# No More TiVo (at least for now)



## NoCablePlease (May 30, 2008)

We have had TiVo since 2000. I thought my dh was CRAZY when he bought me one for Christmas that year. I quickly learned the error of my ways and changed my mind.

Today we replaced both of our HR10-250's (as well as the other two standard TiVo's we have on regular tvs) with an HD DVR from DTV (been with them since 1998). I am unhappy about the change, but the new 52" man-cave tv dictated the change. Man, that picture is yummy! 

I sure hope that TiVo will go back to supporting satellite sometime soon. I would dump the crappy TiVo wanta-be unit in a heartbeat. My parents also recently replaced their TiVo's with DVRs too, and I know that they feel the same way.

Any rumors that the situation might change?


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

NoCablePlease said:


> We have had TiVo since 2000. I thought my dh was CRAZY when he bought me one for Christmas that year. I quickly learned the error of my ways and changed my mind.
> 
> Today we replaced both of our HR10-250's (as well as the other two standard TiVo's we have on regular tvs) with an HD DVR from DTV (been with them since 1998). I am unhappy about the change, but the new 52" man-cave tv dictated the change. Man, that picture is yummy!
> 
> ...


It's not up to TiVo. It is up to DirecTV or DISH to allow a TiVo. DirecTV is moving on from TiVo for all future DVRs and DISH is in litigation with TiVo so I don't see it happening.


----------



## NoCablePlease (May 30, 2008)

That is sad and disappointing to hear. Capitalism sucks sometimes.

Thanks


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I moved from two HR10-250's to two HR20-700's last year and although I don't like the new DirecTV DVR as well as TiVo, it isn't a big issue for me. My guess is that you will get used to the new DVR and won't really have any problems making it work well enough. Of all the unavoidable annoyances I deal with, this one was relatively minor.

Chris


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

NoCablePlease said:


> ... I thought my dh was CRAZY when he bought me one for Christmas that year...


 Are you telling us that you actually own an American League team, and that the guy who regularly hits cleanup bought you a TV? Sweet!

Other than slo-mo and the other "press and hold" features (which are dreadful) I have warmed up to the HR2x quite nicely. Do yourself a favor and give it a chance to grow on you.

There are a couple of things Tivo does better, but more than a couple things that the HR2x does better, not to mention picking up another 90 HD channels. It also seems to be significantly MORE stable and MORE reliable than my remaining two HR10's. Plus with a 1TB external drive, it will hold more HD than both of my HR10s, both upgraded with 650MBs at twice that price, combined, so I guess I'd have to at least ask myself, "what's not to like?"


----------



## Matt L (Aug 13, 2000)

You know, I still love these comments after all this time. "Do yourself a favor and give it a chance to grow on you" makes me think of mold.


----------



## coachO (Nov 26, 2004)

Tyrone, my HR20 units are much less reliable than my HR10 units. So much so that I record everything on my HR10 that I can and only use the HR20 for HD I can not get on my HR10.

No Dual live buffers, crummy slow motion, push and hold, slow channel changing, and occasional lock ups sure have not "grown on me". Of course about 10 of the 90 HD channels have!


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I replaced my HR10's with HR20's and they certainly are different. But once you give the new interface time, you get use to it. To play shows I still have to push the exact same number of buttons.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

coachO said:


> Tyrone, my HR20 units are much less reliable than my HR10 units. So much so that I record everything on my HR10 that I can and only use the HR20 for HD I can not get on my HR10...


That's unfortunate. I have the reverse issue, where my HR20 has been nearly flawless since getting it in December, while my HR10s spontaneously reboot once a week or so (I did have my first reboot on my HR20 today, which may be because new software was recently uploaded to it).


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

Matt L said:


> You know, I still love these comments after all this time. "Do yourself a favor and give it a chance to grow on you" makes me think of mold.


