[mythtv-users] M179 vs. PVR-250. was: ivtv firmware 2.02 or 1.9 ?

Jarod C. Wilson jcw at wilsonet.com
Wed Mar 24 03:11:48 EST 2004

On Mar 20, 2004, at 13:41, Bruce Smith wrote:

>> And the firmware isn't what needs patching to support the M179, it is
>> the ivtv driver itself. And yes, the latest packages on ATrpms do have
>> the M179 patch applied. I use them myself with both my M179 cards, no
>> problem.
> I'm looking to buy a 2nd card (my first is a PVR-250), and I'm debating
> about getting a M179 off ebay, or another PVR-250.  How does the 
> quality
> compare between them?  I've read some postings about M179's having bad
> quality, but that may only apply to the Windows drivers (which I don't
> care about).  If there is any difference in quality, I'll spend the
> extra for another PVR-250.  If the quality is the same, then I might as
> well save the money.  Does a M179 and a PVR-250 play nice together in
> the same box?  Which would you recommend for a 2nd card?  Thanks!

No distinguishable difference between the two for me. I have a retail 
rev2 PVR-250 and an M179 in the same box, no problem. For a secondary 
card (or even a primary, if you have another remote control interface), 
the M179 is a solid deal. Save the money.

Jarod C. Wilson, RHCE

Got a question? Read this first...
MythTV, Fedora Core & ATrpms documentation:
MythTV Searchable Mailing List Archive
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20040324/1861e2ba/PGP.pgp

More information about the mythtv-users mailing list