Rockler

Page 4 of 6  
Puckdropper wrote:

<snip>
Does that imply you have a Hauppauge (PCI) tuner?
I will set it up. However, my wife has the most interest in programming shows, so a friendly interface is required!
It sounds like sort of an interesting project. Thus, far I have avoided any sort of file sharing over our (local) network, but there are some interesting possibilities here.
Thank you for your encouragement! : )
Cheers, Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have two hauppauge tuners. The first one stopped working properly on one input and was replaced with another with more features. The first one is PCI, while the second is PCIe. They are not compatible!
You may find the biggest hassle in all this is getting program guide data for scheduling. Not all digital TV stations send out their guide data properly or very far in advance.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/23/2012 5:00 PM, Puckdropper wrote:

I haven't checked the situation recently, but I think I got a good deal on my PCIe external HDD because of the lack of popularity of PCIe at the time. I think it's much faster than USB 2.0 as well, more akin to USB 3.0, but don't quote me on that. I can just say that it does what it's supposed to do quite well. What are you sentiments about PCIe?
Cheers, Bill

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

PCIe's just the next generation of expansion slot. I usually prefer internal cards to external devices because it makes it harder to lose the device or for it to become distached.
For TV tuner use, the tuner matters more than the interface. If the tuner is doing the hard work itself, you only need to send the finished data to the system.
A PCIe external hard drive doesn't make sense. Are you thinking of eSATA? (Firewire and USB are common interfaces as well.)
Puckdroppre
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/24/2012 12:14 PM, Puckdropper wrote:

Puck,
Yes, it is surely eSATA. Sorry about the confusion. Are eSATA devices very popular now with the presence of USB 3.0? My motherboard (made by GIGA-BYTE) has USB 3.0 too, but I haven't used it. Strangely, its USB 3.0 shares a bus with its graphics card, so my graphics speed is supposed to be cut in half if I use USB 3.0. Not having used it, I don't know whether that means all the time, or only when the USB port is "working". I would guess the former.
Cheers, Bill

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure about eSATA devices and USB 3.0. I really haven't had a need for external drives since I set up a NAS box. The NAS box has eSATA ports, but I've never used them.
eSATA might turn out to be kinda like Firewire. The standard and interface has been out for years, but not a lot of devices use it.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For non-consumer usage, eSATA is preferred. Will run at full 6Gbit/sec with SATA III ports. (SATA I - 1.5Gbits/sec, SATA II = 3.0Gbits/sec).
As a consumer, I'd prefer eSATA because the consumer SATA <-> USB interface adapters are quite often junk (the drive itself is still SATA even when connected via USB).
USB 3.0 is spec'ed to do 5.0Gbits/sec, but there've been reports of cheap USB 3 hardware reverting to 0.5Gbits/sec (particularly when using cheap cables, but often for other reasons).

Not a bus, per se, but rather bandwidth. The port upstream (to/from memory) from the root complex handling the USB 3 and Graphics has bandwidth which is less than the combined required bandwidth of the super-speed (5.0Gb/s) USB and the Graphics. Common when using the DMI bus from the processor to a chipset providing legacy devices (USB, integrated graphics, SATA, et. al.) such as the ICH (Nahalem) or PCH (Sandybridge).

It's almost certainly the latter.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The PCI local bus is a standard parallel bus used to connected peripheral adapter cards to the processor complex, via one or more PCI bridges. The PCI bus is pretty much obsolete at this point, having been replaced in most systems by the serial, point-to-point PCI Express bus (aka PCIe).
A PCIe root complex provides one or more SERDES lanes (usually in groups of four, 8 or 16) which use differential signalling to support fast serial transfers on each lane; the lanes can be grouped such that 1, 4, 8 or 16 lanes are connected to a PCIe endpoint (e.g. SATA adapter, NIC, Infiniband, Graphics card). The number of lanes (and PCIe generation) govern the bandwidth available between the adapter card and the memory subsystem.
Most new systems no longer have PCI peripheral slots (but may, internally within the chipset, use PCI-PCI bridges for legacy peripherals); but rather include one or more X1, X4, X8 or X16 PCIexpress slots.
I suspect that your "PCIe external HDD" is really eSATA (external SATA) connected to a SATA controller which interfaces via a PCIe Root Complex to the processor/memory subsystem. There is a new standard coming for SSD (solid-state disk) access via PCIe (Called NVM Express/NVMe), but it won't handle ATA drives (it's designed for plugin PCIe cards with large quantities of NAND/NOR flash chips on board).
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Lurndal wrote:

I can see you really know your stuff! One just can't have enough communication protocals! ; )
Seeing the tiny little 32-GB micro-SD chips on sale for $30 or so (which plug into a phone, for instance), one has to accept that some things have changed! -- LOL. ; )
Cheers, Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill wrote:

Wish I still had my first hard drive just to show the kids. It was semi-shoebox size and held a whopping 20 MEGAbytes.
--
G.W. Ross

Preserve nature... pickle a squirrel.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It wasn't a Seagate ST225 by any chance, was it? It was a really common drive that fit your description.
I've got an IBM XT with a full-height hard drive. I don't remember the capacity, but it wasn't much. Somewhere less than 20MB, I believe. (I've also got a couple of the ST225s.)
Last year, we used punch cards in a chemistry class... Ok, we wrote on them like they were note cards because the instructors claimed they were easier to handle than 1/2 sheets of paper for the short quizzes they gave us.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Puckdropper" wrote:

------------------------------------------------------- My first desktop was an XT clone with a 30 MB hard drive and an amber display.
Had an internal Fax card and a 56K modem.
Ran my business well into the mid '90's before the HD crapped out.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Puckdropper wrote:

So the little 32GB Micro-SD card holds 50 x 32 = 1600 times as much!!!
I was thinking that multiple was 160, at first, and it's how many times smaller? Wikipedia says it's 15mm by 11 mm, or about 5/8" x 1/2" to non-metricians. Yep, 32 GB in 5/16" of a square inch. More than 32 billions bytes, which is 8x32%6 billion bits! More than enough to count even... Even 256 would be too many for me to count, unless I put them in stacks of 10 = F +1 (=2^4 -1).

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill wrote:

Yeah, I know, F+1 = 2^4. That was the result of bad editing on my part, no doubt brought on by my euphoria...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I started in the biz, we had the large 5MB (5ms latency) head-per-track disk drive (the size of a washing machine - the heads were pneumatically loaded, so each disk unit had a built-in air compressor and storage tank). We also had a bunch of 100-200MB removable drives. When we got our first memorex 3680 (1GB), it took a fork lift to bring it into the computer room. The 3682's were even larger, but fast (for the day).
Today, you've got helium-filled multiplatter drives coming this year from WD, and in a couple of years, heat-activated recording technology is poised to double or triple areal density, and there are additional technologies in the pipeline; not to mention the terabyte SSD's by Violin, FusionIO, Huawei, LSI, et alia. You've also got a couple of flash replacements in the pipeline with Phase-Change Recording (PCR) and Magento-resistive memory (MRAM).
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Puckdropper wrote:

How about a USB 2.0 Device: Hauppauges "WinTV HVR-950 hybrid TV stick" (NTSC/ATSC HD TV reciever). This is handy since my wife already has one (I've got her looking for the software)! It being small, I expect it is leaving lots of processing to the host CPU which otherwise might be done by a tuner on a PCI card. True? It reminds me of the "hardware (phone) modem versus virtual modem" debate that the Linux people carried on for years!
Cheers, Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill wrote:

I downloaded the software and drivers to support the TV-stick for Windows Media Center from Hauppauges support pages. Then I unplugged the rabbit ears from my tv and hooked them up to my usb device. And hey it works, including 2 weeks of TV-guide info!
A little file sharing, and we'll practically have a DVR!
I need more rabbit ears! I think this "system" needs ot be on my wife's computer. : )
Cheers, Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It looks like it uses a software-based encoder. If it works for you, then no problem. You should be able to see how hard your CPU has to work in Task Manager.
Hardware modems are still best. ;-)
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Puckdropper wrote:

Following that point of view cost me several hundred dollars over the years at $79 a crack. A crack of lightning that is. I've still got my last one; I would be willing to let you have it for $39.99. Do they still sell them? : ) Maybe it's a "collectable"? : )

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They do still sell them... priced around the $50-70 mark. I decided a software modem would be good enough, especially considering the dual-core nature of the machine I put it in. (Plus, it was free.)
Did you have a surge supressor on your line?
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.