Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

How fast does TIVO copy the programs to
the hard disk? Is that the correct question?
Are people happy with Tivo to go? Fry's
has a Tivo 2 on sale for $100 this week end
40 hr which seems to be plenty big if I copy
files easily. What do you thinkj?

Thanks.
:-)

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On 2005-07-10, In my evolving opinion <no@email.com> wrote:
> How fast does TIVO copy the programs to
> the hard disk? Is that the correct question?
> Are people happy with Tivo to go? Fry's

TiVo to go is slow. Around real time.

> has a Tivo 2 on sale for $100 this week end
> 40 hr which seems to be plenty big if I copy
> files easily. What do you thinkj?

40 hours is nothing.

Get the box, add 1 or 2 larger harddrives, hack the unit so you can
transfer shows without using TiVo to go, and you'll be all set with a
rocken box.

--
This is my .sig

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Mike Hunt <in2sheep@yahoo.com> wrote in news:11d377lrvfkc146
@corp.supernews.com:

> On 2005-07-10, In my evolving opinion <no@email.com> wrote:
>> How fast does TIVO copy the programs to
>> the hard disk? Is that the correct question?
>> Are people happy with Tivo to go? Fry's
>
> TiVo to go is slow. Around real time.

This answer could not possibly be more useless. Obviously, the time to
transfer is going to change based on at least two main variables, speed of
local network and quality of the recording.

Or are you REALLY trying to say a one hour best quality program transferred
over a wireless b network will take exactly as much time as a one hour
basic transferred over a wired network? According to you, since the
transfer occurs in 'real time', the transfer of both examples will take one
hour each. Clearly not the case.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On 2005-07-11, Howard <stile99@email> wrote:
> Mike Hunt <in2sheep@yahoo.com> wrote in news:11d377lrvfkc146
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> On 2005-07-10, In my evolving opinion <no@email.com> wrote:
>>> How fast does TIVO copy the programs to
>>> the hard disk? Is that the correct question?
>>> Are people happy with Tivo to go? Fry's
>>
>> TiVo to go is slow. Around real time.
>
> This answer could not possibly be more useless. Obviously, the time to
> transfer is going to change based on at least two main variables, speed of
> local network and quality of the recording.
>
> Or are you REALLY trying to say a one hour best quality program transferred
> over a wireless b network will take exactly as much time as a one hour
> basic transferred over a wired network? According to you, since the
> transfer occurs in 'real time', the transfer of both examples will take one
> hour each. Clearly not the case.

When using TiVo to go, yes all transfers are very similar in speed when
compared to a hacked box transfering shows without TiVo to go.

I guess the point I didn't spend too much time on was that TiVo to go is
very slow NO MATTER WHAT. If you go and hack your TiVo, that will give
you 10X improvement over TiVo to go. If, as the OP mentioned, one is
really interested in moving shows off their TiVo to a PC, I would HIGHLY
recommend NOT using TiVo to go and hacking your box instead. It will
really give you much more freedom and the happiness gained from much
faster transfers is unmeasurable. In the time that it takes to transfer 2
hours off your box using TiVo to go, you could learn to hack the box, hack
it, and transfer the 2 hours faster than TiVo to go takes.

--
This is my .sig

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Thanks for the help, both of you.
I have a Tivo series1 with 160 hr.
drive, but I read that the hack was
kind of difficult and would only
transfer at about double real time.
Is that because it's a series one?
If I remember correctly the series
one had a slow NIC connection.
Is that right.
: -)

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On 2005-07-11, In my evolving opinion <no@email.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the help, both of you.
> I have a Tivo series1 with 160 hr.
> drive, but I read that the hack was
> kind of difficult and would only

difficult level is a per-user thing. What is easy for some is quite
challenging for others. IMHO, there are simple enough instructions out
there that an average Windows user could do it without too much work.

> transfer at about double real time.

I transfer an hour show (~1GB)in ~8 minutes.

> Is that because it's a series one?
> If I remember correctly the series
> one had a slow NIC connection.
> Is that right.

The series one doesn't by default have ANY network connection. You have
to buy it and add it yourself.

They make both 10mbps and 100mbps cards for the series1. Even the 10mbps
card is faster than TiVo to go, but I don't know how much faster.

--
This is my .sig

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Thanks. Who makes the NIC for series 1? Tivo?
I wonder why a Gigabit NIC isn't available. I mean
do they fit in to like a PCI slot?
Thanks again.

