home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Development
General Development (no feature request here!)
why are the requirements so high?!?!
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="xenon2000" data-source="post: 8706"><p>In regards to this quote and other comments made. I have played Direct X games in 3D that work just fine at 1024x768 on a 500mhz. There is a huge difference between 2d and 3D directx functions and CPU load. </p><p></p><p>And as for the power to render things at scale on a 1024x768 display. I am using a 500Mhz laptop with 192Megs ram with Windows XP Pro SP2 with Direct X 9.0c with antivirus running in the background, and I can play HTDV resolution Divx and Xvid encoded video files with no problems or slow down. MP3s, picture viewing, etc... everything works great at the Windows OS level. And even games like Age of Empires 2 run great. </p><p></p><p>There is no reason why a 2D directX rendered menu system can't be fast and responsive on a 500Mhz cpu running Windows XP. I have seen it done, so I know it can happen. I am not talking about software Video or Audio encoding of TV shows or music, etc.... I am talking about simple 2D menu and navigation. Picture loading with non-3D transitions, MP3 background playback while navigating menu or while running a slideshow... all those things run very fast and well on my 500Mhz XP picture frame using just windows, but as soon as I run MP, it's insanely slow to do anything.</p><p></p><p>And arguing that most HTPC users have a 1.4Ghz or faster, is a poor way to discuss the issue of MP's resources. I just finished looking at about 12+ different Media "all-in-one" solutions, many PVR solutions, and many of them only require 450-800Mhz cpus. Very few of them required 1+ Ghz except to do software encoding in realtime, which is acceptable.</p><p></p><p>Of course many solutions cost money and so they obviously have to optimize thier solutions to reach more costomers. But it's an interesting benchmark to look at.</p><p></p><p>My main HTPC is an AMD 2000 with a Hauppauge PVR-150 which has hardware encoding MPEG2, so it is plenty fast for MP.</p><p></p><p>But hard to justify buying a brandnew laptop to take apart and make a frame out of it just to do simple video, music and image playback only. Especially when a resource hog like XP runs these features plenty fast on 500mhz. I am just saying that it is obvious and undeniable that MP uses much more CPU power than most apps of it's kind.</p><p></p><p>I am not complaining about the portions that are handled basically outside of MP, like what WMP 10 does, etc. I am only asking whether or not there are any plans to optimize the 2D rendering of the menu etc... </p><p></p><p>The core of MP such as the menu and navigation, icon and thumbnail display, etc. Should not take much power at all. MP is obviously not optimised and I understand that it is a difficult task and that is way many applications are not free since they require more manpower to make it optimized. </p><p></p><p>MP is great and the hard work is appriciated. But it's not perfect and the speed of the core can definately be improved and I am only curious if there are any future plans in improve on that.</p><p></p><p>Even with my AMD 2000, I don't want 30% of my CPU going to just running MP while it's doing nothing. Thanks for all the comments so far.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="xenon2000, post: 8706"] In regards to this quote and other comments made. I have played Direct X games in 3D that work just fine at 1024x768 on a 500mhz. There is a huge difference between 2d and 3D directx functions and CPU load. And as for the power to render things at scale on a 1024x768 display. I am using a 500Mhz laptop with 192Megs ram with Windows XP Pro SP2 with Direct X 9.0c with antivirus running in the background, and I can play HTDV resolution Divx and Xvid encoded video files with no problems or slow down. MP3s, picture viewing, etc... everything works great at the Windows OS level. And even games like Age of Empires 2 run great. There is no reason why a 2D directX rendered menu system can't be fast and responsive on a 500Mhz cpu running Windows XP. I have seen it done, so I know it can happen. I am not talking about software Video or Audio encoding of TV shows or music, etc.... I am talking about simple 2D menu and navigation. Picture loading with non-3D transitions, MP3 background playback while navigating menu or while running a slideshow... all those things run very fast and well on my 500Mhz XP picture frame using just windows, but as soon as I run MP, it's insanely slow to do anything. And arguing that most HTPC users have a 1.4Ghz or faster, is a poor way to discuss the issue of MP's resources. I just finished looking at about 12+ different Media "all-in-one" solutions, many PVR solutions, and many of them only require 450-800Mhz cpus. Very few of them required 1+ Ghz except to do software encoding in realtime, which is acceptable. Of course many solutions cost money and so they obviously have to optimize thier solutions to reach more costomers. But it's an interesting benchmark to look at. My main HTPC is an AMD 2000 with a Hauppauge PVR-150 which has hardware encoding MPEG2, so it is plenty fast for MP. But hard to justify buying a brandnew laptop to take apart and make a frame out of it just to do simple video, music and image playback only. Especially when a resource hog like XP runs these features plenty fast on 500mhz. I am just saying that it is obvious and undeniable that MP uses much more CPU power than most apps of it's kind. I am not complaining about the portions that are handled basically outside of MP, like what WMP 10 does, etc. I am only asking whether or not there are any plans to optimize the 2D rendering of the menu etc... The core of MP such as the menu and navigation, icon and thumbnail display, etc. Should not take much power at all. MP is obviously not optimised and I understand that it is a difficult task and that is way many applications are not free since they require more manpower to make it optimized. MP is great and the hard work is appriciated. But it's not perfect and the speed of the core can definately be improved and I am only curious if there are any future plans in improve on that. Even with my AMD 2000, I don't want 30% of my CPU going to just running MP while it's doing nothing. Thanks for all the comments so far. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Development
General Development (no feature request here!)
why are the requirements so high?!?!
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom