kingwr:

Perhaps nothing has changed, Andrew.  Perhaps we are all just finally fed up with it!  I know that is the case in my situation.  I became a "child on the pram"  after spending two years hearing about DirecTV's partnership with Microsoft to deliver digital content into Media Center, the announcement of the HDPC-20 at CES, the year long selection of testers for an alleged beta test, the shipment of HDPC-20s to beta testers, and then the apparent disappearance off the face of the earth of the HDPC-20, all with no explanation by Microsoft or DirecTV.  Perhaps that is the way Microsoft has always done business (remember UltimateTV?  I got burned by that one too), but for me this was the final straw.

 

kingwr, I think that this is a much better position - being fed up with Microsoft - than all of the other posts I've seen on TGB around this subject, and one I can relate to.   Perhaps *that* is the message that Microsoft needs to hear consistently instead of the noise around TV Pack.

Cheers,
Andrew 

I would venture to say that 'TV Pack' was written for the next version of Windows (apparently the next version is "Windows 7", no out of band this time? hhmmmmm). If you didn't get it from an OEM than you're a beta tester wether you like it or not. Meanwhile the world of DRM is still developing as is the method of delivering a TV signal to the home, which has become archaic e.g. STBs. We all know about the change in 2009 concerning OTA switching to digital only. I think it's safe to say Windows 7 will not be released before that. So with all that being said, here we are with 'TV Pack' and we were all excited to get our hands on it. If you got it from an OEM, they can't offer help with 3rd parties but they built the machine, so you can expect reliabilty along the lines of what they "pitched" to you in the first place. If you got it elsewhere, you won't receive support from MS. What a great shield, made of nothing and free of charge and the advertisers are happy because you lost commercial skipping automation because commercials aren't going anywhere (deal with it). I would bet that's one issue from a long list of many that's being hammered out between many parties, and try to imagine how many parties are actually involved in delivering TV. Try to make a list: FCC, Broadcaster, Advertiser, not to mention the equipment at the CO's that actually route the signal to your home. That's a lot of poeple and equipment to get on the same page to fulfill our demands. I would certainly wait until Windows 7 to purchase a high end OEM if Cablecard is your thing, there's so much we simply have to wait for and it's not particularly MSs fault. Obviously, all of this is merely my thoery or opinion but I would like to believe the engineers and programmers for MS have similar wants and desires that we do but it's easier said than done to make everbody from the previous list happy, and that they're not holding out on us, that's just stupid.

I’ve tried for a few months to stay out of these discussions, but I can’t help sharing my thoughts on the subject.

Let me preface this all by saying that I obtained my version of the TV Pack through unofficial channels, and therefore I don’t expect any official support. I’m also such a dork that I went out and bought a ClearQAM tuner just so I had an excuse to install the TV Pack. So everything I write below is not to try to preach a particular stance out of self interest, but to raise hopefully objective questions through my subjective opinions.

I think the issue here is not what is the “right” support model, but what support model is consistent. What has changed is that all versions of Media Center used to not be OEM only; now one of them is, and this is what I think is causing the confusion from a support perspective.

Let’s take a simple example of a corrupt guide and channel setup with TV Pack. By now we all know how to resolve this, and if you called your friendly OEM supplier I am sure that through their dedication and enthusiasm of the product they would also know how to support this. But the question is who is officially accountable for providing this solution? With non-TV Pack versions it is clear- you call Microsoft, and not the PC vendor, to resolve an issue with their software.

Let’s take a slightly different example: someone wants to backup and restore their programming guide and channel setup. As far as I know there is currently no published solution. So who is on the hook to deliver this? I don’t mean who is going to actually write out the instructions, or develop the Resource Kit utility, or code the .Net TV Pack libraries. But I mean who is accountable to the customer? Would this be a support case you would open directly with Microsoft, or with the OEM that they then open a case on your behalf?

As I see it, there are three options regarding support:

1. Microsoft developed both Media Center and the TV Pack, and therefore is 100% responsible to the end user customer for support of all of their software.
   
2. Microsoft developed TV Pack and officially provided it exclusively to OEMs, and therefore the OEMs are accountable to their customers for support of this component, and Microsoft is responsible for supporting all other aspects of Media Center.
   
3. The hardware/software solution was provided by the OEM, and therefore 100% responsibility of end user customer support for Media Center with TV Pack is the OEM’s.

Now let’s take an example of a 1st party product- the Media Center SideShow TV Gadget, which doesn’t work with the TV Pack. Is Microsoft accountable for delivering a solution for this Gadget to be compatible with an OEM’s TV Pack? Is the OEM accountable to the customer for providing a TV Pack solution that is compatible with SideShow? Or is Microsoft responsible to deliver an update of the TV Pack for compatibility directly to the customer?

Honestly I think all of my questions are irrelevant to anyone reading this, because there is a fourth option above that most of us have preferred to take due to its highest quality of support. That is, play around with the stuff ourselves and seek the help and guidance of this community, which includes Microsoft, the OEMs, and other Media Center enthusiasts.

We also have to remember that at this point none of us have been issued government mandated set top boxes, so everyone has the choice of a media-related solution. Whether you have felt it or not, both the software maker and the suppliers have a lot of interest in providing solutions and improving their products to keep existing customers happy and lure potential buyers. Simply put, if they don’t, people will stop buying them and they make less money.

At the risk of sounding preachy, I think we should remain confident that the parties that stand to lose the most (i.e. not us the customers) are listening to the issues and actively working on solutions. If they aren’t, people like me will have to seek alternative products, like investing in a competing technology for remote controlling my media, or something more drastic. I won’t though; I am willing to be patient and work through technical problems because I personally believe that this vendor ultimately delivers superior products. But that is up for you to decide for yourself, and spend your money accordingly.

DFox:

Let’s take a simple example of a corrupt guide and channel setup with TV Pack. By now we all know how to resolve this, and if you called your friendly OEM supplier I am sure that through their dedication and enthusiasm of the product they would also know how to support this. But the question is who is officially accountable for providing this solution? With non-TV Pack versions it is clear- you call Microsoft, and not the PC vendor, to resolve an issue with their software.

Just to clarify on this point - if you bought your PC fom an OEM with Windows pre-installed, they are responsible for the whole thing whether you have TV Pack or not.  

DFox:

Let’s take a slightly different example: someone wants to backup and restore their programming guide and channel setup. As far as I know there is currently no published solution. So who is on the hook to deliver this? I don’t mean who is going to actually write out the instructions, or develop the Resource Kit utility, or code the .Net TV Pack libraries. But I mean who is accountable to the customer? Would this be a support case you would open directly with Microsoft, or with the OEM that they then open a case on your behalf?

In this particular instance, no-one is "on the hook" for this one - there is no requirement for any software developer to provide this kind of functionality - they can if they want to, but they aren't obliged to.  Software is provided "as-is" with the T&Cs of most packages.

DFox:

Now let’s take an example of a 1st party product- the Media Center SideShow TV Gadget, which doesn’t work with the TV Pack. Is Microsoft accountable for delivering a solution for this Gadget to be compatible with an OEM’s TV Pack? Is the OEM accountable to the customer for providing a TV Pack solution that is compatible with SideShow? Or is Microsoft responsible to deliver an update of the TV Pack for compatibility directly to the customer?

The thing is, no-one is accountable to anyone for this (regardless of what you'd like to be the case) - just in the same way that no-one is accountable for this sideshow gadget not working with MCE2005 - if the manufacturer of one peice of software decides to make it only compatible with one version of another peice of software, that's up to them.  Your choice is to buy or not to buy.  You also need to be doing this on the basis of the current situation - not expecting future compatibility between new versions, and certainly not getting upset about it when future versions aren't compatible.

This is probably the biggest problem with all of these "TV Pack" discussions - they are based on a false feeling of entitlement.  If we can cut through this confusing noise and focus on the actual problem we may get somewhere!

Cheers,
Andrew

AndyC:

[This is probably the biggest problem with all of these "TV Pack" discussions - they are based on a false feeling of entitlement. 

You just don't get it do you? We all know what we are legaly entitled to. Noboby here called a lawyer yet. We do, however, expect our software provider to hear our concerns, fix bugs in a timely manner and even provide improvements and enhancements in timely manner like most other software providers. This is what we call "service". In this case we (well... I won't generalize, I) are tired of waiting to receive the appropriate service related to VMC so we open our mouth and cry. You are correct though, it seems that it won't do us any good because, unlike many other software providers, MSFT does not want to listen.

What is left to do? Each to his own. As I stated in earlier post, I am slowly but surely turning my back on MSFT (and I was devoted to MSFT products, from PC, accessories, Windows mobile phone and even paid Hotmail, which is one of the only email services by the way with no IMAP support). I replcaed my phone with the new Android phone, the T-Mobile G1,  I now use Firefox at home (and hopefully at work too), I will not renew my hotmail subscription this year and though I'm still using the operating system on my exisitng PCs, I will do all that I can to use Mac or Linox in my next PC. I know that as an individual consumer I have no power, but as another consumer joining the millions that abandon MSFT, I do make a difference.

