Opinion on the HD200

[davephan]

How does a PC client compare to the HD-200 to do the same task? Is the PC client more reliable?

Dave

[enterpryse]

Originally Posted by davephan

How does a PC client compare to the HD-200 to do the same task? Is the PC client more reliable?

Dave

At the moment I am sure the answer is yes

[stanger89]

Not for most of us, most of us have extenders because they just work.

[HelenWeathers]

Originally Posted by davephan

How does a PC client compare to the HD-200 to do the same task? Is the PC client more reliable?

Dave

All SageTV recording, playback and viewing live functions are a dream on the HD-200. And no codec hassles.

The area where improvement is needed is in playback of some other source content. i.e. My Blu-ray backups with AC3 soundtracks play fine on the HD-200 paired with a variety of TV types. The ones with DTS tracks are hit and miss until we get full DTS support with downmixing to stereo built into the HD-200. (I think DTS passthru is working now if you use an external amp)

The Client software has issues with some of the DTS track movies as well, but is better than the HD-200 in the DTS arena.

I am confident these things will get worked out in time. Right now, though, the HD-200 is perfect for playback of anything created by SageTV.

[paulbeers]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Not for most of us, most of us have extenders because they just work.

I agree. I will never build a full client again. You can't build a full client that uses less than 10 watts of power, completely silent, and plays almost everything without having to tweak the settings constantly (driver updates always broke something...god that annoyed me). Oh and all of this for $200....

There are some issues with extenders, but the ease of use far far far outway the setup woes of full client.

[thomaszoo]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Not for most of us, most of us have extenders because they just work.

That is why I have extenders. I started with an MVP and got an HD-100 from the second batch. Then I bought a second HD-100 last summer with a new LCD TV. They just work!

The notion of not installing Beta software / firmware is ludicrous. Software / firmware is seldom a finished product. I just bought a new DVD player (not Bluray) and the first thing I did was to update the firmware. The firmware in it was not beta, but it had bugs in it! The SageTV folks will work with you if you have a problem and you file a bug report!

I plan to add a HD-200 to my system soon.

Wayne

[eded9698]

Originally Posted by joelinkup

Here is a thought... I am not a youngster... I have been a basement experimenter all my life... I am retired now but have traveled the world as an engineer... SageTV is a small company... They absolutely RELY on you people to beta test their product... and I TOTALLY understand your frustrations and also your joys when you beta testers have some success... I GET THAT... I have been doing that for 60 years... Given all that... IF SageTV ever goes broke ALL OF US will be holding the bag with the units we have to the degree we have them at that time... However, if SageTV gets to be the BIG cheese and gets bought out by some MAJOR player then the founders and startups will get SUPER RICH... and all the little beta testers (us/you folks) will just go back to our basements and our soldering irons unrewarded, except in our own minds while the BIG boys sail the seas in their Yachts... So be it... It is the WAY IT IS... Just a thought...

I learned my lesson with MEEDIO. It was sold to Yahoo.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by thomaszoo

The notion of not installing Beta software / firmware is ludicrous. Software / firmware is seldom a finished product. I just bought a new DVD player (not Bluray) and the first thing I did was to update the firmware. The firmware in it was not beta, but it had bugs in it! The SageTV folks will work with you if you have a problem and you file a bug report!

While it's a bit of a continuum, there is a difference between a beta and a released product with bugs. A beta implies the developer expects some bugs that are potential deal breakers. A released product might have some known bugs (and hopefully they're documented), but they're not suppose to be deal breakers.

It's irresponsible to sell a product that's still in beta without, at the very least, making it perfectly clear to potential customers that you have limited faith in its ability to function correctly. It's unrealistic to expect customers to be willing to go through the fairly complicated and long procedures necessary to debug various problems. And, it's poor customer service to charge (or attempt to charge) a restocking fee for a return after you can't get the beta product working on a customer's system.

I know we're all fans of Sage here (well, most of us are), but it seems awfully clear to me that Sage screwed up here. They had to rush a release, which wasn't a great move, and then they exacerbated it by treating an early customer/tester poor (by charging a restocking fee). I don't think many of you would be defending these actions if they were done by other companies.

[stryker]

Feel like I'm going to jinx it here, but my hd200 works great with regular firmware and 6.4 on the server (use placeshifter license) so I'm glad they did get it out the door. I suspect the vast majority are but problem is you never hear from those who are ok.

[comet48]

I've had my HD-200 for a day. Not interested in recording, just being able to play back my video media from a centralised server.
To tell the truth, I'm a little disappointed. It does a great job on DVD's, but no audio on my wmv files and mkv files because they don't support the audio codecs. My xbox's play the wmv files fine, but not interested in having one of each all around the house.
And of course, no Bluray support.
Still waiting for the "ultimate" solution.

[iammike]

Originally Posted by comet48

I've had my HD-200 for a day. Not interested in recording, just being able to play back my video media from a centralised server.
To tell the truth, I'm a little disappointed. It does a great job on DVD's, but no audio on my wmv files and mkv files because they don't support the audio codecs. My xbox's play the wmv files fine, but not interested in having one of each all around the house.
And of course, no Bluray support.
Still waiting for the "ultimate" solution.

You might want to check the audio settings on your hd200. For DTS sound you'll want to set your output to digital bitstream. There's still some issues Sage is working on with DTS audio, but I've had pretty good luck with my mkv's.

[comet48]

Thanks - tried that, but no joy!

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by reggie14

While it's a bit of a continuum, there is a difference between a beta and a released product with bugs. A beta implies the developer expects some bugs that are potential deal breakers. A released product might have some known bugs (and hopefully they're documented), but they're not suppose to be deal breakers.

That's only one possible interpretation (the kind we use at work, but I work on avionics). In PC software there are many. For example, after using countless SageTV "betas" over the years, and quite a number of Cyberlink "releases", I'll take a Sage beta over a Cyberlink release any day. Or what about drivers, ATI and nVidia routinely "release" buggy drivers, and they go months if not years without fixing issues.

It's irresponsible to sell a product that's still in beta without, at the very least, making it perfectly clear to potential customers that you have limited faith in its ability to function correctly. It's unrealistic to expect customers to be willing to go through the fairly complicated and long procedures necessary to debug various problems. And, it's poor customer service to charge (or attempt to charge) a restocking fee for a return after you can't get the beta product working on a customer's system.

My only explanation for that is that the user didn't make a good-faith effort to debug the problems.

I know we're all fans of Sage here (well, most of us are), but it seems awfully clear to me that Sage screwed up here.

In what way, because they labelled their most up to date software "beta". So it would be all better if their firmware updates were just "releases"?

They had to rush a release, which wasn't a great move, and then they exacerbated it by treating an early customer/tester poor (by charging a restocking fee).

Everybody rushes releases, the issue is what happens next. Sage has some of the best support in the business. They have had frequent software updates to fix problems as they were reported.

I don't think many of you would be defending these actions if they were done by other companies.

Most other companies don't offer the level of support or the quick turn around time on fixes. And contrary to what some here probably think, Sage didn't just dump untested hardware/software on the world. But at the same time, with their size, they can't afford to devote months and hundreds of extenders to private testing.

And we've only had one report of a restocking fee being charged and it's from a user who (by what's been posted here) refused to try the lastest firmware becuse it was "beta".

Originally Posted by comet48

It does a great job on DVD's, but no audio on my wmv files and mkv files because they don't support the audio codecs.

What audio codecs are that.

And of course, no Bluray support.

It plays M2TS files, and BD support is in the works, though to be fair, BD support was never advertised.

[reggie14]

My only explanation for that is that the user didn't make a good-faith effort to debug the problems.

What's a good faith effort? The general procedure involves submitting log files. That's not that complicated to do on the server, but its pretty complicated on the extender. My girlfriend uses her computer often to surf, and she's pretty good at controlling Sage, but I wouldn't expect her to do that.

The problem is, when you release a product that's just suppose to plug in and work, you're going to attract a different market. That's fine if you have a relatively simple product where it will always work, but if it more complicated then you're putting a heavy burden on your technical support staff. And, as nice and helpful as George is, Sage's support just isn't that great for laypersons.

In what way, because they labelled their most up to date software "beta". So it would be all better if their firmware updates were just "releases"?

At least for software, if they're going to treat them like releases, then sure. It at least puts them on the hook more when different people/groups do reviews of the product. I might be inclined to treat firmware a little differently, but then I'd still say that if the "official" version of a product doesn't work, a customer is entitled to a return.

Everybody rushes releases, the issue is what happens next.

You and I might be inclined to think that way, because we've been using Sage for a long time. But if I go out and buy something today from a new company and I can't get it to work after talking to support and doing things I feel comfortable doing, I'm going to want to return it. I'm not going to hold on to it for a while hoping the company issues a software/firmware update.

Sage has some of the best support in the business. They have had frequent software updates to fix problems as they were reported.

If by support you're referring to the company's ability to respond to bugs found by customers, then sure. It's quite good. They're customer technical support is better the other software DVR vendors, but it's not great. E-mail support works fine for computer geeks, but laypersons need telephone support.

But, I certainly think having great support is lame excuse for a poor return policy.

But at the same time, with their size, they can't afford to devote months and hundreds of extenders to private testing.

And that's fine and understandable. But I think that's an argument for a less restrictive return policy.

And we've only had one report of a restocking fee being charged and it's from a user who (by what's been posted here) refused to try the lastest firmware becuse it was "beta".

Did he say that? He complained about it, and I think its a reasonable complaint, but it sounded like he did update the firmware. He didn't say explicitly one way or the other.

I really only have one complaint about what Sage did, and one complaint about what Sage may have done. First, they should have made it clear to potential customers that the HD200 was only supported in beta software. I don't see any warning about that. I can't think of any good explanation for that.

Two, they may have tried to charge a restocking fee in this instance. I'm not saying the customer wasn't partially at fault here, but Sage was too, and I'm going to err on the side of the customer.

[gplasky]

Originally Posted by reggie14

Did he say that? He complained about it, and I think its a reasonable complaint, but it sounded like he did update the firmware. He didn't say explicitly one way or the other.

I really only have one complaint about what Sage did, and one complaint about what Sage may have done. First, they should have made it clear to potential customers that the HD200 was only supported in beta software. I don't see any warning about that. I can't think of any good explanation for that.

Two, they may have tried to charge a restocking fee in this instance. I'm not saying the customer wasn't partially at fault here, but Sage was too, and I'm going to err on the side of the customer.

He said he installed the beta software-Sage media center. He said he did not want to run beta firmware on his HD200.

Store policy:

Shipping and handling charges will not be refunded and a 10% restocking charge will be applied. Any returns requested for hardware purchased in a bundle will be credited less the retail cost of the applicable software purchased in that bundle.

This is for hardware returns.

If he didn't apply the beta firmware, which would have fixed most if not all his problems, and he was unhappy with the product what choice did Sage have BUT to ask him to ship it back? Without the firmware nothing was going to fix the issues. The other alternative was for the user to sit and wait until the firmware was declared production.

I don't see where Sage did anything wrong. They worked with the customer, gave him an RMA number to return it because he was disatisfied and charged the 10% restock fee that is stated very clearly in the store policy.

Gerry

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by gplasky

I don't see where Sage did anything wrong. They worked with the customer, gave him an RMA number to return it because he was disatisfied and charged the 10% restock fee that is stated very clearly in the store policy.

I'm not saying Sage didn't follow their return policy, I'm saying their return policy sucks. I'm also not saying their return policy is extraordinary. It's fairly typical. Certainly Sage has every right to set their return policies to be as friendly or unfriendly as they want them to be, as its their business. But along those lines, hopefully customers know they (probably) have the right to dispute charges on their credit cards.

I tend to advocate for very consumer-friendly return policies, and I'm realize I'm probably on the fringes with that. But, I still say it was improper to sell the HD200 without a big warning that the software that supports it is still in beta, and I don't think that should be very controversial.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by reggie14

But, I still say it was improper to sell the HD200 without a big warning that the software that supports it is still in beta, and I don't think that should be very controversial.

