>On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 15:53 +0200, Fons van der Beek wrote: >> -When timeshifting, zapping a channel takes to long (the buffer must >> be filled), everyone wants his freevo box
>I suppose we're coming at it from different angles. As far as a user >experience is concerned, I don't want there to be any difference. Time >shifting should always be available. A channel-changing delay due to >timeshifting is an implementation detail. I'd much rather figure out a >way to make changing channels as fast as it could be than have two >different modes to work around the delay. >I've been thinking about it, anyway. I have some ideas to try. Jason, first i want to say that you did a good job in implementing the ringbuffer, i certainly not hope that you (or anybody) sees my remarks as critisism, on the contrary by being active on this list I want to state that I appriciate the good job everyone is doing! And yes you're right in youre point of view of the use: it would be perfect if there is no difference between timeshifting/pausing and life TV. I made the mistake that zapping with enabled timshifting takes longer as plain zapping, perhaps i am wrong in that assumption, you are absolutely right! ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click _______________________________________________ Freevo-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-users
