[Blog] MP2 development progress (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Albert
- Start date
Germany
I'm sure its been mentioned previously but I would hope MP2 does try to "officially" support modern server OS for the server component(s).
I see the trend is moving to server 2008 & WHS (v2) for file serving as storage becomes cheaper. Currently I run a combined server+HTPC box but will split out the 2 roles once I need to go past 10 Tb (i'll want a proper server box - 20+ HD slots). I've seen many users here already use WHS1 or a server 03/08 with MP1. I guess, expect that the users that run separate client / server boxes to want to run a server OS on the server box to access server features.
Currently support is OK - community support is great & we can keep doing it that way but it would be nice if the core team were committed to having the server components (perhaps not care about the client components) work on these OS. Server 08/WHS2 both have the win7 core so hopefully it is not too much of a stretch. Then we won't have to have that "your OS is unsupported" message every time you go into the config app.
I see the trend is moving to server 2008 & WHS (v2) for file serving as storage becomes cheaper. Currently I run a combined server+HTPC box but will split out the 2 roles once I need to go past 10 Tb (i'll want a proper server box - 20+ HD slots). I've seen many users here already use WHS1 or a server 03/08 with MP1. I guess, expect that the users that run separate client / server boxes to want to run a server OS on the server box to access server features.
Currently support is OK - community support is great & we can keep doing it that way but it would be nice if the core team were committed to having the server components (perhaps not care about the client components) work on these OS. Server 08/WHS2 both have the win7 core so hopefully it is not too much of a stretch. Then we won't have to have that "your OS is unsupported" message every time you go into the config app.
For clients minimun requirement will be W7.
IF we support any Server OS totally depends on MS. Readson we do not support them atm, simply is because they lack a lot of the required fixes, needed for dvb and directshow.
A server OS is not meant to be used for direct video/media-playback after all.
AW: MP-II development progress
Then i can give you all information about the upcoming windows home server which already supports bda.
Maybe you are able to give me some information on how to test whether all requirements for the server component are fulfilled.
Then i can give you all information about the upcoming windows home server which already supports bda.
Re: AW: MP-II development progress
Don't we?
First we need MP2 in a state in which we can test "everything" on various OS'es.
Don't we?
AW: MP-II development progress
i thought you already know which parts of the OS are mandatory for your plans, especially with all your knowledge about the current TV Server.
Keep in mind i'm only talking about the server part... nobody should install the frontend on a server
i thought you already know which parts of the OS are mandatory for your plans, especially with all your knowledge about the current TV Server.
Keep in mind i'm only talking about the server part... nobody should install the frontend on a server
Re: AW: MP-II development progress
So we do not know yet if MP2's TV-Engine will run into issues on Server OS'es.
The TV-Engine in MP2 will be created from scratch. Currently the specs are beeing defined.
So we do not know yet if MP2's TV-Engine will run into issues on Server OS'es.
And yet a lot try to.nobody should install the frontend on a server
AW: MP-II development progress
Ah okay, i thought you only have to rewrite the parts forked from XBMC...
If you also have to rewrite the TV Engine it's of course not possible to know all the relevant requirements.
Ah okay, i thought you only have to rewrite the parts forked from XBMC...
If you also have to rewrite the TV Engine it's of course not possible to know all the relevant requirements.
Re: AW: MP-II development progress
MP2 was started by frodo from scratch, and albert refactured great ports of it when he took over the project.
He even created UPNP support from 0 (we do not use the buged intel upnp code project many others use)
We also created our own version of WPF (called MPF) for our SkinEngine, because the microsoft version has some major drawbacks for MediaPlaback.
MPF syntax is still 99% compatible to WPF.
Erm..... what makes you think that MP2 is a fork of XBMC???
MP2 was started by frodo from scratch, and albert refactured great ports of it when he took over the project.
He even created UPNP support from 0 (we do not use the buged intel upnp code project many others use)
We also created our own version of WPF (called MPF) for our SkinEngine, because the microsoft version has some major drawbacks for MediaPlaback.
MPF syntax is still 99% compatible to WPF.
We could use the TV-Server, but we want a clean slate there as well because TV-Server would require heavy refacturing in many areas.If you also have to rewrite the TV Engine it's of course not possible to know all the relevant requirements.
AW: MP-II development progress
But MP was forked from XMBC or not? And while this code is old, you started a complete rewrite known as MP2 or not?
And i thought in context to the fact the the TV Server is already written by MP Team that it doesn't need a complete rewrite.
Nothing.
But MP was forked from XMBC or not? And while this code is old, you started a complete rewrite known as MP2 or not?
And i thought in context to the fact the the TV Server is already written by MP Team that it doesn't need a complete rewrite.