On Thu, 27 May 2021 12:15:30 +0100
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 May 2021 11:08:40 +0000 (UTC), MrSpook_h_@pmk0if89lodl.info
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 May 2021 12:04:28 +0100
>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 27 May 2021 08:09:37 +0000 (UTC),
>>>MrSpook_M4_pq2q@i_gza3z9e80.tv wrote:
>>>>What do you want, a video of it not working? Don't imply I'm a liar just
>>>>because you're some Humax fanboy.
>>>
>>>Not working does not prove it is 'full of bugs'. Do you have any
>>>actual evidence?
>>
>>Go troll someone else arsehole.
>
>I congratulate you on your erudition and will follow your advice as
>you have obviously formed an opinion which you are not prepared to
>discuss in a discussion group.

I don't need to "discuss" with some troll whether my Humax exhibits bugs when
I see them every day so go play wind-up elsewhere.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 12:25:07 +0100
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 27/05/2021 11:28, MrSpook_8xvep8iys@el3iu.org wrote:
>> IMO TV manufacturers are missing a trick by not putting an SSD into their
>> TV sets with recording functionality, there's more than enough room. They put
>
>> in all the "smart" shit almost no one wants or uses but not basic stuff like
>> this.
>
>It would be useful, but they'd also have to put a second tuner in. My

Not necessarily. With a single tuner you can record as many channels that
are on the current tuned multiplex as the decoder can manage. But yes, if you
want to record any combinations of channels you'd need a 2nd tuner but I
imagine these days thats a single chip.

>the time. I'd prefer it to a lot of the online stuff I don't use (an
>aside. Are there any recording devices - other than computers - which
>can record streamed video? I've often wondered why this seems to be

VHS? :)

On 27/05/2021 16:44, MrSpook_39@sr2q2irli1l7vrt7_.gov.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2021 12:25:07 +0100
> Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 27/05/2021 11:28, MrSpook_8xvep8iys@el3iu.org wrote:
>>> IMO TV manufacturers are missing a trick by not putting an SSD into their
>>> TV sets with recording functionality, there's more than enough room. They put
>>
>>> in all the "smart" shit almost no one wants or uses but not basic stuff like
>>> this.
>>
>> It would be useful, but they'd also have to put a second tuner in. My
>
> Not necessarily. With a single tuner you can record as many channels that
> are on the current tuned multiplex as the decoder can manage. But yes, if you
> want to record any combinations of channels you'd need a 2nd tuner but I
> imagine these days thats a single chip.

Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case with a single-tuner
model Panasonic TV (according to the "eHelp" file it is possible to get
twin-tuner TVs). It states:
"No other channels can be selected while recording of Timer Programming
s in progress. (Only for single tuner model)"

I also don't think it is possible to change channel when using instant
recording even to another channel on the same mux.

>> the time. I'd prefer it to a lot of the online stuff I don't use (an
>> aside. Are there any recording devices - other than computers - which
>> can record streamed video? I've often wondered why this seems to be
>
> VHS? :)

Would that be digital VHS?

--

Jeff

On Thu, 27 May 2021 21:51:10 +0100
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 27/05/2021 16:44, MrSpook_39@sr2q2irli1l7vrt7_.gov.uk wrote:
>> Not necessarily. With a single tuner you can record as many channels that
>> are on the current tuned multiplex as the decoder can manage. But yes, if you
>
>> want to record any combinations of channels you'd need a 2nd tuner but I
>> imagine these days thats a single chip.
>
>Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case with a single-tuner
>model Panasonic TV (according to the "eHelp" file it is possible to get
>twin-tuner TVs). It states:
>"No other channels can be selected while recording of Timer Programming
>s in progress. (Only for single tuner model)"
>I also don't think it is possible to change channel when using instant
>recording even to another channel on the same mux.

Thats a bit pathetic frankly.

>>> the time. I'd prefer it to a lot of the online stuff I don't use (an
>>> aside. Are there any recording devices - other than computers - which
>>> can record streamed video? I've often wondered why this seems to be
>>
>> VHS? :)
>
>Would that be digital VHS?

Not sure if you're being facetious or not, but apparently there was a
digital VHS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-VHS

Learn something new etc etc...