I still thinks that VMC is a great product and hope that MSFT get it's act together. If so, I'll be back.

Here, here, al74.  I logged on to say the exact same thing.

Andy seems to think that the mark of a good software company is that they live up to the one sided obligations in a standard software terms and conditions agreement.

All the other comments aside, just the fact that Andy thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for Microsoft to release an update to a product that breaks compatibility with current, supported hardware devices is downright disturbing.  Let us all hope that Andy's sentiment is not the sentiment of everyone at Microsoft (although I am afraid that is probably the case.)

I too am open to Apple adoption.  My iPhone is by far the finest and most elegant piece of electronics I have ever owned, and I was happy to ditch my Windows Mobile phone to get it.  And don't get me started about Vista.  I would only consider moving to Windows 7 if it releases in 2009 with support for the HDPC-20.  Any longer than that, and the progres and the content then available on AppleTV will likely have far surpassed Media Center.

 

al74:

You just don't get it do you? We all know what we are legaly entitled to.

Sorry, but it's you that doesn't get it - it's nothing to do with a legal entitlement at all.  It's the feeling that you have that Microsoft owe you something over and above what they tell you they are giving you.

kingwr:

All the other comments aside, just the fact that Andy thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for Microsoft to release an update to a product that breaks compatibility with current, supported hardware devices is downright disturbing.  Let us all hope that Andy's sentiment is not the sentiment of everyone at Microsoft (although I am afraid that is probably the case.)

kingwr - you mistake my debating the case with my supporting it.  Also, just wanted to check - you do realise that I don't work for Microsoft (queue the "well, it sure looks like you do" response).

Cheers,
Andrew

Apple doesn't even touch Media Centers features.  They might after MS paves the way.  There's much to wait for besides MS.  MS isn't lazy or holding out, they have to play by the rules wether their written or not written yet, there are alot of issues to address with many hands in the pot.  If going Mac is your solution to abandoning Media Center than you most likely will be back.  Media Center offers great functionality and you can't deny that just because you have your own idea of what features you should have right now.

AndyC:

This is probably the biggest problem with all of these "TV Pack" discussions - they are based on a false feeling of entitlement.

Andrew,

Firstly, I do not think we are debating. In fact I think we hold a lot of the same views at a high level: the vendors sell what they think we want, we buy what we choose from them, and our expectations should be limited to what they claim they are offering. Of course this is over simplified, but I think you get my free market perspective.

I agree that no one is on the hook to deliver solutions for features that aren’t documented, and I didn’t mean to imply that I expect every component to be compatible with every version. I don’t believe that we are entitled to every feature/defect fix on our personal wish lists; it is up to the vendor to prioritize this, hopefully based on our collective feedback.

My point about support accountability is who is responsible for fielding the support, not necessarily delivering the solution. For the purpose of this discussion, it would be acceptable for the responsible party to say “that feature or product is not supported with X version.” I think the confusion lies with the different versions of Vista Media Center and who is to make that statement to the user requiring support based on what version they have. So in my example of the SideShow Gadget, the uninformed user reads on Microsoft’s website “This gadget is for the x-bit version of Windows Vista.” It doesn’t say for which version of Vista Media Center. When the user double clicks the package and it won’t install, the user thinks they simply have Vista Media Center and doesn’t know what the “problem” is, and therefore requires support. Who do they call? If they call the vendor (Microsoft) and say “I have Vista Media Center and this won’t install” Microsoft could say you need to talk to the OEM because they are responsible for supporting the Media Center installed on your computer. Then the OEM might say that this is extra Microsoft software and they don’t support it, contact the vendor. That would be frustrating, when all the user is looking for is “your configuration is Media Center 5.1, and this product is not designed for it.”

This extends to my other example of managing the program guide. This kind of support information exists for previous versions. If it is eventually documented or a utility is created for 5.1, where would this come from- the OEM or Microsoft? I know a response to this is that I should never expect it, but I am hopeful that at some point we can find this kind of information, similar to detailed documentation of most of their other products, and wanted to know where I should look for it if it does come out.

Like I mentioned I don’t feel entitled nor am I upset about the lack of compatibility and functionality (for now). I hacked my registry knowing full well that I have to live with whatever features I get from the SideShow Gadgets, and if it breaks something then I am entitled to exactly zero official support. Just like I don’t expect Vista Home Basic to join a domain, nor expect support if I manage to get it to.

