- This topic has 166 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The HDR-1***S boxes are under the control of content owners. Content owners have no interest in DLNA servers. (My opinion)
At the announcement of the 1000 series in 2012 Humax stated that it was their plan to make a server facility available. Whether they were thwarted in that intent is open to speculation since they have never followed up either implementing it or commenting on it.
Black 1TB and 500GB now listed as in stock on Humax Direct:
@ Smiffy
Cannot replicate the issue you report with ‘help and info’ tab on home screen on my 1100S 500GB (black)
JamesB – 1 day ago »
The HDR-1***S boxes are under the control of content owners. Content owners have no interest in DLNA servers. (My opinion)
What would be the difference then between the Humax 2000T acting as client and server whilst the 1000s/1100s can only act as client? Apart that is from the obvious i.e. one is Freeview the others Freesat.
Barry – 1 day ago »
Black 1TB and 500GB now listed as in stock on Humax Direct:
That has to be a plus for anyone wanting one then. To me the white reminds me of tarts high heels. 🙄
Not that I actually know anything about such matters you understand.
Faust – 12 minutes ago »
JamesB – 1 day ago »
The HDR-1***S boxes are under the control of content owners. Content owners have no interest in DLNA servers. (My opinion)
What would be the difference then between the Humax 2000T acting as client and server whilst the 1000s/1100s can only act as client? Apart that is from the obvious i.e. one is Freeview the others Freesat.
Freesat designed the freetime spec, Humax built the box to the spec with little leeway to add extras.
Humax design and build the Freeview+ boxes, presumably there is scope for extras within the spec.
Having received an e-mail from Humax yesterday promoting the new HDR-1100S I had a look at their website to see what this offers.
My situation is that I have been using for 5-yrs (?) a FOXSAT-HDR and am thinking that it must be getting a little dated and can also imagine a sudden HDD crash.
I cannot see from the spec in the manual what the size the HDD is. I do know that we always have it 60-70% filled and do not use HD because of the HDD size and it seems sluggish when controlling it.
With the above info could you give an opinion on the size of HDD I would need on a 1100S to be able to make HD recordings?
Having only found this forum this afternoon and reading through this thread I can see that I would miss a SCART socket: but as this only for an occasional recording to a DVD it would be preferable though not essential.
In the analysis with the outgoing model nobody has mentioned the following that I spotted by comparing the specs 1000/1100:
Video On Demand: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
TV platform: Freesat/No
To be fair I do not know what the implication of the above means but it sounds attractive too be able to access the Internet or perhaps I am not understanding what this means.
KenDoubleU – 6 minutes ago »
Having received an e-mail from Humax yesterday promoting the new HDR-1100S I had a look at their website to see what this offers.
My situation is that I have been using for 5-yrs (?) a FOXSAT-HDR and am thinking that it must be getting a little dated and can also imagine a sudden HDD crash.
I cannot see from the spec in the manual what the size the HDD is. I do know that we always have it 60-70% filled and do not use HD because of the HDD size and it seems sluggish when controlling it.
With the above info could you give an opinion on the size of HDD I would need on a 1100S to be able to make HD recordings?
Having only found this forum this afternoon and reading through this thread I can see that I would miss a SCART socket: but as this only for an occasional recording to a DVD it would be preferable though not essential.
In the analysis with the outgoing model nobody has mentioned the following that I spotted by comparing the specs 1000/1100:
Video On Demand: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
TV platform: Freesat/No
To be fair I do not know what the implication of the above means but it sounds attractive too be able to access the Internet or perhaps I am not understanding what this means.
Disregard those items in the specs as in those respects they are identical as is the software.
grahamlthompson – 1 hour ago »
Faust – 12 minutes ago »
JamesB – 1 day ago »
The HDR-1***S boxes are under the control of content owners. Content owners have no interest in DLNA servers. (My opinion)
What would be the difference then between the Humax 2000T acting as client and server whilst the 1000s/1100s can only act as client? Apart that is from the obvious i.e. one is Freeview the others Freesat.
Freesat designed the freetime spec, Humax built the box to the spec with little leeway to add extras.
Humax design and build the Freeview+ boxes, presumably there is scope for extras within the spec.
But did Freesat commission the box or is it that Humax wanted to produce a Freesat box and Freesat provided the EPG tech? If it was the latter then surely Humax could put whatever extras it wanted to include in the kit?
Faust – 17 minutes ago »
grahamlthompson – 1 hour ago »
Faust – 12 minutes ago »
JamesB – 1 day ago »
The HDR-1***S boxes are under the control of content owners. Content owners have no interest in DLNA servers. (My opinion)
What would be the difference then between the Humax 2000T acting as client and server whilst the 1000s/1100s can only act as client? Apart that is from the obvious i.e. one is Freeview the others Freesat.
Freesat designed the freetime spec, Humax built the box to the spec with little leeway to add extras.
Humax design and build the Freeview+ boxes, presumably there is scope for extras within the spec.
But did Freesat commission the box or is it that Humax wanted to produce a Freesat box and Freesat provided the EPG tech? If it was the latter then surely Humax could put whatever extras it wanted to include in the kit?
Presumably if it did not meet the specs it wouldn’t be licensed.
Only speculating but no recording capability and no archiving capability presumably form part of the spec. The Youview boxes are even more crippled.
As to the discussion re the DLNA server, does everyone realise that to serve HD you need DTCP-IP client. Which in reality likely means a second Humax box ?
Faust – 1 hour ago  »Â
JamesB – 1 day ago  »Â
The HDR-1***S boxes are under the control of content owners. Content owners have no interest in DLNA servers. (My opinion)
What would be the difference then between the Humax 2000T acting as client and server whilst the 1000s/1100s can only act as client? Apart that is from the obvious i.e. one is Freeview the others Freesat.
Priorities. The counterpart to Freetime is not Freeview+ but YouView. The Freetime and YouView boxes are both designed to deliver a service, like Sky or Virgin but not requiring a subscription. What is delivered, and how it is delivered, is decided by Freesat / YouView. The priority is selling the service – both broadcast and IP. From that point of view, a DLNA server adds nothing, though it might not be actually ruled out. In the case of YouView, it seems to have been ruled out, as there’s not even a client in any of the boxes.
With the 2000T, the manufacturer decides what features will be offered. The priority is selling more boxes. A DLNA server helps to sell boxes, so there’s a good reason to offer it if practical.
Faust – 4 hours ago »
JamesB – 1 day ago »
The HDR-1***S boxes are under the control of content owners. Content owners have no interest in DLNA servers. (My opinion)
What would be the difference then between the Humax 2000T acting as client and server whilst the 1000s/1100s can only act as client? Apart that is from the obvious i.e. one is Freeview the others Freesat.
I think most customers want DLNA clients and servers that serve service solely their LAN.
REPASSAC
Thank you for the reply to my point with regard to the spec of 1100S to 1000
KenDoubleU
REPASSAC – 2 hours ago »
Faust – 4 hours ago »
JamesB – 1 day ago »
The HDR-1***S boxes are under the control of content owners. Content owners have no interest in DLNA servers. (My opinion)
What would be the difference then between the Humax 2000T acting as client and server whilst the 1000s/1100s can only act as client? Apart that is from the obvious i.e. one is Freeview the others Freesat.
I think most customers want DLNA clients and servers that serve service solely their LAN.
This is true. I am fortunate in that we have two Panasonic devices that can act as server and client plus one Humax. We use it to grab programmes recorded on our HW120 in another room to play on our Panasonic TV or media from my Synology NAS.
However, as covered in a thread most extensively before, the 2000T won’t play ball in serving material to some devices without converting it first.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.