> They need to fix the sh*t. They can keep all the extra crap like Pandora and just make the damned thing work at a reasonable speed.
> 
> It makes you wonder how many layers of bloated programming there are stacked on top of one another... but I thought this new GUI was rebuilt from scratch to be leaner? Fail.


I agree with you about the extra crap, but D* is in a very competitive market. They cannot market "the best working HD DVR". They can market the most HD channels, Pandora, Nomad, MRV, and YouTube. I have been a D* customer since 1994, and D* has never gotten it 100%. What they have going for them, is their competition does not have it either. Best wishes!


----------



## Rich

bpratt said:


> About 30% of the time when there is a vidio glitch the audio also has a problem.


Think those 21-700s might be wearing out? I got rid of mine awhile ago. Very dependable DVRs, but they got so slow we couldn't deal with them anymore.

Rich


----------



## Rich

PolkSDA said:


> Well, it's good (or actually sad) to see I'm not the only one wondering what the hell happened to my HR23/700.
> 
> When the new GUI came out, I was in hog heaven, as the guide was considerably faster than the old POS. But... it's been getting slower... and slower... and is now back to the sluggish slow response I remember.
> 
> I've optimized the settings (native only, scroll settings, etc.), cleared the cache, done a reset.
> 
> Nope. Still a painful experience. Even using the PREV button to bounce back and forth between 2 channels is insanely slow.
> 
> Maybe I'm just fed up, but it seems just as miserable as the old GUI was in terms of system response to remote actions.
> 
> They need to fix the sh*t. They can keep all the extra crap like Pandora and just make the damned thing work at a reasonable speed.
> 
> It makes you wonder how many layers of bloated programming there are stacked on top of one another... but I thought this new GUI was rebuilt from scratch to be leaner?
> 
> Fail.


Have you flushed the Guide? That usually helps me when mine slow down. I gotta admit I'm getting tired of this creeping slowness too. I "woke up" a couple of 20-700s that I only use as servers the other day and I couldn't believe how slow they were. I just did what I had to do and put them back in "Server Heaven" where the slowness isn't apparent.

Gotta have patience, the next couple NRs ought to address these issues.

Rich


----------



## ghardenb

OK, lots of expertise here but almost exclusively dedicated to describing the problem. What am I to DO about my pathetically slow R22? 

I've learned from experience that if I call and complain and they replace it with a better one I run the risk of having a year added to my DTV commitment. Might be worth it.

Would a good quality, large capacity external HD help? I'll welcome suggestions as to whose and how big. My internal is 50% full.

I've tried the tips & tricks in settings, mem clearing etc.


----------



## jceman

All I can say is be patient.


----------



## bobcamp1

jceman said:


> All I can say is be patient.


We've been hearing that for almost 6 years now. My patience wore out.


----------



## Daggett

Having coded microcontrollers as a hobby, I can appreciate the challenges of implementation and optimization the DTV programmers face. Working with a limited code and RAM space, and working with a real time operating system is a challenge. I would imagine getting two processors, a CPU and a DSP, to run well together is also tricky. It has the advantage that at least you know what hardware your code will be running on to the smallest detail, vs computer programming which has to be as generalized as possible.

But, the bottom line is that waiting 20-30 seconds just to change a channel is inexcusable and extremely annoying.


----------



## JonW

bobcamp1 said:


> Defragmentation is not a problem. Even if it were, we're talking delays less than 20 milliseconds. Not noticeable to humans. Certainly doesn't account for the 10 second delay in bringing up the list of recordings.
> 
> Put another way, that type of delay would cause video and audio problems. Nobody has reported breakups in picture, so it's not happening.


I'm not talking about fragmentation, dissimilar data naturally gets spread all over the disk - and this includes things like the disk structures themselves.

Recording to disk and play back from disk are no doubt given the highest priority, which means other requests like piecing together the play list or guide information will take a back seat. This goes for the disk, and the CPU. There is a point that one or the other will start thrashing.

Anyway, without knowing exactly how data is stored on the disk, this is all just speculation, but in my experience expecting s/w programmers to take the most efficient approach is a mistake in this day and age as there's an expectation that code can just be thrown together and be made to work - because as you say the disk/CPU are so fast and RAM is cheap. Well? We can see it with our own eyes. These systems can be brought to their knees. Optimization is becoming a lost art.

Even my 4 GHz + 4GB PC can start running slower than a 286 if I manage to run it nearly out of RAM and resources.


----------



## harsh

Daggett said:


> Having coded microcontrollers as a hobby, I can appreciate the challenges of implementation and optimization the DTV programmers face.


I'm not sure this is a reasonable comparison. Where microcontrollers often have memory measured in the kilobytes, I'm pretty sure the DIRECTV DVRs have memory measured in the megabytes.

Microcontrollers don't usually have 300Mhz+ processors nor access to mass storage either.


----------



## jborchel

How do you flush the guide?


----------



## veryoldschool

jborchel said:


> How do you flush the guide?


Two resets within 30 mins does it.


----------



## jborchel

Thank you. What does flushing the guide do?


----------



## JonW

harsh said:


> I'm not sure this is a reasonable comparison. Where microcontrollers often have memory measured in the kilobytes, I'm pretty sure the DIRECTV DVRs have memory measured in the megabytes.
> 
> Microcontrollers don't usually have 300Mhz+ processors nor access to mass storage either.


There's an enormous range of capabilities in the embedded market, but it all costs money so if you put more power than you need in to a box, it's just going to cost more to manufacture, consume more power, require more cooling, etc.

And it's not really all that hard to blow through a megabyte these days :O


----------



## luckydob

"jborchel" said:


> Thank you. What does flushing the guide do?


It will make your dvr faster for about a week...if you are lucky.


----------



## Daggett

harsh said:


> I'm not sure this is a reasonable comparison. Where microcontrollers often have memory measured in the kilobytes, I'm pretty sure the DIRECTV DVRs have memory measured in the megabytes.
> 
> Microcontrollers don't usually have 300Mhz+ processors nor access to mass storage either.


Possibly true, but I'm trying to not call them _completely_ worthless.  What exactly are the specs on an HR20? Some googling didn't turn up anything.

Another thing I've wondered about is why it takes so long to cold boot. Even after the system test is finished, it takes about 8 minutes, what is it doing that takes so long? Even if it has to re-download the entire guide; I wouldn't think that's more than about 200MB, which would only take about 50 seconds at a typical Ka bandwidth of 30Mbps.



JonW said:


> There's an enormous range of capabilities in the embedded market, but it all costs money so if you put more power than you need in to a box, it's just going to cost more to manufacture, consume more power, require more cooling, etc.


I think that's why it's maybe not such a good idea to keep squeezing more stuff on to old hardware, maybe it just can't handle it. Although, it was pretty slow to begin with...
As for costs, I would think manufacturing is the major expense, and not so much the actual components. For example, an ARM8 1GHz processor only costs $25 when bought in bulk.


----------



## bobcamp1

JonW said:


> There's an enormous range of capabilities in the embedded market, but it all costs money so if you put more power than you need in to a box, it's just going to cost more to manufacture, consume more power, require more cooling, etc.
> 
> And it's not really all that hard to blow through a megabyte these days :O


The functionality that D* needs isn't offered by a lot of mfrs. They were pretty much at the mercy of Broadcom. I don't know if D* chose the fastest chipset that Broadcom was offering at the time. I think D* was frustrated with Broadcom's chipset roadmap which was why they went to Conexant for the HR24.

But it isn't just the hardware. The HR21/22/23 have the same chipset as the cable Tivo HD. The Tivo HD feels a lot quicker with the SD menus. Also, the THR22-100 is obviously the same hardware as the HR22-100, but feels a lot quicker. So Tivo's done a better job at optimizing their code for that chipset.


----------



## JonW

Daggett said:


> For example, an ARM8 1GHz processor only costs $25 when bought in bulk.


When it comes to manufacturing, there are generally multipliers on every part to account for indirect expenses. So adding a $25 part may add $100 to the selling price - all depending how the company computes their overhead, profit margins, distribution costs, etc.

So, this can be pretty significant.

Circuit board cost, assembly and testing are all separate line items and are not included in the overhead calculation; but things like accounting, customer service, R&D, marketing I believe typically are.

Assembly and test costs can be kept pretty low in this day and age...


----------



## veryoldschool

JonW said:


> When it comes to manufacturing, there are generally multipliers on every part to account for indirect expenses. So adding a $25 part may add $100 to the selling price - all depending how the company computes their overhead, profit margins, distribution costs, etc.
> 
> So, this can be pretty significant.
> 
> Circuit board cost, assembly and testing are all separate line items and are not included in the overhead calculation; but things like accounting, customer service, R&D, marketing I believe typically are.
> 
> Assembly and test costs can be kept pretty low in this day and age...


I'm not sure who selects/picks which parts to use. DirecTV contracts the designing to the manufactures, with some requirements of course.
It's odd that the -500 series is the only one that uses a different chips set from all the others. Not sure who made the choice. :shrug:


----------



## dsw2112

bobcamp1 said:


> ...Also, the THR22-100 is obviously the same hardware as the HR22-100, but feels a lot quicker. So Tivo's done a better job at optimizing their code for that chipset.


To me, this is the most interesting aspect of the debate. It's a simple question (with a likely non-simple answer.)


----------



## bobcamp1

veryoldschool said:


> I'm not sure who selects/picks which parts to use. DirecTV contracts the designing to the manufactures, with some requirements of course.
> It's odd that the -500 series is the only one that uses a different chips set from all the others. Not sure who made the choice. :shrug:


D* has to pick the chipset, otherwise there would be no code to match! You can't just take the Broadcom code, put it in an HR24, and expect everything to work.


----------



## veryoldschool

bobcamp1 said:


> D* has to pick the chipset, otherwise there would be no code to match! You can't just take the Broadcom code, put it in an HR24, and expect everything to work.


I'm not sure it's that simple:
HR24-500 was the first released, which doesn't use Broadcom.
HR24-100 & 200 came next which do use Broadcom.
Install file sizes for the same version:
-500 17.3 MB
-100 16.9 MB
-200 16.7 MB
Yes, in the development stage the hardware and software does need to be integrated, but I don't, and neither do you, know who makes which decision.


----------



## lparsons21

I guess that if I can complain about D* and speed, I should also be man enough to say when things go right.

For the last couple of days, with no update of any sort, no programming changes and no hardware changes, my 3 HR24s have been quick enough. Not quite as fast as with the SDGUI, but good enough that I don't grumble.


----------



## bobcamp1

veryoldschool said:


> I'm not sure it's that simple:
> HR24-500 was the first released, which doesn't use Broadcom.
> HR24-100 & 200 came next which do use Broadcom.
> Install file sizes for the same version:
> -500 17.3 MB
> -100 16.9 MB
> -200 16.7 MB
> Yes, in the development stage the hardware and software does need to be integrated, but I don't, and neither do you, know who makes which decision.


D* makes it. The sub-contractor has a design review before they build it, where they propose the design to D*, and D* tells them what's good and what needs to change. The chipset is almost always specified ahead of time if you already have a product line, unless you give the sub-contractor explicit instructions to look elsewhere. Different tools, different licenses, no in-house expertise, the development costs can add up really fast.


----------



## billsharpe

jceman said:


> All I can say is be patient.


I lost my patience last October and switched to FiOS.


----------



## veryoldschool

bobcamp1 said:


> D* makes it. The sub-contractor has a design review before they build it, where they propose the design to D*, and D* tells them what's good and what needs to change. The chipset is almost always specified ahead of time if you already have a product line, unless you give the sub-contractor explicit instructions to look elsewhere. Different tools, different licenses, no in-house expertise, the development costs can add up really fast.


I can't disagree with you. "almost always" is reasonable, though it might be countered with Humax being used for the one with the different chips, which is their first model of the H/HR2x line.
To add to your list would also be the projected unit cost, which may be the significant driving factor, with the follow on builds, once past development.


----------



## Diana C

We commonly talk about the "software" like it is one piece of code. However, it is useful to keep in mind that there are, in fact, many modules and subroutines involved. The "HDGUI" changed the background images and character generator code, but did not change things like the channel tuning code, the recording managment code, or the program guide data management. That's why very little changed functionally in the HDGUI - it was JUST the presentation code.

I'd also not make much of the different CPUs. Supporting different CPUs is probably not much more involved than a few conditional compile statements and a few different compiler parameters. IOW, the code is 99% identical. The choice of which CPU to use is more likely driven by availability and cost (and possibly the degree to which otherwise outboard functions may integrated into a single die) than by performance factors.


----------



## bobcamp1

Titan25 said:


> I'd also not make much of the different CPUs. Supporting different CPUs is probably not much more involved than a few conditional compile statements and a few different compiler parameters. IOW, the code is 99% identical. The choice of which CPU to use is more likely driven by availability and cost (and possibly the degree to which otherwise outboard functions may integrated into a single die) than by performance factors.


Spoken like someone who has absolutely no embedded programming experience.  Maybe that's D*'s problem -- they're trying to keep it portable which severely limits what they do to optimize the code for speed. Yes, the highest level is in C, but you'd be crazy not to use some of the built-in functions and libraries supported by the chipset. I believe the HD GUI is a chipset function, which is why it's (supposed to be) just as fast as the SD GUI was.

It's like the difference between RF, digital, and analog electrical engineering. One type has no clue how to design in the other realm.

There's no CPU in the D* box, just something acting like a CPU. The lines separating microprocessing, microcontrollers, and FPGAs were blurred a long time ago. If the "processor" is only 300 MHz (666 MHz in the HR24-500), I'd bet it's just an FPGA pretending to be one or more microprocessors. Besides, who's making brand new 300 MHz processors these days?


----------



## harsh

bobcamp1 said:


> D* has to pick the chipset, otherwise there would be no code to match!


Are you suggesting that the code for all HR2x is the same?


----------



## harsh

bobcamp1 said:


> There's no CPU in the D* box, just something acting like a CPU.


Just because something is built around an SOC doesn't mean that it doesn't have a CPU.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Given the sheer numbers of boxes, and the fact that DIRECTV doesn't want to do "forklift upgrades" like Dish does (where you have to take everything out of the home to put something new in) they have to support multiple models. Now, if they EOL'd HR20, HR21, HR22, and HR23, stopped developing at all for them, they could probably really optimize HR24 and HR34, but at what cost to customer satisfaction?


----------



## Plasman

I have 5 HR21's and they are all slow - maybe 6 seconds to fully change a channel. But then one of my boxes got unbearable with 28 second channel changes, inability to accept a 3 digit channel number from the remote and occasional packet errors when trying to play a recording. I did everything mentioned on the forums including NVRAM clear, reset everything, two RBR in succession, delete recorded shows, etc and still no improvement. So I called D* to invoke my protection plan. They kept me on the phone for 45 minutes and had me repeat many of the manuevers only to say "I'm sorry but sluggish is not a reason we are permitted to replace a receiver". I counted down 28 seconds with the rep as I tried to change a channel!! Infuriating.


