Right, let me unpick this.
And another implied criticism.
Unfair comment. I explained my own experience and a potential reason for it. I did
not say
you are impatient, and the "slowness" has been reported before so I
am aware of it.
Sorry to be firm but I do find myself wondering if you're here because you like to help people or you get a kick out of being aggressive and ripping into people who ask sensible questions.
You can be as firm as you like, I am perfectly capable of defending myself and explain every detail of why I might write something. Please re-read your own post:
I'm using the slow epg version of the CS at the moment but it is very slow.
...do you not agree that anybody new reading that could easily take that to mean it is the CF itself that is slow? (Your unconventional use of "CS" notwithstanding - at least you could gen up on the standard jargon* around here instead of introducing more.) I will robustly defend the custom firmware from unwarranted criticism.
As to whether (or not) I like to help people, you are clearly not familiar with just how much information I have contributed. What irks is somebody claiming more knowledge than they should.
It seems possible to me that it may be the case that additional packages link into a specific parts of the CS/OS and changing this means these packages have to be re-installed.
That's a different question, not the one you asked. Yes, some packages will need to be patched up after a firmware re-install, but that's easily taken care of with a
fix-flash-packages.
Historically, the early implementations of the CF
required a standard firmware to be loaded first (to flush the previously installed CF), and then the CF version appropriate to that standard firmware to be
added. How was I to know that's not what you were referring to? I asked why you thought that might be the case because all the instructions now say you don't need to any more, so if you were getting the wrong information we need to know where from so it can be put right.
You have unnecessarily interpreted an honest request for information as being hostile.
Why am I having to defend asking a question?
Because asking the question reveals lack of background reading. Time hasn't been spent writing all this up (not just by me) for people to ignore.
why are two versions of the CS (combined downloads for the pedantic) labelled as having BBC3/4 issues?
Because, at the time, there was. There is no guarantee the interpretation you are placing on it is not out of date, and you could find out one way or the other by researching historical posts about the issue on this forum. Nobody here calls it "CS"*, and you need to be very clear what is in the CF domain and what the Humax firmware is responsible for.
I note that, although several people have chipped in on the "slow EPG" problem, nobody has confirmed there remains an issue recording from BBC FOUR.
Am I supposed to know that?
The modulators are T1 yet the package says it is T2 and is wrong.
Are you saying that the test I proposed only shows signal if you select DVB-T (note: "T1" is not an acceptable abbreviation) not DVB-T2, and yet the WebIF diagnostics show it as DVB-T2? Some evidence would be nice, eg a photo of the on-screen signal detection and a screenshot of the diagnostics listing.
My reason for being sceptical is that the demodulator
cannot work if it has the wrong setting, and I can see no mechanism that would present the database entry incorrectly on the diagnostics listing. Perhaps a code expert can confirm this. Another point to note is that the vast majority of us do not have the facilities required to reproduce your results, and (scientifically) unreproducible results are all but worthless. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, like this for example:
Post a zipped copy of your tuning database
So, rather than getting all hoity-toity, perhaps it would have been better to assume I had a reason for my post and thought about it instead of firing off a BH-bashing retort (even if it is fashionable at the moment).
* See the Glossary link in my signature panel.