Channel List Management

11112141617

Comments

  • stormystormy Member Posts: 1,026 ✭✭
    edited 1 December 2016, 9:24AM
    gwatuk said:

    This is the first time I've seen someone say something positive on this subject...
    From the Digital Spy forum:

    shame you cant rearrange channels a bit as would be nice to replace 1 2 3 4 with the HD ones but i guess puting 10X to get the the HD is not that bad compared to skys all over the place HD channel listings lol 
     
    I can just never get excited by this, I know all the HD channels I want are 1xx so its just not even an issue in day to day use. The only oddities which still surprise me are the BBC children channels in HD. Why they were given such odd LCNs? So no, in my opinion I would rather Youview invest the time doing something worthwhile (opinions, do of course vary :)).

    I would go so far as to say even if this feature was available. I wouldn't even use it.
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:55PM
    scott said:

    Sky are very strict about NOT letting you re-arrange the EPG. That said they do automatically replace certain SD variant's with HD IF you have a HD subscription (SKY and money where have I heard that before) and they also allow you to build a favorites list.

    Personally the majority of the channels I watch are in the 100's and 400's anyway so by the time I have hidden the rubbish, and because YouView goes to the guide on the last channel I was watching, I almost all of the time end up on the right channels straight away (or within a page or two). The only real problem channel is '5' but I blame Ofcom for that - Ofcom should stipulate that in this day and age a PSB should have to broadcast it's main channel for free in HD, if it is available, to get a PSB licence. I therefore now watch very little on channel 5 unless I have heard about it elsewhere purely for the reason stated above.

    With SKY I also tended to use the filter functions all the time which work in exactly the same way on YouView, also the sky interface isn't perfect (try finding a program that was on two days ago using the sky interface and I bet I can find and start watching it much faster on YouView).

    Don't get me wrong I certainly see the benefits of being able to re-arrange a channel list to your own preference I just don't like the way everything is made out to be so much more harder than other systems.

    I can't comment on Virgin as they never made it to my street....
    Yes - there is clearly huge commercial pressure to not allow channel list management.


  • Lbear1Lbear1 Member Posts: 741
    edited 2 July 2014, 1:47PM
    scott said:

    Sky are very strict about NOT letting you re-arrange the EPG. That said they do automatically replace certain SD variant's with HD IF you have a HD subscription (SKY and money where have I heard that before) and they also allow you to build a favorites list.

    Personally the majority of the channels I watch are in the 100's and 400's anyway so by the time I have hidden the rubbish, and because YouView goes to the guide on the last channel I was watching, I almost all of the time end up on the right channels straight away (or within a page or two). The only real problem channel is '5' but I blame Ofcom for that - Ofcom should stipulate that in this day and age a PSB should have to broadcast it's main channel for free in HD, if it is available, to get a PSB licence. I therefore now watch very little on channel 5 unless I have heard about it elsewhere purely for the reason stated above.

    With SKY I also tended to use the filter functions all the time which work in exactly the same way on YouView, also the sky interface isn't perfect (try finding a program that was on two days ago using the sky interface and I bet I can find and start watching it much faster on YouView).

    Don't get me wrong I certainly see the benefits of being able to re-arrange a channel list to your own preference I just don't like the way everything is made out to be so much more harder than other systems.

    I can't comment on Virgin as they never made it to my street....
    YouView boxes also have filters in the EPG - just press the blue button and choose the genre you want. Part of the problem is that other than the BBC, broadcasters do not use the HD flag which is available. Even the BBC are lax at managing it - frequently they leave it on during regional opt-outs on BBC One where it is most needed. I have a Tesco HD box which can be set to automatically retune to HD using the flag (Humax boxes use an on-screen prompt to change channels) and I had to disable the feature because of the signal errors. In addition, it unfortunately does not work in reverse.

    For those unfamiliar, there is a built-in signal which boxes can identify when the programme is being broadcast in HD. So, for example, the Tesco box changes from LCN 1 to LCN101

    Quite simply, channel re-numbering is not allowed by the DTG. What is allowed and would be suitable would be personal preference lists, a feature common on many boxes.
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 4 May 2017, 12:39AM
    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:55PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    One of the problems with this debate is that I don't think YouView's primary target was to develop a PVR.
    It was to develop an integrated Freeview receiver and connected TV set top box which just happens to include a PVR.

