[mythtv-users] MythTV vs XBMC

[Raymond Wagner]

On 5/8/2014 8:03 AM, Greg Thompson wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Mike Perkins 
> <mikep at randomtraveller.org.uk <mailto:mikep at randomtraveller.org.uk>> 
> wrote:
>
>     On 07/05/14 23:57, Matt Emmott wrote:
>
>
>         4) Lack of a decent ARM or $100 solution - We see all of these
>         threads on
>         "would this work with Myth" and "why not this cheap box", but
>         nobody can
>         ever get them to work. Meanwhile a Roku device can render
>         1080p video for
>         $50 with a remote! Why isn't there a low-end version of Myth
>         FE tailored to
>         some specific devices? If somebody came out with a Myth front
>         end device
>         with a custom build of MythTV for $199 or lower, I'd buy it in
>         a second.
>         Why hasn't this happened yet? Resources? Funding? Lack of
>         interest? Surely
>         somebody can build a no-frills FE interface similar to a Roku
>         or Boxee Box,
>         no?
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     -- 
>
>     Mike Perkins
>
>
> 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...

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20140508/fd99e006/attachment.html>