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
XBMC comparison
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="xemumanic" data-source="post: 57920" data-attributes="member: 19105"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="xemumanic, post: 57920, member: 19105"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
MediaPortal 1 Talk
XBMC comparison
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom