Talk:DVB-T USB Devices: Difference between revisions

From LinuxTVWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 52: Line 52:


--- [[User:Hlangos|Hlangos]] 01:36, 7 April 2009 (CEST)
--- [[User:Hlangos|Hlangos]] 01:36, 7 April 2009 (CEST)

: * Have a look at the ATSC device tables.
: * The list of devices should be alphabetical by manufacturer ... as you can see organization along the lines of usb bridge categorization was a HUGE mistake
: * There IS a need for one page per device -- this is precisely where the messy details belong and discussions about that particular device ... devices can be highly dissimilar despite a shared commonality of using the same bridge IC --- and, in fact, even when two devices entirely use the exact same components, they can still differ enough (i.e. GPIO pin configurations) that having a single page does not do justice in regards as to describing how to get either of the particular devices working etc...--[[User:CityK|CityK]] 21:46, 12 April 2009 (CEST)


== TOC misleading ==
== TOC misleading ==
Line 59: Line 63:


---[[User:Hlangos|Hlangos]] 13:29, 7 April 2009 (CEST)
---[[User:Hlangos|Hlangos]] 13:29, 7 April 2009 (CEST)
: The TOC should contain two sections: Supported and Unsupported (which it does). Correcting the improper entries/properly formating within those sections (as discussed above) would resolve any case of the TOC on this page appearing to be misleading. --[[User:CityK|CityK]] 21:46, 12 April 2009 (CEST)

Revision as of 19:46, 12 April 2009

How come more HAUPPAUGE that have MPEG2 Hardware support acording to HAUPPAUGE dont apear on this site as working.. HAUPPAUGE WIN TV-PVR USB2 says its got MPEG2 hareware "Turn your PC into a Digital TV recorder. Record TV programmes or home videos using high quality MPEG-2 hardware compression!"

Im looking to build a MythTV system but i want the a good card, good meaning good and cheap. As I've only found one card that this site says has hardware mpeg2 support but it costs about £50

This wiki is currently focused towards digital devices. The wintv-pvr usb2 is strictly an analog device. Any information on it should appear in the V4L wiki. However, there isn't any info on it even in there. Why not? Because wiki's depend upon user submitted information. No submissions, no information. Its as simple as that. Anyway, you can find info about the pvrusb2 devices on www.isely.net. If you want an internal PCI based hardware mpeg2 encoding solution, then look to IVTV. In the future, the V4L and DVB wikis will be merged, but for now exist as two separate entities. Perhaps after the merger (no exact time frame for completion), the other information sources could also be drawn into the fold. However, that would be entirely up to agreement from those projects. --CityK 20:37, 19 September 2007 (CEST)


I think the Afatech section shouldn't be here, instead a separated page for it and here the devices themselves, for example its difficult to find that the Avermedia Volar X is supported because it doesn't appear in the index. One who knows that it have an Afatech 9015 could find it, but the rest of the users? --howl 2:08, 2 January 2009 (CET)

I think the whole page is a bloody mess! Its a wonder anyone can find anything on it. Silly DVB-T users, can't they do anything right :P --CityK 03:07, 8 January 2009 (CET)

---

Regarding the bloody mess... I am willing to put some work into reorganizing it but I would like to have some input before I start. Any suggestions about the format the page should have? I am a strong advocate of a clean table with maybe only three columns.

manufacturer device name supported
foo inc. bar dvb-t receiver kernel (>=2.6.16)+fw?
bar ltd. goo dvb-t receiver mainline dvb
blah something tiny experimental
baz mini foo mixed
baah itsy unsupported

manufacturer is of little informational value to the developers but helps locating devices for the mortal user.

device name would be a link to a page that would hold the whole messy details that now clutter the page. There is no need for one page per device. I'd call the page something like DVB-T_USB_Devices_drivername and current sections with their small tables and the stuff that is above and sometimes below the table would be moved to those pages.

supported would be

  • either the a kernel version from which the device is supported out of the box (firmware link where needed).
  • mainline if it was supported in the main v4l-dvb repository sources
  • experimental if there is a special branch for that device that is not yet merged into main, or an external source repository.
  • mixed if the device is sold under the same name with different hardware. details are on the device page to which mixed would also link.

--- Hlangos 01:36, 7 April 2009 (CEST)

* Have a look at the ATSC device tables.
* The list of devices should be alphabetical by manufacturer ... as you can see organization along the lines of usb bridge categorization was a HUGE mistake
* There IS a need for one page per device -- this is precisely where the messy details belong and discussions about that particular device ... devices can be highly dissimilar despite a shared commonality of using the same bridge IC --- and, in fact, even when two devices entirely use the exact same components, they can still differ enough (i.e. GPIO pin configurations) that having a single page does not do justice in regards as to describing how to get either of the particular devices working etc...--CityK 21:46, 12 April 2009 (CEST)

TOC misleading

the table of contents is very misleasing as it lists only a very small part of the devices supported. I would suggest to remove the toc alltogether and instruct people on how to use their browsers search function.

---Hlangos 13:29, 7 April 2009 (CEST)

The TOC should contain two sections: Supported and Unsupported (which it does). Correcting the improper entries/properly formating within those sections (as discussed above) would resolve any case of the TOC on this page appearing to be misleading. --CityK 21:46, 12 April 2009 (CEST)