Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pur_berger" data-source="post: 925516" data-attributes="member: 50701">It's always hard to break it down - but - I take a Atom 2400 system (a xtreamer Ultra 2 to be precise with an USB TerraTec DVBS2 receiver) as example - with nothing more running as MePo and Tv Server, moving pictures and Tv Series. Using the MePo leads to TVServer crash and an over all negative experiance (like time for channel changing). On teh same system running the paid version of DVBViewer (with it's minimalsitic HTPC functionalities) works perfect. No lags, no breaks, no failures. Not to compare - yes - absolutely. But as said - it's not about finding a solution to specific problem - it's a subjective feeling.&nbsp;About the picture - look over the official DVBViwer forum for example about connecting with MePo. Or - Soundgraph. Of Course this doesn't represant the trooth - and we all know that forums often only represant the &quot;negative&quot; things (as if everything is working as it shoudl it is not posted). But it creates a feeling of a closed community not interested in other approaches. If the server is an issue (in terms of resources for example) - other solutions shoudl be supported or API's shoudl be defined wheer they can connect to (as - if the DVBViewer TV Client for example would be for systems with less power a better alternative as a server). But I'm can't say what's right or wrong - or maybe it's teh only way how it will work (as to many option are going to create problems too).&nbsp;What I would like to see - good question. Personally I'm happy. If the dropps on the TV side would be gone for good - perfect. A basic thing I don#t understand is why the server isn't used constantly as base and the client is only a client providing graphical features. What I mean is putting all these databases on the server so it acts like a real one and not only TV. but onthe other hand - you are never going to have the CVlient only option like you have now. You see - I'm cluless ...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pur_berger, post: 925516, member: 50701"] It's always hard to break it down - but - I take a Atom 2400 system (a xtreamer Ultra 2 to be precise with an USB TerraTec DVBS2 receiver) as example - with nothing more running as MePo and Tv Server, moving pictures and Tv Series. Using the MePo leads to TVServer crash and an over all negative experiance (like time for channel changing). On teh same system running the paid version of DVBViewer (with it's minimalsitic HTPC functionalities) works perfect. No lags, no breaks, no failures. Not to compare - yes - absolutely. But as said - it's not about finding a solution to specific problem - it's a subjective feeling. About the picture - look over the official DVBViwer forum for example about connecting with MePo. Or - Soundgraph. Of Course this doesn't represant the trooth - and we all know that forums often only represant the "negative" things (as if everything is working as it shoudl it is not posted). But it creates a feeling of a closed community not interested in other approaches. If the server is an issue (in terms of resources for example) - other solutions shoudl be supported or API's shoudl be defined wheer they can connect to (as - if the DVBViewer TV Client for example would be for systems with less power a better alternative as a server). But I'm can't say what's right or wrong - or maybe it's teh only way how it will work (as to many option are going to create problems too). What I would like to see - good question. Personally I'm happy. If the dropps on the TV side would be gone for good - perfect. A basic thing I don#t understand is why the server isn't used constantly as base and the client is only a client providing graphical features. What I mean is putting all these databases on the server so it acts like a real one and not only TV. but onthe other hand - you are never going to have the CVlient only option like you have now. You see - I'm cluless ... [/QUOTE]

Verification