Sweden
FYI, XBMC today actually have three built-in native 'core' players; one general video player based on MPlayer, one DVD-Video player based on FFmpeg/libmpeg2/libdvdnav, and one audio/music player that's been coded from scratch (that uses WinAmp like DLL based codecs) which resembles foobar2000 feature/function wise (with all format tag-support, ReplayGain, gapless, crossfading, playlists, etc.). So three separate players to serve three different tasks :idea:
XBMC comparison (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter gorman
- Start date
I am a big fan of xbmc and mediaportal but I must admit I switched over to sagetv for my TV usage because of it ability to divide itself over a server / client architecture. I don't want a pc sat under my tv so I have an MVP to use as my sage client. For general media playback I still use xbmc. If the mediaportal and xbmc team could collaborate to use xbmc as a client I would switch in a flash, I'm sure there would be many others who would as well. I know the HD limitations of the xbox may put some people off, but for a lot of us it won't be consideration for a few years yet - and who know by then what other suitable HD clients might be available.
I am an avid user of *both* solutions, XBMC and MP. While not mentioned here, I think the future of plug-ins within MP will be a defining factor and hold a lot of potential. On the XBMC side, I far prefer XBMC on my endpoints. It's significantly more solid -- and keep in mind I say that as a proponent and frequent user of both. I'm not saying anything bad about MP whatsoever; however, XBMC's integrated ISO support is excellent; their new mutl-directory aggregation is absolutely critical to an avid media center user.
Granted, MP has some nice flashy features and lots of potential -- but for straight-up DVD libraries that run quick and solid, XBMC is just so nice. MP certainly has the potential to outdue XBMC (that goes without saying considering the OS it can leverage, and therefore being able to use .net and all the related tools); however, I think one of the major points of contention is that Mario, as seen here, gets very defensive at the idea that XBMC could do anything right. I don't really understand that, because he's the main man, a genius, and former author on the XBMC project, if I'm not mistaken.
I'll never know.. How it could be that someone so smart could be so quick to dismiss the perspective of those that appreciate and request XBMC features in MP, I just don't understand. Please, Mario, if you reed, this, consider some of the features in XBMC rather than dismissing the app simply because MP has a significantly larger code-base and development effort.
Thank you!
Granted, MP has some nice flashy features and lots of potential -- but for straight-up DVD libraries that run quick and solid, XBMC is just so nice. MP certainly has the potential to outdue XBMC (that goes without saying considering the OS it can leverage, and therefore being able to use .net and all the related tools); however, I think one of the major points of contention is that Mario, as seen here, gets very defensive at the idea that XBMC could do anything right. I don't really understand that, because he's the main man, a genius, and former author on the XBMC project, if I'm not mistaken.
I'll never know.. How it could be that someone so smart could be so quick to dismiss the perspective of those that appreciate and request XBMC features in MP, I just don't understand. Please, Mario, if you reed, this, consider some of the features in XBMC rather than dismissing the app simply because MP has a significantly larger code-base and development effort.
Thank you!
I too used Xbox Media Player, and didnt switch to XBMC until MKV/OGM audio switching came to it. The same happened with MediaPortal. Now I really dont find a need for XBMC, it doesnt do any thing I can't do with MP. In fact, it does more, PVR alone proves this.
I think the thing that many people fail to realize is just what sort of potential is yet to be realized by MP. XBMC on the other hand, is as good as its going to get in most ways (although the MC360 proves there'ss still more that can be done), while MP can still improve, as mentioned many times in this thread.
Each of these programs have their strengths and weaknesses. MP owes its heritage, some of its codebase, to XBMC. XBMC has an ease of use, and its easy to fully take advantage of its abilities right off the bat. MP doesn't make it as easy, but once properly setup, there isnt a format MP can't play (XBMC is slowly starting to lose in this manner). With HD/.TS/H.264 formats coming more and more popular, XBMC will be left behind.
I think that both have their place, and in fact, for both to truly succeed, they need each other. I'd love to see XBMC become a 'Extender' type of application for MediaPortal, allowing a user with an Xbox to watch Live TV from a MP server. In fact, without some sort of PC/server, XBMC can never become a viable TV watching device.
I think the thing that many people fail to realize is just what sort of potential is yet to be realized by MP. XBMC on the other hand, is as good as its going to get in most ways (although the MC360 proves there'ss still more that can be done), while MP can still improve, as mentioned many times in this thread.
Each of these programs have their strengths and weaknesses. MP owes its heritage, some of its codebase, to XBMC. XBMC has an ease of use, and its easy to fully take advantage of its abilities right off the bat. MP doesn't make it as easy, but once properly setup, there isnt a format MP can't play (XBMC is slowly starting to lose in this manner). With HD/.TS/H.264 formats coming more and more popular, XBMC will be left behind.
I think that both have their place, and in fact, for both to truly succeed, they need each other. I'd love to see XBMC become a 'Extender' type of application for MediaPortal, allowing a user with an Xbox to watch Live TV from a MP server. In fact, without some sort of PC/server, XBMC can never become a viable TV watching device.
rusten said:
The problem as I see it is thae the reverse is happening. MP is being dismissed for XBMC. Mario for sure knows where MP's roots lie, and what XBMC is as the all-in-one media playback monster it is.
I suggest that you do the same thing that you ask of Mario. Consider some of the features in MP rather than dismissing the app. Because he isn't dismissing XBMC, he's dismissing the idea that MP can't play anything that XBMC can. In fact, its the other way around. H.264 for example isnt very good on XBMC.
But all of this nit-picking isn't getting us anywhere. Consider it like this. XBMC is older than MP, and in fact, much like Half Life is to Quake 2; initially the same engine, heavily re-written. MP could not exsist if it were not for XBMC, but the limits of the Xbox limits what it can do, that's why MP exsists today. In time, MP will be everything XBMC is, and can be more, while the Xbox hardware platform limits what XBMC can do.
One final thing I want to add is something I touched on before. XBMC has a wealth of compatibility for formats right out of the box (so to speak), while MP requires codecs to be installed. This is a strength of DirectShow in general. On Mac/Linux, XBMC by extension, the player itself has to have support for a particular format, you can't just install a codec and have any player run it. And even if you don't want to go trough all that, as Mario said, you can use Mplayer, same as XBMC. Meanwhile, on a Windows PC, if you have a proper codec installed, ANY DirectShow player can play the media. Even the old Windows Media Player 6.4 can play it. This includes all the newfangled formats coming around. This is why XBMC has to have 3 players to do its job. I'm not knocking that, since a limited platform still is a good way to go, that limitation forces XBMC to go for form and functionality.
This also gives the user choice. The combatibility of the player to play formats is no longer an issue, but now the issue becomes the interface. And thats what both XBMC and MP are all about, the interface.
I'm not entirely sure the gist of my email got across, based on your reply.
No one is disputing that MP can do *much* more than XBMC, and certainly I've already mentioned in my email that MP is based on a solution that offers much, much more power and potential -- codecs above all. But the text of your email doesn't go to the point I mention...
There *ARE INDEED* things that XBMC can do that MP does NOT, and as you pointed out, MP is "new" and therefore should be able to accomplish these same things. In essense, you've agreed with me, which is to say that we both acknowledge the tremendous potential existing in MP, including its versatility and potential, which is all the more reason that MP should be able to do *everything* XBMC does.
So, in short, wouldn't it be great if MP could add the few simple things that XBMC offers, which MP does not -- to get the best of both worlds? Absolutely NO ONE is slamming MP here. I absolutely love the product. It seems, however, that much like an Apple zealot becomes defensive and turns the conversation into an argument rather than objective proposal, so to do people like the above poster ... at any suggestion of adding an XBMC feature to MP, and it baffles me. If MP was the weaker solution, I could appreciate the notion, but this is not the case.
No one is disputing that MP can do *much* more than XBMC, and certainly I've already mentioned in my email that MP is based on a solution that offers much, much more power and potential -- codecs above all. But the text of your email doesn't go to the point I mention...
There *ARE INDEED* things that XBMC can do that MP does NOT, and as you pointed out, MP is "new" and therefore should be able to accomplish these same things. In essense, you've agreed with me, which is to say that we both acknowledge the tremendous potential existing in MP, including its versatility and potential, which is all the more reason that MP should be able to do *everything* XBMC does.
So, in short, wouldn't it be great if MP could add the few simple things that XBMC offers, which MP does not -- to get the best of both worlds? Absolutely NO ONE is slamming MP here. I absolutely love the product. It seems, however, that much like an Apple zealot becomes defensive and turns the conversation into an argument rather than objective proposal, so to do people like the above poster ... at any suggestion of adding an XBMC feature to MP, and it baffles me. If MP was the weaker solution, I could appreciate the notion, but this is not the case.
rusten said:
Now who's being the zelot? And turning this into argument? I've done nothing but praise both applications, XBMC especially, and I did give a proposal.
Why don't you try reading both of my posts before you respond?
xemumanic said:
I think an extender idea for Media Portal and XBMC would be excellent, and would truly show the rest of the open source community that working together will result in a lot more progress than working alone. Also, it would show that they are just as important and more revolutionary than the corporates and they care about the end user experience. I use both programs and I can say they both have their unique qualities and elements too them, and that I feel they would make a perfect couple in some sort of extender idea.