ExtremeTech: Media Front-End Roundup
ExtremeTech reviews media front ends -- applications that have a "ten foot interface" suitable for running on a TV.
ExtremeTech considers the following to be the "must have" features, and that is what they used to evaluate the programs:
- Play back stored video (WMV, AVI)
- Play back stored music (WMA, MP3, WAV)
- Display digital photos
- Show and time-shift Live TV
- Be programmed to record live TV
Read on for links to the four applications tested and some thoughts on this segment.
It seemed a bit crazy to me that in addition to the programs tested, you also needed to be running Windows XP plus 5 other external applications. They used an ATI Remote Wonder that comes bundled with their graphic card to control the apps (with varying degrees of success).
While there is, as Greg mentions, a "gold rush" going on in this segment, I don't think it will take off until there are more fully integrated applications that do everything. In my opinion, Linux is still a much better choice here, because of everything from stability to low-cost. The only thing holding it back is lack of driver support for specialized hardware (like remotes).
The reviewed applications were:
- myHTPC: free!
- SnapStream: looked at before
- ShowShifter: got good marks except for the fact that it uses TitanTV in a browser for its EPG
- SageTV: Java-based client/server, but it only supports a very small number of hardware tuner cards
The final thoughts don't really pick one stand-out winner, but I think "free" definitely makes myHTPC the most attractive. Round two is going to look at apps which depend on specific hardware configs.
Similar
Comments
General purpose OS
I understand the needless waste when using a PVR on a general purpose OS, but can you not also strip down OSX and run applications at the BSD level?
I'm still a bit uncertain about what is being discussed. Are you saying that it is better to leave PVR capabilities out of a computer, dedicating those chores to a dedicated PVR device?
Or are you saying Linux can offer PVR functions while consuming fewer resources compared to Windows and OSX?
With respect to the BSDs being more server focussed - I don't really understand this comparison of a PC being a desktop, Linux being the only *nix with desktop distros and marketshare, and BSD being server focussed. What were you trying to explain with that?
Hopefully this clears things up
Yes, but then you only have a BSD server without any of the GUI apps that you need for a PVR. Could Apple build something else? Sure. Likely to? Probably not. A dedicated device makes more sense: the interface and OS can be customized for needed functions, making it cheaper and more reliable. Computers can still be clients on the home network, watching streaming video, etc., but the TV room is where these devices live.
Yes -- Linux will consume fewer resources, just by the fact that you can strip everything else except for PVR functions out.
PVR functionality, in so far as it relies on a GUI interface and "end user" type applications, has more apps from Linux, because Linux is actually used by end users. BSD gets used to build servers and routers, whose functionality have little in common with the needs of a PVR.
Clean like Vancouver on a windy day.
Ok, that works. Except this bit:
"A dedicated device makes more sense: the interface and OS can be customized for needed functions, making it cheaper and more reliable. Computers can still be clients on the home network, watching streaming video, etc., but the TV room is where these devices live."
I just don't get why a bunch of dedicated but inflexible devices that you have to spend money on are any better than a general purpose computer with software can replace all those pieces of hardware.
Ok, so a Tivo with an embedded OS costs a lot less than a Linux box that does the same thing. But all you get is a Tivo. You buy a Linux computer, on the other hand, and you get a Tivo, Digital audio jukebox, typewriter, superior fax machine, a CGI box, a cutting room condensed into a tower case, a drafting board, and so many other features.
So which is more efficient? The Tivo is more technically efficient when you look at CPU cycles - the personal computer is multiple times more environmentally efficient, cost efficient, space efficient, and resource efficient.
So why bother with a dedicated Tivo over a personal computer that can replace the Tivo and dozens of other outdated or inefficient technologies?
Refer to "10-foot UI"
Sure, a PC (whether it be Linux, OS X, or Windows-powered) can do it all. Except for the fact that they don't tend to be hooked up to the TV in the living room. And the GUI isn't optimized to be used at "10 ft" -- i.e. with a remote, with a simple interface.
The other route is of course some sort of "thin client" box that sits by the TV and streams content from your PC. Today, those devices are pretty much the same price as a roll-your own box that includes all the media PC functionality...
Linux, Linux, Linux
Linux always seems to be THE OS. Why in the world do people ignore BSDs or OSX? Apple has released open source programs in the past, how can they not boast the same bug-free reliability and optimized performance?
I never bought into this idea that Linux is the only OS capable of doing all those things in one application. What is really being said here is "Only the open source model of software development can produce one single program that handles all those tasks adequately." and not "Linux is the only OS capable of producing one app that does all that acceptably."
In that case, such an application could be done acceptably on any OS capable of running on hardware that can meet these performance requirements.
On another topic, let's talk about hardware, as Greg's comment on Tivo capabilities and resource utilization has made me think of just what will handle real-time video on a personal computer.
While a G5 might be able to handle the encoding and storage of video in real-time and without any dropped frames, it would probably consume a lot of cycles. What could do it with ease? Daughter card? Upgraded Alti-Vec engine?
When I say Linux
I really mean *nix, which for me includes the BSD-derivatives (yes, including OS X). I say Linux is "the OS" because it already has all the applications and drivers available to it* -- I've reviewed and talked about those apps elsewhere on this site: see MythTV for one example. And on *nix (as opposed to Windows or OSX), it doesn't have to be "one app" -- it just has to be one GUI: there is nothing else "underneath" except for the command line.
The encoding/storage of video in real-time is not a problem -- it's already doable today. If you read the ExtremeTech review, the SageTV app only used about 5% of the cycles. In a custom-built machine (i.e. not built out of commodity PC parts), you could offload the encoding to a custom chip. You only do this if the cost of the custom chip is cheaper when you figure that you can now use a less-powerful main processor. Otherwise, you do it in software on a more powerful processor, with the advantage that you can more easily customize the encoding, upgrade/add codecs, etc.
Greg's comments (I believe) were in regards to the relative uselessness of having to carrying the entire overhead of a general-purpose OS (i.e. Windows) just to run PVR functionality. I agree, which is why I think *nix, which can be stripped down while still being open to modifications and add-ons.
* I did a quick search for bsd pvr and see no evidence that anyone is building a BSD-based media PC, as opposed to the two main Linux distributions I just pointed out. This is likely because the BSDs tend to be more server-focused, whereas Linux is really the only *nix with any kind of desktop marketshare/distributions, and a media PC is more like a desktop than it is a server.