VERY unhappy with the MVP trial period handling

[TakeFlight]

I want the MVP to make my coffee in the morning and tuck me in at night. Do you think that can be arranged? I don't think I'm asking for too much.

[blade]

Originally Posted by krutaw

I mean, okay, yeah, it's an MVP. But it *DOES* support DIVX, we just don't have a client that will do the decoding in software with SAGE. I'm also not happy about the licensing aspect of it, but I'd honestly be willing to overlook that if it actually supported the featureset that the hardware is capable of.

As I mentioned above they're working on divx support. It's "undocumented" at the moment, but it doesn't seem that it's far away. I guess shame on Sage for trying to get the new version out in time for the holidays and releasing the new version before divx transcoding was fully completed.

The licensing part does suck; however, it was mentioned a week or two ago that running multiple MVP's off one client license was in violation of the licensing agreement. I can't really blame a company for wanting you to pay for their product.

[Commodore 64]

When I can play AVi, mkv encoded with Xvid, Divx and x264, I'll buy an MVP extender. Until then, I will continue to use the tualeron 1100/pc133 HTPC with Sage Client.

It is as simple as that.

[nielm]

I took a truck for a test drive the other day, and do you know what, they would not let me load a whole load of stuff into the back of it and take it to the dump!

I hate software/real world analogies, but this one seems kind of appropriate. The MVP trial does appear to let you see how the MVP works, it does not let you use it indefinately as a client for free...

[flavius]

Originally Posted by nielm

I took a truck for a test drive the other day, and do you know what, they would not let me load a whole load of stuff into the back of it and take it to the dump!

I hate software/real world analogies, but this one seems kind of appropriate. The MVP trial does appear to let you see how the MVP works, it does not let you use it indefinately as a client for free...

How about a limited number of days? Like a trial version? Seriously, are you advocating, the regular client trial should work just like that, too? Does it already?

And as stanger said - what's the big deal here? No big deal, indeed. I don't have to look at that, I'll buy anyway, should I need more. Trial versions come in all kinds of flavors, Sage's policy, however, has been a different one, until now.

It's a mistake, though, crippeling the user experience in this way. What's the reasoning behind this?

[jptaz]

I Agree Flavius...

The issue is the change. The real question is will anyone buy SageTV if the trial of SageTV and SageTV Client have an annoying overlay of TRIAL during playback?

I know for sure I would have looked at BeyondTV more seriously if that was the case. You can go on and on about the upgrade policy, but frankly I would rather pay a $30 upgrade price, like BeyondTV, and have a return to the unkrippled trials.

The real issue is the long term health of SageTV if they go down this path. If we do not make noise about this now maybe frey will say, well it worked with the MediaMVP, lets do it for all the trials now.

I love Frey and the SageTV platform and I just do not want to see them make a mistake that will cost them new customers.

By the way...I will be buying at least one MediaMVP client and converting a SageTVClient License. I may wait until the new year as my protest for the "TRIAL" overlay on the video. It seems silly, but it will mean the purchase will not be on the books for frey until 2006...even if it costs me a few dollars more.

John

[Narflex]

We used the different trial technique on the extender because of security issues. Going into details on that would obviously not be in our best interest.

We have no plans of changing how the other trial modes work and such a thought has never even crossed our minds.

Originally Posted by krutaw

Having said that, I am a tad upset about the lack of new features for the MVP implementation. I mean, okay, yeah, it's an MVP. But it *DOES* support DIVX, we just don't have a client that will do the decoding in software with SAGE. I'm also not happy about the licensing aspect of it, but I'd honestly be willing to overlook that if it actually supported the featureset that the hardware is capable of.

To avoid any misinformation, the hardware on the MVP DOES NOT support DivX playback. Any playback of DivX content requires transcoding on the server side. We used everything that the MVP hardware is capable of (more so than any other MVP implementation as can be seen by our UI/playback performance). We actually use the MVP hardware for rendering the UI unlike the other implementations. We clearly made much more use of the MVP hardware.

[dbfresh23]

I don't quite get this thread. People that own an MVP obviously know what it is capable of in terms of video display. If you plan on using the SageTV extender version then just pay up for the license if you feel that the UI rendering is worth it. I think that SageTV's track record pretty much says that if there are problems found they are going to fix them and not charge you for upgraded versions on top of that. They could have just not offered a trial and just made people buy it up front. Sure fewer people may have bought it initially but once people started saying how much better it works everyone else would have started jumping on board.

I am highly considering the purchase of an MVP now that this is out.

[gplasky]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

I don't quite get this thread. People that own an MVP obviously know what it is capable of in terms of video display. If you plan on using the SageTV extender version then just pay up for the license if you feel that the UI rendering is worth it. I think that SageTV's track record pretty much says that if there are problems found they are going to fix them and not charge you for upgraded versions on top of that. They could have just not offered a trial and just made people buy it up front. Sure fewer people may have bought it initially but once people started saying how much better it works everyone else would have started jumping on board.

I am highly considering the purchase of an MVP now that this is out.

I'm with you this one. Anyone who owns one or have done their homework before purchasing one knows the capability of the hardware. MPEG2 and MP3. If you thought Sage was going to come out with this piece supporting HDTV, Dvix, flac, etc you were just kidding yourself. They have done an excellent job of creating this MVP support in the core product and improving the performance. Did you know now you can have the little video window actually work on the MVP? Quite the accomplishment. As for the trial yes it's a nag. But all I wanted to know was how did it work. I don't need 7 days of sitting there watching it to make my decision. Five minutes after I had it working I ordered my license.

As far as in the future with transcoding support for Divx or other formats I can see the whininng now. "Oh this worked great until you started Divix support. My 1.4GHz Celeron Sage server supported the MVP great but when I try to play Divx the picture just stutters and craps out."

As for me, if there was anyway to play ripped DVDs with the MVP that would be the frosting on the cake.

Gerry

[SHS]

I hate tell you but I'm pettey sure that fry's has to pay a some kind licensing feed for using the MVP hardware decoder even know that when you buy the product from hauppauge you all payed licensing feed to hauppauge but being that you are not using the Hauppauge MediaMVP software which cover the decoding licensing feed it becuase it become void it not from Hauppauge becuases it is now a new commercial product unlike the matt free plug-in which fall in diff class under diff set of rule's which the same apply to GB-PVR and my guest ot why Trial dose that is becuases they still have pay a licensing feed and fellow a set of rule set by MPEG-LA.
In fact if all look on MPEG-LA web page you see SageTV is list there
http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-licensees.cfm
Also as some folks have point out some you have not done their homework before purchasing or trying it after all it will not be 100% perfection.
By the way if you install the Moonlight’s Elecard Trial Codec it do the some thing in fact now that I think about it so do a lot of other software package so yes it annoying but idea was to test the product to in sure ever thing to work and then buy it unlike the old days Demo and Trial apps, games etc, etc.

[aperry]

I seem to remember that the Elecard works fine until your time runs out, then the "annoying stuff" starts. At least that was the way it worked for me.

[jptaz]

I think SHS has a good point. I suspect the fact that MPEG/Hauppauge royalties and security issues as Jeff mentioned are driving forces for the security measures.

I do like to whine...but I did break down and purchase a license.

Next week I will have to fax in my affadavit to convert my client license for the second MVP...which actually will not get used until next weekend when we have guests in that bedroom again.

Keep up the good work Frey and thanks for the quick response Jeff.

John

[zinkpig]

Originally Posted by Narflex

We used the different trial technique on the extender because of security issues. Going into details on that would obviously not be in our best interest.

We have no plans of changing how the other trial modes work and such a thought has never even crossed our minds.



To avoid any misinformation, the hardware on the MVP DOES NOT support DivX playback. Any playback of DivX content requires transcoding on the server side. We used everything that the MVP hardware is capable of (more so than any other MVP implementation as can be seen by our UI/playback performance). We actually use the MVP hardware for rendering the UI unlike the other implementations. We clearly made much more use of the MVP hardware.

Kudos to you guys for thinking about designing the MVP client from a hardware standpoint. I bet that required a lot more effort than a solution using transcoding. I am sure this effort will reflect in stability and simplicity of the MVP client.

What’s the point of transcoding a divx or HD file if has outrageous hardware requirements on the host PC. I am a sure hardware DIVX and HD decoding MVP isn’t far off. and when it does come out sage would surely jump to develop a client. Although I actively use HD and divx I am not overly concerned with the lack of support. Its easy to set up recording duplicates in non HD channels of your HD shows. I rather have a stable MVP client that uses minimum resources on the host PC than have a "play it all" kind of solution. I am gladly willing to pay for it, I think its a pretty good product and definitely worth the $. Its also nice to keep them business and offer support to its existing customer base as technology keeps changing.

[shodge]

Hi,

I too don't get this thread. I had been using Matt's client to run 2 MVP's. It was great and worked pretty well but not perfect. It also required some set up which while not too difficult was time consuming. At least on my network I had crashing of the MVP software. Sometimes it recovered and sometimes I had to re-start the client software. (No knock to Matt - these were somewhat infrequent).

So I tried 4.1. WITH the trial I was able to see the fact that the GUI was a little cleaner, set up was non-existant, and FF was just WOW. So after just a few hours of solid testing, I converted the client license [single] to a MVP license. I am still testing the client in the 2 client configuration [1 licensed and 1 trial]. I have logged more than 20hrs total with absolutely NO issues. It simply works. No lock ups, - simply great performance [compaired to either hauppage or Matts client]. This is what I wanted out of the Sage MVP Client. Thanks Jeff and Dan!

This DHCP arguement baffels me as well. I cannot believe that anyone using this level of a network application does not have access to a DHCP server. I can understand not choosing to use one, however is it that people do not understand you can do both? The DHCP server in most routers today is so simple to set up that "consumers" can do it. Its obvious how to set it for a limited address range. So what gives? I have between 8 and 10 computers / devices on my network at any time. Sure most of my "desktop computers" are using fixed IP's. However, part time hooked up devices, MVP's, VOIP boxes are all using DHCP. So get over it.

-Stan
[one happy camper]
[new MVP license purchase soon (#2)]

[TakeFlight]

Originally Posted by shodge

Hi,
This DHCP arguement baffels me as well. I cannot believe that anyone using this level of a network application does not have access to a DHCP server. I can understand not choosing to use one, however is it that people do not understand you can do both? The DHCP server in most routers today is so simple to set up that "consumers" can do it. Its obvious how to set it for a limited address range. So what gives? I have between 8 and 10 computers / devices on my network at any time. Sure most of my "desktop computers" are using fixed IP's. However, part time hooked up devices, MVP's, VOIP boxes are all using DHCP. So get over it.

Yeah, I don't get that either. Why would you choose to not run DHCP if a device requires it (or at the very least, the device is much easier to set up if you have DHCP running)? I'd really like to know the reason for not running DHCP.

[Menehune]

I don't have a router (or broadband) so all my machines are connected thru a 100 base switch. My HTPC is connected via a crossover cable to my editor machine with a gigabit backbone.

No need to purchase an unnecessary router with DHCP when my network is working prefectly in it's current configuration with static IPs.

[shodge]

OK - no brodband thus no router. Well today the cost is ablout the same. But a year or so ago maybe not.

A simple search on google found at least 2 free DHCP servers which will run with very little overhead on XP. Another option is still to buy a router. I seen one for as little as $10. Simply use it as a switch or just plug it into one of the ports of your existing switch.

I understand this is a change to your set up and that not always is change good. But this is really an upgrade on your network and for less than $10 is not really much of an issue...

-Stan

[dbfresh23]

Originally Posted by Menehune

I don't have a router (or broadband) so all my machines are connected thru a 100 base switch. My HTPC is connected via a crossover cable to my editor machine with a gigabit backbone.

No need to purchase an unnecessary router with DHCP when my network is working prefectly in it's current configuration with static IPs.

This is as easy as your home network not meeting the minimum requirements of the SageTV MediaMVP addon. If you plan on using it then it's time to update your home network. Your best bet is probably a software DHCP server so that you can keep using your GigE with your other machines.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by shodge

OK - no brodband thus no router.

Ignoring the question of how can you live without broadband ...

I think if you enable Internet Connection Sharing, Windows XP (or 2000) will run a DHCP server for you (been a very long time since I used ICS, so I could be wrong).

[Menehune]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Ignoring the question of how can you live without broadband ...

I just do all my downloads at work using the OC3 connection and sneaker-net them home
A good use for old, slow, 2GB, 4200rpm notebook drives in USB enclosures.