[mythtv-users] What major features are planned for 0.27?
fatgerman at gmail.com
Tue Nov 20 16:43:12 UTC 2012
On Tuesday 20 Nov 2012 10:21:56 Michael T. Dean wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 02:05 AM, Phill Edwards wrote:
> > > I have to ask whether it's time for the folks interested in coding the
> > > frontend bits to give up on the Myth frontend as it's own stand-alone
> > > app (along with all of it's failing bits) and instead take the
> > > working-really-well bits and provide XBMC with first class Myth playback
> > > capabilities.
> > >
> > I love mythfrontend and I find it very disappointing that people want
> > to get rid of it as I don't think whatever replaces it will be as good
> > for TV recording playback. Sure XBMC looks good but I think features
> > come first.
> And, FWIW, mythfrontend can look /very/ good, too--just requires some
> people to actually help with theming it (rather than just saying that
> XBMC is better and recommending we drop mythfrontend)...
Yes, the MythMediaStream theme looks really good, but it does use up a shedload of RAM. IMO all the XBMC themes look great, they're easy to navigate, and seem to use far less memory - which is significant for many who run a frontend on a small PC.
But it's not al about eye candy. I've been experimenting with XMBC as a frontend and the setup is SO much simpler - I haven't had to faff with sysctl.conf, udev rules, (for RTC timing) or even the dreaded LIRC. It all just worked (apart from the usual type of faffing with xorg.conf). And A/V sync is spot on with all sources, including TV - which it wasn't with mythtv 0.26.
I'm sure mythfrontend is extremely capable (I know it is, I went to the trouble of setting it up) but using XBMC gives me more beer time. I think that perhaps when people say 'XBMC is better' they might mean 'I managed to get XBMC to work so I'm using it because I gave up on mythfrontend after 3 days'.
More information about the mythtv-users