<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/8/2014 8:03 AM, Greg Thompson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJkxhYTpVc0nqL07ZE+nUOYq_QUtBX8kSq6njx52BP2iepsd7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Mike
Perkins <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mikep@randomtraveller.org.uk"
target="_blank">mikep@randomtraveller.org.uk</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 07/05/14 23:57, Matt Emmott wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
4) Lack of a decent ARM or $100 solution - We see all
of these threads on<br>
"would this work with Myth" and "why not this cheap
box", but nobody can<br>
ever get them to work. Meanwhile a Roku device can
render 1080p video for<br>
$50 with a remote! Why isn't there a low-end version
of Myth FE tailored to<br>
some specific devices? If somebody came out with a
Myth front end device<br>
with a custom build of MythTV for $199 or lower, I'd
buy it in a second.<br>
Why hasn't this happened yet? Resources? Funding? Lack
of interest? Surely<br>
somebody can build a no-frills FE interface similar to
a Roku or Boxee Box,<br>
no?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
There's a very good reason for this, and that is that
almost every $100 box has been designed and made to be as
cheap as possible - that may mean less RAM or a 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 and/or non-standard architectures which
means that you would need to have the complete specs of
*every* device on the board in order to write (or port) a
front end to them.<br>
<br>
You won't get that without signing a NDA and probably
forking out $bucks for the privilege. By the time you've
gotten your wad of specs and made a start on adapting the
frontend logic to this device it will be out of production
and the manufacturer will have moved on the the next
Ooooh! Shiny! he thinks the punters will want to buy.<br>
<br>
Short answer: diminishing returns. Too much effort and
cash for what would be a small number of users. It makes
more sense in writing a front-end for architectures that
are easy for your potential users to obtain and program.
Note that ARM /isn't/ a single architecture: there are
significant differences between many of the CPU models.<span
class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
Mike Perkins</font></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I get your point with the countless devices out there
today, however why not standardize on the Raspberry Pie..
they just recently open sourced their graphics stack as
well... XBMC runs like a champ on the 512 meg version, so
you know it can be done... Yadda, Yadda, Yadda...<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Because the RPi is a piece of junk, with less CPU power than a
low-end frontend when MythTV was first released 10 years ago. It's
designed to be dirt cheap above all else, with all kinds of hardware
compromises along the way. You have a big GPU to make up for the
shortcomings in the CPU, but with no X support, it would require a
substantial amount of effort to port the UI to it, and there have
been far too widely mixed comments on how well it runs XBMC to call
it a "champ". I would at least choose one of the readily available
Cortex boards as a standard.<br>
</body>
</html>