We all on these boards know full well the differences between versions, what features we get, and what components and APIs are compatible. But when a common user purchases a PC with “Vista Media Center” and maybe some 1st and 3rd party software designed for "Media Center" I don’t think it is clear to them what they are entitled and not entitled to, including support and from whom, and who provides that information. Then there are sophisticated users that might have development issues and need to be clear what they are entitled to and where they should get support. The OEM didn’t write the SDK. Microsoft doesn’t claim the SDK works on the OEM’s build of Media Center. Where does the developer get support if they want to write software for 5.1, or make their 5.0 software compatible with 5.1? Will the 5.1 SDK be OEM-only also? They don’t currently need a specific flavor of Windows to develop software for it, but will they need an OEM Media Center 5.1 workstation to develop software in order to get the SDK or support? I have my own guesses to these answers, but I think that is some of the confusion and frustration of others regarding accountability of the support.

In the other sense of accountability, someone will be eventually responsible to deliver working components and features for the needs and wants of the home theater customer. I don’t mean that I am entitled to it, and it is certainly each vendor’s prerogative to not put themselves on the hook for it. But what I mean is that someone will eventually take responsibility for delivering the desired functionality, and we consumers will install it/test it/buy it. For example, I want a remote control. I want a SideShow one right now. At some point I might not want one if I still can’t get it to work. I am confident someone will take the responsibility of building a solution that will meet my particular feature requirements, and I will buy it from them. My previous post was in hopes that the vendor would be Microsoft, and I posed the question of how they would be responsible for delivering it if they did. (Again, my TV Pack install is unofficial so I am entitled to virtually nothing in this regard.)

I didn’t intend to stimulate any controversial sentiment or debate with my comments. I think that what we are trying to accomplish here is to perfect this platform through constructive feedback, and support our fellow enthusiasts along the way. The clearer we, and future customers are about the products, versions, features, limitations, support, etc. the better it will be for those that are emphatically committed to the Media Center solution like myself.

DFox:

I think the issue here is not what is the “right” support model, but what support model is consistent. What has changed is that all versions of Media Center used to not be OEM only; now one of them is, and this is what I think is causing the confusion from a support perspective.

AFAIK, all versions of Media Center were OEM only until Vista Home Premium / Ultimate retail versions became available. I see "TV Pack" as Microsoft making a return to thier old OEM ways. Windows 7 will have all the features of "TV Pack" and there should be a retail version so it could be looked at as product placement or leveraging.

Who knows, maybe SP2 for Vista will include "TV Pack". I dont think it will but,....

 

 

---

i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe | Triple-Channle DDR3 3x1GB | MSI GTX260 | Seagate 750GB | OCZ 600W Stealth X | LG GGW-H20L| XBox 360 | XBox 360 HD DVD Drive | HDHomeRun | Hauppauge HD PVR | Vista Home Premium

Octavean:

DFox:

I think the issue here is not what is the “right” support model, but what support model is consistent. What has changed is that all versions of Media Center used to not be OEM only; now one of them is, and this is what I think is causing the confusion from a support perspective.

AFAIK, all versions of Media Center were OEM only until Vista Home Premium / Ultimate retail versions became available. I see "TV Pack" as Microsoft making a return to thier old OEM ways. Windows 7 will have all the features of "TV Pack" and there should be a retail version so it could be looked at as product placement or leveraging.

Who knows, maybe SP2 for Vista will include "TV Pack". I dont think it will but,....

 

 

I think that is the path their are looking at as well...

I think the lot of you were just unwilling beta testers ...

---

My VMC setup:
(2) Xbox360s
System 1 -
Dell XPS410 (2.6Ghz C2D, 2GB Ram,Nvidia 8600GT, Blu-ray internal, HD-DVD external (X360 drive), (2) Vboxx DTA150s (OTA HD), 1 HVR-1150 (OTA HD) and Dish Network

For what its worth:

Windows 7 includes a driver for the DirecTV HDCP-20 USB tuner
 
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/11/10/windows-7-includes-a-driver-for-the-directv-hdcp-20-usb-tuner/

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=597

---

i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe | Triple-Channle DDR3 3x1GB | MSI GTX260 | Seagate 750GB | OCZ 600W Stealth X | LG GGW-H20L| XBox 360 | XBox 360 HD DVD Drive | HDHomeRun | Hauppauge HD PVR | Vista Home Premium