----------



## Chuck W

Stuart Sweet said:


> Given the sheer numbers of boxes, and the fact that DIRECTV doesn't want to do "forklift upgrades" like Dish does (where you have to take everything out of the home to put something new in) they have to support multiple models. Now, if they EOL'd HR20, HR21, HR22, and HR23, stopped developing at all for them, they could probably really optimize HR24 and HR34, but at what cost to customer satisfaction?


I agree just immediatly EOLing the older ones and stopping development isn't a good thing. However, what Directv should be doing at this point is working towards that EOLing of the 20/21/22/23's. But, based on what I am reading from people getting replacements, it doesn't seem like they are, which is a bit stunning to me. People are still being sent less than HR24's as replacements and some mentioned, as new customers they are still receiving less than HR24's.

I'm not saying they should be replacing everyone's old HR with an HR24, but they should be removing the HR20/21/22/23 from circulation when they can. So no new customers should ever get anything BUT at least a HR24 and they should only be shipping at least HR24s as replacements. I know the installer I had last week said they have been at a point for a little while now, where he only has HR24s on their trucks. However, it doesn't sound like this is the case everywhere, as I've read otherwise.


----------



## allenn

Stuart Sweet said:


> Given the sheer numbers of boxes, ...... Now, if they EOL'd HR20, HR21, HR22, and HR23, stopped developing at all for them, they could probably really optimize HR24 and HR34, but at what cost to customer satisfaction?


I cannot image how much it would cost D* to kill the older boxes. Also, you have all the refurbs in the warehouses. I say a lot of dollars to write-off that many boxes. Best wishes!


----------



## dsw2112

Stuart Sweet said:


> Given the sheer numbers of boxes, and the fact that DIRECTV doesn't want to do "forklift upgrades" like Dish does (where you have to take everything out of the home to put something new in) they have to support multiple models. Now, if they EOL'd HR20, HR21, HR22, and HR23, stopped developing at all for them, they could probably really optimize HR24 and HR34, but at what cost to customer satisfaction?


To be fair, this is a situation created by D*. The HR23 was a poor choice given the shift to SWM (and probably should not have been conceived.) The opportunity was there to optimize the HR21/22, but the choice was made to throw hardware at the problem (HR24.) Had a clear roadmap been planned the progression could have been Hr20 to HR22 (skipping the HR21 as the only difference between it and an HR22 is drive size.)

From the reports I've read the HR22 can be a viable, and responsive receiver with different code (the new Tivo.) While hindsight is 20/20, one can't make poor choices, distance oneself from those choices, then blame those choices for the inability to progress forward.


----------



## dsw2112

allenn said:


> I cannot image how much it would cost D* to kill the older boxes. Also, you have all the refurbs in the warehouses. I say a lot of dollars to write-off that many boxes. Best wishes!


From a business perspective it wouldn't be a smart decision to kill the older receivers now; D* has a chance to start their new line of HMC receivers on the right foot though. Within the next year or two we'll see whether these receivers have any similarities to the HR20-HR24 line.


----------



## Mike Greer

dsw2112 said:


> D* has a chance to start their new line of HMC receivers on the right foot though. Within the next year or two we'll see whether these receivers have any similarities to the HR20-HR24 line.


Sadly from what I've read here about the HR34 they appear to be doing business as usual there. Release with the old GUI then update to the HDGUI, reports of slow response, out of the blue restarts, missed recordings (maybe because of the reboots?)&#8230; Anyway - looks as if they enjoy the 'slowness' and ignoring the remote as features of their DVRs.


----------



## bobcamp1

harsh said:


> Are you suggesting that the code for all HR2x is the same?


I'm saying it should be different, but exactly how different is it? It is just different enough to get the main code to run on each box, or did they aggressively optimize performance?



harsh said:


> Just because something is built around an SOC doesn't mean that it doesn't have a CPU.


Yes, but it depends what you mean by CPU. Many FPGAs today embed (or emulate) one or more low powered CPUs. And vice versa. When most people think CPU they think of a stand alone part, like an Intel or AMD chip. I don't believe the chipset has such a part.


----------



## THX

I've been noticing that this thread has been going on forever but from what I can tell there is no real resolution. Everyone I've spoken to who has experienced this problem says that when the new HD GUI was released everything was blazing fast. If it were indeed hardware limitations wouldn't the new HD GUI be slow at the very beginning?

Why would it suddenly be experiencing a slowdown now so many months later? This feels like a software glitch for sure.

Does anyone with inside knowledge at Directv know if this is a high priority for them or not? Seems like it's happening for everybody at about the same time too. I bet their customer service lines are lighting up like a Christmas tree with these complaints...


----------



## veryoldschool

THX said:


> Seems like it's happening for everybody at about the same time too.


Maybe only from reading this thread.
What one feels is fast or slow, varies between customers.
Those that don't feel it has slowed down [like me] don't post in this thread as much as those that do feel it has.


----------



## n3ntj

My HR22-100 is also very slow.. been so for over 1 year. My HR24-200 is fine.


----------



## Podkayne

Alas, My heretofore trustworthy HR 20-100 has been DOUBLE PIG-DOG SLOW since February 9, the day it downloaded the HDGUI. 6 weeks and counting with an essentially unresponsive hunk of junk. Can I have JUST MY HR 20-100 rolled back to the previous UI? Sorry...no dice. Wait a minute, I reasoned, if you can switch the box off from where you are sitting, can't you feed it whatever firmware update you want? No, we can't do that...You can have your stupid HDGUI which has trashed my receiver...take it back, please!! Sorry, a slow receiver still works, so no taking it back. Talking with DTV CSR's is like talking to a 7 year old...


----------



## dclarke

bobcamp1 said:


> We've been hearing that for almost 6 years now. My patience wore out.


i recently did a search on this issue and the thread dated 2008 instructed us to do just that, thats pretty patient in my book. Direct will go broke if they ship us all hr-24's? not so sure about that


----------



## harsh

Stuart Sweet said:


> Now, if they EOL'd HR20, HR21, HR22, and HR23, stopped developing at all for them, they could probably really optimize HR24 and HR34, but at what cost to customer satisfaction?


What is the hit to customer satisfaction of not making substantial performance improvements?

All they need to do is resolve the disk transfer issue and many customers would be flocking to upgrade.


----------



## harsh

bobcamp1 said:


> Yes, but it depends what you mean by CPU. Many FPGAs today embed (or emulate) one or more low powered CPUs. And vice versa. When most people think CPU they think of a stand alone part, like an Intel or AMD chip. I don't believe the chipset has such a part.


The chipsets typically incorporate some manner of RISC CPU. The older Broadcoms use a MIPS CPU section (with an MMU) and the new ones incorporate an ARM CPU. The NXP chip used in some HR24s also incorporates an ARM 1176 CPU.


----------



## westview

Does Directv care if the receivers are slow?


----------



## Rich

westview said:


> Does Directv care if the receivers are slow?


I would think that the complaints are mounting and the next NR should help these issues. They can't possibly be happy with the slowness caused by the GUI.

Rich


----------



## JonW

bobcamp1 said:


> Yes, the highest level is in C, but you'd be crazy not to use some of the built-in functions and libraries supported by the chipset. I believe the HD GUI is a chipset function, which is why it's (supposed to be) just as fast as the SD GUI was.


Typically an embedded OS is used, and the non-portable chipset specific functions are relegated to the device driver level.

It's quite possible that the folks working on the UI level code don't even deal with the CPU directly or work on the drivers.

A disconnect between the high-level programmers and the low-level programmers can certainly lead to inefficiencies and sloppy design; but my guess is that DirecTv is simply not investing development time in to optimization. They may be fully aware where there are deficiencies in the code but due to schedules, budget, and other constraints; they may not be able to address them.


----------



## hasan

westview said:


> Does Directv care if the receivers are slow?


That's a pretty open ended question. I would put it more like, "How much do they care and how much are they able and willing to do to address it?"

On our HR20-700 with 2 TB external drive, we have to do a menu reset once per week to overcome gradual and ever steepening sluggishness. If we don't do it often enough, the box will eventually hang, requiring a RBR.

The drive is never more than 15% full, so it is unrelated to the amount or number of stored programs.

These boxes (HR20-700, HR20-100, HR21-100) have acted this way for a long time, off and on. Periodic sluggishness is perfectly normal. They have never fixed it.

Every time I read, "coming soon, your problems will be solved", I smile wryly.:sure:

D* is either incapable or unwilling to fix the periodic sluggishness issue with many (if not all) of their boxes. Most people experience it, some say they don't. For me, the problem is real, every DVR shows it off and on, and a menu reset helps for a few days. That's the way it is, and, in my experience, that's the way it has been for years.

There was a time, for perhaps a year or so, maybe six months, that the HR20-700 did not need to be reset every "x", and ran rather snappily, with only very rare slow-downs. I've not seen those days in a long time.


----------



## peano

Bottom line, and to answer the OP's question, the slow receivers will never be fixed.

DIRECTV has shown they could care less about it. And that is because existing customers whine a little but put up with it. Some here even chastise those who think their receivers are "slow".

With the apathetic response of so many of their affected subs, along with the fanboy mentality often show here saying the receivers aren't really slow, DIRECTV does not think there is a problem.


----------



## veryoldschool

peano said:


> Bottom line, and to answer the OP's question, the slow receivers will never be fixed.
> 
> DIRECTV has shown they could care less about it. And that is because existing customers whine a little but put up with it. Some here even chastise those who think their receivers are "slow".
> 
> With the apathetic response of so many of their affected subs, along with the fanboy mentality often show here saying the receivers aren't really slow, DIRECTV does not think there is a problem.


I'm not a fanboy, as I try to be reasonable and point out problems.
At the same time, I'm not sure what your idea of slow is either, since mine aren't.
I'm not doubting some customer's are, as it's clear from postings that some have issues I wouldn't accept. This doesn't make me a fanboy, but only one who doesn't understand why some "suck" and others don't. :shrug:


----------



## Racer88

As long as they're development continues to be repeatedly done on a 7 day cycle and they keep stuffing a seemingly non-stop flow of crap into the software with little regard at all for how long term reliability is being affected/degraded there never will be any progress on this.

Their crap code is hardly ever tested for more than 7 days, before moving on to changing something, and likely creating even more crap. With a cycle like that then all you can EVER expect is 7 days of decent performance before resetting your boxes. Plain and simple. Until the idiots in charge pull their heads out of their collective arses and realize this, it's quite unlikely it will ever change.


----------



## DC_SnDvl

veryoldschool said:


> I'm not a fanboy, as I try to be reasonable and point out problems.
> At the same time, I'm not sure what your idea of slow is either, since mine aren't.
> I'm not doubting some customer's are, as it's clear from postings that some have issues I wouldn't accept. This doesn't make me a fanboy, but only one who doesn't understand why some "suck" and others don't. :shrug:


You don't have an HR-21. Consider yourself lucky. Mine often takes 5-15 sec to respond to requests.

My HR-20's are fine.


----------



## veryoldschool

DC_SnDvl said:


> You don't have an HR-21. Consider yourself lucky. Mine often takes 5-15 sec to respond to requests.
> 
> My HR-20's are fine.


But I did have one once. It had to be retired for my HR24, or maybe the H25 as I ran out of SWiM channels.


----------



## rld37

I have a HR20/100. It had a software update 0x59e on2/8. At that time the user interface changed and got much slower. Is there any way I can revert to a the previous software or would that create some kind of problem?
Thanks for any help.


----------



## veryoldschool

rld37 said:


> I have a HR20/100. It had a software update 0x59e on2/8. At that time the user interface changed and got much slower. Is there any way I can revert to a the previous software or would that create some kind of problem?
> Thanks for any help.


It wouldn't cause any problems, because it can't be done.


----------



## Rich

peano said:


> Bottom line, and to answer the OP's question, the slow receivers will never be fixed.
> 
> DIRECTV has shown they could care less about it. And that is because existing customers whine a little but put up with it. *Some here even chastise those who think their receivers are "slow"*.
> 
> With the apathetic response of so many of their affected subs, along with the fanboy mentality often show here saying the receivers aren't really slow, DIRECTV does not think there is a problem.


Would you specifically tell us what is "slow" about your HR/s and what models they are? I do see slowness with the new GUI. I don't see any slowness with the DVR functions at all.

Most of the complaints I've seen just state the HRs are slow. In what way and when doing what? If you've got a 21 series HR (21s-22s-23), they're slow in just about all aspects. Nothing new there. They were slow when introduced (compared to the 20-700s) and haven't gotten any faster.

Rich


----------



## Rich

DC_SnDvl said:


> You don't have an HR-21. Consider yourself lucky. Mine often takes 5-15 sec to respond to requests.
> 
> My HR-20's are fine.


I've got three 24s, eight 20-700s and one 21-200. Compared to the 24s and 20-700s, the 21-200 is slow. But, if I didn't have the 24s and 20-700s to compare the 21-200 to, I'd never know it was slow. "Slow" is a comparative word, without anything to compare them to all the 21s would be acceptable to most subs.

Rich


----------



## westview

I have the HR23 700. The speed varies from 6 seconds to 20 seconds. I have tried everything posted on this site. Nothing helps. I am sick of it. When my contract is up I am going to Dish.


----------



## Rich

rld37 said:


> *I have a HR20/100. It had a software update 0x59e on2/8. At that time the user interface changed and got much slower.* Is there any way I can revert to a the previous software or would that create some kind of problem?
> Thanks for any help.


There's a couple simple sentences that tell us a lot. First, he's got a 20-100 not an "HR20", we know the software he's using and he states the problem began with the HD GUI. Wasn't hard to be specific, why can't every post be like this one?

Good post! Very specific. There's nothing we can do to help, but at least we know more than "My HR20 is slow" tells us.

Your problem is being worked on. Hopefully, the next NR will ameliorate some of the problems caused by the GUI.

Rich


----------



## Rich

westview said:


> I have the HR23 700. The speed varies from 6 seconds to 20 seconds. I have tried everything posted on this site. Nothing helps. I am sick of it. When my contract is up I am going to Dish.


The 23s were, quite frankly, not what we thought they would be. I had one for a week. You say the "speed varies from...". What speed? When you're doing what?

Rich


----------



## bobcamp1

JonW said:


> Typically an embedded OS is used, and the non-portable chipset specific functions are relegated to the device driver level.
> 
> It's quite possible that the folks working on the UI level code don't even deal with the CPU directly or work on the drivers.
> 
> A disconnect between the high-level programmers and the low-level programmers can certainly lead to inefficiencies and sloppy design; but my guess is that DirecTv is simply not investing development time in to optimization. They may be fully aware where there are deficiencies in the code but due to schedules, budget, and other constraints; they may not be able to address them.