On 28/05/2021 11:58, MrSpook_0hyr4V_@o9hfbkbaaqxu.org wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2021 21:51:10 +0100
> Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 27/05/2021 16:44, MrSpook_39@sr2q2irli1l7vrt7_.gov.uk wrote:
>>> Not necessarily. With a single tuner you can record as many channels that
>>> are on the current tuned multiplex as the decoder can manage. But yes, if you
>>
>>> want to record any combinations of channels you'd need a 2nd tuner but I
>>> imagine these days thats a single chip.
>>
>> Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case with a single-tuner
>> model Panasonic TV (according to the "eHelp" file it is possible to get
>> twin-tuner TVs). It states:
>> "No other channels can be selected while recording of Timer Programming
>> s in progress. (Only for single tuner model)"
>> I also don't think it is possible to change channel when using instant
>> recording even to another channel on the same mux.
>
> Thats a bit pathetic frankly.
>
>>>> the time. I'd prefer it to a lot of the online stuff I don't use (an
>>>> aside. Are there any recording devices - other than computers - which
>>>> can record streamed video? I've often wondered why this seems to be
>>>
>>> VHS? :)
>>
>> Would that be digital VHS?
>
> Not sure if you're being facetious or not, but apparently there was a
> digital VHS:

I was, but didn't know there had been a D-VHS! I have a couple of S-VHS
boxes in the loft, and I'm somewhat surprised that JVC pushed ahead with
D-VHS considering the commercial failure that S-VHS had been (although
the picture quality was was a /lot/ better than VHS). I suppose that as
computer backup on tape was already relatively mature and the issues
well \known, perhaps JVC considered the move from "computer" tape to
"digital video" tape would be fairly straightforward.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-VHS
>
> Learn something new etc etc...

Indeed. It's an interesting read.

--

Jeff

In article <ih16miFtooeU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> scribeth thus
>Woody wrote:
>
>> This is often caused by near neighbours using the same router address
>> range.
>
>With respect, that's bollox!
>
>It could only make any difference if they used the same WiFi SSID, same
>password, as well as the same IP subnet, and if that's the case you've
>got bigger problems than a smartTV not responding to she who must not be
>mentioned.
>
>

The main issue is with the 2.4 Frequency band that the available
bandwidth. A simple scan here in a small cul-de-sac indicates around
5/6 routers per channel thats 1, 6 and 11.. I think we're the only ones
using channel 13

The interference really can hammer the wi-fi performance thats why some
years ago one Christmas week around a half mile of CAT 6 cable was
pulled in, very secure that is and performs very well..

Mind you 5.8 is getting more commonplace except that not a lot of end
user gear has that capability..

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <EfudnQCuCqIRUTH9nZ2dnUU78KWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> scribeth thus
>On 24/05/2021 15:36, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/05/2021 07:53 am, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>> Every so often, my Samsung tv, last years model, fails to connect to the
>>> router when its turned on. No amount of fiddling with settings fixes
>>> this,
>>> but its less than 2m from the router. The only way is to it off, pull out
>>> the mains for about 30 seconds, then replace it and turn it on again.
>>>   Is this a common issue on TVs? You first notice it when you try to
>>> get lady
>>> A to operate, when it complains there ins no internet available of
>>> course,
>>> and hence no internet delivered content either. I could hard wire it I
>>> guess, but due to the closeness it seems a little silly.
>>>   Brian
>>
>> A guess: computers have to be turned off now and then in order not to
>> eventually crash. The same, I suggest, is true of that sort of computer
>> called a Smart TV, though I would guess that very few are switched off
>> overnight at the mains these days. Ours certainly aren't.
>

>Mine was last rebooted December 2017. But, then, it does run Windows 7.
>

And still a bloody good operating system does all i need thanks:)...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p6tZQwe+6jsgFwtg@bancom.co.uk...

The main issue is with the 2.4 Frequency band that the available
bandwidth. A simple scan here in a small cul-de-sac indicates around
5/6 routers per channel thats 1, 6 and 11.. I think we're the only ones
using channel 13

> Mind you 5.8 [GHz] is getting more commonplace except that not a lot of
> end
> user gear has that capability..

And the range of 5 GHz is a lot less than 2.4 GHz: it seems to be attenuated
a lot more by metal buried in walls (foil coating on plasterboard, metal
doorframes, metal reinforcing rods in concrete).

My laptop sometimes connects to 2.4 and sometimes to 5, depending on how
strong the signal from the nearest mesh node is.

In article <s8uaat$gan$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid>
scribeth thus
>"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:p6tZQwe+6jsgFwtg@bancom.co.uk...
>
>The main issue is with the 2.4 Frequency band that the available
>bandwidth. A simple scan here in a small cul-de-sac indicates around
>5/6 routers per channel thats 1, 6 and 11.. I think we're the only ones
>using channel 13
>
>
>> Mind you 5.8 [GHz] is getting more commonplace except that not a lot of
>> end
>> user gear has that capability..
>
>And the range of 5 GHz is a lot less than 2.4 GHz: it seems to be attenuated
>a lot more by metal buried in walls (foil coating on plasterboard, metal
>doorframes, metal reinforcing rods in concrete).
>
>My laptop sometimes connects to 2.4 and sometimes to 5, depending on how
>strong the signal from the nearest mesh node is.
>

Yes Ofcom did a report on 2.4 -v- 5.8, 2.4 as long as it wasn't chocka
with interferer's worked better IIRC...
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.