# Could HR20-700 DTV switch to tivo?



## jonra (Apr 1, 2005)

If DTV continued to have technical problems with their HR20 software... They kissed and made-up with TIVO - is it technically possible for the operating system of the HR20-700 DTV to switch to tivo on a service software upgrade ?


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

Maybe. But they aren't having any major technical problems with the HR20 so...


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Seems unlikely - the hardware platform is unlike anything TiVo has seen.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

except the moto and SA boxes that they are currently porting to (for comcast and cox cable) are even less like a tivo.....

I think the HR20 even has a lot of similar parts components as the HR10....


----------



## litzdog911 (Oct 18, 2002)

It would be a major software effort for either DirecTV, Tivo or both. I seriously doubt it will ever happen.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

yup- I'd have to agree there for sure. Aint likely at all unless NDS buys tivo or something and even then they would be more likely tjust to incorporate the tivo features into their stuff...


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Ain't gonna happen in our lifetime.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> except the moto and SA boxes that they are currently porting to (for comcast and cox cable) are even less like a tivo...


From the point of view of the UI, true. But few here know anything about how compatible or similar the hardware might be, or the business relationships that could make or break it.

It might be like trying to run MacOS X on a Windows machine--difficult if not imposible, unlikely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility, the flip side of which is graphically underlined by the recent ability of running Windows on a Mac platform. No one really thought they'd ever see that day either, but it went from impossible to laboratory curiosity to uberuser hack to general feature, all within the space of a few months. Of course there was a new (for Apple) key ingredient, the Intel processor, without which it never would have been possible.

There may be some deal-killers in the "Tivo on a NDS platform" pipe dream, as well. I'd bet money on it.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

TyroneShoes said:


> It might be like trying to run MacOS X on a Windows machine--difficult if not imposible, unlikely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility


Actually, it has already happened.


----------



## jhays (Apr 25, 2004)

I couldn't find anything on that page about running MacOS on a Windows machine--only the reverse.


----------



## RunnerFL (May 10, 2005)

jhays said:


> I couldn't find anything on that page about running MacOS on a Windows machine--only the reverse.


That wikipedia page is all about running MacOS on an x86 machine. I've done it and it works great.

Afterall MacOS is only FreeBSD with a Mac GUI.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

>> If DTV continued to have technical problems with their HR20 software...

If this were true then it might be worth conjecture. But since they are not having any special technical problems with it...


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

jhays said:


> I couldn't find anything on that page about running MacOS on a Windows machine--only the reverse.


Look again, because that's the primary point of the page. Look under Getting Started.


----------



## jhays (Apr 25, 2004)

:-[ :-[ :-[

Sorry!!!


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

cheer said:


> Actually, it has already happened.


Uhh....yeah. I think that's what I said. Anything can be done as a one-off. Not everything ships, though (S3 and 6.3 are prime examples).


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> Uhh....yeah. I think that's what I said. Anything can be done as a one-off. Not everything ships, though (S3 and 6.3 are prime examples).


I had to read your post and Cheer's response three times, but here's the gist of it: you said running Mac OS on Windows was near impossible, while the flip side of running Windows on Mac has been achieved.

Cheer's link is countering your first point, about the impossibility of running Mac OS on Windows.


----------



## RunnerFL (May 10, 2005)

drew2k said:


> Cheer's link is countering your first point, about the impossibility of running Mac OS on Windows.


He may be confused by the fact that you technically aren't running MacOS "on Windows", you are running MacOS on an x86 based machine that once ran Windows.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> It might be like trying to run MacOS X on a Windows machine--difficult if not imposible,


It'd be totally trivial for Apple to run Mac OS X on geneic Windows boxes, Apple's big problem is to prevent it happening.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Seems unlikely - the hardware platform is unlike anything TiVo has seen.


How do you figure? The HR20 uses much of the same hardware in the HR10, and the "heart of the unit" which provides all the hardware support for DVR and HDTV is the same in both units.

The main differences are the add-on MPEG-4 chip and extra memory.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

drew2k said:


> I had to read your post and Cheer's response three times, but here's the gist of it: you said running Mac OS on Windows was near impossible, while the flip side of running Windows on Mac has been achieved.
> 
> Cheer's link is countering your first point, about the impossibility of running Mac OS on Windows.


Thanks for the enlightenment, but apparently three times is not enough. Here is exactly what I said:



ME said:


> It might be like trying to run MacOS X on a Windows machine--difficult if not imposible, unlikely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility, the flip side of which is graphically underlined by the recent ability of running Windows on a Mac platform.


And I can break that down further for you, since you are having difficulty. I have been accused of overexplaining things, so for the sake of brevity (good luck), _"difficult if not imposible, unlikely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility"_ referred to general usage, not to mad scientists in the "clean room" in Cupertino, nor to the insane tinkering of a few tweekers living in their parents' basements, jazzed on Jolt Cola.

You are not exactly dealing with a chimp here, and yes I understand that one-offs happen and have sporadically happened with MacOS on X86, I just didn't feel compelled to comment on that, as some did. And if you actually read closely, it is crystal clear that I qualified it to allow for that possibility. People try to paint me into a corner every day, and to minimize that I have a natural reflex to regularly qualify things as open to "extreme possibilities", as Fox Mulder put it. Checking the original post, it seems that reflex was in perfect working order.

A two-headed goat is also rare, but it doesn't really apply to the goat-milker's union or the livestock industry in any real way. It's a curiosity, not the norm, just like Windows running natively on a Mac, and not something the average HR10 owner will ever see on their laptop. IOW, no one here really cares. And I have learned to edit myself a little bit, at least, and rarely make the mistake of drifting that far off topic or commenting on something obviously beside the point (unless I am jonesing for a rant  ). And if and when I do, I have a reputation for 'fessing up to it. You can look that up, right here.

My statement taken in context does not equate to me saying it is absolutely impossible. Please stop implying that it does. You don't even have to read between the lines to get that. As John Wayne once said, "It's gettin' to be re-god-damn-diculous".

It was just an example, designed to present a framework for regarding something similar in a particular way. It was not designed to start an impromptu pissing contest about completely unrelated stuff no one here even gives a rat's hat about. So let's just drop it, for everyone's sake. I stand by my statements.

Moving on...


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> cheer said:
> 
> 
> > It might be like trying to run MacOS X on a Windows machine--difficult if not imposible
> ...





TyroneShoes said:


> Uhh....yeah. I think that's what I said.


Uh ... no, that's not what you said. You did not say it already happened. Cheer said it already happened, you said it was "difficult, if not impossible." And then you went on to dismiss that as a "one-off".



TyroneShoes said:


> Thanks for the enlightenment


You're welcome. And now *I'm* moving on ...


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Again, you are taking my statement out of context. Maybe that's not against the law, but then maybe it should be.

You also took Cheer's reply out of context, because his reply was not those four words, it was a link to a lot more information. And that, was what I was replying to, not those four words.

And it IS a one-off, not generally available.

WTF? I have no beef with you, or with Cheer. You two provide some of the best posts here, and I really enjoy discussing things with both of you. I just grow weary of being picked to death unfairly over points not even relevant, I am frustrated by obviously-bright folks who can't comprehend basic concepts, and I feel I need to stand up when taken out of context. It's just that simple. No worries.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

I run Bernhard Baehr's PDP-8 emulator which emulates DEC OS/8 and Educomp Quodata's Time-Shared version of DEC OS/8 called ETOS on a Macintosh emulator called Basilisk II using MAC OS 8.0 on a Dell XPS 600 which is running Windows XP Professional x-64 bit Edition. This is all so that I can hobby around with computer languages like Focal, Pal-8, Fortran IV, etc - again. 

I have also successfully emulated MAC OS X 10.4 under an emulator called PearPC on my Dell XPS 600 as well.

