Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sno Crash" data-source="post: 574611" data-attributes="member: 76645">I have an Asus eeeBox B202, which is an Intel Atom.&nbsp; I have put the Crystal HD decoder card in it, and the machine is now capable of HD playback.&nbsp; That's great.The problem I have is that the MP interface is sluggish, specifically when using plugins like MovingPictures.&nbsp; MovingPictures is almost unnavigable, even with the PNG compressor script, and with the GMABooster (I have no idea if this actually did anything at all).&nbsp; I even get the interface freeze crash that people have been talking about on here.&nbsp; On my other, higher-spec'd machine, MP and MovingPictures run smooth and fast, so obviously more power = better performance.&nbsp; I get that much.However.It's hard not to compare / contrast with the Windows port of XBMC on the same equipment.&nbsp; (These are afterall the only two platforms worth looking at).&nbsp; The interface under XBMC is very fast and responsive, and I can navigate the &quot;Library&quot; (which is their version of MovingPictures) without a problem.&nbsp; I have never had it lock up the interface.I'm not starting a &quot;XBMC is better&quot; thread, don't get me wrong.&nbsp; But I'd like to know what the differences could be?&nbsp; Are there different ways of caching graphics and rendering an interface that XBMC is doing that MP is not?&nbsp; Is this possibly something being addressed in future releases?&nbsp; Is this a by-product of the underlying code for MP1, that a rewrite to MP2 can address?&nbsp; Does the way XBMC handles memory differ from how MP does?&nbsp;&nbsp; I would have to think so, and I wonder if the performance with XBMC is better because of its roots - on a lowly XBOX1 (which I still have <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> )&nbsp; I'm interested in the vision for MP - will the demand for more powerful features (like the client/server model, the TV recording, etc) always keep MP in the &quot;higher end&quot; of the specification requirements, whereas XBMC will remain &quot;simple&quot; and usable on the lowest end equipment?&nbsp; Do other users out there mix and match XBMC and MP deployments based on available hardware?&nbsp; They seem to work well together, so I can't see why not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sno Crash, post: 574611, member: 76645"] I have an Asus eeeBox B202, which is an Intel Atom. I have put the Crystal HD decoder card in it, and the machine is now capable of HD playback. That's great. The problem I have is that the MP interface is sluggish, specifically when using plugins like MovingPictures. MovingPictures is almost unnavigable, even with the PNG compressor script, and with the GMABooster (I have no idea if this actually did anything at all). I even get the interface freeze crash that people have been talking about on here. On my other, higher-spec'd machine, MP and MovingPictures run smooth and fast, so obviously more power = better performance. I get that much. However. It's hard not to compare / contrast with the Windows port of XBMC on the same equipment. (These are afterall the only two platforms worth looking at). The interface under XBMC is very fast and responsive, and I can navigate the "Library" (which is their version of MovingPictures) without a problem. I have never had it lock up the interface. I'm not starting a "XBMC is better" thread, don't get me wrong. But I'd like to know what the differences could be? Are there different ways of caching graphics and rendering an interface that XBMC is doing that MP is not? Is this possibly something being addressed in future releases? Is this a by-product of the underlying code for MP1, that a rewrite to MP2 can address? Does the way XBMC handles memory differ from how MP does? I would have to think so, and I wonder if the performance with XBMC is better because of its roots - on a lowly XBOX1 (which I still have :D ) I'm interested in the vision for MP - will the demand for more powerful features (like the client/server model, the TV recording, etc) always keep MP in the "higher end" of the specification requirements, whereas XBMC will remain "simple" and usable on the lowest end equipment? Do other users out there mix and match XBMC and MP deployments based on available hardware? They seem to work well together, so I can't see why not. [/QUOTE]

Verification