Am using the Browser version of Channels DVR in Windows 10 but find it to be rather lacking compared to the android version in Nvidia Shield TV Pro.
So, when can we expect a real app that runs natively in Windows 10?
2 Likes
Probably never....been requested many time for years, looking at the forms here
Channels focus is for streaming boxes and mobile devices.
There are already other competitor products with desktop OS software.
My only suggestion, find and read the thread on How to Use Channels DVR as a tuner source for Emby, and use Emby Theater or Win Store app, if a desktop OS software is a must for you.
I’d like to have one too, but they have said they aren’t Windows coders. They did work on Kodi integration, so you can set it up on Windows that way.
I tried it a while back, and didn’t like it. I bought an iPad just so I could watch in the kitchen and at my desk.
BUMMER... I really like Channels DVR for Android.. the layout & use is the best out there.
Am also wondering why the Browser version is so different from the Android version? I have other Android apps that have an almost exact Browser counterpart with the same look & feel. If a similar Browser version of Channels DVR could be built I would be one very happy camper.
Hulu, Pluto, YouTube TV, Locast, Philo, Sling, Disney & others all have Android apps & Browser streamers that look & act similar to each other so why is Channels DVR Browser streamer do different from the android App?
I would like to see Channels DVR Browser updated to have a similar look & feel of the Android app.
well, from what i have read, Channels started out solely for ios/Apple devices, and that remains their primary focus.
It is only most recently, that they are now updating the Android versions, to match the Apple versions.
1 Like
Install bluestacks on windows and then install the channels android app on bluestacks.
1 Like
I hear your.
I've been looking at Channels since they first came out for IOS a few years ago & have always hoped for a real Windows version when I recently ran across the Browser version which runs in a Windows Browser just fine, EXCEPT it looks & acts NOTHING like the Android version.
If they could just make it like the Android version I (and a lot of other users) would be very happy indeed.
The DVR server's web UI is an administrative interface for managing the server. It was never intended to be used as the primary interface, nor as a client UI. The clients for streaming devices and tablets/phones was meant to be the way users interact with the program.
Granted, many users may use the web UI as their primary interface, but that's a bit similar to getting the square peg into a round hole.
1 Like
Have already tried several emulators including the latest Bluestacks & don't like any of them.
What I really want is a browser version with the same look & feel of the Android version.
1 Like
Like I previously said most other streaming providers have a Browser with almost the same look & feel of the Android app so what is holding Channels back?
I get it that they are aligned with IOS, but come on lets get real, if they don't really support Windows they are missing out on a very large market & that I don't understand.
I only watch TV on my computer 27" monitor. I tried various solutions and the best one I have found is plugging a FireStick 4K into the HDMI port on the monitor and changing the input on the monitor to HDMI.
1 Like
I do that already. In fact, I have both a FireStick & a Nvidia Shield TV Pro plugged into two HDMI ports on my Dell 38 inch Ultra-Wide monitor. I have input source 1 set for USB type C (Windows) & input source 2 set to HDMI 1 (the Nvidia Shield TV pro) so by simply pushing one button I can switch back & forth between the Nvidia Shield TV Pro & Windows 10.
Problem is I work in Windows & find Android to be rather clunky. Also the Nvidia Shield TV Pro does not correctly handle Ultra-wide monitor aspect rations (this is well documented on the Nvidia forums). The Shield wants to stretch most TV screens out to cover the whole monitor screen which makes everything look rather fat or wide.
Windows on the other hand does a fine job of correctly controlling any aspect ratio which makes for a more natural looking picture on my ultra-wide monitor.
So, for me, it is easier & faster to simply load a TV streaming browser page in Windows. That is why I really want to see Channels DVR browser to have the same look & feel as the Android version (minus the aspect ratio problem).
Same, use computer monitor.
I used to use Emby as my main source for TV, and used it on PC in Windows,
but with my drop of cable, and move to streaming, and now using Channels DVR with TVE, had to stop using PC, and buy a Nvidia Shield to use as client to use TV now.
Rarely use my desktop PC now anymore.
Save on power bill i guess. lolz
maybe try Apple TV 4K, maybe it better at ultra wide screen aspect ratio.
Personally, i cant stand ultra wide ratios. most tv content is still 16:9.
I hear you, but most of my computer use is Windows orientated with TV as a second source. Windows is my only TV & I prefer to stay in Windows whenever possible.
As I really like the look & feel of the Android version of Channels DVR, it just makes since to me to have either a real Windows app or a browser version of Channels DVR with the same look & feel.
Oh well... I can dream I guess.
One of the major limitations of the web UI is that browsers can’t natively play Mpeg2 format, which is what OTA comes in as. So anything from OTA has to be transcoded by the server, which makes it less responsive (and can be taxing on the server). The development team is small, and each additional platform supported is a lot of work to support. While I’d like to have a Windows client too, there are other things (like enhancing the existing clients and servers) that I’d like to see more. Obviously everybody has their different priority lists. 
90% of the work is already done in the Browser version of Channels DVR.
As I've mentioned several times the current Browser version underpinnings work just fine, it's just the graphical interface that I would like to see updated so it looks & handles more like the Android version.
Many items in the android version require only a single click of the controller whereas the Browser version requires several clicks of the mouse to do the same thing.
EXAMPLES:
Android... to exit currently playing TV back to the Grid requires only a SINGLE click of the back button on the remote.
Browser... to exit currently playing TV back to the Grid requires THREE clicks of the mouse to do the same thing, one of which is not even on the screen & the window has to be scrolled down to access the Stop button which is off the screen... simply crazy.
When comparing the Android version to the Browser version many such examples come up.
I'm not asking for a complete re-wright of all the code (like I've said, functionally-wise, the Browser version works... it's just that the graphical interface is rather crude). If the graphical interface could be made to look & fell more like the Android version I think that would do the job just fine.
1 Like
I believe you're missing the point, @DocCruncher. The web interface is meant to be an administrative tool. Just as is the web interface SD provides for the tuners, themselves. The fact that you can watch live/recorded content with it is more a bonus than its main purpose.
As somebody that has little interest in watching TV on their computer, and appreciates a clean UI, I, for one, would not want to see the functionality of the web interface as an administrative tool be subsumed to that of an entertainment UI.
Yes, I understand the Administrative Tool bit but you may be missing the point that almost everyone else such as (Hulu, Pluto, YouTube TV, Locast, Philo, Sling, Disney & others) all have Android apps & Browser streamers that look & act similar to each other so why not Channels DVR?
If they want to have both an Administrative Tool AND a full-fledged browser (with Android-like GUI) that would be OK by me, I would simply use the Browser in Windows 10.
Because the developers apparently aren't interested in offering this. Like everyone, they have limited resources and have chosen other priorities. There focus seems to be streaming boxes and mobile which they've been pretty open about.