"Mike Hunt" <in2sheep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11d58abk4jtp04b@corp.supernews.com...
: On 2005-07-11, In my evolving opinion <no@email.com> wrote:
: >
: > Thanks for the help, both of you.
: > I have a Tivo series1 with 160 hr.
: > drive, but I read that the hack was
: > kind of difficult and would only
:
: difficult level is a per-user thing. What is easy for some is quite
: challenging for others. IMHO, there are simple enough instructions out
: there that an average Windows user could do it without too much work.
:
: > transfer at about double real time.
:
: I transfer an hour show (~1GB)in ~8 minutes.
:
: > Is that because it's a series one?
: > If I remember correctly the series
: > one had a slow NIC connection.
: > Is that right.
:
: The series one doesn't by default have ANY network connection. You have
: to buy it and add it yourself.
:
: They make both 10mbps and 100mbps cards for the series1. Even the 10mbps
: card is faster than TiVo to go, but I don't know how much faster.
:
: --
: This is my .sig

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"In my evolving opinion" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:mZNAe.8523$Eo.6382@fed1read04...
>
> Thanks. Who makes the NIC for series 1? Tivo?
> I wonder why a Gigabit NIC isn't available. I mean
> do they fit in to like a PCI slot?
> Thanks again.

www.9thtee.com

On the series 1, even though it looks like a PCI slot, that's only the
connector. The architecture is just an ISA bus. The first gen NICs for the
Series 1 was just an adapter that went to the "PCI looking" connector and
gave you a standard ISA slot.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>>How fast does TIVO copy the programs to
>>>the hard disk? Is that the correct question?
>>>Are people happy with Tivo to go? Fry's
>>
>>TiVo to go is slow. Around real time.
>
>
> This answer could not possibly be more useless. Obviously, the time to
> transfer is going to change based on at least two main variables, speed of
> local network and quality of the recording.

I want to back Mike up here, he was telling the OP want they needed to
know. The OP seems to be wanting to use TTG to move movies back and
forth to manage space, and it's really too slow to do that. While
"around real time" isn't exact it doesn't vary that much percentage
wise, and it's always too slow to be used for space management. It's
better for use in archiving shows, not just temporarily moving them.


> Or are you REALLY trying to say a one hour best quality program transferred
> over a wireless b network will take exactly as much time as a one hour
> basic transferred over a wired network? According to you, since the
> transfer occurs in 'real time', the transfer of both examples will take one
> hour each. Clearly not the case.
>

Actually TTG speeds aren't that different over wired or wireless
networks, even 802.11b ones. The major limiter seems to be encryption,
not network speed. There's a slight gain w/ wired, but not what you'd
expect. Hacked boxes obviously remove that limitation and transfer much
faster. All told, I think Mike did a good job in informing the OP what
they really needed to know.

Randy S.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in
newsatksj$946$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu:

> I want to back Mike up here, he was telling the OP want they needed to
> know. The OP seems to be wanting to use TTG to move movies back and
> forth to manage space, and it's really too slow to do that. While
> "around real time" isn't exact it doesn't vary that much percentage
> wise, and it's always too slow to be used for space management. It's
> better for use in archiving shows, not just temporarily moving them.

I question how you know that's what the OP wants to know. Particularly
since "TiVo to comeback" does not even exist yet.

> Actually TTG speeds aren't that different over wired or wireless
> networks, even 802.11b ones. The major limiter seems to be encryption,
> not network speed. There's a slight gain w/ wired, but not what you'd
> expect. Hacked boxes obviously remove that limitation and transfer much
> faster. All told, I think Mike did a good job in informing the OP what
> they really needed to know.

I'm sorry, and this in NOT an attack on either Mike or you, but I have to
disagree. Giving someone an incorrect answer is NOT by any stretch of the
imagination 'informing' anyone of anything.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-1012210-3.html

From this, just one small example shows a transfer time between 13 minutes
and 146 minutes for a 30 minute show, depending on quality and network.
This is clearly not 'real time'.

Furthermore, according to tivocommunity.com, a wired network will about
double your transfer speed. In transferring from TiVo to Tivo (both
wired), one poster says he can transfer a one hour best show in just over
half an hour. Another says that with a wired config, best quality is real
time...with the lesser qualities logically following that they would be
faster.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo- [...] 76212.html

At http://www.sizemoresr.com/mt/archives/000266.html Steve Sizemore states
with a wireless connection, he gets a 30 minute medium recording
trasnferred in 20 minutes. What definition of 'real time' does this fall
under?

I'm sorry, I just can't say that Mike's answer was accurate using any known
definition of the word. If one wants to press an agenda that hacking is
superior to TTG, then this may or may not be true. However, making up
numbers isn't a good way to support that or any other claim.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>I want to back Mike up here, he was telling the OP want they needed to
>>know. The OP seems to be wanting to use TTG to move movies back and
>>forth to manage space, and it's really too slow to do that. While
>>"around real time" isn't exact it doesn't vary that much percentage
>>wise, and it's always too slow to be used for space management. It's
>>better for use in archiving shows, not just temporarily moving them.
>
>
> I question how you know that's what the OP wants to know. Particularly
> since "TiVo to comeback" does not even exist yet.