Yeah - this is capitalism at it's best - 'we gave you the best rated dvr for years, but we need the $1+ that we were paying Tivo added to our bottom line - so too bad, so sad - you'll get used to it':down:


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

RS4 said:


> Yeah - this is capitalism at it's best - 'we gave you the best rated dvr for years, but we need the $1+ that we were paying Tivo added to our bottom line - so too bad, so sad - you'll get used to it':down:


Ya know, if you'd take a look at all the hacking threads and the fact that 6.4 was already hacked (including breaking the encryption so you can copy shows to your PC) you might see the *real* reason why DirecTV went with their own DVR.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

shibby191 said:


> Ya know, if you'd take a look at all the hacking threads and the fact that 6.4 was already hacked (including breaking the encryption so you can copy shows to your PC) you might see the *real* reason why DirecTV went with their own DVR.


That might be true - I guess they're afraid that folks might get real functions they want - like they've done for years After all, look at how long it's taken them to copy functions from Tivo, and many of them still don't seem to perform consistently. Oh well, you can always hope for the 933rd version of the weekly update - I'm sure everything will be running by then.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

RS4 said:


> That might be true - I guess they're afraid that folks might get real functions they want


Well, I think we all agree that copying programs to your computer is something we all want.

Problem is that breaking encryption can be illegal and they take liability for allowing it and can be sued big time by Hollywood. By making a closed system that they control themselves they don't rely on a 3rd party that can get them in legal trouble by "allowing" hacking like that. So now the chances of hacking goes way down and if it does happen then can't blame anyone else. Before with Tivo they are liable for things Tivo allows. At least now they are just liable for things they do to themselves.

Anyway...


----------



## sjberra (May 16, 2005)

RS4 said:


> That might be true - I guess they're afraid that folks might get real functions they want - like they've done for years After all, look at how long it's taken them to copy functions from Tivo, and many of them still don't seem to perform consistently. Oh well, you can always hope for the 933rd version of the weekly update - I'm sure everything will be running by then.


If that at you are calling copyright infringement? Interesting view


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

RS4 said:


> Yeah - this is capitalism at it's best - 'we gave you the best rated dvr for years, but we need the $1+ that we were paying Tivo added to our bottom line - so too bad, so sad - you'll get used to it':down:


As usual, you missed the point completely. It doesn't matter how tyrannically sinister DTV might be, or how the move away from Tivo might have been draconian, at best. It's about waking up and smelling the propane, and accepting the way things are and are gonna be, and how that turns out to be a pretty good option after all, once you tune your 'tude to include an open mind.

My point was that I was about as disappointed with the HR2x platform when it first arrived as any Tivo "lemming" might be, wanting to hurl it like a discus off my balcony. But I gave it a second chance 15 months later, and it had improved dramatically, to the point where it is firmly playing in the same league as the HR10, is in many cases ironically even-more reliable than the HR10, has certain features that run rings around the HR10, and has a storage upgrade path that competes highly with Tivo upgrade paths, especially in the dollars-per-GB arena. All of that plus it gets some 96 HD channels. I was as surprised by how well it met those challenges as anybody, but it was a pleasant surprise. Big shoes to fill, and as luck would have it, big feet to fill them.

Getting it free without a contract extension was also a pleasant surprise, but I would not balk at leasing a second even at $299, did I not already still have two HR10's.

Both platforms are imperfect and each has it's warts and whatnot, but regardless of how we got here, DTV has given us a suitable replacement, even though some features are surpassed, while others (_cough _SLO-MO!) are not matched.

It's not about loyalty, or who is the heir apparent, or whether we or Tivo got reamed in the process. All that matters is the end result. It's time to move forward, and yes, I'm definitely talking to you. Whining about the past doesn't really solve the problem of how to record "In Plain Sight" in HD when all you have is an HR10. The HR2x solves that problem.

The king is dead...long live the king.


----------



## Matt L (Aug 13, 2000)

You make valid points. You were incredibly lucky to get the new unit no strings, that has stopped me. That and the fact there wasn't much I wanted in the new "90" channels. I'm a guy who dropped the HD pack years ago because it had little value to me. I went Blu long ago so movies are not an attraction, Netflix fills that need, I'm not a sports fan so no need there and I've never been hooked on the Discovery channel. 

