Talk:Sky+

Neutrality

"people who had it, loved it."

Is this a neutral point of view? Philip Stevens 09:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Critics[who?] argued that it was too expensive and were unconvinced of the need for or reliability of the product."

This is like the joke about the critic who reviews a restaurant and complains that the food was terrible and the portions were too small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.218.172 (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's probably better to say "those who have used the system are generally positive". Evidence of this is that the churn rate for Sky+ is less than for regular Sky equipment. Colin99 22:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Amstrad

"Amstrad are working on a software update but the anomoly remains and is indicitive of the build quality of these boxes."

Now what has slow firmware got to do with build quality? Nothing. So this is a POV remark, agreed? I think we should delete... Colin99 22:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

I don't think that there needs to be all these links to software such as Copy+ and links to places to buy sky boxes -completely irrelevant in my opinion. I'll remove these in the near future unless I get plausible arguments to the contrary. Wikipedia is not an advertisement vehicle, neither is it the location to find ways to tamper with the firmware of electronics. c-bro 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)c-bro

Various things

A few things I personally want to raise:

1. The versions are a bit messy. There was the original Pace V1 box (the big thing) followed by the Pace V2 and the Amstrad, all of which were 40Gb. It was after those two that the 80Gb and 160gb boxes were released.
2. There's no photos! I'll happily take one of the box and the remote if anybody wants.
3. Mention could be made of the fact that the Sky+ box is expandable by an interface in the back, but it's yet to be used. Also, there's no mention of the Optical output, which was a major reason for getting a Sky+ box around its release.
4. The Sky+ box will be superseded by the SkyHD boxes as they have much the same functionality, only with HD too.

Comments and suggestions? --KingDaveRa 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If there are inaccuracies please correct them and please feel free to add photos.

As for the third point, I think care has to be taken not to turn the article into a slightly misleading advert for Sky+. Whilst discussion of expansion ports might be useful in a list of technical specifications of the box (together with processors, etc), I think care needs to be taken to wave it as a selling point of the box when there is no indication if it will ever be used. AFAICT a lot of set top boxes are derived from pretty generic architectures leaving all sorts of bits and pieces that there was no intention of using. For example, I understand at least one very early Freeview box had interfaces that would enable the connection of a hard-drive, many are also evolved from pay boxes made for other markets and have the capability to add pay facilities. However, the presence of these features doesnt correlate with any apparent intention of the manufactuer to ever use these interfaces.

Finally, if my understanding that those with Sky HD automatically get Sky+ is correct, I would assume Sky will at some point merge these services. It seems pretty pointless trying to sell Sky+ for the same price as Sky HD and Sky+. At which point it would make sense to merge the articles.

Pit-yacker 00:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Steogede 06 November 2007

Might be worth mentioning that (like most PVRs) if people want to upgrade the harddisk it is recommended that they use a CE (Consumer Electronics) disk such as a Maxtor Quickview.

Probably also worth noting the fact that each Sky+ box requires two cables from the dish, one for each tuner (unlike a terestrial Freeview PVR). Perhaps worth mentioning why this is the case (I don't know).

I have read that Sky+ boxes are unable to playback recorded material when they can't get a signal from the satellite (e.g. in bad weather). If this is the case, it would be nice to know more about it.

"one for each tuner (unlike a terestrial Freeview PVR). Perhaps worth mentioning why this is the case (I don't know)" <-- the reason is because a LNB can be in one of four modes (two polarisations and two frequency bands) and different modes are needed for different channels. Plugwash (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by RustlessBob (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)RustlessBob

The reason for two cables being needed is due to the fact that the signal cannot be 'split up'. An LNB on the end of a dish therfore comes in different sizes, single, dual, quad and octo, 1, 2, 4 and 8 respectively. I have never been unable to not watch recorded content due to signal strength. However, microwaves are unlikely to be 'disturbed' by bad weather, more likely a poor connection at the LNB (which I have personally encountered). And yes, sky+/HD are now merged - all sky + boxes are sky+ HD boxes. The HD service being an optional £10 extra (excluding free HD channels like BBC HD, ITV HD etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RustlessBob (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

USB port

Like many high-end programmable CE boxes, the newer Sky+ boxes have a USB port to support future features such as external storage, Human Interface Devices, etc.

Constant high-pitch beep

It's so annoying. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article. A quick google search uncovers many other people have experienced this. I'm just hearing it at someone else's house because I don't have Sky+ at home. They can't hear it, but that's cause it's so high. I fear it's causing tinnitus as I can still hear this horrible noise when I go outside. Something about the cheap hard disk inside the Sky+ box making the noise as it spins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.143.235 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)