Bit of Portal News

ChrisDaniels said:
I think the clue was in the leaked version number on the DTG site that got pulled.. they had it at 1.02.07.
So if that version was a dud, its going to be 1.02.08/09
Click to expand...
When I saw it on the DTG site, I got the impression that 1.02.07 was the version number for the HD-FOX T2 receiver, and that the version number for the HDR-FOX T2 recorder was missing from the end of the details.
 
Good point.. well I cant see the firmware versions between the two T2's being vastly different from each other as they will both share the portal and media server code (and bugs) lol
 
ChrisDaniels said:
Good point.. well I cant see the firmware versions between the two T2's being vastly different from each other as they will both share the portal and media server code (and bugs) lol
Click to expand...
They should be different so that the HD version knows that it is only a single tuner device, and therefore can't dual record.
 
Yeah thats taken care of in code with stuff like IF statements or similar in whatever language they are coding in.
so for a crude example:

if pvr.name = "HDR" then < the pvr.name would be pulled from the hardware chip
dual_record = true
else
dual_record = false
end if

or

if Tuners >1 then
dual_record = true
else
dual_record = false
end if

Therefore, they can effectively only maintain one codebase for both models.
They may well maintain two different codebases for all i know, but this would only make it more complex when mirroring across items that are common on both models. And from a developers point of view, that makes no sense as its just duplication and extra debug/dev time wasted.
This is also why you see the same problems on both models such as HDMI issues.

The end result when the code is compiled will produce both a HD and a HDR version with the code that is not relevant/required to each model stripped out to save space and further complications. hence why the firmwares are specific to each model but are released at roughly the same time.
 
Of course, there's the piece of code which, strangely, the compiler directive doesn't remove the code for:

#if current_channel.type = HD then
sound.vol = %rand%
#else
sound.vol = NORMAL
#end if;
 
hahaha so true..

or

if video.type = not_supported then
if %rand% = true then
REBOOT_WITHOUT_WARNING = TRUE
end if
else
video.play
end if
 
ChrisDaniels said:
I think the clue was in the leaked version number on the DTG site that got pulled.. they had it at 1.02.07.
Click to expand...
Was ChrisDaniels the winner? You get an all expenses paid trip to Humberside. Just send me a cheque for £500 and I'll send you the free tickets.
 
There were 7 icons when it first arrived, now it's down to 4. Still sky player is no great loss as you need to PAY for it.
 
FifthHorseman said:
Sky Player seems to have been dropped from the portal page - still shows "Portal Beta" v2.01 though.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there were still bugs with Sky Player, so it has been removed ready for the portal being released to the masses.
 
I'm bored waiting, so I've had a nosey at the portal on the laptop.
Reading the privacy policy i noticed two errors: It makes mention to You Tube which is not included (yet); The last modified date is November 2011! lol

Good job thats a website and not hard coded in the firmware lol

As for the absence of Sky Player, it means one of two things: Either Sky have to manually update the app if they need to amend the channel offering or its buggy and its back in the hands of Sky's devs. But at least it should be able to be added back to the portal without a firmware update to support it.
 
Digging through the html on the portal page, i found these.. some obviously foreign, but a sign of things to come?

1

5
7
10
12
13
14
18
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top