The only thing that is remotely attractive in the HD package would be to see the Closer, Saving Grace and Damages in HD when they are shown and not wait for the Blu disk. So, I've given it some thought, a 2 year commitment is just too much for me. Cable and Lightspeed look interesting and I get TiVo with at least one of them -- a big plus. For that reason cable may win me back, and truth be told one of the biggest drawbacks for D besides the commitment is the dual buffers, I use them constantly and with out them I will never use a D DVR to hell with the work arounds.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> As usual, you missed the point completely. It doesn't matter how tyrannically sinister DTV might be, or how the move away from Tivo might have been draconian, at best. It's about waking up and smelling the propane, and accepting the way things are and are gonna be, and how that turns out to be a pretty good option after all, once you tune your 'tude to include an open mind.
> 
> My point was that I was about as disappointed with the HR2x platform when it first arrived as any Tivo "lemming" might be, wanting to hurl it like a discus off my balcony. But I gave it a second chance 15 months later, and it had improved dramatically, to the point where it is firmly playing in the same league as the HR10, is in many cases ironically even-more reliable than the HR10, has certain features that run rings around the HR10, and has a storage upgrade path that competes highly with Tivo upgrade paths, especially in the dollars-per-GB arena. All of that plus it gets some 96 HD channels. I was as surprised by how well it met those challenges as anybody, but it was a pleasant surprise. Big shoes to fill, and as luck would have it, big feet to fill them.
> 
> ...


Sorry to say, bud that you guys don't get the point - here you all are on a Tivo forum bragging about about a company that has come out with inferior products - and are still inferior according to the polls.

Tivo has had most of the features that D* is now starting to offer - some have been around for years. Instead, what did D* do? They never allowed us to enjoy those features - and my guess is that some of us would have even been willing to pay more for them.

Instead D* has been frittering around for what - 3 years trying to imitate the Tivo - and for what a $1+ more a box?

It's totally ridiculous to me how you guys come on this forum and carry on about a company that forces you to settle for second best - when their only goal is to add more profit. And of course even more ridiculous is that D* ended up paying Tivo more just so they wouldn't sue them.

So yeah, keep up the sham - I think it's hilarious with all of the excuses you guys have. You keep telling everyone why settling for second best is good for them, and I'll keep laughing.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 12, 2000)

TyroneShoes said:


> It's about waking up and smelling the propane, and accepting the way things are and are gonna be, and how that turns out to be a pretty good option after all, once you tune your 'tude to include an open mind.





TyroneShoes said:


> It's about waking up and smelling the propane, and accepting the way things are and are gonna be, and how that turns out to be a pretty good option after all, once you tune your 'tude to include an open mind.


I agree that it is a pipe dream to speculate on TiVo ever being available on DirecTV again after the last of the current units die out or stop being supported. That ship has sailed and the home-grown (or commissioned) DVR's are the way of D*'s future.

As far as features and UI, this is such an inherently subjective area that people need to accept that everyone is going to come out different on this, and not because they are wrong or don't see the light or are biased or have blinders on, etc. They just value different things. Personally I still greatly prefer the TiVo (having simultaneously used the HR20 since October of 2006) but the HR20 UI and features are not the end of the world. In terms of stability, this also has varied greatly from person-to-person. For me the 10-250 has been pretty good while the HR20 was an unmitigated disaster for the first 5 months (the worst performing or supported consumer product I have ever owned) I had it and has remained less reliable to this day, though vastly more stable than it started. As a result, despite the addition of the MPEG-4 HD channels only available to our HR20, we had resisted giving it the place of honor with our best TV and kept it relegated to the bedroom.

At the end of the day for us there have been two show-stoppers from embracing the HR20. First, the remote sucks, or at least ours does. According to DirecTV it is fine and they have refused to replace it so you would think that if it were just ours it would be easy enough to do, yet others have insisted they don't have the same issues (poor response, skips some keys then double enters others, etc.) so I will also write this off as bad luck just as the stability issue varies.

But the real problem for us is the capacity. I have posted this issue before here and at DBSTalk and no one who has tried the same experiment (versus just quoting HD size) has contradicted it or said our experience is not universal. We currently have 42 season passes (down from just over 50) and they are absolutely mirrors between units (with a couple one-off exceptions on certain weeks where we end up with more than 2 shows we need at the same time and we have to split them between the units). With the singular exception of Battlestar Galactica on Sci-Fi, which is in HD only on the HR20 but is also watched usually the same day it is recorded then deleted, they are mirrored in terms of SD versus HD recordings. Both have the same instructions on how many episodes to keep, whether they must save them or delete when needed for space, etc.