Well, it's not a crime to attempt to "infer" what somebody wants to do
it you think they may be asking it awkwardly. However, you are correct
that the lack of Tivo-to-comeback is a major limitation.

>>Actually TTG speeds aren't that different over wired or wireless
>>networks, even 802.11b ones. The major limiter seems to be encryption,
>>not network speed. There's a slight gain w/ wired, but not what you'd
>>expect. Hacked boxes obviously remove that limitation and transfer much
>>faster. All told, I think Mike did a good job in informing the OP what
>>they really needed to know.
>
>
> I'm sorry, and this in NOT an attack on either Mike or you, but I have to
> disagree. Giving someone an incorrect answer is NOT by any stretch of the
> imagination 'informing' anyone of anything.
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-1012210-3.html
>
> From this, just one small example shows a transfer time between 13 minutes
> and 146 minutes for a 30 minute show, depending on quality and network.
> This is clearly not 'real time'.

I believe he said "around" real time, which I would consider accurate,
especially as he was comparing it to hacked speeds. The range you quote
is from 1/2x to 3x realtime, so it's all well within an order of
magnitude, which is understandable considering that compression levels
both from user selected said and variations in recording will alter the
overall size of the file. Hacked speeds would be at least an order of
magnitude faster. When discussing transfer speeds I think it's order of
magnitude that's important, not 2x-5x variations. If transfer speeds
halve from 30 minutes to 15 minutes, it won't change my use very much.
If my transfer speed is reduced from 30 minutes to 3 minutes, my use of
the feature is likely to be altered in a major way.

> Furthermore, according to tivocommunity.com, a wired network will about
> double your transfer speed. In transferring from TiVo to Tivo (both
> wired), one poster says he can transfer a one hour best show in just over
> half an hour. Another says that with a wired config, best quality is real
> time...with the lesser qualities logically following that they would be
> faster.
>
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo- [...] 76212.html
>
> At http://www.sizemoresr.com/mt/archives/000266.html Steve Sizemore states
> with a wireless connection, he gets a 30 minute medium recording
> trasnferred in 20 minutes. What definition of 'real time' does this fall
> under?

Oh c'mon, that's certainly close enough to fall under "around real
time", isn't it?

> I'm sorry, I just can't say that Mike's answer was accurate using any known
> definition of the word. If one wants to press an agenda that hacking is
> superior to TTG, then this may or may not be true. However, making up
> numbers isn't a good way to support that or any other claim.

It is true that one of the weaknesses of TTG is that the transfer speed
is relatively slow, whether over wired or wireless network. I'm not
excoriating Tivo for that, it's just a fact. If it was 10x faster, then
shows could be archived casually. As it is now, it's something that
takes some planning and patience. For instance, there's been numerous
times I would've liked to download the Daily show before I go to work in
the morning (I usually watch TDS tivoed in the morning before work), to
show a particularly funny segment to people I work with, but I can't
wait 15-45 minutes for it to download. If it took 3 minutes I could
easily do it.

Randy S.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in
newsb4emg$tla$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu:

> Oh c'mon, that's certainly close enough to fall under "around real
> time", isn't it?

Well, I guess so. But if we're being this flexible, then 30 cents and $3.75
are also 'around a dollar'. Me, I'm going to keep striving for accuracy.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Howard wrote:
> "Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in
> newsb4emg$tla$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu:
>
>
>>Oh c'mon, that's certainly close enough to fall under "around real
>>time", isn't it?
>
>
> Well, I guess so. But if we're being this flexible, then 30 cents and $3.75
> are also 'around a dollar'. Me, I'm going to keep striving for accuracy.
>

It depends on what you're estimating. As a former design engineer, we'd
often take swags like that in *very* early design phases. It didn't
matter if you were 2 or 3x off, as long as it didn't significantly alter
the overall behaviour. Often only orders of magnitude would matter.
Usually this was just for feasibility studies. But in this case, I
would pretty much classify this as a feasibility study, i.e. is it
feasible for us to use TTG as a casual archiving tool? At transfer
speeds of 10x-20x realtime or better (probably 20x would be better for
long programs), then transfer times vary from 1.5 - 18 minutes (assuming
a min. 30 min show and a max. 3 hr. show), so I would say yes. At
1/2x-2x transfer speeeds you're looking at transfer speeds more like 15
min. to 6 hr, which I would argue would discourage casual use, and would
be much less feasible.

It's not a question of accuracy, it's a question of extracting just
enough data to make an informed decision without wasting valuable time
trying to estimate numbers which you may or may not be able to obtain.
I can't tell you what the average transfer speed of TTG is exactly (nor
may that be possible, since it varies by program and different folks
watch different types of programs), nor that of a hacked box, but I know
that they fall into the ranges that I quoted above.

Randy S.