FVP 5000T Disappointment « My Humax Forum

My Humax Forum » Freeview HD » FVP 4000T, 5000T

FVP 5000T Disappointment

(48 posts)

mattw80

junior member
Joined: Apr '16
Posts: 9
offline

I'm really tired of this forum and the repeated cycle of posts. There are *clearly* lots of people that find the unit slow, unresponsive, frustrating, etc. This is a valid position, almost always stated in a respectful way by people who have paid good money for the product.

Then there are the moderators and a handful of yes men that simply refuse to accept these views.

Fact: Some people like the unit, some people do not like it. I would say to anyone who is generally a power user of technology (i.e. people who are used to navigating menus quickly and efficiently) may well find the unit to be frustrating. Less demanding users may not notice.

Barry is clearly a Humax fan and has the ear of the company itself. I thank him for putting the work and effort into contributing to the forum but I don't think he can be seen as entirely impartial.

| Thu 11 Jan 2018 15:29:17 #41 |
Minstrel SE

special member
Joined: Sep '16
Posts: 219
offline

I watch these threads with interest. Interesting the references to previous Humax models which people have liked and have experience with. Im not taking sides here but I sometimes wonder if it clouds judgement including my own

Its a very good Forum and I do hope that Barry has valued communication with Humax. I didnt find their customer service good when I has a query/complaint. I didnt expect them to move Heaven and Earth but some more interest in resolving it would have been nice instead of comments which could be seen a glib.

I cant imagine the 5000 interface is that slow because the 2000 interface is ok ( when it boots correctly)...unless Humax are going backwards as some people say since the Fox.

I can understand the point of view that a lot of people wanted another Fox Mk 2 style a good solid box.

The 5000 doesnt really appeal to me but enough people seem to like it. I have a feeling that Humax have been heading in the wrong direction but thats just a personal opinion based on my experiences.

Best wishes to everyone on the forum

| Thu 11 Jan 2018 17:07:29 #42 |
REPASSAC

special member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 4,100
offline

From your comments you would clearly like a faster processer at a higher price point.

PVR performance is split between the PVR chipset which gives the PVR performance with multiple recordings, encryption/decryption and other chipset functions and U.I. performance which relies on the U.I. design and CPU speed.

All manufactures (excepting perhaps Apple) consider selling price as a important consideration.

I don't think their choice can be right for all.

| Thu 11 Jan 2018 17:08:50 #43 |
mattw80

junior member
Joined: Apr '16
Posts: 9
offline

REPASSAC - 1 minute ago »
From your comments you would clearly like a faster processer at a higher price point.
PVR performance is split between the PVR chipset which gives the PVR performance with multiple recordings, encryption/decryption and other chipset functions and U.I. performance which relies on the U.I. design and CPU speed.
All manufactures (excepting perhaps Apple) consider selling price as a important consideration.
I don't think their choice can be right for all.

Yes of course I think it should be responsive. The time between pressing a button and seeing the result of that in the screen should be measured in fractions of a second, not seconds. Previous PVRs I've had have managed this, and my TV manages this.

But it isn't just about speed, the interface is not well thought out. Too many button presses to perform basic functions and buttons missing from the remote that should be there (e.g. Info).

But we're covering old ground here, as lots of people have already complained about these things in this post and others

| Thu 11 Jan 2018 17:12:46 #44 |
micmac

member
Joined: Mar '16
Posts: 32
offline

RogerB - 3 hours ago »
@ micmac - I don't think it's anyone else's business. R-

I beg to differ. If Barry is benefitting from Humax then its in his interest to tow the party line rather than be honest about the products failings.

| Thu 11 Jan 2018 18:45:37 #45 |
mattw80

junior member
Joined: Apr '16
Posts: 9
offline

REPASSAC - 1 hour ago »
From your comments you would clearly like a faster processer at a higher price point.
PVR performance is split between the PVR chipset which gives the PVR performance with multiple recordings, encryption/decryption and other chipset functions and U.I. performance which relies on the U.I. design and CPU speed.
All manufactures (excepting perhaps Apple) consider selling price as a important consideration.
I don't think their choice can be right for all.

I write software for a living and there are two approaches to this:

1. You write software and ensure the hardware is appropriate to run it
2. You start with a fixed hardware set and write software in such a way so that it runs well on said hardware

I think you're probably right in that they are keeping costs down by limiting the hardware. In which case they have failed in point 2 above.

It does seem like sightly bloated software to me. A more responsive basic text based interface would've been preferable for me

| Thu 11 Jan 2018 18:55:13 #46 |
grahamlthompson

special member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 14,442
offline

micmac - 1 hour ago »

RogerB - 3 hours ago »
@ micmac - I don't think it's anyone else's business. R-

I beg to differ. If Barry is benefitting from Humax then its in his interest to tow the party line rather than be honest about the products failings.

Read Barry's reviews of the YouView boxes, you cannot say he is restrained in any way.

The FVP 4000/5000T is somewhat slow and the supplied remote is decidally weedy. A Harmony remote is much better. And you can create single key forward/reverse skip keys. Not tried the info sequence, might have a go tomorrow.

| Thu 11 Jan 2018 19:55:57 #47 |
Soloist

member
Joined: Dec '17
Posts: 19
offline

Admin Edit: Off topic content deleted.

| Fri 12 Jan 2018 19:47:32 #48 |