Yet the 10-250 nets out with at least (sometimes more) 20-25% more capacity. I have measured this by observing when older recordings start to delete. So while the hard drive space may be comparable, in practical turns the 10-250 is much more useful. In between my experiments to actively observe capacity when we have stopped paying attention we have often had wholesale deletions of programs we still need to watch on the HR20. Fortunately they are always on the 10-250 which we have not had a single accidental deletion on. I have read justifications for this - the larger reserved buffer space, space reserved for non-user programming, etc. But all I care about in the end is less room for my shows.

This seems to me like a measurable, objective feature limitation versus a subjective UI issue. Now for some people capacity may not be a big deal or for others who don't mind the trouble, expense and lack of elegance they may add attached storage. But for those who want a single box but still care about capacity, the TiVo is still the drastically better choice. You would think in the age of ridiculously cheap hard drives D* could just solve this with larger built-in HD's in the DVR's but they haven't seemed to prioritize this yet. Which is mystifying given that their main competitive advantage, by their own account, is their wide range of HD channels. Yet their box couldn't even save 1 episode each of many people's season passes at the same time if they were all in HD. Forcing me to be very jealous with my HD space and very selective about which shows are "HD worthy." That's why I have only one show on my HR20 that is in HD that is not also available on the limited HD channels of the 10-250. Which kind of defeats the whole DirecTV advantage.

So for me that makes it NOT a "pretty good option after all." If D* fixes their remote or starts offering a DVR with substantially more storage capacity built-in, I may reconsider. It's a race between that and my 2-year contract running out because right now the Series 3 and cable is looking pretty good. I don't say that as a die-hard TiVo-or-nothing person, just as a pragmatic consumer. Cable is drastically cheaper for me (combined with my Internet access) and currently I am getting no real advantage from DirecTV's expanded HD line-up since I don't have the capacity to record most of it. So why not get a UI I like better, more features and be able to record all the same shows in the same ratio of SD-to-HD for a lot less money? Not to mention substantially less hassle to add units to my house which is already pre-wired in every room for cable&#8230;


----------



## KSbugeater (Jan 26, 2006)

I, too, have had HR10 and HR20 running side-by-side since Fall '06. I still am not ready to declare one a winner over the other. My HR20 misses a few recordings, but they are usually explained by a stupid last-minute change to the start and end times by the networks. My HR10 inexplicably reboots in the middle of timers, so it ain't perfect, either. As a DVR, I prefer the HR20... mainly because I can do programming while watching recorded shows (impossible on the TiVo) and it's faster, too (my HR10 is still on 3.1.5f or whatever). For viewing, especially live TV, I slightly prefer the HR10 because of DLB and the easier navigation (no "Hold down" functions)... and the fact that you can keep watching the buffer even after the tuner has moved to a different channel... all important for sports viewing.



Citivas said:


> You would think in the age of ridiculously cheap hard drives D* could just solve this with larger built-in HD's in the DVR's but they haven't seemed to prioritize this yet. Which is mystifying given that their main competitive advantage, by their own account, is their wide range of HD channels. Yet their box couldn't even save 1 episode each of many people's season passes at the same time if they were all in HD. Forcing me to be very jealous with my HD space and very selective about which shows are "HD worthy." That's why I have only one show on my HR20 that is in HD that is not also available on the limited HD channels of the 10-250. Which kind of defeats the whole DirecTV advantage.


Why haven't you considered adding an eSATA hard drive to your HR20? I added a 500 GB and have not had a single problem with it. Sure, I can't immediately get to the shows I recorded on the factory HDD, but they're still there if I want to go watch an old movie. Also, with the new HD channels (MPEG-4, which the HR10 does not decode) HD takes about a third less space, so you should be able to get more shows on the HR20, assuming the shows are on MPEG-4 channels. BTW, I also added a 2nd 320 GB HDD to my HR10 about a year before the HR20 came along, so technically it has more total accessible space, but with the price of HDDs going down, 570 GB isn't hard to beat anymore.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Citivas said:


> As far as features and UI, this is such an inherently subjective area that people need to accept that everyone is going to come out different on this, and not because they are wrong or dont see the light or are biased or have blinders on, etc.


