I'm now the proud owner of an HDR1010 after my old FoxSat went to the Satellite in the sky. The old FoxSat box was not particularly quick at start up, but the HDR1010 is slower still. I have the screen definition set at 1080p but the box insists on passing through every screen definition before reaching 1080p. So, the question........does anyone have a way of speeding up loading and jumping to 1080p, or do I just get over it and move on?
My Humax Forum » Freesat HD » HDR 1000, 1010, 1100S
Start-up time
(11 posts)-
| Mon 22 Dec 2014 22:04:52 #1 |
-
The box takes around 35 seconds to boot to the Home menu, there's no way of making it go any quicker.
| Mon 22 Dec 2014 23:05:59 #3 | -
Thanks people, thought that might be the case but worth asking. You would think Humax would have been a bit cuter with this given their previous start up track record.
Have a good Christmas.
| Tue 23 Dec 2014 9:30:12 #4 | -
Pugsley - 4 hours ago »
Thanks people, thought that might be the case but worth asking. You would think Humax would have been a bit cuter with this given their previous start up track record.
Have a good Christmas.I think the boot time is very good for a Linux system.
The only way to get faster is either the Sky approach (leave most of the unit on) or a save to disk approach (increases problems, like always using Hibernate on a PC). Sky units when fully powered down take a lot longer than the HDR-1010S| Tue 23 Dec 2014 14:13:32 #5 | -
I think the boot time is very good for a Linux system.
The only way to get faster is either the Sky approach (leave most of the unit on) or a save to disk approach (increases problems, like always using Hibernate on a PC). Sky units when fully powered down take a lot longer than the HDR-1010SAnd I still think that 35 seconds is slow. But life and message boards are about opinions which is what always makes them worthwhile.
| Wed 24 Dec 2014 8:32:35 #6 | -
"Slow" being relative, may I ask which boxes you consider "fast" in starting up?
| Wed 24 Dec 2014 8:49:55 #7 | -
JamesB - 11 minutes ago »
"Slow" being relative, may I ask which boxes you consider "fast" in starting up? As you say, slow is relative. The only baseline I have to compare with is my neighbour's Panasonic box which is quicker to power fully up. The intention of my original post was to see if the start up time could be shortened, clearly it can't.
| Wed 24 Dec 2014 9:05:35 #8 | -
Pugsley - 5 minutes ago »
JamesB - 11 minutes ago »
"Slow" being relative, may I ask which boxes you consider "fast" in starting up? As you say, slow is relative. The only baseline I have to compare with is my neighbour's Panasonic box which is quicker to power fully up. The intention of my original post was to see if the start up time could be shortened, clearly it can't.
I believe Panasonic boxes (optionally) shorten start-up times by avoiding full standby - what Repassac referred to as the Sky approach.
The Humax YouView boxes also rely on the Sky approach.
| Wed 24 Dec 2014 9:16:46 #9 | -
Current EEC requirements for STB's, that do not have de-encryption of transmitted programmes as standard, are required to have a standby mode (pre-selected as the default) than consumes no more than 0.5 watts in standby. Slightly older units 1 watt and any designed before the regulations can do as they like.
This save a large amount of electricity, in excess of £25 p.a. per unit. Scaled up across Europe an enormous amount.
| Wed 24 Dec 2014 9:38:32 #10 |
Reply »
You must log in to post.