     
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 2 December 2016, 8:27PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Not sure that argument justifies the omission of so many basic features, Gwatuk. Terminology is changing as things progress and develop. For instance, I can't put any of my 'set top boxes' on top of the 'set'.

    My Humax 9200T satisfies your description, apart from the word 'connected'. Surely, that admittedly useful addition cannot justify the lack of elementary features in the user interface.

    As you've probably noticed, I visit the forums rarely these days, having abandoned hope that common sense will prevail, and that some the hundreds of additional staff may be devoted to addressing the list of over 100 changes requested, starting 2 years ago. What a waste of everyone's time that was........
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:55PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Yes - I broadly agree.
    I was just kind of playing "Devil's Advocate".


  • stormystormy Member Posts: 1,026 ✭✭
    edited 1 December 2016, 9:24AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Church, agree 100% that the Youview box misses many, many basic PVR features. Search EPG for 'films' being my massive bug bear.
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 2 December 2016, 8:27PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Me too! And also the Summary/Details screens. Good design could have combined these 2, saving a key press. And I could go on, and on, and on, and on.....

    Better stop before Roy or Gwatuk comment that I already have done - on numerous occasions. (thought I'd get THAT in before one of you 2 did.......) :-)
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,528 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:39AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Nah, you keep banging on thar door, Churchwarden. Perhaps one day, YouView will hear your tremulous knocking above the howling gale of ISP requests.

    Though more likely, someone from an ISP will remark that a couple of their subscribers casually mentioned that they would quite like this channels-management thingy, if it wasn't too much trouble, and YouView Towers will resound to the thump of colliding bodies as YouView's hundreds of developers scurry hither and thither in their indecent haste to get it done......
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • scottscott Member, Super User Posts: 2,134 ✭✭✭
    edited 29 November 2016, 11:48AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    IF only that was the case...As much as people like to make the stories about the ISP's, the problem isn't that things are only done for the ISP's, it's the fact that NOTHING is done..
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:55PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    scott - your comments get darker and darker as each day of inactivity by YouView passes by.


  • scottscott Member, Super User Posts: 2,134 ✭✭✭
    edited 29 November 2016, 11:48AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    As I slip further and further into the pit of despair or should that be 'the bog of eternal stench'...whoops slipped into a different place then...

    And I promised to be Mr positive from now on  cmon YouView throw us a bone and give us something to help us believe something is coming form you...
  • stormystormy Member Posts: 1,026 ✭✭
    edited 1 December 2016, 9:24AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    scott, to be honest the ISPs have had far more success at getting things their way than any requests any of us lowly retail users have asked for. At least that's something right?  Although yeh, the whole Youview development seems a joke.

    gwatuk, Youview seems to be so slow at doing anything I am surprised they have managed to secure more funding. Even things they have promised either come late or never and the actual improvements I have seen in the retail service since I bought my box are pretty much nil. UKTV player is all I can think of (that has affected me), and I have used it twice.

    You only have to look here:

    http://www.youview.com/news/

    Its to be honest, pretty shoddy really.

  • scottscott Member, Super User Posts: 2,134 ✭✭✭
    edited 29 November 2016, 11:48AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Yes and No Stormy...I reported something internally through BT to YouView and was promised it was being looked into and 7 months later still not a sausage..

    https://community.youview.com/youview/topics/surround_sound_problems_with_new_bt_15_11_software

    also if you look at the software releases in Keith's list..how many of those are new items just for ISP's against how many fixes are for everyone

    https://community.youview.com/youview/topics/consolidated_list_of_updates_and_changes

    I don't believe that reflects purely towards ISP's over the lifetime (2 years) of YouView.

    I believe what is does show is that in the last six months NOTHING has been done (accesibility updates and HDMI/Scart output possibly - Note NOT ISP requested) so I stick to my original statement that YouView has delivered nothing recently not ISP only stuff.

    Just to point out I am a BT customer stuck on 17.3.0 software with a serious recording bug, hardly the glowing ISP related service everyone seems to make out...

