[mythtv-users] MythTV vs XBMC

Mike Perkins mikep at randomtraveller.org.uk
Thu May 8 17:13:22 UTC 2014


On 08/05/14 17:46, Raymond Wagner wrote:
> 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.
>
...which was exactly my point. Thanks, Raymond.

-- 

Mike Perkins



More information about the mythtv-users mailing list