Well, it does say that the media center software is optional, and when used as an extender, software version 6.5 is required. The released software in the store is clearly marked V6.4.

I'm not saying it couldn't have been spelled out more explicitly. But the information is there on the store pages.

[sleonard]

I have been using Sage a long time and have installed nearly every beta as it was made available. Doesn't bother me a bit to do so but in those instances it was my choice to do so. I have to admit that I was surprised to find that my HD200 required me to use beta SW and that I didn't find out until after it had arrived. (The other option to purchase a placeshifter license to use only until the SW went to release is even more unpalatable)

In my case it didn't matter. I would have installed the beta anyway but Sage should have warned customers of this fact before they paid money for it. A note in the product description in the store would have been easy to do and would have avoided this entire scenario. The OP could then have waited until release or accepted the risks but it would have been his choice.

OTOH, once the damage was done I can't really see the logic in installing the beta SW on the PC but refusing to install a beta FW on the HD200. Installing the server SW meant installing a beta over (or in lieu of) released SW. Installing the FW meant installing a newer beta over an older beta.

In the end Sage erred by not warning customers that the product required pre-release software and firmware and however reasonable or unreasonable you think the OP was about installing the betas it does not matter because he was not given the choice BEFORE he gave Sage his money.

S

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Well, it does say that the media center software is optional, and when used as an extender, software version 6.5 is required. The released software in the store is clearly marked V6.4.

I'm not saying it couldn't have been spelled out more explicitly. But the information is there on the store pages.

Seriously? I think we're seeing fanboyism hitting a new high on these forums. Some people just refuse to accept any sort of criticism of Sage on these boards. There is no question in my mind that there would be some level of outrage if, say, Microsoft did this as opposed to Sage.

Some people just don't take constructive criticism well, apparently even when its directed at someone else...

I think part of the problem is the culture. For better or worse (and I'm not sure which), Sage still seems to operate like they're working out of a garage. As far as I know, that might not be far from the truth. They view customers as fellow tinkerers, and expect them to act accordingly. As such, they'll release things that might not quite be ready, but they know a lot of customers will be excited just to try them out. The problem is, I think Sage is making a half-hearted attempt to woo less saavy customers that aren't going to think the same way.

Also, I think Sage sort of views betas differently than other customers. I suspect they view them as being nearly ready for prime-time (and if not, what in the world were they thinking with the HD200 release?). A few years ago I might have been inclined to agree, but I think that's becoming less and less true. I remember trying out the v2 betas years and years ago, and never really having problems. I tried out some of the v6 betas and they scared me off indefinitely from trying betas. I'm trouble by the bugs that slip into the betas and are immediately caught by the community (e.g., when they tried to add EVR support to Sage). I think that shows quality assurance "problems" in the betas that ought to prevent them from being sold to customers (which is essentially what happened in the HD200 release), at least without proper warning.

I've been critical of Sage's actions with the HD200 release, but I'll admit they were in a tough position. But, I suppose I shouldn't criticize without providing a possible alternative. Sage wanted to the HD200 released before Christmas for a business and customer relations standpoint. But, it seems to me that it would have better if they would have done a limited release of the HD200 on these forums. Basically, invite forum members to be paying beta testers. At that point, it'd be tough for someone to complain that things didn't work, because you're basically telling them there's a good chance some things wont' work. Once Sage felt ready, they could have publicly released v6.5 and the HD200, perhaps coinciding with CES. Without more information its impossible for me to say whether that plan was a viable option for Sage. But, it seems like it could have worked. The initial release was small anyway.

[GKusnick]

Can we do without the name-calling, please? I didn't throw a tantrum, or refuse to accept anything. I simply pointed out the information that's there on the store site, calmly and non-judgmentally, in case anybody had missed it. If you have a problem with the way that information is presented, fine; I've already agreed it could have been clearer. I have no problem with constructive criticism, but if you're now going to bring out the flamethrowers and make it personal, then I'm done.