They're using Linux, which is a poor embedded OS. But so is Tivo. I know that Tivo made changes because they have to post them according to the GPL.

http://www.tivo.com/linux/index.html

Since D* is also using Linux, and is bound by the GPL, where are their changes? Or did they not make any? Or are they just copying Tivo's?

I agree that D* just can't seem to get the maximum performance out of their chipsets. It's like they just don't know how or aren't willing to.


----------



## bobcamp1

Racer88 said:


> As long as they're development continues to be repeatedly done on a 7 day cycle and they keep stuffing a seemingly non-stop flow of crap into the software with little regard at all for how long term reliability is being affected/degraded there never will be any progress on this.
> 
> Their crap code is hardly ever tested for more than 7 days, before moving on to changing something, and likely creating even more crap. With a cycle like that then all you can EVER expect is 7 days of decent performance before resetting your boxes. Plain and simple. Until the idiots in charge pull their heads out of their collective arses and realize this, it's quite unlikely it will ever change.


+1

Tivo has almost the opposite problem. They take forever between releases, but at least they don't have the "fix one thing break another" experience that D* has.

The other problem D* has is inconsistency between boxes of the same model. That's an indicator that the software is unstable and not thoroughly tested.


----------



## lparsons21

Racer88 said:


> As long as they're development continues to be repeatedly done on a 7 day cycle and they keep stuffing a seemingly non-stop flow of crap into the software with little regard at all for how long term reliability is being affected/degraded there never will be any progress on this.
> 
> Their crap code is hardly ever tested for more than 7 days, before moving on to changing something, and likely creating even more crap. With a cycle like that then all you can EVER expect is 7 days of decent performance before resetting your boxes. Plain and simple. Until the idiots in charge pull their heads out of their collective arses and realize this, it's quite unlikely it will ever change.


You've hit at least one nail on the head here! The test cycle is just way too short, and with the code really not being beta quality code to begin with just excacerbates(sp?) the issue. Beta code is supposed to be feature complete and most bugs gone, and is used to do the final tweaking of release code. You don't add features to beta level code, and you certainly don't issue knowingly dangerous code to beta.

Couple that to the short cycle testing and you've got what we get from D*. And that is the NRs are more like beta code and the CEs are more like alpha level code.

And I'll add that I've felt for many years that D* specs their stuff a bit too minimally to start with which just aggravates the situation.


----------



## veryoldschool

lparsons21 said:


> You've hit at least one nail on the head here! The test cycle is just way too short...
> 
> And I'll add that I've felt for many years that D* specs their stuff a bit too minimally to start with which just aggravates the situation.


I've often thought the same thing.
A friend got a new HR24 several months back. He'd complain that he needed to pull the power cord every two weeks.
I looked through his setup & settings and made a few changes.
Showed him how to reset the box without pulling the power cord. :lol:
Showed him the NVRAM clearing routine.
Nothing changed, as two weeks later, same thing. The receiver would get slower and slower until he'd either reset it before it stopped, or have to hit the RBR if he waiting too long.
A couple of months ago I loaded the HDGUI on it as it was the NR.
He hasn't been complaining since. :shrug:


----------



## lparsons21

Well I have the NR (59E) on my 3 HR24s and overall I'd say it is still slow, but it varies for no apparent reason. Sometimes it is fast enough to not irritate, but still noticeably slow at remote response, and of course the ever present non-response to the remote.

But it seems it is less often that it used to be. Still a bit irritating, but not enough to throw the remote.

But I was spoiled by E*'s relatively speedy operation for a couple years so I'm probably a bit more sensitive to it. 

From my point of view, if things operate pretty smoothly and all thing seem to work like they are supposed to, even if a tad slow at times, I can live with it because I spend far more time watching what's on TV than I do interacting with it. If my boxes continue as they are now for speed, then the only real glitch left is ignoring the remote at times.

Well that and adding the 'smart' back into the 'smart search'!!


----------



## raott

Rich said:


> Would you specifically tell us what is "slow" about your HR/s and what models they are? I do see slowness with the new GUI. I don't see any slowness with the DVR functions at all.
> 
> Most of the complaints I've seen just state the HRs are slow. In what way and when doing what? If you've got a 21 series HR (21s-22s-23), they're slow in just about all aspects. Nothing new there. They were slow when introduced (compared to the 20-700s) and haven't gotten any faster.
> 
> Rich


For me, it is not one consistent area that is slow and that is probably part of the troubleshooting problem.

Sometimes the guide is quick (it was very quick when it first came out, I was pretty impressed), sometimes the guide takes 10 seconds to react to the key press. Sometimes it is the channel change and key bounce issues (ie hit 206, first it tries to change to channel 2 then immediately to channel 06 - iaw, it registered all three key presses). Sometimes it is channels changes, either within the guide or outside the guide. Sometimes it is flipping tuners.

Overall, it is a huge step back from the way it was right before the HDGUI.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Well I have the NR (59E) on my 3 HR24s and overall I'd say it is still slow, but it varies for no apparent reason. Sometimes it is fast enough to not irritate, but still noticeably slow at remote response, and of course the ever present non-response to the remote.


So, your issues would seem to be with or caused by the GUI? I find deleting a lot of episodes to be very slow and when using MRV it takes a lot of time to get to a program on another HR. Issues like these are caused by the GUI.



> But it seems it is less often that it used to be. Still a bit irritating, but not enough to throw the remote.


Or you're getting used to it.



> But I was spoiled by E*'s relatively speedy operation for a couple years so I'm probably a bit more sensitive to it.


All I've got to compare the HRs to is the VCR. But are you comparing the GUI functions or the DVR functions? I don't see any difference in speed on DVR functions, just when I use the GUI.



> From my point of view, if things operate pretty smoothly and all thing seem to work like they are supposed to, even if a tad slow at times, I can live with it because I spend far more time watching what's on TV than I do interacting with it. If my boxes continue as they are now for speed, then the only real glitch left is ignoring the remote at times.


I'm pretty sure anything caused by the GUI will be fixed as quickly as possible.



> Well that and adding the 'smart' back into the 'smart search'!!


I don't use the Search feature a lot, but it seems to work well for me.

Rich


----------



## Rich

raott said:


> For me, it is not one consistent area that is slow and that is probably part of the troubleshooting problem.
> 
> Sometimes the guide is quick (it was very quick when it first came out, I was pretty impressed), sometimes the guide takes 10 seconds to react to the key press. Sometimes it is the channel change and key bounce issues (ie hit 206, first it tries to change to channel 2 then immediately to channel 06 - iaw, it registered all three key presses). Sometimes it is channels changes, either within the guide or outside the guide. Sometimes it is flipping tuners.
> 
> Overall, *it is a huge step back from the way it was right before the HDGUI*.


The GUI has to be fixed, that's obvious to you and me. If the troubles started with the GUI, they should end with a fixed GUI and we'll be back to where we were before the GUI.

I know this is annoying as hell, but we know the cause. First step in troubleshooting. Now we need the cause fixed and I have no idea how long that will take. One NR? Or three NRs? I dunno, but I'm sure it will be fixed.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> So, your issues would seem to be with or caused by the GUI? I find deleting a lot of episodes to be very slow and when using MRV it takes a lot of time to get to a program on another HR. Issues like these are caused by the GUI.


It is all in the GUI. Anything requiring me to go to the UI to do things is slow most of the time, those things I can do directly like trickplay and such usually are very good. Except when it decides to ignore the remote. 



Rich said:


> I don't use the Search feature a lot, but it seems to work well for me.
> 
> Rich


I don't use it all that much either, but if I search say for 'boxing', it misses quite a few shows that I know are coming up. Fortunately for me, I know which of the channels boxing is on, so I just watch for the first event to show up and then set a series link on that.


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> The GUI has to be fixed, that's obvious to you and me. If the troubles started with the GUI, they should end with a fixed GUI and we'll be back to where we were before the GUI.
> 
> I know this is annoying as hell, but we know the cause. First step in troubleshooting. Now we need the cause fixed and I have no idea how long that will take. One NR? Or three NRs? I dunno, but I'm sure it will be fixed.
> 
> Rich


Yep, the HDGUI is the problem all right. Before they issued that to my HR24s, I was very impressed with the overall speed of operation and noted that they were nearly as fast as my previous Dish 722k.


----------



## veryoldschool

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, the HDGUI is the problem all right. Before they issued that to my HR24s, I was very impressed with the overall speed of operation and noted that they were nearly as fast as my previous Dish 722k.


Which is  because my friend had more problems with the old GUI than the new.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> It is all in the GUI. Anything requiring me to go to the UI to do things is slow most of the time, those things I can do directly like trickplay and such usually are very good. Except when it decides to ignore the remote.


The only thing we can do is wait. Just like we did after the DLB NR and any other major NRs.



> I don't use it all that much either, but if I search say for 'boxing', it misses quite a few shows that I know are coming up. Fortunately for me, I know which of the channels boxing is on, so I just watch for the first event to show up and then set a series link on that.


I tried that with "boxing" too. Same results as you got. I don't know if that's got anything to do with the GUI.

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, the HDGUI is the problem all right. Before they issued that to my HR24s, I was very impressed with the overall speed of operation and noted that they were nearly as fast as my previous Dish 722k.


How long have you had D*?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> How long have you had D*?
> 
> Rich


Since last August, so about 7 months this go 'round.


----------



## lparsons21

veryoldschool said:


> Which is  because my friend had more problems with the old GUI than the new.


With HR24s??


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Since last August, so about 7 months this go 'round.


Well, you've gotten to see the 24s at their best and, now, at their worst. Believe me, this isn't the first time an NR has screwed everything up. It will get better. I hope...nah, I have faith, it will get better. Once that happens all the complaining about slowness will be forgotten. I'd hope that the 34s don't get the new GUI before everything wrong with ours is corrected.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool

lparsons21 said:


> With HR24s??


Yes, didn't you read my earlier post?


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Well, you've gotten to see the 24s at their best and, now, at their worst. Believe me, this isn't the first time an NR has screwed everything up. It will get better. I hope...nah, I have faith, it will get better. Once that happens all the complaining about slowness will be forgotten. I'd hope that the 34s don't get the new GUI before everything wrong with ours is corrected.
> 
> Rich


This isn't my first ride in the rodeo you know! 

I was with D* a bit back and left because for all the updates, upgrades, holding my mouth right and all that, the HR21 I had was a pig. Got to the point of switch to E* or throw the remote and receiver through the window, I opted to switch.

And I know you firmly believe that D* will get it right, I'm not so sure I believe it. But I most likely will stick around 'til August when my rebates expire and at that point I'll re-evaluate where things sit. Since I can pay an ETF at that point and save about $20/month after that is figured in, I may just switch back to E*.


----------



## lparsons21

veryoldschool said:


> Yes, didn't you read my earlier post?


Probably, but I have a very short memory these days. Getting old ain't for wimps you know!!


----------



## veryoldschool

lparsons21 said:


> Probably, but I have a very short memory these days. Getting old ain't for wimps you know!!


"Getting?" Think I passed that some time back :eek2:


----------



## Racer88

Sorry but the HD GUI is not the sole problem, if even a significantly contributing factor. It has only served to exacerbate the true problem. Regardless of GUI version, the things have always had the exact same, yet to be resolved, issues and behaviour.

One day try to do something and it works reasonably well, next day, or maybe even later the same day, do the exact same thing and it takes exponetially longer to do. This behaviour has been slowly but surely worsening over the entire history of these things.

The REAL problem is some underlying flaw in the overall system. Not just the color and/or amount of pixels that are eventually being drawn on screen.

Having seen no complaints about the speed of THR22's, I'd also venture to say it's not so much a hardware deficiency either. Any time it's come up somewhere it has been said the THR22's are just as snappy as any other Tivo model. Though that does bring to mind all the additional crap that is present in the DTV OS that isn't in the Tivo OS and what effect some of that may be having on the exact same hardware.


----------



## raott

For anyone interested in troubleshooting: Came home, turned on the HR22, turned on the guide (this was pretty quick), selected channel 216 from the guide, it took almost 16 seconds for the channel to actually come up. Unacceptable.


----------



## tigerwillow1

Because of the Starz/Encore promotion that started today, I looked ahead in the guide. When I got about 8 hours ahead of current time, the HR-22 went into near death mode. While scrolling though the guide, it would often become totally unresponsive for 30 seconds or more. Then when it woke up, it would sometimes act on the queued remote commands, and sometimes ignore them. The old GUI was slow, but at least it was predictable and repeatable. I could hit a few button presses and it would eventually catch up with them. Now it's just random behavior.


----------



## Cozmo85

My hr21 doesn't respond to remote,commands for a good 10 minutes after power on.. Is this normal? It's usually after its been sitting a while.


----------



## hasan

Cozmo85 said:


> My hr21 doesn't respond to remote,commands for a good 10 minutes after power on.. Is this normal? It's usually after its been sitting a while.


All too often, there is a substantial delay when channel changing commands are given, after the units have been sitting for a long time with no user interaction. I find especially our HR20-700 will produce errors on channel input the first several tries in the morning. Most of the HR2 series boxes have had this problem off and on for a very long time. Some users report that this never happens to them.

All I can say to them is : lucky you.


----------



## Rich

Cozmo85 said:


> My hr21 doesn't respond to remote,commands for a good 10 minutes after power on.. Is this normal? It's usually after its been sitting a while.


I've got two 20-700s that I use as servers. Very rarely "used". They both do something similar to that. Takes them ~ 15 minutes to get up to speed. The rest of my HRs come right on and accept commands without any problems.

Rich


----------



## westview

Is Directv trying to fix the slow receiver problem or not. If they are will they succeed?


----------



## harsh

westview said:


> Is Directv trying to fix the slow receiver problem or not.


That may depend on how many customers report the problem directly to DIRECTV.

There has been much complaining, commiserating and theorizing going on here for years and not much has come of it. Direct pressure is typically more effective than using pressure points.


----------



## Rich

westview said:


> Is Directv trying to fix the slow receiver problem or not. If they are will they succeed?


They are and they will. I think.

Rich


----------



## Mike Greer

Rich said:


> They are and they will. I think.
> 
> Rich


I think they probably are working on it. The real question is when will they fix it and how long will it be before they screw it up again!?:lol:

If the trouble reports here of the HR34 are any indication - if they do fix it it won't be long before they slow them back down.


----------



## Rich

Mike Greer said:


> I think they probably are working on it. The real question is when will they fix it and how long will it be before they screw it up again!?:lol:
> 
> If the trouble reports here of the HR34 are any indication - if they do fix it it won't be long before they slow them back down.


Yeah, I agree. Too much stuff going on at one time. Once they fix what's wrong now, they'll find something else to implement.

Rich


----------



## allenn

Has anyone else noticed the long delay when deleting a video from the List? I have an HR24 with MRV. I bring up the List; highlight the program to be deleted; push the Red Button; Yes or No displays; select Yes; the Yes or No re-displays for a second or two; and the List re-displays with the video deleted. I do not recall the delete taking so long. Best wishes!


