Re: Review of HD1000 at Digital Producer. (Not entirelypositive)

  NOT with my dime. When I spend $300 on something, I expect it to give 
me my money's worth. Now if they want to upgrade me to a device that 
works as advertised and finally give me what I thought I was paying for 
in the first place, then that's another matter.

George Graves


On May 27, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Ray Nugent (rnugent) wrote:

> I would agree that this first generation box suffers some serious 
> flaws. The unit does not have enough memory to run both Linux and 
> applications and this causes the box to lock up occasionally. Sounds 
> like the only way to fix this is to release a new version of the box 
> with more memory. The UI is a standard issue, release 1 UI and needs 
> enhancing. Show me a new product that doesn't have this problem. I 
> have to disagree on your assertions about support though. When my box 
> had problems the development team was VERY responsive and one even 
> CAME TO MY HOME to try and debug a problem (it ended up being my issue 
> not Roku's). Give these guys a chance, they're on to something...
>
> Ray
>
>
> At 05:33 PM 5/27/2004 -0700, George Graves wrote:
>> It may well be a terrible review, but it certainly mirrors my 
>> experience with the piece of crap HD-1000. I have to reboot the 
>> !@#$%^& thing virtually every time I want to use it. It cannot 
>> remember the path to my networked (via Tbase100 Ether) from one 
>> session to another. Every time I turn it on it goes off looking for 
>> "music" on my hard drive. I DON"T HAVE ANY MUSIC ON MY COMPUTER! I 
>> don't use the Roku for music because I cannot STAND to listen to 
>> MP3s. If it just stayed in that mode for a few minutes, I wouldn't 
>> mind so much but it has to search the entire 160 gigs for "music" 
>> which doesn't exist. It takes seemingly HOURS. Its also slow, the 
>> remote is unresponsive, and the picture quality is not as good as I 
>> expected (even with 6megapixel source material). I' don't blame the 
>> reviewer, I'm not real happy with the HD1000 either and even less 
>> happy with Roku's almost non-existent technical/post sales support. 
>> Wished I'd read such a review before I dropped $300 on this all but 
>> worthless lump.....
>>
>> George Graves
>>
>> On May 27, 2004, at 5:07 PM, Jason Burroughs wrote:
>>
>>> Wow that's a horrible review. I hope the roku team contact him, and 
>>> shame on
>>> him for not contacting them along the way. It sounds like he was 
>>> using old
>>> firmware or just had a bad box. Either way, he shouldn't have been 
>>> told to
>>> try 3rd party apps!! He should have reviewed it as a photo and mp3 
>>> viewer,
>>> with maybe a snippet about future possibilities.
>>>
>>> BUT, he was right on about a number of things including the crappy 
>>> signal
>>> from the remote, the sluggishness of the menus, lack of remembering 
>>> what
>>> directory you were in when browsing, and overall clumsiness of the 
>>> gui.
>>>
>>> It would be a dramatically better product if the gui team did some 
>>> major
>>> work on improving the interface. My fear is that the next generation 
>>> roku
>>> (maybe with dvi, usb 2.0, and firewire) might be in the works, 
>>> preventing an
>>> aggressive sustaining engineering team from heavily tweaking the 
>>> hd1000.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected]
>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hamish 
>>> Guthrey
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 6:44 PM
>>> To: Roku List
>>> Subject: [Roku-tech] Review of HD1000 at Digital Producer. (Not
>>> entirelypositive)
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=25831-0
>>>
>>>
>>> The reviewer clearly had alot of difficulty with the unit crashing, 
>>> and also
>>> commented that the response times were very slow, and that the 
>>> interface
>>> left much to be desired.
>>>
>>> I haven't yet played with an HD1000 myself, so I'm not in a position 
>>> to
>>> comment on the issues raised here.  Is this maybe an earlier release 
>>> of the
>>> OS, or are these known bugs that are being addressed?
>>>
>>> I'm still keen to get one of these for my clients, based solely on 
>>> the
>>> screensaver feature, and from having read this reveiw it seems the
>>> screensaver is not affected by the problems the reviewer had.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hamish
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roku-tech mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.rokulabs.com/mailman/listinfo/roku-tech
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roku-tech mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.rokulabs.com/mailman/listinfo/roku-tech
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roku-tech mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rokulabs.com/mailman/listinfo/roku-tech
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roku-tech mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rokulabs.com/mailman/listinfo/roku-tech
>