But I would definitely be guilty of " insane tinkering of a few tweekers living in their parents' basements, jazzed on Jolt Cola.", except for the parent's basement part. My wife Ellen and I definitely own our own home. Though my parents are getting old and we're considering moving them in with us at some point as I do not trust the nursing home system. That however is another story left for another thread...


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> It's a curiosity, not the norm, just like MacOS running on a Windows, or more accurately, a X86 hardware platform, would also be a curiosity, and not something the average HR10 owner will ever see on their laptop.


Have I fallen through a timewarp? You analogy doesn't work when all Laptops Apple ships are an X86 platform. Any HR10 owner who'd bought a MacBook is running MacOS on X86, just like the one on my desk at work.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

btwyx said:


> Have I fallen through a timewarp? You analogy doesn't work when all Laptops Apple ships are an X86 platform. Any HR10 owner who'd bought a MacBook is running MacOS on X86, just like the one on my desk at work.


Yes. This is an alternate timeline. What is this "Apple" of which you speak? Could you be referring to that company that went out of business in 1979?


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

btwyx said:


> Have I fallen through a timewarp? You analogy doesn't work when all Laptops Apple ships are an X86 platform. Any HR10 owner who'd bought a MacBook is running MacOS on X86, just like the one on my desk at work.


I can't answer your first question, but thank you for pointing this out. Of course I meant Windows running on Mac, and thanks to your sharp eye, I have corrected the original post for clarity.

But, to be even more annoyingly accurate, they are not an "X86 platform", specifically, although they use an X86-compatible CPU. Still a Unix/BSD/Mach kernel platform. Plus, the 12.1" PowerPC-based PowerBook is still shipping--in stock from at least a dozen vendors on PriceGrabber.com. (Sorry, splitting hairs has become a trend on this thread  ).


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Um, an x86 platform is one that uses an x86 CPU. All new Macs have x86 CPUs. The thing boots Windows. It is a PC with an extra chip to allow it to also boot Mac OS. Is your computer not true x86 because I can boot Linux on it?

The 12" PowerBook G4 was discontinued. Just because some stores still have them, does not make them current. Does TiVo still offer lifetime because a Best Buy has a card left on a shelf? If I find a BetaMax new in box on eBay, is Sony still making Beta?

Every computer Apple currently ships has an intel chip in it, (not just laptops either.)

I've installed OS X 10.4 on a Dell laptop using a pre-configured installer I downloaded from the internet. I've installed Win XP SP2 on a MacBook Pro using a pre-configured installer I downloaded from the internet. Both installs were missing a few drivers. (One came from a group of hackers, and the other from a large computer company. You'd think the company could do better, since they built the hardware.)


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

TyroneShoes said:


> WTF? I have no beef with you, or with Cheer. You two provide some of the best posts here, and I really enjoy discussing things with both of you.


Thanks -- I feel the same way about you and your posts. For what it's worth, I wasn't challenging your position -- in fact, I agree with your position. I was just teetering off-topic, as I am wont to do when I don't have a major disagreement to vent about.


----------



## harley3k (Jul 19, 2006)

Well we should see TIVO or at least TIVOish software running on Comcast and Cox Motorola boxes soon.

So, it certainly seems possible...but I don't see why they would bother really.
And NDS might have some say in it since its their hardware platform. I heard that D* is doing all the software dev in house, so maybe they have license to put any software they want on it without there being a deal between Tivo and the hardware maker.

D* clearly didn't like doing business with Tivo anyway, so going back to them later for new HR20 software would be like admitting defeat, and Tivo would probably charge them more than the ~$1/month they did for all the DirecTivo boxes.

-h


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

I would love to see the a large, TIVO hacking community open up the HR20 and do whatever it takes (develop some sort of mod chip, reflash anything necessary, change out the hard drive, etc) in order to load and get working Linux and the TIVO software on thhe HR20, complete with support for MPEG-4/Ka-band, HMO, etc. (I certainly don't think this would be easy, but TIVO has a SMART hacking community and nothing is completely outside of the realm of possibilty. I certainly would never support hacking anything to get free service, but I would gladly pay money to anyone who could convert my HR20 into a box running Linux and the TIVO software with all of the same capabilities as the HR20, but none of the limitations.)


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

harley3k said:


> , and Tivo would probably charge them more than the ~$1/month they did for all the DirecTivo boxes.
> 
> -h


why? That's what they are charging Comcast\Cox.


----------



## Budget_HT (Jan 2, 2001)

BillyT2002,

While I don't have the technical skills to contribute to such an effort, successful results would certainly improve my chances of ever getting an HR20 voluntarily.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

BillyT2002 said:


> I would love to see the a large, TIVO hacking community open up the HR20 and do whatever it takes (develop some sort of mod chip, reflash anything necessary, change out the hard drive, etc) in order to load and get working Linux and the TIVO software on thhe HR20, complete with support for MPEG-4/Ka-band, HMO, etc. (I certainly don't think this would be easy, but TIVO has a SMART hacking community and nothing is completely outside of the realm of possibilty.


Perhaps not, but it is sufficiently improbable as to be indistinguishable from something that is impossible. We haven't even hacked the R-15 or gotten 6.x running on an HR10-250 or gotten 7.x running on a DTivo, and the latter two are orders of magnitude simpler than what you are suggesting.

The important bits inside of the Tivo are not open source, and if the hardware support ain't there, it just ain't there.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> why? That's what they are charging Comcast\Cox.


Do we know that for certain? I wasn't aware that information was public.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

i don't think it's currently public but i think all the stock analysts believe that's the case.

Once they start deploying the software in large numbers we should be able to calculate it out, assuming they report that revenue seperately like they do with the DIrectv deal. Untill then I guess it's all speculation....


----------



## harley3k (Jul 19, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> i don't think it's currently public but i think all the stock analysts believe that's the case.
> 
> Once they start deploying the software in large numbers we should be able to calculate it out, assuming they report that revenue seperately like they do with the DIrectv deal. Untill then I guess it's all speculation....


One would guess it is along the same lines.

I only speculated that IF D* went back to Tivo having admitted defeat from HR20, that Tivo would take advantage and charge them more... Of course, I don't see D* being defeated by the HR20 - it appears to be a solid contender among provider-produced DVR solutions (still not worth a $299 or $399 premium plus a 2 year committment though). Their problem is that they're competing against their own previously superior product, the HR10 w/Tivo. But over time they'll have the power to enable those HR20 ethernet and eSATA ports and make it a better product. They'll just be behind S3 and even the HR10 from day one, but they'll at least have control to do what they want and not beholden to Tivo or some other company.

I sometimes wonder what made the D* / Tivo relationship go so bad in the first place. It just seemed like the best solution to me... I have to think that Tivo demaneded more money from the sub fees, or perhaps too much money to do software upgrades...something happened that made D* think they could do better on their own. Maybe they will someday, but I'll have a few S3s in my house by then.

-h


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

harley3k said:


> One would guess it is along the same lines.
> 
> I only speculated that IF D* went back to Tivo having admitted defeat from HR20, that Tivo would take advantage and charge them more... Of course, I don't see D* being defeated by the HR20 - it appears to be a solid contender among provider-produced DVR solutions (still not worth a $299 or $399 premium plus a 2 year committment though). Their problem is that they're competing against their own previously superior product, the HR10 w/Tivo. But over time they'll have the power to enable those HR20 ethernet and eSATA ports and make it a better product. They'll just be behind S3 and even the HR10 from day one, but they'll at least have control to do what they want and not beholden to Tivo or some other company.
> 
> ...


Dan Collins who runs dbsforums and used to seem to have much inside directv information suggested one main sticking point was as you hit on above that Directv wanted complete control and although TiVO gave(gives) them much control over the software, there are just some things that Directv wanted that seemed like tivo would never agree to.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

harley3k said:


> One would guess it is along the same lines.
> 
> I sometimes wonder what made the D* / Tivo relationship go so bad in the first place. It just seemed like the best solution to me... I have to think that Tivo demaneded more money from the sub fees, or perhaps too much money to do software upgrades...something happened that made D* think they could do better on their own. Maybe they will someday, but I'll have a few S3s in my house by then.
> 
> -h


In a really odd sort of way I believe it was the succes of the DVR that did the deal in. As long as Tivo\dvr's were a side item they were happy having Tivo do the software. Once DTV realized that eventually every customer would need a DVR they saw how important it was to control that interface and the costs associated with it.


----------



## harley3k (Jul 19, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> Dan Collins who runs dbsforums and used to seem to have much inside directv information suggested one main sticking point was as you hit on above that Directv wanted complete control and although TiVO gave(gives) them much control over the software, there are just some things that Directv wanted that seemed like tivo would never agree to.





HiDefGator said:


> In a really odd sort of way I believe it was the succes of the DVR that did the deal in. As long as Tivo\dvr's were a side item they were happy having Tivo do the software. Once DTV realized that eventually every customer would need a DVR they saw how important it was to control that interface and the costs associated with it.


I guess that makes sense...their desire for control. But it still seems to me the old model of letting third party hardware and software vendors make your receivers made more sense for them. That's one of the things that drew me to D* was that I could go buy a Sony brand DVR w/Tivo or a Samsung Receiver, or an UltimateTV. I mean as long as I am required to purchase my own equipment it made sense to have this branding so I could choose what fit best in my home theater.

Now D* thinks they are a DVR-software company, and now I have only 1 option, just like any cable provider's equipment, however I am still required to pay a FEE to only Lease the equipment...an HR20 for [email protected] yet I am still required to sign a 2 year comittment?

What if my cell phone provider suddenly decided to start making their own phone software - it would undoubtedly suck, and then they only offered me 1 brand of phone and required a 2 year comittment? If I had any other option I would tell them to take a hike.

-h


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

harley3k said:


> What if my cell phone provider suddenly decided to start making their own phone software - it would undoubtedly suck, and then they only offered me 1 brand of phone and required a 2 year comittment? If I had any other option I would tell them to take a hike.


Many cellphone companies use the same UI accross their phones. Verizon does this on their phones.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

My only hope is that their desire for control of my DVR does not extend to actually disabling my ability to fast forward over programming altogether. This is why I always keep a standalone TIVO and VCR on hand as I think this might be coming at some point and I refuse to go back to watching television and advertising. I guess I really don't care that much about my favorite shows.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> In a really odd sort of way I believe it was the succes of the DVR that did the deal in. As long as Tivo\dvr's were a side item they were happy having Tivo do the software....


on a similar note- it's been specutlated that the loyalty to TiVo also did them in.

Many with Directivo units are tivo with directv fans as opposed to directv with tivo fans.

WHo knows what the breakdowns are but clearly you can see plenty of people here with a prefernce for tivo of directv.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BillyT2002 said:


> My only hope is that their desire for control of my DVR does not extend to actually disabling my ability to fast forward over programming altogether. This is why I always keep a standalone TIVO and VCR on hand as I think this might be coming at some point and I refuse to go back to watching television and advertising. I guess I really don't care that much about my favorite shows.


speculation was that this was one of the items of control that directv wanted and TiVo refused to cede.

I bleive I read that Fox wanted the ability to charge extra for commericals that couldn't be fast forwarded.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

SullyND said:


> Many cellphone companies use the same UI accross their phones. Verizon does this on their phones.


But you can spend the money and still buy a treo (with palm OR windows OS) or a blackberry if you want...


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Many with Directivo units are tivo with directv fans as opposed to directv with tivo fans.


That describes me, but I can't see how this is a problem to them, if they'd kept such people supplied with decent TiVo functionality. I'm really hoping there move away from TiVo will bite them now there's a probably alternative arriving (in the shape of the S3). If enough people expressed more desire for TiVo than for DirecTV, they might be persuaded to offer a decent TiVo again.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> on a similar note- it's been specutlated that the loyalty to TiVo also did them in.
> 
> Many with Directivo units are tivo with directv fans as opposed to directv with tivo fans.
> 
> WHo knows what the breakdowns are but clearly you can see plenty of people here with a prefernce for tivo of directv.