----------



## BlueMonk

allenn said:


> Has anyone else noticed the long delay when deleting a video from the List? I have an HR24 with MRV. I bring up the List; highlight the program to be deleted; push the Red Button; Yes or No displays; select Yes; the Yes or No re-displays for a second or two; and the List re-displays with the video deleted. I do not recall the delete taking so long. Best wishes!


My HR22 knocks out a delete within a half hour almost every time.


----------



## Rich

allenn said:


> Has anyone else noticed the long delay when deleting a video from the List? I have an HR24 with MRV. I bring up the List; highlight the program to be deleted; push the Red Button; Yes or No displays; select Yes; the Yes or No re-displays for a second or two; and the List re-displays with the video deleted. I do not recall the delete taking so long. Best wishes!


Mine takes a long time to delete too. Either using my 24s or my 20-700s. Be patient, the next NR will probably address this issue. I hope.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Rich said:


> Yeah, I agree. Too much stuff going on at one time. Once they fix what's wrong now, they'll find something else to implement.
> 
> Rich


You'd think they would run out of things to put on the HRs, no? All I ever wanted was a DVR that did what a DVR is supposed to do....:nono2:

Rich


----------



## sjord7

My HR20-700 is getting slower and slower. I did complain to DirecTV, and they gave me a limited time offer. *For only $50, they would sell me a standard definition receiver! I don't like to brag about the great offer I was able to get out of them, but WOW!* I think they could care less about their customers - I made it very clear I was very unhappy.

I'd say at least 50% of the keypresses I do on the remote take longer than 5 seconds. It's very common for a response to come after 30 seconds. And several times a night it can take around 60 seconds. This of course isn't too good when the key I'm trying to press is Play when it's fast forwarding.

I also have to agree with one of the first posters on this thread, they do not have the skill to fix these receivers. I'm a programmer and have done lots of low level coding, tons of assembly language. He was right, one second is an eternity for a CPU. I think the code is sloppy and bloated. I've programmed with many other people, and it's rare to find a programmer that cares anything about efficiency.


----------



## skoolpsyk

sjord7 said:


> I'd say at least 50% of the keypresses I do on the remote take longer than 5 seconds. It's very common for a response to come after 30 seconds. And several times a night it can take around 60 seconds. This of course isn't too good when the key I'm trying to press is Play when it's fast forwarding.


same here with my HR22-100. and then what happens is I think the receiver didn't get the signal so I press the remote again and this seems to make matters worse--like it locks up or something. then I go crazy and keep pressing buttons as fast as I can while nothing happens and try to calm myself as I visualize throwing the remote through the screen...


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> You'd think they would run out of things to put on the HRs, no? All I ever wanted was a DVR that did what a DVR is supposed to do....:nono2:
> 
> Rich


I'm with you! It seems assinine to me to add Pandora, a no video at all feature, and YouTube (mostly poor video especially on a big screen), not to mention the 'apps', and 'home media' that is twitchy on good days, when you don't have all the basic functions of the operation running lickety-split and always paying attention to the remote.

And of course, all of those were much more important than a single, unified to-do list and series management for their MRV system.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> I'm with you! It seems assinine to me to add Pandora, a no video at all feature, and YouTube (mostly poor video especially on a big screen), not to mention the 'apps', and 'home media' that is twitchy on good days, when you don't have all the basic functions of the operation running lickety-split and always paying attention to the remote.
> 
> And of course, all of those were much more important than a single, unified to-do list and series management for their MRV system.


Reeks of poor planning, no? Just trying to squeeze too many innovations in at one time. I can understand D* trying to stay on top, but to ignore all these other issues is just wrong.

I will say this about D*'s MRV system: It should have been their pride and joy. All they had to do was refine the MRV and fix the HRs after the HD GUI came out (it was needed) and they could have rested on their laurels for a while.

I've got so many gizmos in my home that give me YouTube and Pandora that the last thing I needed was for my HRs to have them. If anybody's listening, I, and I'm sure I'm not alone, think it's time to stop this willy-nilly expansion of products on platforms that don't work correctly and fix all the basic stuff.

Rich


----------



## allenn

Now I know why it takes sooooooooo long to delete from the List; the DVR has A.D.D. (Attention DVR Disorder) which is induced by all the functionality! Just too much to think about before it addresses a remote control's delete request. Best wishes!


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Reeks of poor planning, no? Just trying to squeeze too many innovations in at one time. I can understand D* trying to stay on top, but to ignore all these other issues is just wrong.
> 
> Rich


I can't imagine that adding Pandora, YouTube and Media Share has added even one subscriber, or kept many. The very most they accomplish is to give some marketing pinhead something to bray about!


----------



## Church AV Guy

sjord7 said:


> .
> .
> .
> I'd say at least 50% of the keypresses I do on the remote take longer than 5 seconds. It's very common for a response to come after 30 seconds. And several times a night it can take around 60 seconds. This of course isn't too good when the key I'm trying to press is Play when it's fast forwarding.
> .
> .
> .





skoolpsyk said:


> same here with my HR22-100. and then what happens is I think the receiver didn't get the signal so I press the remote again and this seems to make matters worse--like it locks up or something. then I go crazy and keep pressing buttons as fast as I can while nothing happens and try to calm myself as I visualize throwing the remote through the screen...


I agree, and I see this all the time. I have to consciously take a breath and wait, because if I press too many keys too quickly, after about the third one, it makes my HR22s just seize up. Then it takes a while before I can get a key-press recognized. If I keep pressing a key, or keys, it will stay locked for a VERY long time.


----------



## DC_SnDvl

It has not kept me. The only thing that had kept me from jumping is an HOA that must be getting paid by Comcast to keep out competition.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> I can't imagine that adding Pandora, YouTube and Media Share has added even one subscriber, or kept many. The very most they accomplish is to give some marketing pinhead something to bray about!


It's hard to understand why they make the decisions they do. I guess all this extraneous crap does make for good advertising. Must, or why would they do these things?

Rich


----------



## JonW

lparsons21 said:


> I can't imagine that adding Pandora, YouTube and Media Share has added even one subscriber, or kept many. The very most they accomplish is to give some marketing pinhead something to bray about!


I like those features, and since they don't actually do anything until activated - I don't think they're the problem. In fact, they suffer from the same slowness and inattention to detail that the rest of the system does.

Hopefully this thread keeps rolling because DirecTv isn't going to dedicate resources to things like polish and optimization until the powers that be within the organization realize that it's a serious problem, it's hurting their reputation, and costing them customers.


----------



## z28lt1

JonW said:


> Hopefully this thread keeps rolling because DirecTv isn't going to dedicate resources to things like polish and optimization until the powers that be within the organization realize that it's a serious problem, it's hurting their reputation, and costing them customers.


In the spirit of keeping "the thread rolling", I'll add that I'm becoming very frustrated with the DVR experience. A few of my HR-2xs are becoming almost unusable. The time I select something to play from the list, to the time it actually starts playing in full screen mode (starts immediately in the PIG) can be measured with a minute hand.

At times changing channels with the numbers is impossible due to the slow response, that I have to go to the guide to scroll to my channel.

My 24 is still pretty quick, as is one of my 22s, so it is not all receivers, but whatever is going on with the slow ones is too much for them to handle.

I've never thought of leaving DirecTV, and am still not likely to do so, but with my recent switch to FIOS for phone and internet, they offered to but me out of any ETFs, so I at least have a tempting offer on the table.


----------



## acostapimps

What they should do is do more software upgrades since my last NR rollout was in February on 59e, what happened they used to upgrade every 2-3 months


----------



## luckydob

"acostapimps" said:


> What they should do is do more software upgrades since my last NR rollout was in February on 59e, what happened they used to upgrade every 2-3 months


Confused...if you give them 3 months, they still have roughly 50 days to get you a new NR.


----------



## Rich

acostapimps said:


> What they should do is do more software upgrades since my last NR rollout was in February on 59e, what happened they used to upgrade every 2-3 months


I'd rather wait a long period between NRs if the cause of the delay is getting the firmware right. In this case, I think that's what's happening.

Rich


----------



## Richierich

Rich said:


> Reeks of poor planning, no? Just trying to squeeze too many innovations in at one time. I can understand D* trying to stay on top, but to ignore all these other issues is just wrong.
> 
> Rich


I have always wondered it the CEO and other Top Management have DVRs at their homes and then don't the experience the same Sluggishness as some of us do and then why wouldn't they direct their IT People to speed the DVR up.

My HR24-500s are Fast but what Puzzles me is that some complain about their HR24-500s and if it was Bad Code then I would have Sluggishness.

I can understand if they have another Model HR24 such as an HR24-100 as that Model has a Different Chipset than the HR24-500 and that may make a difference.

I have heard from a "Little Birdie" that has known a lot of things in the past and he had told me that very shortly there will be a FIX for the Sluggishness so I will just wait and see if his Prediction comes True. Apparently, he is Testing it right now and says it will Fix the Problem.

We'll See If He Is Correct (he has been in the Past).


----------



## skyboysea

Richierich said:


> My HR24-500s are Fast but what Puzzles me is that some complain about their HR24-500s and if it was Bad Code then I would have Sluggishness.


Assuming that bad code would make all receivers behave in the same wrong way is not correct. Yes, it can happen but that would be a very easy bug to find. The problem with Directv firmware is that the behavior of the receivers is sometimes not predictable. You update the FW and your guide data is wiped out, mine isn't. My receiver is slow pulling up the playlist yours is not and so on. This is more of an issue because it points to badly written code more than to a buggy code.


----------



## raott

"Richierich" said:


> I have always wondered it the CEO and other Top Management have DVRs at their homes and then don't the experience the same Sluggishness as some of us do and then why wouldn't they direct their IT People to speed the DVR up.
> 
> My HR24-500s are Fast but what Puzzles me is that some complain about their HR24-500s and if it was Bad Code then I would have Sluggishness.
> 
> I can understand if they have another Model HR24 such as an HR24-100 as that Model has a Different Chipset than the HR24-500 and that may make a difference.
> 
> I have heard from a "Little Birdie" that has known a lot of things in the past and he had told me that very shortly there will be a FIX for the Sluggishness so I will just wait and see if hid Prediction comes True. Apparently, he is Testing it right now and says it will Fix the Problem.
> 
> We'll See If He Is Correct (he has been in the Past).


There are hundreds of variables within the code itself that could cause your HR24s to not exhibit issues while others do, all related to poor coding. Are you using double play, networked, rebooting weekly for CEs, using Apps etc.

I hope your birdy is right, but it's a song I've heard before. The HDGUI was suppose to be the panacea for speedy DVRs and it has been a debacle.


----------



## Richierich

raott said:


> There are hundreds of variables within the code itself that could cause your HR24s to not exhibit issues while others do, all related to poor coding. Are you using double play, networked, rebooting weekly for CEs, using Apps etc.


I do not use DoublePlay as I found when it first came out it slowed down my DVR.

I am Networked with MRV or WHDVR Service. I do not Reboot weekly as I have not been able to participate in the CE Program for over 3 months now.

I also do not use Apps because I have found that it also Slows down my DVR so maybe I am doing some things the right way to avoid having my DVR Slow Down.

After all I just want the DVR to do what it was originally designed to do which is to allow me to select a channel, view a Guide or a Playlist, be able to Record a Broadcast, etc.

I do Not need DoublePlay, Apps, Widgets, etc. I just want to be able to watch TV, Record Programs, Change the Channel and Select Recordings to Watch.


----------



## Wilhite

Richierich said:


> I have heard from a "Little Birdie" that has known a lot of things in the past and he had told me that very shortly there will be a FIX for the Sluggishness so I will just wait and see if hid Prediction comes True. Apparently, he is Testing it right now and says it will Fix the Problem.
> 
> We'll See If He Is Correct (he has been in the Past).


While I will hold out hope that this is the case, I'm afraid that it's going to be more lipstick on a pig.

The HR20-700 was introduced in August of 2006. That means that we are going on 6 years for a piece of equipment now.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=61862

The units that came after the HR20 are based on that equipment. That piece of equipment wasn't meant to play songs and videos and pictures from external sources and run apps and do all the other stuff that has been crammed into it. It was designed with pretty much the sole intention of recording and playing content from a satellite - primarily video content. Asking it to do all the additional stuff that has been thrown at it is asking too much. It's a woefully underpowered computer.

The new GUI was supposed to resolve the sluggishness. In the final analysis, it would appear that isn't the case. They have had several opportunities to get it done and haven't had any success in doing so. That would tend to indicate that they aren't going to be able to do so within the parameters that they have to work in currently.

The solution for these problems is going to be a new hardware platform. Is the HR34 that platform? Can DirecTV afford to make the investment to upgrade everyone to that new platform? If they can, will they?

Meanwhile, many of us are stuck with not being able to successfully and consistently change the channel on our receivers - a basic function that we shouldn't even have to think about.


----------



## Bamasat

Wilhite said:


> While I will hold out hope that this is the case, I'm afraid that it's going to be more lipstick on a pig.
> 
> The HR20-700 was introduced in August of 2006. That means that we are going on 6 years for a piece of equipment now.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=61862
> 
> The units that came after the HR20 are based on that equipment. That piece of equipment wasn't meant to play songs and videos and pictures from external sources and run apps and do all the other stuff that has been crammed into it. It was designed with pretty much the sole intention of recording and playing content from a satellite - primarily video content. Asking it to do all the additional stuff that has been thrown at it is asking too much. It's a woefully underpowered computer.
> 
> The new GUI was supposed to resolve the sluggishness. In the final analysis, it would appear that isn't the case. They have had several opportunities to get it done and haven't had any success in doing so. That would tend to indicate that they aren't going to be able to do so within the parameters that they have to work in currently.
> 
> The solution for these problems is going to be a new hardware platform. Is the HR34 that platform? Can DirecTV afford to make the investment to upgrade everyone to that new platform? If they can, will they?
> 
> Meanwhile, many of us are stuck with not being able to successfully and consistently change the channel on our receivers - a basic function that we shouldn't even have to think about.


Perfect post!

But and for starters,
Read around this site.
24/34's are Not a solidified cure to anything.


----------



## Richierich

Wilhite said:


> While I will hold out hope that this is the case, I'm afraid that it's going to be more lipstick on a pig.


I Actually Think the Pig Looks Pretty Good With Lipstick!!! :lol:

And there are two sources who have told me that the Fix is currently being successfully Tested and that Soon we will have a Final Fix to the Problem of Sluggishness so I will be Patient and wait to see if it holds out to be True.

In the meantime, I will Not Use DoublePlay, Apps, Widgets or anything else that this DVR was not originally intended to do as I believe all of the DVRs except the HR24s are Underpowered and need More RAM. 