     

     

  • TomWTomW Member Posts: 508 ✭✭
    edited 27 November 2016, 7:35PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    I can only think of three notable updates / improvements since I bought my retail box 18 months ago -

    1. Series Roll up / folders in MyView

    2. The option to hide channels in the EPG

    3. Mobile app

    I guess you could also include EPG filters and the recent addition of TV categories in the mobile app but these are not features that I ever use. I accept that I don't know how many people actually use those features, and I may be in the minority, but from my own point of view they were a complete and utter waste of precious development time. I cannot understand why those features were prioritised given the lack of progress on improvements and features requested by many users on this forum, some of which have been around for two years and seem comparatively simple to implement.

    There has, of course, been other development work but it all seems be either hidden 'behind the scenes' stuff or fixing bugs some of which, it seems, are the result of previous updates.

    There just doesn't seem to be any progress on improvements to the the UI and oft requested features, and I'm left wondering whether there's something fundamentally wrong with the technology on which YouView is built which is perhaps hampering development.
  • stormystormy Member Posts: 1,026 ✭✭
    edited 1 December 2016, 9:24AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Well said Tom. Glad its not just me who thinks this way. :) I did forget the Roll up and channel hide option (which I do use). I don't use the app much as Youview were too too busy visiting another conference or making cakes :) to implement it working with High Eco (many good suggestions were made at the time about scheduling power save times to allow some compromise, but alas nothing came of it).
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 2 December 2016, 8:27PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Totally agree, Tom. I think the team are doing the best with what the original design allows them, but it does seem a fraught process making changes. That, as several of us believe, is probably indicative, as you suggest, of a questionable choice of base software on which the system is built. This is an obvious explanation for the fact that even the simplest improvements have not been implemented, despite the fact that from day one, during the trial, YouView seemed to be receptive to the suggestions for changes. Whilst the initial willingness may have been there, the passage of time revealed the difficulties even the minor changes created. I even thought, at one time, that they may be involved in a complete rewrite! If effort was being devoted to that, it would explain the inactivity with the current setup.
    Back in the day (decades ago) when I was involved developing complex systems, we used to joke that the way to get a good working system was to write it, encounter all the things you'd got wrong, and then bin it, and write it properly!
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:55PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

     I'm left wondering whether there's something fundamentally wrong with the technology on which YouView is built which is perhaps hampering development
    An interesting thought that.
    If you want to know the technology that was chosen for YouView just research Liam O'Donnell who used to work for YouView but does not do so now. It is some kind of Flash.
    YouView are now "moving towards" HTML5.
    I have absolutely no evidence for this, but I suspect they may be rewriting the entire product.

       
  • scottscott Member, Super User Posts: 2,134 ✭✭✭
    edited 29 November 2016, 11:48AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    In which case we could understand a big delay before anything new BUT if they can't tell us this is what they are thinking/attempting to do we are just left without any idea what is going on and why we are being under served...

    We must have some good boffins on here....Would it be possible to completely re-write the os into something say HTML5 or do I not understand the reality in that (I admit I am very dumb about these things)...
  • TomWTomW Member Posts: 508 ✭✭
    edited 27 November 2016, 7:35PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    I have only a limited knowledge of HTML5 but I know that it was designed to be a standards compliant replacement for Flash which, of course, is a proprietary technology owned by Adobe.

    I don't know if it's the OS as such, but if I remember correctly, YouView is built on a modified version of Adobe Air, so it would go much deeper than just the UI and I suspect everything in the stack from the firmware upwards - perhaps even that too - would need to be re-written.

    I don't know for certain but I'm pretty sure that, since they're effectively competing technologies, Adobe Air and HTML5 are not compatible. In other words if you go down the HTML5 route then it's all or nothing. That would suggest to me a complete re-write.

    Don't quote me on any of this though, I am by no means an expert. I have worked with online video players that use Flash and HTML5 but that is the sum total of my knowledge.
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:55PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    This might add to the picture:
    http://www.spikything.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/22/stagecraft-aka-air-for-tv/



  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,528 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:39AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    The guy that wrote this thing, under severe time constraints, necessarily had to use a very high level language (for which read 'loads huge libraries of stuff even if you use only one or two calls') and then bashed off to Thailand (for which read 'the documentation is the code and I'm eight hours ahead and probably unavailable if you have any queries') so I'd expect it to have the structural rigidity of an octopus, and all the resilience of a waterbed occupied by a family of hedgehogs and their unrivalled pincushion collection.

    That would explain a lot about how slowly it gets to be updated, and how every release breaks nearly as much as it fixes.