That doesn't make a lick of sense. Why would Tivo loyalty make D* end their relationship with Tivo?

There are only two reasons that actually make sense: (1) D* wanted more direct control of advertising (and receipt of revenue associated with it), etc.; and (2) D* thought they could do it more cheaply in-house. Anything else is just silly.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> speculation was that this was one of the items of control that directv wanted and TiVo refused to cede.
> 
> I bleive I read that Fox wanted the ability to charge extra for commericals that couldn't be fast forwarded.


This is precisely whay I'll never give up also having a TIVO-based receiver and/or even a standalone TIVO. I will choose not to watch something in high-definition and instead watch it in standard definition, if I'm forced to watch any advertising whatsoever. I don't care about what happens to my favorite shows as a result.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

Assuming Tivo engineers aren't complete idiots . . . 

They must have designed the system on a concept that included a HAL. If you need to run the software on a new hardware platform, you don't redesign the entire system, you just write a new HAL.

No reason it couldn't be made to work with relatively little ease from a software design standpoint. Now, the financial, business, and political issues are another story entirely.

If it never happens it won't be because of software issues.


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

btwyx said:


> That describes me, but I can't see how this is a problem to them, if they'd kept such people supplied with decent TiVo functionality. I'm really hoping there move away from TiVo will bite them now there's a probably alternative arriving (in the shape of the S3). If enough people expressed more desire for TiVo than for DirecTV, they might be persuaded to offer a decent TiVo again.


Not at all. The vast majority of people aren't on these forums and aren't "Tivo first" people. 98% of DirecTV's customers could care less what the DVR is. They just want something to replace their VCR at the end of the day. Everything is a Tivo to the general public anyway. I can't tell you how many times people I know that have Dish talk about their "Tivo" and Tivoing a recording when I know they have the Dish DVR. I gave up on correcting them long ago.

So yes, DirecTV may lose some customers by not having new DVR's with Tivo. How many? Thousands? Even if it were 100,000 they wouldn't care. They sign up that many new subs in a week. With a free R15 DVR no less.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Assuming Tivo engineers aren't complete idiots . . .
> 
> They must have designed the system on a concept that included a HAL. If you need to run the software on a new hardware platform, you don't redesign the entire system, you just write a new HAL.
> 
> ...


help the ignorant folks out-

whats a HAL?

Hardware access layer?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bonscott87 said:


> Not at all. The vast majority of people aren't on these forums and aren't "Tivo first" people. 98% of DirecTV's customers could care less what the DVR is. They just want something to replace their VCR at the end of the day. Everything is a Tivo to the general public anyway. I can't tell you how many times people I know that have Dish talk about their "Tivo" and Tivoing a recording when I know they have the Dish DVR. I gave up on correcting them long ago.
> 
> So yes, DirecTV may lose some customers by not having new DVR's with Tivo. How many? Thousands? Even if it were 100,000 they wouldn't care. They sign up that many new subs in a week. With a free R15 DVR no less.


I agree with your general premise but think the number that prefer tivo over directv would be something higher than 2%.

Was talking to a guy at work the other day- very Johh Q Public. Hardly understands broadband, NTSC/ATSC, DVR, whatever. He used to have cable but switched to Directv when he got FIOS (FIOS doesn't yet have video here so they sell directv as the video). He was telling me the "tivo" he got from Directv SUCKS. I inquired more and turns out He got an R15 and he was comparing it to a Real TiVo that he had. He actually had a DVD Tivo with the free basic service. If I recall tivo basic on the dvd players gives you 3 days of quide and limited schedule functionality? Yet he still thought his crippled DVD/TiVo was tons better than the R15.

His biggest gripe actually was FF autocorrcecting. He knows nothing about programming 30 second skip. So he FF commericals on his real tivo. He was explaining to all the other "unwashed" at the lunch table about how the tivo figured out where you let go of FF and backed up so you didn't miss the show. But explained how the R15 keeps going after you elt go and he winds up having to RWD to get to where he needs to be.

