Is the HR20 better than the HR10
- Status
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
The main reason to move to the HR20 is HD locals and the future MPEG4 channels, whenever they are available next year. I also had an HR10 and love TiVo, but I honestly don't miss it. The HR20 is quite nice and I haven't had any serious problems, knock on wood. It's not quite as slick as the TiVo interface, but I haven't found myself missing the TiVo.
Joe
Joe
Joined
·
884 Posts
Well, as someone who has run the HD Tivo for a couple of years and the HR20 for a couple of days (grin). I can tell you a couple of things...
1. The HR20 is MUCH faster in many operations, such as sorting a todo list.
2. The interface is...different. Not "better" or "worse" but different. If you ever did Ultimate TV (and liked it), you'll like the HR20.
3. There ARE teething pains now. It's like of like owning a DishNetwork receiver, only you can be (reasonably) sure the issues WILL be fixed.
Had I not needed a second HDDVR and not been able to find another HDTivo at a decent price....I certainly would have waited. If you've got all the HD OTA you need, I wouldn't worry about it until there's a HD channel on DTV that you want...but have to get MPEG4 for.
1. The HR20 is MUCH faster in many operations, such as sorting a todo list.
2. The interface is...different. Not "better" or "worse" but different. If you ever did Ultimate TV (and liked it), you'll like the HR20.
3. There ARE teething pains now. It's like of like owning a DishNetwork receiver, only you can be (reasonably) sure the issues WILL be fixed.
Had I not needed a second HDDVR and not been able to find another HDTivo at a decent price....I certainly would have waited. If you've got all the HD OTA you need, I wouldn't worry about it until there's a HD channel on DTV that you want...but have to get MPEG4 for.
Joined
·
30,090 Posts
No... the HR20 does not include a PIP feature.fyton2v said:
Joined
·
768 Posts
Having moved from HR10-250 to HR20-700, I say that even with the warts, the HR20 is better.
As mentioned, it's much faster. Searches, scheduling a recording, all sorts of things are faster.
[Purely personal opinion]Once you're used to the user interface, on the whole it's better. Fewer clicks to record; no confirmation screen for common activities; currently playing show in a small window while doing Guide, To Do List, and other activities - I like it. It's not perfect, and it's not better across the board (e.g., guide format limitations), but on the whole it's better. [/Purely personal opinion]
Some things (it appears), will never catch up. For example, the "Auto Correct" ( or whatever it's called) feature of a TiVo (that takes reaction time into account when you press play after fast forwarding a while and backs you up to what it thinks you were aiming for) is apparently patented and not likely to make it over to the D* DVR's.
Other things I do expect to see in the not to distant future (OTA for sure, hopefully dual buffers [which has an easy work around, so no big deal], etc.). Stability and consistency are also improving (although out of the box, my HR20 was better than my HR10, which was really getting flakey before I switched).
Ultimately, I think it will depend on your priorities. If you absolutely have to have a safe, solid, familiar box, the HR20 is probably not for you. Otherwise, I think it's a good move. I like to think that we early adopters have a disproportionately loud voice in how the box evolves in the early stages while the software is still maturing. Once the bugs are out, it will be much harder to get D* to change things to work the way you want them to.
As mentioned, it's much faster. Searches, scheduling a recording, all sorts of things are faster.
[Purely personal opinion]Once you're used to the user interface, on the whole it's better. Fewer clicks to record; no confirmation screen for common activities; currently playing show in a small window while doing Guide, To Do List, and other activities - I like it. It's not perfect, and it's not better across the board (e.g., guide format limitations), but on the whole it's better. [/Purely personal opinion]
Some things (it appears), will never catch up. For example, the "Auto Correct" ( or whatever it's called) feature of a TiVo (that takes reaction time into account when you press play after fast forwarding a while and backs you up to what it thinks you were aiming for) is apparently patented and not likely to make it over to the D* DVR's.
Other things I do expect to see in the not to distant future (OTA for sure, hopefully dual buffers [which has an easy work around, so no big deal], etc.). Stability and consistency are also improving (although out of the box, my HR20 was better than my HR10, which was really getting flakey before I switched).
Ultimately, I think it will depend on your priorities. If you absolutely have to have a safe, solid, familiar box, the HR20 is probably not for you. Otherwise, I think it's a good move. I like to think that we early adopters have a disproportionately loud voice in how the box evolves in the early stages while the software is still maturing. Once the bugs are out, it will be much harder to get D* to change things to work the way you want them to.
Joined
·
1,095 Posts
HR20:
Pro's- Better picture quality, speedy menu's, easier to set up recordings, No phone line, Show disk space usage, Interactive.
Con's- No OTA (Dec.1st), Not as reliable to record (SP/SL), Funky remote format, No dual buffer
HR10-250:
Pro's - Never fail recordings, easier interface, OTA, folders
Con's - Slow menu's, Not Interactive, Needs phone line, Worse picture.
My .02
Pro's- Better picture quality, speedy menu's, easier to set up recordings, No phone line, Show disk space usage, Interactive.
Con's- No OTA (Dec.1st), Not as reliable to record (SP/SL), Funky remote format, No dual buffer
HR10-250:
Pro's - Never fail recordings, easier interface, OTA, folders
Con's - Slow menu's, Not Interactive, Needs phone line, Worse picture.
My .02
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
