Next TWC HD DVR?

[flash]

So we are all hating the TWC 8300(HD) DVR's and there are rumors about Samsung being the next DVR for TWC. Has anyone heard any updates or know of any juicy information on what it will be and what features will be available?

I've heard that the next gen DVR will have ATSC only tuners which will speed up channel changes etc.. but I am really antsy to hear what members here might know!:cool:

[kevbeck122]

I think the NY division is using/testing them right now... at least the non-DVR boxes.  From reading the thread on avsforum, it sounds like they're worse than the SA boxes: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=922309&mode=linear.

I doubt they could be any better than the SA boxes anyways.. they'll still be running Navigator.

[mhz40]

So we are all hating the TWC 8300(HD) DVR's and there are rumors about Samsung being the next DVR for TWC. Has anyone heard any updates or know of any juicy information on what it will be and what features will be available?

I've heard that the next gen DVR will have ATSC only tuners which will speed up channel changes etc.. but I am really antsy to hear what members here might know!:cool:

I think you meant to say QAM, not ATSC.
The only real benefit to eliminating the NTSC (analog) function is tuner cost.  IMO, the slowness is not as much a hardware function as software.  Same goes for features... it's a function of the code under the hood more-so than hardware.

[TPK]

IMO, the slowness is not as much a hardware function as software.  Same goes for features... it's a function of the code under the hood more-so than hardware.

Perhaps that is so, but of course you can always overcome slow, bloated, inefficient software by throwing more powerful hardware at it....

... Just ask Microsoft!!

:wave:

[nick3092]

I think you meant to say QAM, not ATSC.
The only real benefit to eliminating the NTSC (analog) function is tuner cost.  IMO, the slowness is not as much a hardware function as software.  Same goes for features... it's a function of the code under the hood more-so than hardware.

Well, there are two sides to this.  In my experience, the MDN version runs at an acceptable speed.  I didn't notice much change from Passport.  But it is C based, and probably written in a native language for the current generation of hardware.

Now ODN is a whole different story.  Because ODN has additional middleware, there will be more overhead.  Plus your now having to deal with running a java interpreter to run the code.  Could the code be cleaned up, and some speed gains?  Possibly.  But the processor in the 8300 box really isn't up to the task of the additional overhead of OCAP and Java, IMO.

So could there be code clan ups and speed ups in Navigator? Probably.  Will they be a big gain? Probably not.

[Danno321]

my non-c box is faster than my c box.  i hate my c box.  keep in mind channel switching slowness may be due to a handshake process that faster client hardware may not improve.

[gparris]

Maybe if TWC got DVR boxes that offered more storage space similar to the Directv DVR boxes and added MPEG-4 capabilty, too, it would be a better upgrade than what would seem to be (maybe) more processing speeds, too.
What does TWC actually want to deliver that will work best with Navigator, anyway?
The 8300HDC box my neighbours have, (after buying HDTVs) still keeping TWC for service,  find their boxes are still slower than my 8300HD box with Mystro Navigator.
This has caused a few of them (so far) to cancel their TWC service for TV to go to Directv (even though getting only CBS SD from the dish for  now).