Dont think it makes enough differnce to him to change providers but clearly he could tell the differnce and it will be one of the factors he adds in moving forward.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> His biggest gripe actually was FF autocorrcecting. He knows nothing about programming 30 second skip. So he FF commericals on his real tivo. He was explaining to all the other "unwashed" at the lunch table about how the tivo figured out where you let go of FF and backed up so you didn't miss the show. But explained how the R15 keeps going after you elt go and he winds up having to RWD to get to where he needs to be.


I think this TiVo feature is called something like *overshoot compensation*, where it rewinds or fast-forwards just enough to get you where you wanted to be. My Sony VCR also has it, but it only works using a dedicated remote button called "Commercial Skip". (OT, but can you imagine that? A compnay brazen enough to actually have a button labeled COMMERCIAL skip? LOL!)

Rewinding or forwarding on anything without overshoot compensation ... well, it blows!


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> help the ignorant folks out-
> 
> whats a HAL?
> 
> Hardware access layer?


Hardware Abstraction Layer - a small set of code that isolates the bulk of the application from the details of the hardware. Think "device driver" in a more general context.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

figured something like that.

Considering there are like 10 or more hardware versions/revisions and that much of the software versions will work on differnt hardware- I'd guess it's likely TiVo already does somethign like that?

if so would the length of time to get out the comcast box seem excessive? - would it be that it's such vastly differnt hardware then they are used to that the HAL is vastly differnt?

curious...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

drew2k said:


> I think this TiVo feature is called something like *overshoot compensation*, where it rewinds or fast-forwards just enough to get you where you wanted to be. My Sony VCR also has it, but it only works using a dedicated remote button called "Commercial Skip". (OT, but can you imagine that? A compnay brazen enough to actually have a button labeled COMMERCIAL skip? LOL!)
> 
> Rewinding or forwarding on anything without overshoot compensation ... well, it blows!


Thanks for bringing that up. I see that Earl and others claim that the overshoot compensation is a TiVo patent but Sony had it on VCRs for years. That is probably why I felt comfortable with it on my first Tivo.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> figured something like that.
> 
> Considering there are like 10 or more hardware versions/revisions and that much of the software versions will work on differnt hardware- I'd guess it's likely TiVo already does somethign like that?
> 
> ...


I would guess that there are a lot of business issues involved. I would also imagine that the fact that Comcast has so many more customers than DirecTV that the timelines of getting something done at Comcast are longer due to greater testing requirements. Or maybe I am just being too hopeful about the testing process.

FYI - the idea of the HAL has been around for a good long while. Many people don't know it but Windows NT (current flavor = Windows XP) once ran on PowerPC, MIPS, and Alpha in addition to running on x86. There was also a non-Microsoft port of NT to SPARC. This was due to the NT's use of a HAL.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

SpankyInChicago said:


> FYI - the idea of the HAL has been around for a good long while. Many people don't know it but Windows NT (current flavor = Windows XP) once ran on PowerPC, MIPS, and Alpha in addition to running on x86. There was also a non-Microsoft port of NT to SPARC. This was due to the NT's use of a HAL.


You left out the 64bit Itanium processor.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> You left out the 64bit Itanium processor.


As did the market. 

I don't think Tivo uses a HAL in the sense that is being discussed. Remember that despite all the different models, we've really only seen three base platforms: Series 1 (PPC), Series 2 (MIPS), and Series 2.5 (MIPS/different chipset). So they've basically just gotten Linux running on the three platforms and recompiled/tweaked their apps. Now maybe for the Moto boxen they're taking a different approach. And certainly, they don't have to rewrite all fo their code from the ground up, but at the very least they need to get everything cross-compiled, and that isn't always trivial. And there is also some of the more hardware-specific bits beyond the three platforms...after all, that's why we don't have 6.x running on the HR10-250 yet. 