Very well said.



> At the end of the day for us there have been two show-stoppers from embracing the HR20. First, the remote sucks, or at least ours does. According to DirecTV it is fine and they have refused to replace it so you would think that if it were just ours it would be easy enough to do, yet others have insisted they dont have the same issues (poor response, skips some keys then double enters others, etc.) so I will also write this off as bad luck just as the stability issue varies.


So why not just call up and say it's broke, won't work at all. Works every time. You need to tell them what they want to hear, not what is actually the problem. 

Personally the first thing I ever do with a new remote is program it into my universal (MX-700) and toss the factory report in the "remote graveyard" box, never to see the light of day again. So I could care less if the factory remote is any good useability wise. Just me.



> But the real problem for us is the capacity. I have posted this issue before here and at DBSTalk and no one who has tried the same experiment (versus just quoting HD size) has contradicted it or said our experience is not universal. We currently have 42 season passes (down from just over 50) and they are absolutely mirrors between units (with a couple one-off exceptions on certain weeks where we end up with more than 2 shows we need at the same time and we have to split them between the units). With the singular exception of Battlestar Galactica on Sci-Fi, which is in HD only on the HR20 but is also watched usually the same day it is recorded then deleted, they are mirrored in terms of SD versus HD recordings. Both have the same instructions on how many episodes to keep, whether they must save them or delete when needed for space, etc.
> 
> Yet the 10-250 nets out with at least (sometimes more) 20-25% more capacity. I have measured this by observing when older recordings start to delete. So while the hard drive space may be comparable, in practical turns the 10-250 is much more useful. In between my experiments to actively observe capacity when we have stopped paying attention we have often had wholesale deletions of programs we still need to watch on the HR20. Fortunately they are always on the 10-250 which we have not had a single accidental deletion on. I have read justifications for this  the larger reserved buffer space, space reserved for non-user programming, etc. But all I care about in the end is less room for my shows.


Unsure on what the problem is here. First I've heard of it. All I know is that DirecTV claims about 30 hours of MPEG2 HD or 50 hours of MPEG4 HD and that is pretty much what I get. Plenty of space for me. If not it's really cheap to get a 1 TB eSata drive, get hundreds of hours of HD storage and be done with it.

If the HR10-250 actually has more space so be it.

By the way, larger hard drives built in are coming in the future DVR versions. Probably by years end. It's been mentioned several times in conference and financial calls. But in any case you can easily expand storage either external or even internal (if you don't mind violating the lease agreement).

Good luck!


----------



## snickerrrrs (Mar 31, 2006)

$89.6 Million... Like I've said before Dish Network... a Tivo Company

Dish will have to compensate Tivo with stock or part of the company or an exclusive multi-year dvr deal. But we'll see...


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

snickerrrrs said:


> $89.6 Million... Like I've said before Dish Network... a Tivo Company
> 
> Dish will have to compensate Tivo with stock or part of the company or an exclusive multi-year dvr deal. But we'll see...


Ummm, ok. Not sure what you mean. Charlie hauls out the check book once the appeals run out and he's done with it. The current Dish DVRs don't infringe on Tivo so he simply needs to pay the judgement and he's done with Tivo. Dish makes more money in one month then Tivo even thinks about making in a year (oh thats right, they lose money every quarter except one). 90 million isn't chump change but it's easy enough to pay Tivo off what they are owed. No reason why Dish would have to enter into a working agreement with Tivo.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Citivas said:


> ...But the real problem for us is the capacity...no one who has tried the same experiment (versus just quoting HD size) has contradicted it or said our experience is not universal&#8230;


First of all, if your reason for quoting me twice in a row in the same post was so RS4 would have a better chance of "getting it", that is apparently sadly never going to happen. We could talk all day about living in the world that exists instead of moaning about the world that doesn't, and it would fall on deaf ears. I give up.

But I am here to challenge your assessment about capacity. I think no one has duplicated your experiment, because no one uses an HR2x as an "absolute mirror", especially since the chief reason for getting one is to record channels that the HR10 can't and never will get.

