Reply to thread

Message

I've loaded up MP on three occasions over the past few years, but I always revert to XBMC.

This is *Not* because I don't love MP; in fact, I always come back and check on MP's status, hoping that it's reached a point where I'll have good luck with it.

My issue is *not* that MP cannot be configured by remote or that MP is not as userfriendly/etc. Insead, I'll mention my specific issues:

ISO Handing.
My issue is first and foremost, that XBMC handles .ISO's so elegantly. And with an 800 movie library, it's just so much easier to keep everything stored in single file .ISO's that include full DVD-features, etc. I realize that MP will work with .ISO's, but anyone that's used it is probably familiar with the occasional problems that result in it being the daemon workaround.

Share Aggregation.
Better yet, XBMC has a great feature that allows you to integrate multiple UNC's under one share. So, for example, I can create "Movies" and map that to \\MovieServer\Disk1, \\MovieServer\Disk2, etc. I listed this as a feature request, but it seemd to be shunned. It seems, in my experience, when you talk about XBMC in relation to a feature request, you'll receive a "XBMC is an inferior product" sort of reply, without consideration for those areas that are executed very well.

Remote.
The other problem I've run into with MP, quite often, is that I've not had good luck with remotes. I'm guessing that because the MS MediaCenter remote has become so standard, that may be a standard that works well for MP at this point. However, at my last install, there was no standardized/recommended IR/remote setup for MP and it just so happens the two remotes I tested, were convoluted (I can't remember exactly which issues I had, I just remember staying up until 4am several nights fighting with it ;-).

TV Not as important.
I have no use for television because TVTorrents works slicker than anything imaginable, and it's addictive once you've become accustomed to receiving all of your shows the next day, cleaned up, MPEG4 encoded, and indexed in the system. It just works so nice. This is *not* to downplay those of you who need TV; in fact, I see it as one of the most critical features despite not having a use for it myself. However, with that said, for a straight "media endpoint" I've just found that XBMC works better.

I just want to reiterate one last time: I love MP and I'm looking forward to the day when the above features are considered. However, at this point, after watching for years, it seems like these features may not be as important to the development team / other users, and therefore, I'll probably be running XBMC for quite awhile...

Thanks for taking the time to consider .

<blockquote data-quote="rusten" data-source="post: 301774" data-attributes="member: 10303">I've loaded up MP on three occasions over the past few years, but I always revert to XBMC.&nbsp; This is *Not* because I don't love MP; in fact, I always come back and check on MP's status, hoping that it's reached a point where I'll have good luck with it.My issue is *not* that MP cannot be configured by remote or that MP is not as userfriendly/etc.&nbsp; Insead, I'll mention my specific issues:ISO Handing.My issue is first and foremost, that XBMC handles .ISO's so elegantly.&nbsp; And with an 800 movie library, it's just so much easier to keep everything stored in single file .ISO's that include full DVD-features, etc.&nbsp; I realize that MP will work with .ISO's, but anyone that's used it is probably familiar with the occasional problems that result in it being the daemon workaround.&nbsp; Share Aggregation.Better yet, XBMC has a great feature that allows you to integrate multiple UNC's under one share.&nbsp; So, for example, I can create &quot;Movies&quot; and map that to \\MovieServer\Disk1, \\MovieServer\Disk2, etc.&nbsp; I listed this as a feature request, but it seemd to be shunned.&nbsp; It seems, in my experience, when you talk about XBMC in relation to a feature request, you'll receive a &quot;XBMC is an inferior product&quot; sort of reply, without consideration for those areas that are executed very well.Remote.The other problem I've run into with MP, quite often, is that I've not had good luck with remotes.&nbsp; I'm guessing that because the MS MediaCenter remote has become so standard, that may be a standard that works well for MP at this point.&nbsp; However, at my last install, there was no standardized/recommended IR/remote setup for MP and it just so happens the two remotes I tested, were convoluted (I can't remember exactly which issues I had, I just remember staying up until 4am several nights fighting with it ;-).TV Not as important.I have no use for television because TVTorrents works slicker than anything imaginable, and it's addictive once you've become accustomed to receiving all of your shows the next day, cleaned up, MPEG4 encoded, and indexed in the system.&nbsp; It just works so nice.&nbsp; This is *not* to downplay those of you who need TV; in fact, I see it as one of the most critical features despite not having a use for it myself.&nbsp; However, with that said, for a straight &quot;media endpoint&quot; I've just found that XBMC works better.I just want to reiterate one last time: I love MP and I'm looking forward to the day when the above features are considered.&nbsp; However, at this point, after watching for years, it seems like these features may not be as important to the development team / other users, and therefore, I'll probably be running XBMC for quite awhile...Thanks for taking the time to consider <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rusten, post: 301774, member: 10303"] I've loaded up MP on three occasions over the past few years, but I always revert to XBMC. This is *Not* because I don't love MP; in fact, I always come back and check on MP's status, hoping that it's reached a point where I'll have good luck with it. My issue is *not* that MP cannot be configured by remote or that MP is not as userfriendly/etc. Insead, I'll mention my specific issues: ISO Handing. My issue is first and foremost, that XBMC handles .ISO's so elegantly. And with an 800 movie library, it's just so much easier to keep everything stored in single file .ISO's that include full DVD-features, etc. I realize that MP will work with .ISO's, but anyone that's used it is probably familiar with the occasional problems that result in it being the daemon workaround. Share Aggregation. Better yet, XBMC has a great feature that allows you to integrate multiple UNC's under one share. So, for example, I can create "Movies" and map that to \\MovieServer\Disk1, \\MovieServer\Disk2, etc. I listed this as a feature request, but it seemd to be shunned. It seems, in my experience, when you talk about XBMC in relation to a feature request, you'll receive a "XBMC is an inferior product" sort of reply, without consideration for those areas that are executed very well. Remote. The other problem I've run into with MP, quite often, is that I've not had good luck with remotes. I'm guessing that because the MS MediaCenter remote has become so standard, that may be a standard that works well for MP at this point. However, at my last install, there was no standardized/recommended IR/remote setup for MP and it just so happens the two remotes I tested, were convoluted (I can't remember exactly which issues I had, I just remember staying up until 4am several nights fighting with it ;-). TV Not as important. I have no use for television because TVTorrents works slicker than anything imaginable, and it's addictive once you've become accustomed to receiving all of your shows the next day, cleaned up, MPEG4 encoded, and indexed in the system. It just works so nice. This is *not* to downplay those of you who need TV; in fact, I see it as one of the most critical features despite not having a use for it myself. However, with that said, for a straight "media endpoint" I've just found that XBMC works better. I just want to reiterate one last time: I love MP and I'm looking forward to the day when the above features are considered. However, at this point, after watching for years, it seems like these features may not be as important to the development team / other users, and therefore, I'll probably be running XBMC for quite awhile... Thanks for taking the time to consider :-). [/QUOTE]