Still, I agree with SpankyInChicago ultimately...I don't think we'll ever see the HR20-700 be a Tivo box, but not because of technical issues.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cheer said:


> As did the market.
> 
> I don't think Tivo uses a HAL in the sense that is being discussed. Remember that despite all the different models, we've really only seen three base platforms: Series 1 (PPC), Series 2 (MIPS), and Series 2.5 (MIPS/different chipset). So they've basically just gotten Linux running on the three platforms and recompiled/tweaked their apps. ....


I was trying to figure out how many versions- the way I came up with 10ish was:

series 1 SA
Series 2 SA (ATT and TiVo braind with USB 1.1)
Series 2 SA- (TiVO brand with USB 2.)
Series 2.5
Asian Series 2 with ethernet
Series 2 DT
Directivo Series 1 (phillips et al)
Directivo Series 2 (HDVR2 et al)
Direcitvo series 2.5 (r10)
Series 2 DVD Burner (pioneer)
Series 2 DVD player- 1st gen (toshiba)
Sereis 2 DVD player- 2nd gen (forget who?)
HD Directivo

And I'm thinking that I'm missing some humax flavors.

No programmer - so dont have a clue- but seems from your post that all that boils down to series 1, series 2, series 2.5 with minor variations maybe differnt "drivers" ?

Is it like windows will run on umpteen million x86 based processors? Once you nail the processor then you can pretty much run on anything?


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

I think you are missing the UK version

And DTivo Series 2a (HDVR2, non-rid)
And DTivo Series 2b (DSR704, RID enabled)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

yup- there's some more...

I had the HDVR-s but forgot the RID ones (but are they the same as the R10?)

are their other human flavors? anyone?


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> I had the HDVR-s but forgot the RID ones (but are they the same as the R10?)


The R10 was a new "beast"... and remains unhackable unless you pull and re-program a PROM chip


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> I was trying to figure out how many versions- the way I came up with 10ish was:
> 
> series 1 SA
> Series 2 SA (ATT and TiVo braind with USB 1.1)
> ...


Well yeah; I mean I think this becomes a semantics thing. I'll ignore the S1 units for now as I have NO knowledge on the S1 units. As for the S2...yeah, all are MIPS, right? The S2.5 units have different support hardware, and so kernels/kernel modules/etc. compiled for the S2 won't work on the S2.5, and vice versa. (The S2DT is sort of unknown at the moment.) But you can exchange kernel modules, killhdinitrd'd kernels, etc. for the most part amongst all S2 units. Are there other differences? Oh sure -- after all you can't just take an image from a SA S2 and put it on an HR10-250! Tivoapp is definitely different between different software versions, the DirecTivos have support for sat tuning, the HR10 has stuff for OTA, the standalones have stuff for configuring networking, the burners have burning support (duh) etc.

But fundamentally the "base" hardware (CPU, support chipset, etc.) is the same. Porting the Tivo software from one to another isn't a huge headache for Tivo; they need to likely change, add, delete, etc. kernel modules and support apps and make changes to Tivoapp. That's not the same thing as a true HAL, wherein they could do the same (or similar) work effort if handed a box using a Moto CPU or an Intel CPU or some other thing.

Being Linux based, it's a bit easier for them, since Linux has already been ported to many platforms. But I don't believe they have that true hardware abstraction.

Now, it's entirely possible that they're creating this architecture as part of their initiative to partner with Cable companies. In fact, it would be rather sensible IMO, so that they could leverage whatever work they're doing for the Comcast Moto boxes and translate that to other providers, other boxes, etc.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> yup- there's some more...
> 
> I had the HDVR-s but forgot the RID ones (but are they the same as the R10?)
> 
> are their other human flavors? anyone?


No, the R10 is what the community has termed a "Series 2.5" as it is different enough from the S2 to require different kernels, etc. A RID box is just an S2 DirecTivo with extra stuff to handle the marrying of card-to-receiver. From a Tivo standpoint it's insignificant now, and really only mattered back when we were trying to run 4.x (a standalone version) on DirecTivos to get folders, MRV, etc.


----------