I have done the math. In fact, I keep a spreadsheet updated multiple times daily (every time I record or delete a program) that automatically calculates the amount of hours recorded on each HR10, because Tivo doesn't want us to "worry our pretty heads" about how much capacity there might be.

My HR10's, each of which are upgraded to 650 GB (stock 250 + 400) claim 83 hours of HD. I record 97% HD on them, and if you use a conversion factor of 6:1 for SD (which is generous) for the other 3%, they each begin to dump old recordings at about the 75 hour mark. Granted, most if not all of that is OTA HD, with an average rate of about 13 mb/s, which is a bit greater than most HD DTV MPEG-2 sat channels, but still, 75 seems like a slightly stingy number to begin deletion when the Tivo itself says 83 hours.

The HR20 I have, on the other hand, is also on the spreadsheet (to see if the math works there). It claims 30 hrs M2 HD and 50 hrs M4 HD, so the calc is a bit more involved, but the capacity percentage it resolves to is always much lower on the spreadsheet than it is on the HR20 itself. I even upped the number to represent 37 hrs of M2 HD capacity, and it is still slightly lower, which means it claims 30 for M2 HD, yet really has a capacity somewhere above 37 hours. Of course that is then more like 60 hours for M4 HD.

I added a 1 TB drive (for a lot less than either of the 400 GB Tivo upgrades cost me, mind you) and the numbers are even more different. The 1 TB is supposed to hold about 145 hrs of M4 HD, which is about all I record on it. I have it 71% reserve capacity right now, but if you use their number of 145 as the base, what I have currently recorded calculates to only 49% reserve capacity, meaning that in reality it will hold significantly much more than the 145 hours that it is rated for.

So the HR2x will hold much more than it is rated for, while the HR10's actually hold less, the cost for 400 GB for a Tivo is much more than the cost for 1 TB for a HR2x, and the M4 recordings on the HR2x only take 30% of the space that an M2 recording on a HR10 will eat. The 1TB alone will hold more by itself than the two HR10's upgraded to 650 MB each _combined_, at a cost significantly lower than either of the 400 GB upgrades.

I think I would take the capacity problems of a HR2x over a HR10 any day of the week, according to these real-world numbers.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 12, 2000)

I have kept records too but mine are both of the factory drives and with no OTA recordings on one, so it is more apples-to-apples and doesn't require conversion factors because it is the simple reality of show-for-show. So I stand by my statement. The 10-250 nets much more usable space out of the box for digitally recorded programming, at least until they start offering bigger drives. Its like an Apple versus a Mac. I have both in our household. Generally the Mac OS and applications take up less HD space than the Windows equivilents. So I net more usable HD space with the same drive.

I noted the option for adding attached storage in my first post so I get that's a choice for some. It's not interesting to us. For one, we don't have the space for it in our setup. For another, we don't want the hassle of converting to the new drive and losing easy access to the stuff on the existing box. We had some "everygreen" gets shows that have been saved for over a year and would result in some unhappy moments for our 3-year-old if we couldn't deliver them "on demand" (amazing what it must be like to have never known a world before DVR's). And I don't have the knowledge or real interest in figuring out how to transfer the programming hassle-free.

For some, these are non-issues which is why my overall point is everyone will come out different on this...


----------



## Citivas (Oct 12, 2000)

shibby191 said:


> So why not just call up and say it's broke, won't work at all. Works every time. You need to tell them what they want to hear, not what is actually the problem.


It's a good idea but I previously tried it and it didn't work. When I first tried it, it was too soon after my previous complaints about it and they flatly refused. Later they claimed it was no longer covered and I would have to pay for a new one. They have been consistently lame about support.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Citivas said:


> ...Its like an Apple versus a Mac. I have both in our household. Generally the Mac OS and applications take up less HD space than the Windows equivilents...For some, these are non-issues which is why my overall point is everyone will come out different on this...


As do you and I, who both "stand" by our statements.

Your Mac/PC analogy makes sense in that context, but if Tivo is the Mac (natch) and the HR2x is the PC, in every other context the HR2x is much closer to the Tivo than any PC ever was to any Mac.


----------