    Yes it needs rewriting. Yes, they are probably doing this. It should go excellently - look how superb the GS rewrite of the forum software was. It shouldn't be long at all now before it is only as bad as what we started with....
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • TomWTomW Member Posts: 508 ✭✭
    edited 27 November 2016, 7:35PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Thanks for the link gwatuk, that's fascinating and very revealing. Although I must admit I don't understand why the YouView box is a 'resource constrained device', after all, it's just moving a few pixels around on the screen, it's hardly what I'd call processor intensive!

    But that's probably why I'm not a computer programmer :-)
  • stormystormy Member Posts: 1,026 ✭✭
    edited 1 December 2016, 9:24AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Is this rewrite theory plausible or wishful thinking?
  • stormystormy Member Posts: 1,026 ✭✭
    edited 1 December 2016, 9:24AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Interesting Quote from Liam back in February on that page;

    The first Law: conservation of users

    Users are not created or destroyed, only converted to or from using a competitor’s product.

    All other things being equal, you should remember that brand loyalty counts for less and less these days. If you don’t want to do what your users are asking for, maybe your competitors will.

  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,528 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:39AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    TomW

    You are cordially invited to investigate the cost and specification of the various bits of an ordinary computer versus a high-end gaming machine.

    You will discover that a crucial difference is the graphics processor - usually part of the CPU chipset in an everyday PC, but a dedicated (and often expensive!) card often requiring more than one slot.

    And all just to 'move a few pixels around on the screen'.

    125 million per second, by the way (if my maths is correct) if it can't optimise for unchanged material from frame to frame, such as when you are scrolling the EPG.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_s...

    YouView boxes do not contain such a card.....
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • stormystormy Member Posts: 1,026 ✭✭
    edited 1 December 2016, 9:24AM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Gaming PC's (and specifically higher end graphics cards) generally need to move more than a few pixels around but I understand the point. :) The Youview GUI isn't really (or shouldn't be) that intensive to require such a processor anyway, the amount of pixel shifting should be well within its limits although at times the DTR-T1010 feels like it could do with some low end pixel shifting capabilities. Does it have a PCIe slot? :)))) I wonder what graphics technology the Youview box uses as it must have some soft of pixel pusher otherwise we wouldn't have a GUI. :)
  • TomWTomW Member Posts: 508 ✭✭
    edited 27 November 2016, 7:35PM

    I understand your position, Stormy, and agree up to a point. However, I still struggle with the lack of basic features in YouView that my nearly 10 year old Humax box has, this being one of them.

    If you are going to reinvent the wheel, current examples may be a good starting point to look at! Otherwise you may end up with a beautiful designer wheel, with a few decorative bells and whistles that add little to the functionality, but that takes significantly longer, and more effort, to achieve the same result as the model you are replacing.

    Roy

    I'm fully aware that PCs have a graphics processor and that high end PCs often have a dedicated graphics card for gaming and video rendering etc. Part of my day job requires me to have a basic understanding of PC architecture.

    However, there is a huge difference - and Stormy has alluded to this - between the huge processing power required for 3D gaming and video encoding, and the relatively modest requirements for moving a few basic 2D bitmap images around the screen. Even my old Amiga with a measly 8Mhz processor made a good stab of moving bitmap images around the screen. And my Topfield PVR which was first produced in 2005 has almost zero latency when moving around the menus and EPG. Granted the YouView EPG is much prettier, more colours and picture in picture etc., and it's 1080p so there are a lot more pixels to move around, but even so, I still don't understand why it's a 'resource constrained device'. Even the most basic £100 tablet can move pixels around the screen with ease so I don't see why it should be such a burden for the YouView box.

    I suspect the problem may be the development environment (the AIR for TV / AS3 / Stagecraft environment that was mentioned in the article by Liam O'Donnell) rather than a hardware constraint, but of course that's pure speculation, I have no evidence to back that up.  




  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,293 ✭✭✭
    edited 26 February 2017, 2:39PM
    TomW
    However, there is a huge difference between the huge processing power required for 3D gaming and video encoding, and the relatively modest requirements for moving a few basic 2D bitmap images around the screen
    In a dual hybrid HD Multicast IPTV box? Is there? I dunno. But it must cost a lot of processing power.
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
Sign In or Register to comment.