Mailing List Archive

On Sunday 01 June 2003 10:43 am, Brian Blalock wrote:
> In the user mailing list archives (Subject line: ATI AIW 7500(Tuner) ) one
> user reported that the ATI AIW card (he did not specify which one) does not
> work as a tuner with MythTV.
>
> But there is one entry in the hardware database where a ATI AIW 8500 128mb
> is being used as a tuner.
>
> I also ran into one archived user mailing list message which stated that
> the ATI AIW cards do not work as a video card and as a tuner at the same
> time under MythTV. I don't recall the subject line.
>
> Is the AIW simply a pain to configure under MythTV?

It will not work as a tuner. Period. This has been discussed to death on
these mailing lists.

Isaac

At 11:06 AM 6/1/2003 -0400, Isaac Richards wrote:
>On Sunday 01 June 2003 10:43 am, Brian Blalock wrote:
> > In the user mailing list archives (Subject line: ATI AIW 7500(Tuner) ) one
> > user reported that the ATI AIW card (he did not specify which one) does not
> > work as a tuner with MythTV.
> >
> > But there is one entry in the hardware database where a ATI AIW 8500 128mb
> > is being used as a tuner.
> >
> > I also ran into one archived user mailing list message which stated that
> > the ATI AIW cards do not work as a video card and as a tuner at the same
> > time under MythTV. I don't recall the subject line.
> >
> > Is the AIW simply a pain to configure under MythTV?
>
>It will not work as a tuner. Period. This has been discussed to death on
>these mailing lists.

But perhaps not clearly enough.

First, the problem is specifically with the AIW 7500. The 8500 is
different. I too have seen reports that it works, but since I don't have
one, I cannot personally vouch for them. I have not seens any reports
either way about the 9500.

Second, the problem with the AIW 7500 is NOT a Myth problem. It is, more or
less, a v4l problem ... specifically a problem with the way the 7500 uses
the i2c bus. I forget the details now ... I researched this almost a year
ago ... but the consensus of v4l developers is that it is unfixable. If you
want the details, use Google to track them down.

You (Brian) also wrote --

>My alternative is two ATI TV Wonders and the least expensive video card I can
>find that supports X-Video.

Do you mean xVideo on TV-out? If so, the least expensive card I know of is
a Savage IX, available for about $14 from www.compugeeks.com ... though I'm
relying on the reports of others here on this list (check the archives) for
saying ti works. (I have one but have not had time to set it up yet.)

nVidia GeForce cards (various models) are more expensive -- around $45 from
the same source -- and I can vouch for their working just fine (using the X
driver nVidia supplies ... I haven't tried the free-software one yet).

Are ATI TV wonders really cheaper (or enough better) than AverTV cards, or
(if you can still find them) older Hauppauge WinTV GO cards?

Ahh, so the hardware database entry is wrong.

Sorry about beating the dead horse. B^)

I'll have to go with the ATI TV Wonders.

Thanks again!

> On Sunday 01 June 2003 10:43 am, Brian Blalock wrote:
>> In the user mailing list archives (Subject line: ATI AIW 7500(Tuner) ) one
>> user reported that the ATI AIW card (he did not specify which one) does not
>> work as a tuner with MythTV.
>>
>> But there is one entry in the hardware database where a ATI AIW 8500 128mb
>> is being used as a tuner.
>>
>> I also ran into one archived user mailing list message which stated that
>> the ATI AIW cards do not work as a video card and as a tuner at the same
>> time under MythTV. I don't recall the subject line.
>>
>> Is the AIW simply a pain to configure under MythTV?
>
>It will not work as a tuner. Period. This has been discussed to death on
>these mailing lists.
>
>Isaac

>
>You (Brian) also wrote --
>
>>My alternative is two ATI TV Wonders and the least expensive video card I
can
>>find that supports X-Video.
>
>Do you mean xVideo on TV-out? If so, the least expensive card I know of is
>a Savage IX, available for about $14 from www.compugeeks.com ... though I'm
>relying on the reports of others here on this list (check the archives) for
>saying ti works. (I have one but have not had time to set it up yet.)

I'm going to be using a monitor for my display so I don't need a TV-out.

>
>nVidia GeForce cards (various models) are more expensive -- around $45 from
>the same source -- and I can vouch for their working just fine (using the X
>driver nVidia supplies ... I haven't tried the free-software one yet).
>
>Are ATI TV wonders really cheaper (or enough better) than AverTV cards, or
>(if you can still find them) older Hauppauge WinTV GO cards?

The biggest reasons I'm going with the ATI TV-Wonders is that they're
available locally, and they are very common in the hardware database.

Brian Blalock wrote:
> Ahh, so the hardware database entry is wrong.
>
> Sorry about beating the dead horse. B^)

Are you talking about the 'jl' entry? This was entered into the old
database on March 4th and hasn't been 'claimed' by the owner since it
being moved over to the new database.

In fairness, the set-up was given a rating of one out of ten ( IE don't
use this config! ) so that should have been a bit of a give away ;)

There is another old entry claiming to use a 8500DV as a tuner, but
again, that was rated one out of ten.

--

Mark Cooper
http://netmangler.sourceforge.net - Network Management with Attitude
http://pvrhw.goldfish.org - Open Source PVR Hardware Database

Mark Cooper wrote:
> Brian Blalock wrote:
>> Ahh, so the hardware database entry is wrong.
>>
>> Sorry about beating the dead horse. B^)
>
>Are you talking about the 'jl' entry? This was entered into the old
>database on March 4th and hasn't been 'claimed' by the owner since it
>being moved over to the new database.

I believe that was the entry I was looking at.

>
>In fairness, the set-up was given a rating of one out of ten ( IE don't
>use this config! ) so that should have been a bit of a give away ;)

There isn't an explanation of where the "rating" number came from or what it
means any obvious place on the site, so that column was meaningless to me.

Using the "Search" box to search the entire site doesn't give any explanation
of the "rating" number either.

Who rates these entries? Is it a voting system of some sort?

>
>There is another old entry claiming to use a 8500DV as a tuner, but
>again, that was rated one out of ten.
>
>--
>
>Mark Cooper
>http://netmangler.sourceforge.net - Network Management with Attitude
>http://pvrhw.goldfish.org - Open Source PVR Hardware Database

Thanks again!