Thank God my 5 HR24-500s work Reliably and Fast with No Problems at all. I must have Better Firmware on mine than the others who are experiencing problems. :lol:


----------



## allenn

Wilhite said:


> ..........Meanwhile, many of us are stuck with not being able to successfully and consistently change the channel on our receivers - a basic function that we shouldn't even have to think about.


Changing channels and deleting programs are variable optional features on my HR24s. The event may or may not occur, and if it does, it will be slow in execution. I am glad to hear, at least, the channel change is supposed to be a basic function. Thanks and have a great day!


----------



## gsanta

Do we have any new information on the possible fix?


----------



## jkaetz

gsanta said:


> Do we have any new information on the possible fix?


I wouldn't hold my breath. They've had six years to fix them and it hasn't happened yet. Your only options are to buy HRx4-xxx units from amazon, solid signal, or another place that acknowledges the difference between HR units, leave dtv, or live with it...


----------



## Racer88

jkaetz said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath. They've had six years to fix them and it hasn't happened yet. Your only options are to buy HRx4-xxx units from amazon, solid signal, or another place that acknowledges the difference between HR units, leave dtv, or live with it...


Yeah no kidding. It isn't like this is something that just appeared out of the blue. It's been slowly but surely worsening throughout entire lifespan of every model ever made. It's only just been recently amplified exponetially with the introduction of the HD GUI. The 24's probably have an improvement in hardware that helped counteract the never ending supply of crap code being churned out, but even they are being brought to their knees now.

...and AGAIN not seeing any complaints with the speed of THR22's so the hardware is not the limitation. It's DTV's code monkey department failing to write efficient code for the available hardware.


----------



## CrestronPro

As a long time loyal DirecTV subscriber, I hate to say this, but I am seriously considering the jump to Comcast. All I want my DVR to do is change channels, record programs, let me play them back, and then delete them when I am done. I would never have thought this was too much to expect out of my HR21-700's, but apparently so.


----------



## Podkayne

We're looking to change also, just gathering information for now. We might go with a middle level cable with HD upgrade, 10 MB/s internet and home phone pkg for $90...we're currently paying $152 for those services from D* and the local Bell. I could be talked out of it, though, if D* would just replace my ridiculously slow HR 20-100 but they say "slowness" is not a reason to replace equipment. Sorry to say, but the likelihood is now quite high that I'll be replacing them after 17 1/2 years. Evidently being "new" is worth way more than being "loyal".


----------



## pogo

Because speed clearly isn't a priority. HDGUI is. We really needed that.


----------



## dpeters11

I truly think the HD GUI is only the surface. I personally think a lot happened underneath that was needed for things to come. We just see the visible bits. I have no inside knowledge, but a guess.


----------



## sregener

I don't know the reasons why. I do know that DirecTV saddled me to a 2-year commitment to an HR22 just over two years ago. I wish they had a few channels I watch in HD, but honestly, the deal-breaker is the slow DVR. I considered an HR24, but reading that they are now as slow, I started looking elsewhere. My Dish Network Hopper gets installed this weekend, and it is good-bye to this problem. I won't mince words when I call DirecTV to cancel service, either. 

For me, the slow channel change isn't an annoyance - it is a significant problem. I shouldn't have to send my young children away so I can start their program and avoid having them see whatever is on TLC (Baby Story, I'm looking at you!) or whatever channel the DVR was on last. I should be able to start their program within 5 seconds, not the 30-60 it routinely takes (longer if the DVR is busy recording something at the same time.)

If I was a lawyer, I would sue them for false advertising for charging me $8/month for an "advanced" receiver. The only thing advanced about this DVR is the length of time it takes to do anything.


----------



## beer_geek

This is starting to spill over to other boards. I'm on a football board that has people blaming the "black theme". They don't even know it's HD. They just know it is slow.


----------



## JonW

beer_geek said:


> This is starting to spill over to other boards. I'm on a football board that has people blaming the "black theme". They don't even know it's HD. They just know it is slow.


Understandable. The old UI filled a 16:9 screen and displayed/looked fine regardless of whether you were watching in 480i or 1080p.

It's not like they can squeeze a lot more information on the display, because people won't be able to read it, and it's not like they had the problem SD UI's on other DVRs had where they weren't using the entire screen.

Of course the name of the game is signing up new subscribers... and they probably needed a "HD GUI" just so they wouldn't get mocked for not having one in national advertising.


----------



## HoTat2

JonW said:


> Understandable. The old UI filled a 16:9 screen and displayed/looked fine regardless of whether you were watching in *480i* or 1080p ...


I don't recall the old SD-GUI being able to fill an entire 16:9 screen on an SD channel without resorting to stretch-o-vision on the program video at the same time.

Whereas the receiver settings can be configured for the new HD-GUI to fill a 16:9 screen while simultaneously maintaining a correct 4:3 ratio for the picture on an SD channel.

See the post here for instance;

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2960614#post2960614


----------



## JonW

HoTat2 said:


> I don't recall the old SD-GUI being able to fill an entire 16:9 screen on an SD channel without resorting to stretch-o-vision on the program video at the same time.
> 
> Whereas the receiver settings can be configured for the new HD-GUI to fill a 16:9 screen while simultaneously maintaining a correct 4:3 ratio for the picture on an SD channel.
> 
> See the post here for instance;
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2960614#post2960614


I use native output, so I never would have noticed.


----------



## TomCat

One of the "solutions" suggested by DTV was to turn scrolling features off. I found that laughable at best.

But I tried it anyway, and while it does not speed things up, it _feels_ like it does; it gives you the _impression_ that it is responding faster. It certainly takes a lot of the drudgery out of scrolling through 400 hours or recordings looking for that one _Leverage_ ep you've been saving since 2011.

I thought it would be worthless, but I find it to be an improvement, even if its only a perception rather than a reality. Who knew?


----------



## Plasman

I just want to put in 3 numbers and have the receiver reliably change to that channel on the first try. Lately, that seems like too much to ask for.

I am a huge D* supporter and faithful customer, but they must fix this and soon.


----------



## Richierich

In the meantime until they get it fixed have you tried Hitting the Info Button, then Enter the Channel Number and then Hit the Exit Button?

That is what I did a long time ago when I experience Sluggishness while using DoublePlay and it works as a Great Workaround until the Fix comes along.


----------



## gsanta

Ill try Hitting the Info Button, then Enter the Channel Number and then Hitting the Exit Button.

I thought this would be straightened out by now. I thought fixes were being tested successfully a while ago.


----------



## Richierich

gsanta said:


> Ill try Hitting the Info Button, then Enter the Channel Number and then Hitting the Exit Button.
> 
> I thought this would be straightened out by now. I thought fixes were being tested successfully a while ago.


Directv is working Feverishly on it and hopefully this Next National Release will GitRDone!!!


----------



## skyboysea

Richierich said:


> Directv is working Feverishly on it and hopefully this Next National Release will GitRDone!!!


The next NR is already out and doesn't fix the problem. If possible, the remote response is even worse now and introduce some additional issues. After just two days it is too early to say if it does anything to fix the UI but on my HR20 clicking the list button and start viewing the first program in the list takes about 15 seconds.

Maybe "next NR" is the new "soon".


----------



## Richierich

skyboysea said:


> The next NR is already out and doesn't fix the problem.
> Maybe "next NR" is the new "soon".


Sorry to hear that as I have been assured that it would help most people out there with Problems of Sluggishness.

I guess I will be switching to Dish!!!

Oh wait, my 5 HR24-500s are working Perfectly so I guess I will Upgrade my 2 other HR23-700s to HR24-500s and be done with it!!! 

I hate that Word SOON!!!


----------



## sigma1914

Richierich said:


> Sorry to hear that as I have been assured that it would help most people out there with Problems of Sluggishness.
> 
> I guess I will be switching to Dish!!!
> 
> Oh wait, my 5 HR24-500s are working Perfectly so I guess I will Upgrade my 2 other HR23-700s to HR24-500s and be done with it!!!
> 
> I hate that Word SOON!!!


Can you buy me a HR34 (leased is fine) while you're at it?  My post of the day reward? :lol:


----------



## allenn

What happens when you play Call of Duty on a $100 PC? Answer: nothing or run extremely slow! You want to play the game; then you have to pay the price. The new video games require fast GPUs and a lot of memory. The HR20-23s do not have enough processing power or memory to run the functions and graphics. I suggest the HR24 and HR34 have more power, and therefore fewer problems. Future boxes will improve at a price. My two cents. Best wishes!


----------



## jes

allenn said:


> What happens when you play Call of Duty on a $100 PC? Answer: nothing or run extremely slow! You want to play the game; then you have to pay the price. The new video games require fast GPUs and a lot of memory. The HR20-23s do not have enough processing power or memory to run the functions and graphics. I suggest the HR24 and HR34 have more power, and therefore fewer problems. Future boxes will improve at a price. My two cents. Best wishes!


I'm sure the HR20-23s have plenty of HP for _efficient_ code... We're not running graphics intense video games or 3D design here. You want the HR2Xs to run fast, optimize the code... The task is still to control a DVR with built in Satellite receiver.  The best example of code efficiency is take an old sluggish Windoze XP computer, install Linux w/X windows and you've suddenly got a very usable machine  The latest NR (0x5c8) just emphasized the problem. Things that used to work OK, are now broken on (my) HR20s. The hardware didn't suddenly become short on processing power.


----------



## Red Orc

My DVR lately keeps seizing up. It will not respond to the remote and it will not respond to the front panel buttons. The only way to get it to start working again is to either unplug it or to hit the reset button. It does this at least two times a week.
A lot of people make fun of Comcast's DVR's but I don't remember my Comcast DVR _ever_ being as slow as this DV DVR is. I never had a problem with it seizing up and not responding to anything either.

About ten years ago I had a Panasonic DVR that had a hard drive in it. That DVR was _*WAY*_ faster than my DTV DVR.


----------



## Red Orc

Rich said:


> It's hard to understand why they make the decisions they do. I guess all this extraneous crap does make for good advertising. Must, or why would they do these things?
> 
> Rich


Maybe they're just stupid?


----------



## Barry in Conyers

jes said:


> I'm sure the HR20-23s have plenty of HP for _efficient_ code... We're not running graphics intense video games or 3D design here. You want the HR2Xs to run fast, optimize the code... The task is still to control a DVR with built in Satellite receiver.  The best example of code efficiency is take an old sluggish Windoze XP computer, install Linux w/X windows and you've suddenly got a very usable machine  The latest NR (0x5c8) just emphasized the problem. Things that used to work OK, are now broken on (my) HR20s. The hardware didn't suddenly become short on processing power.


*+1,000,000!*


----------



## Racer88

jes said:


> I'm sure the HR20-23s have plenty of HP for _efficient_ code... We're not running graphics intense video games or 3D design here. You want the HR2Xs to run fast, optimize the code... The task is still to control a DVR with built in Satellite receiver.  The best example of code efficiency is take an old sluggish Windoze XP computer, install Linux w/X windows and you've suddenly got a very usable machine  The latest NR (0x5c8) just emphasized the problem. Things that used to work OK, are now broken on (my) HR20s. The hardware didn't suddenly become short on processing power.


No kidding. Equating gigabytes of gaming code to a few megabytes of DVR code is about as assinine of an analogy as it gets. :nono2:
The hardware is fine. The Tivo OS runs just fine on the same hardware. The series 3 Tivo hardware specs are essentially the same too.

THE PROBLEM IS THE INCOMPETANT IDIOTS THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SOFTWARE! (from the top to down)


----------



## allenn

jes said:


> We're not running graphics intense video games or 3D design here.......Things that used to work OK, are now broken on (my) HR20s. The hardware didn't suddenly become short on processing power.


True! The Linux OS running on the HR DVRs is very efficient, but it can only do so much with the existing processor, GPU, and memory. To maintain processing speed when functions are added, you can streamline the code to some degree; but ultimately a faster processor, gpu and more memory must be installed to handle the added functions and / or increased processing demand. 1080p resolution, 3D, HD-UI, SWiM, DECA and VOD were not available when the HR20 was introduced. D* now offers these programming options. A PC designed to run Pong, Mario, or Sonic video games would not be able to run any of todays video games no matter how great the OS or application code.



Racer88 said:


> No kidding. Equating gigabytes of gaming code to a few megabytes of DVR code is about as *assinine* of an analogy as it gets. :nono2:
> The hardware is fine.......THE PROBLEM IS THE INCOMPETANT IDIOTS THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SOFTWARE! (from the top to down)


I am sorry you find it necessary to suggest my idea is extremely or utterly foolish. Since you don't like my video game analogy, would the iPhone 3 versus the iPhone4s or iPad versus the New iPad work for you? What did Apple change between the iPhone3 and the 4s? Bingo! Apple changed the processor, gpu, and memory. Funny how that works! Apple added functionality to iOS. In many ways they are not unlike the new functions D* added between the intro of the HR20 and the HR34.

I do not know if the D* IT persons are idots. I do not know your credentials or expertise regarding IT, application design, programming, network design, electrical engineering, so I will reframe from suggesting you are not qualified to judge any of the D* Techs or any matters regarding hardware or programming. So you know whom you are belittling, I have a P.H.D. (Electrical Engineering GA Tech.); 45 years in IT; international consulting (Switzerland, England, and Germany); financial / investment systems design; banking application design, and proficient in programming JAVA, C, C++, C#, ALP, Fortran, RPGII, and COBOL. I have subscribed to D* for 18 years. May I suggest you find a way of getting your point across without stepping on someone elses.

Best wishes!


----------



## sigma1914

Racer88 said:


> No kidding. Equating gigabytes of gaming code to a few megabytes of DVR code is about as assinine of an analogy as it gets. :nono2:
> The hardware is fine. The Tivo OS runs just fine on the same hardware. The series 3 Tivo hardware specs are essentially the same too.
> 
> THE PROBLEM IS THE INCOMPETANT IDIOTS THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SOFTWARE! (from the top to down)


Since you're such an expert... http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/careers

Also, the words are "asinine" & "incompet*e*nt," and "from the top to down" doesn't make sense. The reason I point those out is due to you referring to others as idiots.


----------



## Richierich

jes said:


> I'm sure the HR20-23s have plenty of HP for _efficient_ code... We're not running graphics intense video games or 3D design here. You want the HR2Xs to run fast, optimize the code... The task is still to control a DVR with built in Satellite receiver.  The best example of code efficiency is take an old sluggish Windoze XP computer, install Linux w/X windows and you've suddenly got a very usable machine  The latest NR (0x5c8) just emphasized the problem. Things that used to work OK, are now broken on (my) HR20s. The hardware didn't suddenly become short on processing power.


Your Post then Begs the Question, Why do all 5 of my HR24-500s all work Fast without any Problems whatsoever other than Slow Channel Changing which is caused by the HDMI Handshake and not Bad Inefficient Code???

What is the Difference in that and my 2 HR23-700s?

They have a Faster CPU Processor and MORE RAM and I have installed a Faster Hard Drive with a Larger Cache, so Go Figure it out for yourself!!!

Also, the longest Process in a Computer is the Paging Process where the CPU has to wait for chunks of data to be delivered so the CPU can process that data. It can only do so many other Multitasks as it waits for that data so a Larger Cache reduces the amount of paging that has to take place by Paging in Larger Chunks of Data to work with.

Also, they added MRV (WHDVR Service), Apps, DoublePlay, etc. so all of these Tasks are Slowing down the CPU as it is trying to do to many things with too little resources.


----------



## dsw2112

Richierich said:


> They have a Faster CPU Processor and MORE RAM and I have installed a Faster Hard Drive with a Larger Cache, so Go Figure it out for yourself!!!


What would your explanation be for the new DirecTivo? It runs on HR22 hardware.

The point is that it's not merely one thing. While a faster processor and additional RAM indeed improve things, that is not the sole problem here. I believe you mentioned knowing someone at D* who said a solution was in the works. If that's true, then that same person could probably tell you that their plan of attack is not to install more RAM and a different CPU in older receivers. In the end, the hardware can't be "undersized" if not everyone is encountering the issues, and a separate company can use the platform without the same concerns.


----------



## veryoldschool

allenn said:


> True! The Linux OS running on the HR DVRs is very efficient, but it can only do so much with the existing processor, GPU, and memory. To maintain processing speed when functions are added, you can streamline the code to some degree; but ultimately a faster processor, gpu and more memory must be installed to handle the added functions and / or increased processing demand. 1080p resolution, 3D, HD-UI, SWiM, DECA and VOD were not available when the HR20 was introduced. D* now offers these programming options.


While I understand your point, you haven't had any reference to the dedicated chips the receivers have to handle this workload, so it isn't quite "apples to apples" to compare a PC running video games.
1080p is handled by the GPU.
3D isn't handled by the GPU in the H/HR20, so it isn't an option.
SWiM isn't loading the CPU, as it too is being handled by the tuners.
DECA is handled by a separate chip and is just part of the networking.
VOD, and any loading it might cause would only come into play when downloading.
The HD GUI hadn't bogged down my HR20 last fall, before it was retired.
The H/HR21-23 do have a slower bus speed to their memory, than the HR20. 
This caused a slightly slower reaction/response from my HR21, than the HR20, but was minor, though there.


----------



## lparsons21

Richierich said:


> Also, they added MRV (WHDVR Service), Apps, DoublePlay, etc. so all of these Tasks are Slowing down the CPU as it is trying to do to many things with too little resources.


Good point! 

But then before they had any of those things, the HRs previous to the HR24 were already having speed and remote response issues, which begs the question 'if the equipment was seemingly underpowered then, why add more for it to do?'

The simple and obvious answer was that it was cheaper to do and gave them a marketing edge at our expense.

Meanwhile the competition didn't bring out MRV on old boxes, instead choosing to come up with a new system that is very quick and performs quite well from all reports. Sure, some issues with new gear as you would expect, none of them affecting the speed of operation or responding to the remote and with some limitations built in.

Which was the better path? We don't know yet, but I'm betting the new box approach is very much more in favor of the user than patching older equipment has turned out to be.

With D* HRs, a more full HD causes slowdowns from reports here. Yet with E* that doesn't seem to be an issue. With D* adding Double Play is not only a kludge, but it affected performance, yet E*'s Vip series has had dual live buffers all along.

Got to make you wonder...


----------



## Richierich

dsw2112 said:


> What would your explanation be for the new DirecTivo? It runs on HR22 hardware.
> 
> The point is that it's not merely one thing. While a faster processor and additional RAM indeed improve things, that is not the sole problem here. I believe you mentioned knowing someone at D* who said a solution was in the works. If that's true, then that same person could probably tell you that their plan of attack is not to install more RAM and a different CPU in older receivers. In the end, the hardware can't be "undersized" if not everyone is encountering the issues, and a separate company can use the platform without the same concerns.


What puzzles me is that all 5 of my HR24-500s are Fast and Reliable not just 1 or 2 or 3 but all of them while others Report that their HR24s are Sluggish while running the same Software on the same Platform.

The only difference is that I have installed 2 TB WD20EADS Drives in them which are Faster and have a Larger Cache.

So maybe that is helping my situation and could be an answer along with trying to rewrite the code in a more efficient manner.


----------



## veryoldschool

lparsons21 said:


> Good point!
> 
> But then before they had any of those things, the HRs previous to the HR24 were already having speed and remote response issues, which begs the question 'if the equipment was seemingly underpowered then, why add more for it to do?'


While some may have had problems back then, I'm not sure is was as widespread as you suggest.


----------



## veryoldschool

Richierich said:


> What puzzles me is that all 5 of my HR24-500s are Fast and Reliable not just 1 or 2 or 3 but all of them while others Report that their HR24s are Sluggish while running the same Software on the same Platform.


We all seem to have difference viewing habits which may come into play.
I too have been puzzled with a friend who has a HR24 and was needing to reboot it every two weeks as it would bog down and finally come to a point where it stopped responding. This is a completely stock setup, with very few recordings/series links, so almost all viewing was basically live TV, with no doubleplay being used, and maybe just some pausing of the live TV.


----------



## lparsons21

veryoldschool said:


> While some may have had problems back then, I'm not sure is was as widespread as you suggest.


You may not be sure, but the polling done a few years back indicates that it certainly was an issue. And unfortunately the speed and remote response issues show up with all too much regularity.


----------



## veryoldschool

lparsons21 said:


> You may not be sure, but the polling done a few years back indicates that it certainly was an issue. And unfortunately the speed and remote response issues show up with all too much regularity.


You've got to love "the polls". :lol:
Those who have problems vote and those that don't have problems don't bother.
I'm not trying to deny some have problems. 
It's just not known what the real percentages are.
Had I never had any problems, I wouldn't have come to this and other websites, which suggests there's a bias from the start for any poll here or on another website, as they wouldn't [by nature] include everyone not having problems equally.


----------



## Richierich

veryoldschool said:


> We all seem to have difference viewing habits which may come into play.
> I too have been puzzled with a friend who has a HR24 and was needing to reboot it every two weeks as it would bog down and finally come to a point where it stopped responding. This is a completely stock setup, with very few recordings/series links, so almost all viewing was basically live TV, with no doubleplay being used, and maybe just some pausing of the live TV.


It's as if Memory is Not being Freed Up and a Reboot Frees up that Memory which is really not being used but tied up and Released.

My PC works the same way as it Slows Down and I Reboot it and it goes back to being Fast.

However, all 5 of mine don't even Bog Down or exhibit any problems whatsoever other than Slow when Changing Channels (I don't surf or watch much Live TV so I could care less about that) which is due to the HDMI Handshake.


----------



## lparsons21

Richierich said:


> It's as if Memory is Not being Freed Up and a Reboot Frees up that Memory which is really not being used but tied up and Released.
> 
> My PC works the same way as it Slows Down and I Reboot it and it goes back to being Fast.
> 
> However, all 5 of mine don't even Bog Down or exhibit any problems whatsoever other than Slow when Changing Channels (I don't surf or watch much Live TV so I could care less about that) which is due to the HDMI Handshake.


You need a better PC!!  My iMac hasn't been restarted at all except when I go on a trip or have applied an update requiring a restart.

As to your operation of HRs, well I'm glad your glad! I'm of a different opinion.


----------



## BBM3

I did the NVRAM flash clear on two previously very slow HR21-700's the other day and it made them quick again which suggests to me memory management is at least part of the problem.

NVRAM Flash Clear:
Tune to Chanel 1, Red, Red, Blue, Blue, Yellow, Green


----------



## kosh56

veryoldschool said:


> You've got to love "the polls". :lol:
> Those who have problems vote and those that don't have problems don't bother.
> I'm not trying to deny some have problems.
> It's just not known what the real percentages are.
> Had I never had any problems, I wouldn't have come to this and other websites, which suggests there's a bias from the start for any poll here or on another website, as they wouldn't [by nature] include everyone not having problems equally.


It has been a very real problem for many of us for a long time. I have had consistent speed problems on my HR-20 and HR-21 since late 2008.
I was this close to tossing the HR-21 out the window. It was unusable. Since then, the HR-21 has actually become faster than my HR-20. There is no rhyme or reason and I have tried EVERY SINGLE tip posted to these forums. 
I find it odd that people didn't start seeing problems until the HD GUI because I have had them for years.

I am very tempted to pull the trigger on the HR34/HR24, but I don't want to get screwed by D* again so I'm holding off until they get their act together. If they can't then I'm off to greener pastures. 3+ years is way too long.


----------



## kosh56

Richierich said:


> It's as if Memory is Not being Freed Up and a Reboot Frees up that Memory which is really not being used but tied up and Released.
> 
> My PC works the same way as it Slows Down and I Reboot it and it goes back to being Fast.
> 
> However, all 5 of mine don't even Bog Down or exhibit any problems whatsoever other than Slow when Changing Channels (I don't surf or watch much Live TV so I could care less about that) which is due to the HDMI Handshake.





lparsons21 said:


> You need a better PC!!  My iMac hasn't been restarted at all except when I go on a trip or have applied an update requiring a restart.
> 
> As to your operation of HRs, well I'm glad your glad! I'm of a different opinion.


That's just it! It's not the computer. Components don't just slow down. Inefficient and poorly written software will continue to consume resources until a reboot is required. The more RAM and faster processor will only help delay or mask the problem.


----------



## Richierich

kosh56 said:


> That's just it! It's not the computer. Components don't just slow down. Inefficient and poorly written software will continue to consume resources until a reboot is required. The more RAM and faster processor will only help delay or mask the problem.


But I don't have to ever Reboot my HR24-500s and they continue to run Fast without any Problems and I am running the same Software as those who are experiencing Slowness or Sluggishness, so it can't be the Code.

The only thing I have done different than others is the Replacement of my Hard Drive with one that is Faster and has a Larger Cache which reduces the Paging Process which is the Slowest Process of a PC.


----------



## lparsons21

Richierich said:


> The only thing I have done different than others is the Replacement of my Hard Drive with one that is Faster and has a Larger Cache which reduces the Paging Process which is the Slowest Process of a PC.


IOW, if you add new hardware to them, they will perform properly. Pretty damning of the hard drive selection D* made when they put these things together, isn't it?

And that again points to the problem of expecting a software fix to actually fix a hardware deficiency very well too.

Couple those two with the history of software developement with D* and it paints a not so pretty picture.


----------



## cypherx

My experience is that the DVR's are much slower than the non-dvr's. For example my HR24-200 is MUCH slower than an H24-200, and its maybe slightly slower if not the same as my H21-100.

I do think the HDGUI did improve things, especially scrolling the guide. There's still room for improvement. 59e or whatever the last NR was made things slower. In fact a buddy of mine has an HR24-500 and his box was MUCH slower than my HR24-200. I even did the NVRAM clear for him and changed the scrolling option. I have the 58c or 5c8 (forget exactly) but its the new NR that is slowly rolling out in the early morning hours. I think this version is a little better than the last - especially scrolling through the playlist. There are still some delays bringing up menus and exiting. I almost wonder if that would be masked if there was some sort of feedback. Like the screen fade in and out. The transition effect would be an indication that the button was accepted and you are "on your way" to that screen. Whatever takes 5 seconds to bring up the menu , list or guide could be prefetching or loading while that transition effect is taking place.

What is the CPU again in the HR24's? Is it this one?
http://www.nxp.com/documents/data_sheet/PNX15XX_PNX952X_SER_N.pdf
That is a really good in depth data sheet with pinouts, signal traces and everything. Worth a look if your into that sort of nitty gritty.


----------



## Richierich

The Chipset used in the HR24-500 is NXP (I believe but I am not 100% sure) and not Broadcom which is used in the other HR24 Models.


----------



## Rich

skyboysea said:


> The next NR is already out and doesn't fix the problem. If possible, the remote response is even worse now and introduce some additional issues. After just two days it is too early to say if it does anything to fix the UI but on my *HR20* clicking the list button and start viewing the first program in the list takes about 15 seconds.
> 
> Maybe "next NR" is the new "soon".


One can only wonder which HR20 you have....:nono2:

Rich


----------



## Richierich

lparsons21 said:


> IOW, if you add new hardware to them, they will perform properly. Pretty damning of the hard drive selection D* made when they put these things together, isn't it?


What does IOW stand for?


----------



## Richierich

skyboysea said:


> The next NR is already out and doesn't fix the problem.


Well, you have to wait more than 48 hours for the DVR to finish Sorting and Indexing the Guide Data for it to then respond as fast as it should going forward.

You can not expect the Speed to be the same as soon as you have the Software Downloaded then it will be 3 days after the Download when all of the Housekeeping Activities are finished.


----------



## Rich

Red Orc said:


> Maybe they're just stupid?


I just dunno. I see no rhyme or reason to the things they do. Logic tells me they can't be stupid and be as successful as they are. Of course, logic told me the same thing about NetFlix.

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> IOW, if you add new hardware to them, they will perform properly. Pretty damning of the hard drive selection D* made when they put these things together, isn't it?
> 
> And that again points to the problem of expecting a software fix to actually fix a hardware deficiency very well too.
> 
> Couple those two with the history of software developement with D* and it paints a not so pretty picture.


We've known for years that the HRs will run better with a large internal drive as opposed to the paltry stock drive.

Rich


----------



## Rich

cypherx said:


> My experience is that the DVR's are much slower than the non-dvr's. For example my HR24-200 is MUCH slower than an H24-200, and its maybe slightly slower if not the same as my H21-100.
> 
> I do think the HDGUI did improve things, especially scrolling the guide. There's still room for improvement. 59e or whatever the last NR was made things slower. In fact a buddy of mine has an HR24-500 and his box was MUCH slower than my HR24-200. I even did the NVRAM clear for him and changed the scrolling option. I have the 58c or 5c8 (forget exactly) but its the new NR that is slowly rolling out in the early morning hours. I think this version is a little better than the last - especially scrolling through the playlist. There are still some delays bringing up menus and exiting. I almost wonder if that would be masked if there was some sort of feedback. Like the screen fade in and out. The transition effect would be an indication that the button was accepted and you are "on your way" to that screen. Whatever takes 5 seconds to bring up the menu , list or guide could be prefetching or loading while that transition effect is taking place.


Could you all take a moment and read this post by *cypherx*? Note how he gives the full model number of each of his HRs. Is that so hard? Believe me, it makes a difference which model you're using. Lumping them all together as "slow" is bordering on the ridiculous.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Richierich said:


> What does IOW stand for?


In other words.


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> We've known for years that the HRs will run better with a large internal drive as opposed to the paltry stock drive.
> 
> Rich


So then we're stuck with poor design decisions on D*'s part since opening the box and replacing the drive is a no-no according to D*. Or we can just do it and hope they don't catch it when you send that box back after a failure and you forgot to switch drives back? Or notice that the box has been tampered with?

Again, pretty damning of D*'s design and support decisions. That is sad.

And no, not all of us knew that changing out the poorly spec'd drive with a much better one was the fix. I suspect that most D* subscribers aren't aware of that either. 'we' assumed that D* was designing a box properly. Seems we were all wrong.


----------



## bpratt

lparsons21 said:


> So then we're stuck with poor design decisions on D*'s part since opening the box and replacing the drive is a no-no according to D*. Or we can just do it and hope they don't catch it when you send that box back after a failure and you forgot to switch drives back? Or notice that the box has been tampered with?
> 
> Again, pretty damning of D*'s design and support decisions. That is sad.
> 
> And no, not all of us knew that changing out the poorly spec'd drive with a much better one was the fix. I suspect that most D* subscribers aren't aware of that either. 'we' assumed that D* was designing a box properly. Seems we were all wrong.


I don't think D* original design was bad since Tivo is able to run on a HR22 with no problems. I think that D* has added so much crap to their original design that is has driven the paging rate up and caused bad performance. The best fix for a high paging rate is to add more memory but since that is not possible, a faster disk drive will help the problem.
D* needs to either make all these so called features optional so we can turn them off or provide us with a new larger more powerful DVR that will run all the crap they have added.


----------



## cypherx

I don't think a feature causes the system to be slow. If you don't use media share, pandora or YouTube, they are not taking processor cycles.

I'm curious when they are going to fix the slow performance you get if you launch TVApps on a Scoreguide enabled channel. That was also a problem in the SDUI. I believe Scoreguide, TVApps, active and game lounge are a part of NDS MediaHighway (3rd party). So likely that isn't fixed (or upgraded to HD graphics) because it involves a lot of time an effort with a 3rd party.

Like I said earlier my H24-200 is blazingly fast... But there's no hard drive or DVR functions.


----------



## skyboysea

Richierich said:


> Well, you have to wait more than 48 hours for the DVR to finish Sorting and Indexing the Guide Data for it to then respond as fast as it should going forward.
> 
> You can not expect the Speed to be the same as soon as you have the Software Downloaded then it will be 3 days after the Download when all of the Housekeeping Activities are finished.


I suppose you get that info from the same people who told you the next release is going to be faster. That's just a symptom of poorly written software because anything the receiver needs to do, should be done in the background and shouldn't affect any normal operation.

Since you get so many insider information, mind you telling me why with the new NR when I power up the receiver it outputs 720p despite that resolution being not checked in the display setups?


----------



## Richierich

skyboysea said:


> I suppose you get that info from the same people who told you the next release is going to be faster. That's just a symptom of poorly written software because anything the receiver needs to do, should be done in the background and shouldn't affect any normal operation.
> 
> Since you get so many insider information, mind you telling me why with the new NR when I power up the receiver it outputs 720p despite that resolution being not checked in the display setups?


All I know is I Replaced my Hard Drives in my 5 HR24-500s with Faster 2 TB Drives with a Larger Cache and I have No Problems whatsover so go buy yourself an HR24-500 and Replace the Drive and you are Good To Go.

Perhaps having a Faster Drive with a Larger Cache helps alleviate poor code I don't know but all 5 of mine work Great.

As far as your second situation that is a Bug and it will be fixed shortly.


----------



## Richierich

lparsons21 said:


> So then we're stuck with poor design decisions on D*'s part since opening the box and replacing the drive is a no-no according to D*. Or we can just do it and hope they don't catch it when you send that box back after a failure and you forgot to switch drives back? Or notice that the box has been tampered with?


All I know is that is the only difference between my 5 HR24s and others who are experiencing problems so I am Glad I Replaced my Drives even though I had to pay a lot to do so.


----------



## skyboysea

cypherx said:


> I don't think a feature causes the system to be slow. If you don't use media share, pandora or YouTube, they are not taking processor cycles.


Mediashare use cpu all the time because it always advertise its presence on the network.


----------



## skyboysea

Richierich said:


> All I know is I Replaced my Hard Drives in my 5 HR24-500s with Faster 2 TB Drives with a Larger Cache and I have No Problems whatsover so go buy yourself an HR24-500 and Replace the Drive and you are Good To Go.


 You know, I am not a person who like to count money in other's pocket and I am glad you're well enough that you can afford to pay for 5 HR24 plus 5 2TB drives, but I cannot afford to spend that amount of money. To tell you the truth, even if I had the money wouldn't do it because it is not a solution. As long as Directv is in control of the software and that the quality of the software is so bad, nothing guarantees that the next NR will kill your system too.

I have been with Directv for 8 years, have always paid my bills on time and never asked for anything more than having a basic HD-DVR. I was perfectly happy with the FW I had and can't care less of all their add-ons. They are breaking a well working receiver and I should fix the problem?

I am just looking for the best option out there and then I will say bye-bye to Directv. That's how I will solve the problem.


----------



## Richierich

skyboysea said:


> I am just looking for the best option out there and then I will say bye-bye to Directv. That's how I will solve the problem.


Well, let me be the First to say "BUH-BYE" and I hope you will be Happy wherever you land. 

My point stating that I have 5 HR24-500s is not that I have a lot of money but that all 5 Work Fast and have No Problems other than Slow Channel Changing which is caused by the HDMI Handshake and not by Bad Coded Software.

If 1 or 2 didn't work right I would be curious as to why but all 5 work Flawlessly and Fast.

So maybe if you have 1 HR24-500 you might want to think about replacing the hard drive with a Faster Drive such as I did with a Larger cache.

Just a thought.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> So then we're stuck with poor design decisions on D*'s part since opening the box and replacing the drive is a no-no according to D*. Or we can just do it and hope they don't catch it when you send that box back after a failure and you forgot to switch drives back? Or notice that the box has been tampered with?
> 
> Again, pretty damning of D*'s design and support decisions. That is sad.
> 
> And no, not all of us knew that changing out the poorly spec'd drive with a much better one was the fix. I suspect that most D* subscribers aren't aware of that either. 'we' assumed that D* was designing a box properly. Seems we were all wrong.


Go to Weaknees website and read what you have to go thru if you have them install a large HDD in your HR and it goes bad. You have to return it to Weaknees and have them install the original drive and then send the HR back to you so you can send it to D*. That's because they don't have "permission" to modify the D* HRs or any of their leased DVRs. They just do it. I'm not suggesting anyone violate the terms, but there's an example of how they police their policy of not allowing leased receivers to be opened and modified.

Rich


----------



## n3ntj

My HR22-100 is not connected to the internet, doesn't use Media Share, doesn't use Pandora, etc. and it is very slow and takes forever for the unit to respond to buttons pressed on the RF report control. Been that way for over a year.


----------



## hiker

Has anyone ever tried a SSD in a HR20?


----------



## CCarncross

hiker said:


> Has anyone ever tried a SSD in a HR20?


There have been discussions about it at length. Due to the limited write capabilities and the limited drive sizes currently available, it doesnt make that much sense financially, and the speed wouldnt make a night and day difference in the overall performance of the device.


----------



## hiker

CCarncross said:


> There have been discussions about it at length. Due to the limited write capabilities and the limited drive sizes currently available, it doesnt make that much sense financially, and the speed wouldnt make a night and day difference in the overall performance of the device.


"limited write capabilities"... what's limited about the write of an SSD?
They are getting cheaper every day. I just replaced 2 WinXP PCs drives with Crucial SSDs and I'm very happy so far. I went the route of many stock HR20s (8) instead of a few with large HDDs due to the 2 tuner limit for concurrent recording.

I was wondering if technically a SSD would even work in a HR2x?


----------



## dpeters11

An SSD can only write to each cell a certain number of times, it's inherent in flash memory. I believe the insulation breaks down. Not a big deal usually in a normal computer, not something I'd do in a DVR. Especially if the device doesn't have support for some of the SSD features like TRIM.


----------



## CCarncross

According to newegg.com, 300GB SATAII SSD drives go for over $500...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...E&N=100008118 600136715&IsNodeId=1&name=300GB

Most people feel that 300GB drives in their DVR's are too small already, so go bigger and the price just goes up...

You still ready to try one?


----------



## acostapimps

To me it seems that adding external to receiver is the culprit sometimes especially 2TB full of recordings (even 1TB) to have really slow responses add to that with Youtube,Pandora,Guide PPV Ads,Whole Home,TVApps,Energy Savings, but i guess it depends on the manufacture brands, but like a computer adding thousands of music or videos acts the same way depending on the CPU and VM so try unplugging external and use your DVR internal drive to see the difference if any


----------



## hiker

CCarncross said:


> According to newegg.com, 300GB SATAII SSD drives go for over $500...
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...E&N=100008118 600136715&IsNodeId=1&name=300GB
> 
> Most people feel that 300GB drives in their DVR's are too small already, so go bigger and the price just goes up...
> 
> You still ready to try one?


The larger SSDs are holding at high prices but the 128GB ones have come down 32% since Jan. I think it's a matter of time and they all will be affordable.


Richierich said:


> All I know is I Replaced my Hard Drives in my 5 HR24-500s with Faster 2 TB Drives with a Larger Cache and I have No Problems whatsover so go buy yourself an HR24-500 and Replace the Drive and you are Good To Go.
> 
> Perhaps having a Faster Drive with a Larger Cache helps alleviate poor code I don't know but all 5 of mine work Great.
> 
> As far as your second situation that is a Bug and it will be fixed shortly.


What drives did you use?


----------



## Podkayne

acostapimps said:


> To me it seems that adding external to receiver is the culprit sometimes especially 2TB full of recordings (even 1TB) to have really slow responses add to that with Youtube,Pandora,Guide PPV Ads,Whole Home,TVApps,Energy Savings, but i guess it depends on the manufacture brands, but like a computer adding thousands of music or videos acts the same way depending on the CPU and VM so try unplugging external and use your DVR internal drive to see the difference if any


I have done this with my HR 20-100 and its external 2TB drive...absolutely no effect on slowness of this DVR. I have not yet received the new firmware update so can't comment on how much it may help.


----------



## acostapimps

Podkayne said:


> I have done this with my HR 20-100 and its external 2TB drive...absolutely no effect on slowness of this DVR. I have not yet received the new firmware update so can't comment on how much it may help.


Then the only other solution is NVRAM clear cache on channel 1, let the channel load till audio returns and press Red,Red,Blue,Blue,Yellow,Green on remote till you see the "NVRAM Cleared" message on the bottom of the screen (look carefully as it is hard to see sometimes on white text) or Menu Reset twice to flush the guide data within 30 minutes. good luck


----------



## Podkayne

acostapimps said:


> Then the only other solution is NVRAM clear cache on channel 1, let the channel load till audio returns and press Red,Red,Blue,Blue,Yellow,Green on remote till you see the "NVRAM Cleared" message on the bottom of the screen (look carefully as it is hard to see sometimes on white text) or Menu Reset twice to flush the guide data within 30 minutes. good luck


I do this daily....I'm vigorously trying all the workarounds with this old DVR, but I think it could sure use the latest NR....


----------



## pappasbike

Richierich said:


> All I know is I Replaced my Hard Drives in my 5 HR24-500s with Faster 2 TB Drives with a Larger Cache and I have No Problems whatsover so go buy yourself an HR24-500 and Replace the Drive and you are Good To Go.
> 
> Perhaps having a Faster Drive with a Larger Cache helps alleviate poor code I don't know but all 5 of mine work Great.


We shouldn't have to do any of that. When I first started with DTV I had a Microsoft Ultimate TV that certainly didn't have all the bells and whistles that these do but the basic functions of a dvr worked better than these do. At the time it was the best dvr out there, far better than any Tivo and better than most of what DTV first came out with. My HR 21s are pigs and I'm at the point of eating the cost of whatever one will work better than these. Using these is like being back on dial up for internet service.


----------



## CCarncross

While I agree with most sentiments on the surface, anyone comparing old SD technology to HD tech will always be sorely disappointed when you look at speed and performance of the equipment. HD stuff takes longer, no matter what provider you are with.


----------



## Jon J

CCarncross said:


> While I agree with most sentiments on the surface, anyone comparing old SD technology to HD tech will always be sorely disappointed when you look at speed and performance of the equipment. HD stuff takes longer, no matter what provider you are with.


Congratulations. I believe you have come up with a new excuse...er, explanation.


----------



## veryoldschool

Jon J said:


> Congratulations. I believe you have come up with a new excuse...er, explanation.


My HDTV takes two seconds to tune to a channel off its own antenna.
My SDTV didn't.


----------



## Richierich

CCarncross said:


> While I agree with most sentiments on the surface, anyone comparing old SD technology to HD tech will always be sorely disappointed when you look at speed and performance of the equipment. HD stuff takes longer, no matter what provider you are with.


Also, the HDMI Handshake takes longer and that is why Channel Changing takes so long once the DVR receives the proper channel numbers to change to.


----------



## hasan

Richierich said:


> Also, the HDMI Handshake takes longer and that is why Channel Changing takes so long once the DVR receives the proper channel numbers to change to.


It's one thing to have a predictable short delay so handshaking can take place. It's entirely another matter that the commands are ignored, or take 10 or more seconds to execute, which has become common on my HR20-700, and off and on with my HR21-100 and HR20-100.

There is a very real problem on some (perhaps most) of these boxes, pre 24 series. It is not handshaking, from what I observe.


----------



## Richierich

hasan said:


> It's one thing to have a predictable short delay so handshaking can take place. It's entirely another matter that the commands are ignored, or take 10 or more seconds to execute, which has become common on my HR20-700, and off and on with my HR21-100 and HR20-100.


I stated "once the DVR receives the proper channel numbers", then there is a Delay while waiting for the HDMI Handshake!!!


----------



## hasan

Richierich said:


> I stated "once the DVR receives the proper channel numbers", then there is a Delay while waiting for the HDMI Handshake!!!


Absolutely, yes! I wasn't disagreeing with you, but wanted to emphasize the "real" issue, at least from my experience.


----------



## Podkayne

The latest download has fixed my HR 20 - 100!! 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming......


----------



## kosh56

Podkayne said:


> The latest download has fixed my HR 20 - 100!!
> 
> Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming......


Podkayne, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I have been fooled by the software upgrade before. I'm going to let it run for a week or so before final judgment, but I hope it sticks. Still pretty pokey on my HR20-100, but at least it's usable for now.


----------



## Richierich

kosh56 said:


> Podkayne, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I have been fooled by the software upgrade before. I'm going to let it run for a week or so before final judgment, but I hope it sticks. Still pretty pokey on my HR20-100, but at least it's usable for now.


It will take at least 48 hours before it comes fully up to speed as it takes that long to do the Sorting and Indexing of all the Guide Data along with other Housekeeping Activities which bogs down the CPU until it is done with these Activities.


----------



## patmurphey

CCarncross said:


> While I agree with most sentiments on the surface, anyone comparing old SD technology to HD tech will always be sorely disappointed when you look at speed and performance of the equipment. *HD stuff takes longer*, no matter what provider you are with.


I guess you have no experience with the Hopper/Joey.


----------



## sunking

Richierich said:


> I stated "once the DVR receives the proper channel numbers", then there is a Delay while waiting for the HDMI Handshake!!!


The DVR receives the proper channel numbers instantaneously, unless you are somehow saying that the speed in which IR/RF transmits through the air is changing.


----------



## harsh

sunking said:


> The DVR receives the proper channel numbers instantaneously, unless you are somehow saying that the speed in which IR/RF transmits through the air is changing.


I suggest a different wording: once the DVR acknowledges the channel numbers as having been entered.


----------



## jborchel

sunking said:


> The DVR receives the proper channel numbers instantaneously, unless you are somehow saying that the speed in which IR/RF transmits through the air is changing.


The response speed changed when I converted from RF back to IR. IR is faster on my two DVRs.


----------



## jborchel

Podkayne said:


> The latest download has fixed my HR 20 - 100!!
> 
> Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming......


Is there a list somewhere of the latest firmware versions in order by receiver model?


----------



## allenn

jborchel said:


> Is there a list somewhere of the latest firmware versions in order by receiver model?


The following website may provide the information you are seeking:

H Firmware Watcher

Best wishes!


----------



## lparsons21

Since I've been very vociferous in my complaints about D*'s HRs, I guess it is only fair to also be complimentary to them when they do something that fixes things too.

I got the 0x05c8 update the night before last with the following results.

1. Overall speed - much better, nearly as quick as it was with the SDGUI. Much appreciated.

2. Remote issues - fixed! No slow or no response issues whatsoever

3. Audio glitches - I didn't see them an awful lot before the update, now I don't get them at all. It should be noted that some are having more audio glitches but it is sporadic and doesn't seem widespread.

4. Channel change speed - I was not expecting this to improve, but it has by quite a bit. I have Native On and all but 480i selected as possible resolutions so that my TV can do the upscaling since it does it so much better. So having the HDMI handshake take a bit of time was not considered to be a problem for me. But now that handshaking is happening much quicker and with fewer screen flashes while it does it. Well done!

One thing that has changed is that I used to set the SD channels to 480p Crop Format as that always makes them look better (IMO). I've done that now, but when I switch back to an HD channel it shows either 720p or 1080i (depending on station) in crop format. Doesn't matter as that has zero affect on the picture in HD, just something I noticed.

So kudos to the D* software team or finally getting these issues apparently fixed for me!


----------



## Richierich

Great News Lloyd and that was what my Friends at Directv had told me.

They said that this NR will Fix a lot of Problems particularly the Sluggishness Problems so let's hope it works for everyone on the various Platforms that Directv has out there.


----------



## lparsons21

Richierich said:


> Great News Lloyd and that was what my Friends at Directv had told me.
> 
> They said that this NR will Fix a lot of Problems particularly the Sluggishness Problems so let's hope it works for everyone on the various Platforms that Directv has out there.


Yeah, I really hated that!! 

Now to saute` that crow! :lol:


----------



## Richierich

Richierich said:


> Great News Lloyd and that was what my Friends at Directv had told me.
> 
> They said that this NR will Fix a lot of Problems particularly the Sluggishness Problems so let's hope it works for everyone on the various Platforms that Directv has out there.





lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, I really hated that!!
> 
> Now to saute` that crow! :lol:


Well, I Agree that Directv should have Fixed these Problems of Sluggishness long time ago but sometimes with all of the various Platforms and System Environments it is almost impossible to replicate all possible problems.

At least I have been Assured that they are doing everything possible to Alleviate this Situation with these Problems and hopefully now most of these Problems will be in the Past!!!


----------



## dpeters11

I wonder how many that said they were switching over the speed had done so.


----------



## PlanetBill

hasan said:


> It's one thing to have a predictable short delay so handshaking can take place. It's entirely another matter that the commands are ignored, or take 10 or more seconds to execute, which has become common on my HR20-700, and off and on with my HR21-100 and HR20-100.
> 
> There is a very real problem on some (perhaps most) of these boxes, pre 24 series. It is not handshaking, from what I observe.


My HR20-700 has become the central source of fustration in my house. Push a button - wait - maybe something happens. Used to be a good box. I would rather just have firmware that didn't support all the 'newer' gui and apps and stuff if it can't really support it.

Handshaking can't be the problem, it had to handshake in the past too. Our firmware is optimized for newer hardware, those of us who still have older equipment just have to suffer, payout $$$ or wait for failure.:nono2:


----------



## JeffBowser

I hate to hop in and continue to beat a dead horse, but _*OMG*_, these last two days I am about ready to take a bat and beat the ever-loving crap out of my two HR (21 and 23) boxes and subscribe to no TV at all.


----------



## PlanetBill

It is about at the point I will leave, don't know where I'd go, but it just ain't worth it. Wife gets pissed, then the kids get pissed then I'm pissed.


----------



## reggie

JeffBowser said:


> I am about ready to take a bat and beat the ever-loving crap out of my two HR (21 and 23) boxes and subscribe to no TV at all.


ditto


----------



## Jaspear

JeffBowser said:


> I hate to hop in and continue to beat a dead horse, but _*OMG*_, these last two days I am about ready to take a bat and beat the ever-loving crap out of my two HR (21 and 23) boxes and subscribe to no TV at all.


Exactly the way I felt; I used the same "beat the crap out of it with a bat" words with my old HR23-700. The final straw for me was when they broke the hand shake on a software update a couple of weeks ago. I thought my AVR was defective. When it turned out to be garbage code, I called Dish. I now have two Hoppers. I can't believe how fast they are!


----------



## RACJ2

JeffBowser said:


> I hate to hop in and continue to beat a dead horse, but _*OMG*_, these last two days I am about ready to take a bat and beat the ever-loving crap out of my two HR (21 and 23) boxes and subscribe to no TV at all.


I had that feeling when my HR22 started dying, resetting all the time. The only difference, I was thinking of taking a sledge hammer to it.


----------



## dpeters11

Which firmware are those of you still seeing slowness on?


----------



## JeffBowser

Speaking for myself alone, I'm not playing the firmware game. "Wait until this build", or "The next build will fix it, just you wait", or "it's being worked on". It's always the next build, yet the next build comes, and things improve marginally for a short period, maybe, then regress. For me, I was delighted with the HD GUI, but it was slow before it, and it's even slower now.

I'll get excited when they throw some real processing hardware at the issue and provide a clear way out of decrepit equipment without me having to resort to 3rd party resellers and a do-it-yourself approach (which I had to do with the SWM)



dpeters11 said:


> Which firmware are those of you still seeing slowness on?


----------



## Rich

RACJ2 said:


> I had that feeling when my HR22 started dying, resetting all the time. The only difference, I was thinking of taking a sledge hammer to it.


I beat an MX-1 to death with a sledgehammer a year or two ago, very satisfying. I tried the same thing with a Seagate HDD and didn't make out very well, the damn things are built like tanks. Drilled three big holes in it, that was satisfying too.....:lol:

Rich


----------



## wahooq

> I beat an MX-1 to death with a sledgehammer a year or two ago, very satisfying. I tried the same thing with a Seagate HDD and didn't make out very well, the damn things are built like tanks. Drilled three big holes in it, that was satisfying too.....


This is all reminding me of that scene in Office Space, where the guys beat the crap out of that fax machine....they have to pull the one dude off...hahaha classic


----------



## hasan

JeffBowser said:


> Speaking for myself alone, I'm not playing the firmware game. "Wait until this build", or "The next build will fix it, just you wait", or "it's being worked on". It's always the next build, yet the next build comes, and things improve marginally for a short period, maybe, then regress. For me, I was delighted with the HD GUI, but it was slow before it, and it's even slower now.
> 
> I'll get excited when they throw some real processing hardware at the issue and provide a clear way out of decrepit equipment without me having to resort to 3rd party resellers and a do-it-yourself approach (which I had to do with the SWM)


I'll get excited when:

1. The "latest and greatest fix" applies to the HR20-700, HR21-100 and HR20-100.

2. It actually makes the DVRs tolerable to use, and this "fix" lasts for more than 10 days.

I'm contemplating new hardware (HR34 or HR24), but just can't bring myself to pull the trigger. Part of me resents having to buy new hardware to replace what used to work fine and has been made borderline tedious to use by so-called "upgrades" in the firmware that did little or nothing to fix sluggishness, and appear to have only slowed things down even further (again, intermittently). (that is one long, run on sentence!)

In the mean time, I'm frequently annoyed with the boxes and have pretty much lost my zeal for what used to be pretty impressive equipment. The PQ is still outstanding, but interacting with the equipment has become a fairly predictable pain in the butt.


----------



## JeffBowser

I'm with you.



hasan said:


> I'll get excited when:
> 
> 1. The "latest and greatest fix" applies to the HR20-700, HR21-100 and HR20-100.
> 
> 2. It actually makes the DVRs tolerable to use, and this "fix" lasts for more than 10 days.
> 
> I'm contemplating new hardware (HR34 or HR24), but just can't bring myself to pull the trigger. Part of me resents having to buy new hardware to replace what used to work fine and has been made borderline tedious to use by so-called "upgrades" in the firmware that did little or nothing to fix sluggishness, and appear to have only slowed things down even further (again, intermittently). (that is one long, run on sentence!)
> 
> In the mean time, I'm frequently annoyed with the boxes and have pretty much lost my zeal for what used to be pretty impressive equipment. The PQ is still outstanding, but interacting with the equipment has become a fairly predictable pain in the butt.


----------



## jes

JeffBowser said:


> ...
> I'll get excited when they throw some real processing hardware at the issue and provide a clear way out of decrepit equipment without me having to resort to 3rd party resellers and a do-it-yourself approach (which I had to do with the SWM)





hasan said:


> I'll get excited when:
> 
> 1. The "latest and greatest fix" applies to the HR20-700, HR21-100 and HR20-100.
> 
> 2. It actually makes the DVRs tolerable to use, and this "fix" lasts for more than 10 days.
> 
> I'm contemplating new hardware (HR34 or HR24), but just can't bring myself to pull the trigger. Part of me resents having to buy new hardware to replace what used to work fine and has been made borderline tedious to use by so-called "upgrades" in the firmware that did little or nothing to fix sluggishness, and appear to have only slowed things down even further (again, intermittently). (that is one long, run on sentence!)
> 
> In the mean time, I'm frequently annoyed with the boxes and have pretty much lost my zeal for what used to be pretty impressive equipment. The PQ is still outstanding, but interacting with the equipment has become a fairly predictable pain in the butt.


... it's not the hardware... :nono2:


----------



## Wilhite

jes said:


> ... it's not the hardware... :nono2:


Why do you say this?


----------



## sbl

We have one proof point in the THR22. With the same, old and slower, hardware as the HR22 (and HR21), the responsiveness of the TiVo software is remarkable.


----------



## hiker

sbl said:


> We have one proof point in the THR22. With the same, old and slower, hardware as the HR22 (and HR21), the responsiveness of the TiVo software is remarkable.


Then why do most owners of HR24s say that they are faster than other models of the HR2x running the same software? I have no experience with the HR24 myself.


----------



## TBoneit

That's the point, the THR22 Tivo is not running the same software as the HR-2x series and it reportedly is fast. Since it is running on older HR-2x hardware. Thus showing it is a software problem.


----------



## hiker

TBoneit said:


> That's the point, the THR22 Tivo is not running the same software as the HR-2x series and it reportedly is fast. Since it is running on older HR-2x hardware. Thus showing it is a software problem.


I understand that the TiVo software is more efficient than the DIRECTV software accounting for the improved performance of the THR22.

But again why is the HR24 model so much faster running the same DIRECTV software? The only reason I can think of is the greater performance of the HR24 hardware is the difference that makes it faster.


----------



## dpeters11

Right,in that case it's the hardware. But they can improve the performance of the older boxes with software fixes.


----------



## Davenlr

I wish they would release a no-frills optional software that just worked. Actually, I just wish they would switch to using the Tivo software,add in whole home, and be done with it.


----------



## hiker

Davenlr said:


> I wish they would release a no-frills optional software that just worked. Actually, I just wish they would switch to using the Tivo software,add in whole home, and be done with it.


I wonder if the THR22 TiVo software can run on an unmodified HR2x unit? I doubt it, as there was probably some mods that had to be done to the HR22 to make it workable with TiVo. I remember with the early TiVos there were proprietary chips doing special functions.


----------



## Rich

hiker said:


> Then why do most owners of HR24s say that they are faster than other models of the HR2x running the same software? I have no experience with the HR24 myself.


Why? Because some of the functions are quicker. But if you just count the basic DVR functions, my eight 20-700s are about as quick as my three 24s.

Comparing the 20-700s and 24s to the rest of the HR models is easy. The whole 21 series, and that includes the 22s and the 23, should have never been made, I think. The only HR of the 21 series that has any merit is the 21-700, a good, reliable DVR (if you had nothing to compare a 21-700 to, you'd be satisfied with its performance).

Rich


----------



## comp4pod

Have 5 HR20-700 that were running firmware 0x059E. They were slow, unstable, and driving me crazy since the firmware "upgrade". I forced firmware 0x05CD on 5/15 and they are like new DVRs. I think they function better now than I can ever remember.


----------



## n3ntj

hasan said:


> I'll get excited when:
> 
> 1. The "latest and greatest fix" applies to the HR20-700, HR21-100 and HR20-100.
> 
> 2. It actually makes the DVRs tolerable to use, and this "fix" lasts for more than 10 days.
> 
> I'm contemplating new hardware (HR34 or HR24), but just can't bring myself to pull the trigger. Part of me resents having to buy new hardware to replace what used to work fine and has been made borderline tedious to use by so-called "upgrades" in the firmware that did little or nothing to fix sluggishness, and appear to have only slowed things down even further (again, intermittently). (that is one long, run on sentence!)
> 
> In the mean time, I'm frequently annoyed with the boxes and have pretty much lost my zeal for what used to be pretty impressive equipment. The PQ is still outstanding, but interacting with the equipment has become a fairly predictable pain in the butt.


Ditto.. using my HR22-100 is very annoying and not worth the trouble most days. It takes so damn long for the unit to respond to the remote control to change the channel, pull up the Playlist, trickplay, etc. D* needs to do something fast to fix these problems.


----------



## PlanetBill

comp4pod said:


> Have 5 HR20-700 that were running firmware 0x059E. They were slow, unstable, and driving me crazy since the firmware "upgrade". I forced firmware 0x05CD on 5/15 and they are like new DVRs. I think they function better now than I can ever remember.


is 05CD in the stream for HR20-700 ?? Or only everywhere but Ohio.


----------



## comp4pod

PlanetBill follow this link  Has been in stream overnight this week.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Seems like this thread has stayed a bit too long at the party... if you're having slow receiver issues with this latest national release please feel free to start a new thread.


----------

