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
MediaPortal 1 Talk
Windows XP Embedded (XPe)
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="esajesa" data-source="post: 255424" data-attributes="member: 16294"><p>Just thought I might be able to give a few pointers as well..</p><p></p><p>I've tried this setup on two different models of thin clients from HP, and I've both struggled with XPe, and a stripped down (nLite) version of XP. I find that the stripped down version is easier to work with than XPe, and basically they're the same, only the exact opposites.. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> Opposites in the way that in XPe you build from scratch, ie you have to ADD every functionality, while with eg nLite you do it the other way, you strip away and REMOVE functionality. As long as you know what you're doing I'd say they're equally efficient. </p><p></p><p>There are a few things you need to steal from XPe if you want to do it the nLite way, and the most important thing would be the EWF (Enhanced Write Filter) to protect the flash memory. If you don't use that you will crash your flash mem really quickly, since a flash memory is made to be read a lot but written a little. </p><p></p><p>I would also suggest you remove any swapfiles on your drive.</p><p></p><p>However, keeping all this in mind, at least on my thin clients, which aren't brand new, MP runs really really slow. It works, but it's not pleasant. </p><p></p><p>The reason eg Dreambox is much smoother on "thin type" hardware is that the OS overhead is so much smaller, and the GUI application itself is compiled to leave a small footprint, whereas MP isn't exactly the most resource efficient application in the world.. ;-)</p><p></p><p>I'd much prefer finding a small form factor (and quiet) barebone PC and use that, alternatively a high spec mini-ITX PC. IF you're gonna do that and use a CF card with an IDE adapter, make sure the CF card can be used as a fixed drive, as opposed to a removable disk. Windows doesn't like having it's system drive on a removable disk, even though it could work. </p><p></p><p>Hope this helps a bit!</p><p></p><p>//Jens</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="esajesa, post: 255424, member: 16294"] Just thought I might be able to give a few pointers as well.. I've tried this setup on two different models of thin clients from HP, and I've both struggled with XPe, and a stripped down (nLite) version of XP. I find that the stripped down version is easier to work with than XPe, and basically they're the same, only the exact opposites.. ;) Opposites in the way that in XPe you build from scratch, ie you have to ADD every functionality, while with eg nLite you do it the other way, you strip away and REMOVE functionality. As long as you know what you're doing I'd say they're equally efficient. There are a few things you need to steal from XPe if you want to do it the nLite way, and the most important thing would be the EWF (Enhanced Write Filter) to protect the flash memory. If you don't use that you will crash your flash mem really quickly, since a flash memory is made to be read a lot but written a little. I would also suggest you remove any swapfiles on your drive. However, keeping all this in mind, at least on my thin clients, which aren't brand new, MP runs really really slow. It works, but it's not pleasant. The reason eg Dreambox is much smoother on "thin type" hardware is that the OS overhead is so much smaller, and the GUI application itself is compiled to leave a small footprint, whereas MP isn't exactly the most resource efficient application in the world.. ;-) I'd much prefer finding a small form factor (and quiet) barebone PC and use that, alternatively a high spec mini-ITX PC. IF you're gonna do that and use a CF card with an IDE adapter, make sure the CF card can be used as a fixed drive, as opposed to a removable disk. Windows doesn't like having it's system drive on a removable disk, even though it could work. Hope this helps a bit! //Jens [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
MediaPortal 1 Talk
Windows XP Embedded (XPe)
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom
