New SageTV Interface

[mlbdude]

Originally Posted by rickgillyon

To say that WMP has more functionality than Sage in any circumstance is a pretty bizarre argument, don't you think?

You should play back music (or a CD) in both for a bit then come say that again. Not being limited to a 10 foot UI means you can use apps that are best in class.

[rickgillyon]

I'd agree that the requirements are different - so you can play with the Malore menus and fit lots more on the screen etc. Great stuff. What you can't do is use WMP to search for keywords in epg descriptions and schedule recordings etc.

[mlbdude]

Originally Posted by rickgillyon

I'd agree that the requirements are different - so you can play with the Malore menus and fit lots more on the screen etc. Great stuff. What you can't do is use WMP to search for keywords in epg descriptions and schedule recordings etc.

That is all true, but since I am not limted to a remote I could use WMP or even better JRMC for my music, SageTV for my TV, and WinDVD for my DVD playback.

[rickgillyon]

Originally Posted by mlbdude

That is all true, but since I am not limted to a remote I could use WMP or even better JRMC for my music, SageTV for my TV, and WinDVD for my DVD playback.

I only use that one for TV.

[olyar15]

Originally Posted by rickgillyon

To say that WMP has more functionality than Sage in any circumstance is a pretty bizarre argument, don't you think?

No, I recommended WMP because it is easier to use WITH A MOUSE. I use SageMC on my HTPC and it works great. I use the default Sage interface on my upstairs game computer, and it is OK with a mouse, but not great. Sometimes, if I want to watch just one show, I just load it in WMP since it is easier to control with the mouse. It does not replace SageTV, it is simply an easier alternative to watch videos. Oh, and I use JRMC to listen to music on my game PC for exactly the same reason: better mouse interface.

[rickgillyon]

Originally Posted by olyar15

Sometimes, if I want to watch just one show, I just load it in WMP since it is easier to control with the mouse.

I never do that. It's a HTPC, I load Sage every time because even if I do want to watch a video, I want Sage to know it's watched, to be able to tell Sage to delete it, to update its favourite etc.

[Alfiegerner]

I haven't seen the new 6.1.3 STV yet (waiting for the beta bashing to come to an end), how does it look? Any screenshots anywhere?

[BobPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Alfiegerner

I haven't seen the new 6.1.3 STV yet (waiting for the beta bashing to come to an end), how does it look? Any screenshots anywhere?

I like the new look but I don't know of any screen shots.

[rickgillyon]

Originally Posted by Alfiegerner

I haven't seen the new 6.1.3 STV yet (waiting for the beta bashing to come to an end), how does it look? Any screenshots anywhere?

Just install it and have a play. Copy your SageTV folder first, upgrade, play, delete and rename back. Five minutes should do it!

I like the new interface, not very different but a bit prettier.

[Morgan111]

If you don't want to temporarily upgrade the installation, just backup your sagetv3.xml file and download the new STV from here: http://forums.freytechnologies.com/f...do=file&id=167

you can give it a new name to load and look over, and then just reload the file that was previously loaded.

[Alfiegerner]

I'm at a stage with my family members where any tinkering of our live production SageTV installation is a violation of a SLA. I, as the TV engineer, have had to agree to this

Good call about just loading the STV though, I'll have a look at it this weekend.

[real_per]

Originally Posted by BobPhoenix

I like the new look but I don't know of any screen shots.

New look ? What's this ?

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by Morgan111

If you don't want to temporarily upgrade the installation, just backup your sagetv3.xml file and download the new STV from here: http://forums.freytechnologies.com/f...do=file&id=167

I wouldn't recommend doing this. The v6.1 STV uses new API calls that are not in v6.0 and will not work correctly in certain places, thus my comment in the download description: Note: This STV requires SageTV version 6.1, and will not function properly if used with previous versions.

Also, even if you don't run into API calls that fail, that download contains only the STV, it does not include any of the changed or new graphics, so it won't look the same as a v6.1 installation.

- Andy

[rickgillyon]

Originally Posted by Alfiegerner

I'm at a stage with my family members where any tinkering of our live production SageTV installation is a violation of a SLA. I, as the TV engineer, have had to agree to this

Yeah, but what they don't know....

One of the great advantages of Sage is the speed with which it can be upgraded and regressed...no problems, so long as you don't get caught in the act!

[BobPhoenix]

Originally Posted by real_per

New look ? What's this ?

Basically a new background image and logo. Slightly different colors. Buttons outlined differently when not highlighted. Scrolling icons in the Imported Video's menu. Are the ones I noticed.

BobP.

[real_per]

Originally Posted by BobPhoenix

Basically a new background image and logo. Slightly different colors. Buttons outlined differently when not highlighted. Scrolling icons in the Imported Video's menu. Are the ones I noticed.

BobP.

Sounds interesting. It'll be interesting to see, once 6.1 comes out (I don't have time for betas)

I wonder if this will be what Sage intend to do with their interface in the foreseeable future then, or if it's just a "teaser" before a full fledged makeover...

[Athfar]

Not to dig this thing up from the grave but one thing I dislike about installing STVs is that it seems like you are downling some sort of bloatware sometimes...

For example, I am sure you all have downloaded Nero and it comes with 99% of junk you don't need (cover designer, image organizer, blah blah blah).

STV Designers (the few their are) aren't limited to their own "skin" area and start adding all sorts of features which require extra JARs you may not want. I always get scared overwriting the SageTV directory just to install a skin.

Oh and on a side note:

The UI animation is horrid and I doubt most of us keep it enabled (atleast I don't). The fade transitions fade even when it's going to the same menu (hit the Home button twice for instance), when they fade it looks silly because it is fading the entire menu and not just the text in the menu (hard to explain), in SageMC two animations cannot be going simultaniously, etc etc.

Not to mention none of it is nearly as "Snappy" as MCE even in some cases Mediaportal :\ I've seen SageTV grow (since 2005) and the UI has always been a step behind (competitors and even what I think the customer wants and SageTV deserves).

[MeInMaui]

Though I'm not an STV developer, I have worked on a few STVi's and I know enough to appreciate how much goes into them. These comments irritated me, so I felt should make some comments of my own.

Originally Posted by Athfar

Not to dig this thing up from the grave but one thing I dislike about installing STVs is that it seems like you are downling some sort of bloatware sometimes...

For example, I am sure you all have downloaded Nero and it comes with 99% of junk you don't need (cover designer, image organizer, blah blah blah).

STV Designers (the few their are) aren't limited to their own "skin" area and start adding all sorts of features which require extra JARs you may not want. I always get scared overwriting the SageTV directory just to install a skin.

I wonder if you understand what an STV is. It is _not_ a skin. It is a full blown alternate UI for SageTV. Essentially SageTV provides a back end media database + recording engine + media players and an API to access and control them. In addition, SageTV provides a programming environment called Studio that allows anyone to program any UI from the ground up to interface with the core functionality. The default STV just happens to be the front end that SageTV provides 'out of the box'.

In addition to the functionality provided by Studio, developers can also leverage external Java code to add almost unlimited additional functionality. The java code that is added by a developer is housed in a jar file.

Now here is the beauty of SageTV. If you think an addon or STV is bloat, don't install it. If you want some of the functionality of an STV without the features that you find unnecessary, open the STV in Studio and start hacking away.

Also, the developers place their files into the correct file structure within a zip file to make it easier to install by unzipping that file into the SageTV directory, but that doesn't mean you have to do it that way. If you are paranoid, unzip the STV or STVi and copy the files one-by-one into their proper locations. You must really freak ou twhen programs edit the registry when they are installed.

BTW, if you make a backup copy of the entire SageTV directory before starting you can always return to your starting point in no time if things go wrong.

Oh and on a side note:

The UI animation is horrid and I doubt most of us keep it enabled (atleast I don't). The fade transitions fade even when it's going to the same menu (hit the Home button twice for instance), when they fade it looks silly because it is fading the entire menu and not just the text in the menu (hard to explain), in SageMC two animations cannot be going simultaniously, etc etc.

The animations can be enabled/disabled. If you think a particular behavior is a bug, then file a bug report. That is the only official way the SageTV devs can be made aware of problems.

