Paul Corfield

Rather good really for a novice "downloader" like me. Worked fine with
no bugs so far but took about 4 days to get a response to the original
request for the download.

Ideal for those episodes of Gardeners World that get missed when
recorders don't switch on.
--
Paul C - "the big camp bastard" (tm d.a.r.s.y)
VFR800 | ZX6R | R1150GS
BOD#5, two#4, BOTAFOT#23, BOTAFOF#4, URMSBC#09, COFF#09
Admits to working for London Underground!

antonye

Paul Corfield wrote:
>
> Ideal for those episodes of Gardeners World that get missed
> when recorders don't switch on.

We just got our Sky+ box installed. Picture is stripey
and the box whirrs like a bastard. Still, it beats having
to switch off the old Sky (standard) box every couple of
hours to let it cool down so you can actually watch something!

--
Antony

ogden

christofire wrote:
>
> Is the content still bad? I remember having problems accessing just
> about anything that wasn't Dr.Who from the web-end, and there wasn't
> that much I wanted to watch. Is it 25/50/75% of the broadcast output,
> or less than that?

Kenyon's yr man here, really - I only worked on the first pilot, it
didn't go into beta until after I quit. It does just seem to be a small
sample of content though, but then it is only a beta trial so you
wouldn't expect them to be going hell for leather with the full system.
4 channels, plus all regional content, makes for a hell of a lot of data
to ingest and process.

--
ogden
sv650 - surprisingly quick for a girl's bike

ogden

Paul Corfield wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:07:38 +0100, ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote:
>
> >The range of content
> >currently available is pretty dire, and it doesn't seem to let you
> >download stuff that's not yet been broadcast so that you can have it
> >ready in advance (obv. you can't watch it til the DRM lets you, after
> >broadcast)
>
> It had what I wanted and I suppose I'm not overly bothered about a poor
> range of stuff at this point in time because it's still in beta and the
> roll out is being managed to make sure it remains manageable. I've read
> a number of comments on the forum and it's odd that people are sort of
> expecting perfection from something that's not yet finished.

They've had long enough to get it sorted, ffs. I was sat in meetings
about iPlayer (or IMP as it was at the time) two or three years ago and
that was an early beta!

> There does seem to be an odd set of expectations about anything from the
> BBC. OK the launch and associated publicity seems to have been cack
> handed - and that's being generous - but I'm happier to have something
> like this player from the BBC than some other providers. The market is
> being pushed by providers like Sky and others and while I am a Sky
> subscriber I remain suspicious of the motives of the Murdochs.

Sky took the IMP distribution mechanism and bolted their own front-end
onto it - clever Kontiki, silly BBC. Most of the people I knew who
worked on the original IMP project are now at Sky, Channel4 or other
media firms working on their equivalents. The question, other than
having lost good people all over the shop, is why it's taken the BBC so
long to put together something they had working years ago!

--
ogden
sv650 - surprisingly quick for a girl's bike

christofire

ogden wrote:

> christofire wrote:
> >
> > Is the content still bad? I remember having problems accessing just
> > about anything that wasn't Dr.Who from the web-end, and there wasn't
> > that much I wanted to watch. Is it 25/50/75% of the broadcast
> > output, or less than that?
>
> Kenyon's yr man here, really - I only worked on the first pilot, it
> didn't go into beta until after I quit. It does just seem to be a
> small sample of content though, but then it is only a beta trial so
> you wouldn't expect them to be going hell for leather with the full
> system. 4 channels, plus all regional content, makes for a hell of a
> lot of data to ingest and process.

Yeah. I just wondered if it had improved any. Thinking about it, I'm
not sure whether the problems were my ropey setup or the software. I'll
give it another go sometime soon.

--
Christofire DIAABTCOD#1 DS#9 ZX-10R

Switters

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:36:59 GMT, ogden <ogden@pre.org> allegedly wrote:

> The question, other than
> having lost good people all over the shop, is why it's taken the BBC so
> long to put together something they had working years ago!

Spending £9m on the second series of Heroes will eat into anyone's budget.

CT

ginge wrote:
[Heroes]
> I'm slightly less old fashioned, and am one episode ahead, on BBC3,
> an hour later.
>
> Digital TV.... It's the new garlic bread!

"Bread? With garlic on it?"[1]

I was already to watch the next episode on BBC3 after last week's show
on 2, but SWMBO vetoed it. I suppose I should have just sent her to
the kitchen to get me another beer and then turned over anyway.

[1] Another Peter Kay quote: "If we aren't supposed to eat animals,
then why are they made out of meat?"
--
Chris

Wicked Uncle Nigel

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, CT
<me@christrollen.co.uk> typed
>
>[1] Another Peter Kay quote: "If we aren't supposed to eat animals,
>then why are they made out of meat?"

Since I heard that in a Leeds sandwich shop fifteen years ago, I think
we can take it that it's not a Peter Kay quote.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (Fallen apart) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Honda ST1100 wiv trailer Norton 850 Commando
Kawasaki GTR1400