Sky Q awful to use

[PeteRG41]

I think this thread will end up being another rabbit warren of detractors and defenders without any real outcome.

The truth is simply that the vast majority of people use the system without complaint.

[simon194]

Having had Q from day 1, still my main gripe is when someone downloads a programme  from a mini you get the "such and such is ready to watch" notification on the main box. I for one am glad reminders don't exist on Q.

[Laing1]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Last night at 21:00 - we suddenly had an MR102 error on our WiFi connected remote Q box

We don't use Sky internet and have a good WiFi signal in the bedroom (65Mbps)

This took almost 30 minutes  to resolve

Why should it suddenly do this ?

Never had any problems with HD or previous boxes in 21 years

let me just say that my wife almost threw the remote box out of the window last night

---

@Anonymous As you don't have Sky as your internet provider then the mini boxes don't connect to your home wifi they connect to a mesh signal from the Main Q box so the fact you have 65Mbps in the bedroom from your wifi will make no difference

On the old Sky + HD system and older the multiroom boxes were connect direct to the satellite dish so received their signal direct from the satellite which is why this never happended in the previous 21 years

[Anonymous]

@Laing1We have had Q for 9 months and have never had a similar problem before - either

The main box is less than 20 feet away from the remote box - directly on the floor below

HD remote boxes used  to connect via cable anyway (magic eye) - not "connected direct to the satellite dish so received their signal direct from the satellite"

[PandJ2020]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

HD remote boxes used  to connect via cable anyway (magic eye) - not "connected direct to the satellite dish so received their signal direct from the satellite"

---

'Proper' multiroom used to use an additional main box that had a satellite feed.  (With it's own planner and recordings).  'MagicEye' could only mirror what the main box was outputting - not true multiroom as such (an 'extender' if you like).

Q only records on main box and mini's act as a slave.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Why should it suddenly do this ?

---

Mostly because WiFi, by definition, is not a fixed medium, and can be hugely affected by household electrical devices, local demand, what the neighbours are doing with their wireless kit and so on.  

Data transmission over local cabling has the huge benefit of being  boringly stable and predictable.

[Anonymous]

@TimmyBGood 

So why didn't sky use a cabled magic eye on Q ?

[Mark39]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@TimmyBGood 

So why didn't sky use a cabled magic eye on Q ?

---

Apart from it being ancient technology with a sub standard SD picture, mono sound and Q boxes having no RF modulator? Feel free to ask Sky.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

So why didn't sky use a cabled magic eye on Q ?

---

As noted above, your terminology is incorrect.  Sky+ HD Multiroom uses a cabled feed from the dish to each box, which contains its own tuner and is an independent receiver, decoder and data store with its own remote control: this has a per-box cost for both hardware purchase and monthly subscription.

 'Magic Eye' is the infrared repeater system which allows an IR remote in another room to control the output of a single Sky+ box which is repeating low-quality RF output over coaxial cable to a screen in a different location: that's not 'Multiroom' and avoids the need for an additional subscription.

As to why Q Multiscreen is wireless rather than cabled: I'd assume that's because the Sky+ platform is nearly a quarter century old and so pre-dates domestic wireless technology, while Sky Q is from 2016 and was designed during the first consumer WiFi boom. It also removes the issue of customer reluctance to have multiple cables from dish to rooms, and works just fine for millions of households otherwise this forum would be considerably busier.

[Chodley]

The magic eye picture was diabolical. Only fit for a 20" TV.

imho

[Dodbatchelo]

Sky Q is still awful!! Even after having it for a year I still hate the operation and user interface,  it doesn't record what you want and is over complex, I really wish I still had my sky+ it was brilliant, I will be looking for something else when my contract is finished,  loved being a sky customer for over 20 years  but the Q box has ruined it. 

[Laing1]

---

@Dodbatchelo wrote:

Sky Q is still awful!! Even after having it for a year I still hate the operation and user interface,  it doesn't record what you want and is over complex, I really wish I still had my sky+ it was brilliant, I will be looking for something else when my contract is finished,  loved being a sky customer for over 20 years  but the Q box has ruined it. 

---

@Dodbatchelo each to there own  I on the other hand much prefer Sky Q to the old Sky HD+ system but everyone is different I would never ever go back to the old system 

[Invisiblename]

---

@Dodbatchelo wrote:

Sky Q is still awful!! Even after having it for a year I still hate the operation and user interface,  it doesn't record what you want and is over complex, I really wish I still had my sky+ it was brilliant, I will be looking for something else when my contract is finished,  loved being a sky customer for over 20 years  but the Q box has ruined it. 

---

I never have a problem getting Sky Q to record what I want it to record - not sure what you are doing wrong

[Anonymous]

@Skyqisawful especially the Barbie pink home page

I am an adult and don't appreciate being treated as a child !!

Sky customer 22 years.

[Chodley]

It is a bit garish - I was glad the rest of the menus were standard colours - but that's part of the point of the movie, which has been very popular with adults.