As far as SageMC goes, the animations do not use the core animations yet and are programmed step-by-step in the UI. Again, they can be disabled if you don't like them. The core animations will most likely make their way into SageMC and will likely make the UI snappier. If you have other problems/concerns with SageMC, I suggest you constructively provide your input in the SageMC thread. Dirk is very responsive and all suggestions that can help make SageMC better are seriously considered.

Not to mention none of it is nearly as "Snappy" as MCE even in some cases Mediaportal :\ I've seen SageTV grow (since 2005) and the UI has always been a step behind (competitors and even what I think the customer wants and SageTV deserves).

The UI is very snappy for me and for many others. If you are having any particular issues, post questions in the forums and I'm sure you will have many people trying to help you. The latest Java version (v1.6_03) improved the responsiveness of the UI substantially. There is also the capability (speed and memory) of your computer to consider as well as other programs that might be hogging resources in the background.

Aloha,
Mike

[Athfar]

Originally Posted by MeInMaui

Though I'm not an STV developer, I have worked on a few STVi's and I know enough to appreciate how much goes into them. These comments irritated me, so I felt should make some comments of my own.

Please don't be so easily irritated and take offense to the posts here. I don't think any of us has said that we do not appreciate what went into a STV but the ease of integration into SageTV and knowing exactly _WHAT_ you are getting may seem subpar (bloated feeling) and hard to understand for the average user.

The terms STV and STVi are confusing. We are expecting something along the lines of "Skin", "Theme," or "Plugin" or heck call it an "Interface" _NOT_ "SageTV Application Package" with a catchy file extension...

Questions the average Joe may ask himself and probably shouldn't have to:

• What does "SageTV Application Package" mean and more importantly what am I installing (or extracting is a better term probably)?
• Why are there so many extentions? (.xml, .STV, .STVi)
• Why is there no uniform file structure for an STV? (IE: Why does SageMC go in the SageTV3 directory, why does Meekell go in the STVs root?)
• Why is there no support for a user friendly "installation" of "STVs" or something built into Studio that allows the developer to make an installer?
• Why is there still a SageTV3 directory in the STVs folder? (Hasn't the UI changed since 3?)

This is a little off topic though...

I really wish the best for SageTV as it offers much more customization, features, and stability than other HTPC software will ever have.

I guess my next step is to try and create my own interface since the SageTV team doesn't seem to want to try and satisfy my craving for an updated one? I mean that's what this thread is hinting at for the most part.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Athfar

The terms STV and STVi are confusing. We are expecting something along the lines of "Skin", "Theme," or "Plugin" or heck call it an "Interface" _NOT_ "SageTV Application Package" with a catchy file extension...

Well, along those lines, SageTV 6.2 added themed graphics, essentially making Sage themable.

STVs, I'm not sure what you want, an STV isn't a plugin, it's not a theme, nor is it a skin. An STV really is and "application package". Everything that defines the UI you interface with is in the STV, it really is an application in almost every sense of the word.

Questions the average Joe may ask himself and probably shouldn't have to:

• What does "SageTV Application Package" mean and more importantly what am I installing (or extracting is a better term probably)?

Well, as noted, it's not a skin, theme, or plugin, so...

• Why are there so many extentions? (.xml, .STV, .STVi)

.STV is the legacy file format. XML is the extension for the application package itself, and STVi is for an application package import, or patch.

• Why is there no uniform file structure for an STV? (IE: Why does SageMC go in the SageTV3 directory, why does Meekell go in the STVs root?)

It's up to the developer where they put the support files.

• Why is there no support for a user friendly "installation" of "STVs" or something built into Studio that allows the developer to make an installer?

Not sure what you expect, a SageTV Application Package is, quite literally, an XML file that defines the interface. That's it, that's all studio creates. The developer can reference anything else they want (images, java code, etc) but Studio doesn't manage that.

And really there's no "installing" an application package, there's nothing special that's done when you place it on your system, you just extract it and point SageTV at it.

• Why is there still a SageTV3 directory in the STVs folder? (Hasn't the UI changed since 3?)

Because (IIRC) V3 whas when Studio was released and was the first version of Sage to use the Application Package system. The folder name has just stuck.