<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Brian J. Murrell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brian@interlinx.bc.ca" target="_blank">brian@interlinx.bc.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 12:46 +0100, Mike Perkins wrote:<br>
> There's a very good reason for this, and that is that almost every $100 box has<br>
> been designed and made to be as cheap as possible - that may mean less RAM or a<br>
> processor which can only /just/ manage the media formats it claims to support.<br>
><br>
> The big point is that most of these devices are made with non-standard chips<br>
> and/or non-standard architectures which means that you would need to have the<br>
> complete specs of *every* device on the board in order to write (or port) a<br>
> front end to them.<br>
><br>
> You won't get that without signing a NDA and probably forking out $bucks for the<br>
> privilege. By the time you've gotten your wad of specs and made a start on<br>
> adapting the frontend logic to this device it will be out of production and the<br>
> manufacturer will have moved on the the next Ooooh! Shiny! he thinks the punters<br>
> will want to buy.<br>
><br>
> Short answer: diminishing returns. Too much effort and cash for what would be a<br>
> small number of users. It makes more sense in writing a front-end for<br>
> architectures that are easy for your potential users to obtain and program. Note<br>
> that ARM /isn't/ a single architecture: there are significant differences<br>
> between many of the CPU models.<br>
<br>
</div>But I think the original point was, and somebody correct me if I am<br>
wrong (about either the original point or the claim that I infer from<br>
it) that XBMC runs on (some of) these devices where MythFE cannot due to<br>
being more resource hungry.<br>
<br>
And XBMC is just more ported(/able?), again, likely just due to the<br>
critical mass it has. The Android port even, looks identical to the<br>
Linux port. I would presume that the Windows port looks identical also.<br>
I would presume there is an OS/X port which again looks identical, etc.<br>
<br>
So again, this is a point in favour of standing on the shoulders of<br>
giants and putting effort into the places where it's not so good rather<br>
than trying to replicate the giants.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
b.</font></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I believe XBMC looks the same everywhere since they decided to use All OpenGL for their interface, rather than QT and a window manager... Someone Correct me if I am wrong! </div>
<div><br></div><div>Greg</div></div><br></div></div>