krypt0nian
Banned
DopeyFish said:
Why are you still trying to backpeddle?
You self-ownd, now eat crao and shut up.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Did MS not learn *anything* from XBMC?
- Thread starter gollumsluvslave
- Start date
Why are you still trying to backpeddle?
You self-ownd, now eat crao and shut up.
Beer Monkey
Member
The primary post wasn't either, your point? MCE PCs start up a video stream and it streams the video over the network to the media center extenders. The extenders aren't the ones decoding the video files
The only time multimedia is decoded on the PC instead of the extender is with certain stereo audio formats (PC decodes to PCM and streams that to the extender), but not with any video codecs, ever.
Not only have MS and others confirmed this multiple times, but it's only logical. Uncompressed video takes too much bandwidth to stream across your LAN, especially at higher resolutions. Video is not decoded on the server. Repeat this three times.
EDIT: dammit, he's even got me messed up now (just in my typing, not my knowledge). Fixed "extender" by switching to "server" (see italics).
Quoted and bolded for truth. I really have no experience with Media Center (since I'm opposed to MS reselling basic functions of XP), but it would make no sense at all to decode the video on the PC and then stream that uncompressed video over the network. Sending encoded video is the way to go, with the client decoding the stream when it gets it. That's the only way you're gonna be able to stream VC-1 video over a network. PEACE.beermonkey@tehbias said:
radioheadrule83
Banned
My xbox is currently broke... when 360 comes out, i'll pick up a cheap Xbox, softmod it and put a real media center on it again.
They've disappointed me a little on this and (potentially on) backwards compatability, but I'm still really looking foreward to it.
They've disappointed me a little on this and (potentially on) backwards compatability, but I'm still really looking foreward to it.
gollumsluvslave
Member
Thank you kind sir. At least I'm not the only Dummy
What reasons can MS have to not provide support on the client (extender) side for Xvid/ DivX etc?
So far it seems to be:-
DRM
Cost (although some codecs are free negating this)
Pushing WMV.
Any other reasons?
I will admit to being hasty calling MS imbeciles if there is some DRM related reason why they cannot provide better video support.
Beer Monkey
Member
Gollum,
This is all about one thing. Microsoft is in bed with Hollywood, and they are sucking up to them to get even more Hollywood business. The entertainment industry hates the existence of open and DRM-free codecs, and Microsoft is appeasing them. That's why MCE doesn't officially support XviD/DivX, why the extenders don't support it at all, and is also why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray won't even work with the most expensive flat-screen PC monitors that are being sold today (they are all being obsoleted by HDMI PC monitors that haven't hit the street yet).
This is all about one thing. Microsoft is in bed with Hollywood, and they are sucking up to them to get even more Hollywood business. The entertainment industry hates the existence of open and DRM-free codecs, and Microsoft is appeasing them. That's why MCE doesn't officially support XviD/DivX, why the extenders don't support it at all, and is also why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray won't even work with the most expensive flat-screen PC monitors that are being sold today (they are all being obsoleted by HDMI PC monitors that haven't hit the street yet).
And in a lot of ways, I totally agree with them. I mean, they want to remain on the legit side of things, and not have the RIAA/MPAA's crosshairs set on them as the root of the problem. I mean, they've been laying the groundwork with DRM support for WMP for years, but it doesn't lessen the sting any.beermonkey@tehbias said:
I think the HDMI things is far, far worse though. I mean, all those early-adopters of HDTV are getting it right in the ass. Very bad move IMO. PEACE.gollumsluvslave
Member
beermonkey,
Yeah, it was your original post mentioning "non-DRM" codecs that reminded me that Hollywood has a big say in things.
I'm just so used to the convenience of XBMC, and forgot about DRM, but as Dopey pointed out it is illegal... i just forget as everyone I know with an Xbox uses it.
I know Stinkles mentioned earlier that XBMC users are very small fraction of overall Xbox install base, but where I come from (Edinburgh) i know about 50 odd people with an Xbox and only 2 don't have a mod of some variety.
Yeah, it was your original post mentioning "non-DRM" codecs that reminded me that Hollywood has a big say in things.
I'm just so used to the convenience of XBMC, and forgot about DRM, but as Dopey pointed out it is illegal... i just forget as everyone I know with an Xbox uses it.
I know Stinkles mentioned earlier that XBMC users are very small fraction of overall Xbox install base, but where I come from (Edinburgh) i know about 50 odd people with an Xbox and only 2 don't have a mod of some variety.
If DRM was an issue, it wouldn't play raw MPEG either. The decision to limit an extender that can act as a powerful general-purpose computer to playing only WMV and MPEG shows either:
a) an inherent weakness in the protocol used to stream.
b) an unwillingness to pay the extra low-to-nil amount to licence codecs their consumers actually use.
I'd bet on the second, as the first is too stupid to be believable from them.
Thus, it's pretty much left at as much a self-interested crippling of the functionality as, say, only allowing ot to work XP MC is---Divx/Xvid support could be easily accomplished, just as running on a normal OS could, but MS would prefer to pick up a few WMV converts and avoid any at all licencing costs even if it means severely limiting the actual use of the product.
a) an inherent weakness in the protocol used to stream.
b) an unwillingness to pay the extra low-to-nil amount to licence codecs their consumers actually use.
I'd bet on the second, as the first is too stupid to be believable from them.
Thus, it's pretty much left at as much a self-interested crippling of the functionality as, say, only allowing ot to work XP MC is---Divx/Xvid support could be easily accomplished, just as running on a normal OS could, but MS would prefer to pick up a few WMV converts and avoid any at all licencing costs even if it means severely limiting the actual use of the product.
Thanks for the answers folks.
The Pat Robertson video came to mind a couple of times during this thread...
The Pat Robertson video came to mind a couple of times during this thread...
Beer Monkey
Member
It might be illegal if it was compiled with the official SDK, but it's not illegal because it supports Xvid. Even big companies like JVC are releasing products that do what MCE refuses to do.
Hollywood has pretty much given up on fighting against standard definition MPEG, as it's already pervasive and they've lost the DVD piracy fight thanks to DeCSS. They've identified high-def as the next battleground. I don't think you'll see the new MCE updates adding support for 720p and 1080i MPEG2. Even if they did, those formats are a lot less desirable from a piracy perspective because they take up a ton of space. Hollywood fears high-def XviD (and similar codecs), and Microsoft is playing ball.
gollumsluvslave
Member
Mandoric
This was my suspicion originally, and why I started the thread.
beermonkey
I was more meaning that with XBMC the legalities of codecs/DRM issues etc are considerably muddier due to the fact that XBMC itself is illegal (due to XDK and hacked BIOS issues) and MS has no control over this piece of software.
This was my suspicion originally, and why I started the thread.
beermonkey
I was more meaning that with XBMC the legalities of codecs/DRM issues etc are considerably muddier due to the fact that XBMC itself is illegal (due to XDK and hacked BIOS issues) and MS has no control over this piece of software.
Is there a good reason for MS not supporting codecs such as DivX and Xvid? A good reason would not be that they're not included with Windows IMO.
I mean if there are legal issues involved I can see MS not supplying certain codecs (I guess like Quicktime and RealPlayer), but other than that, I don't see any reason for MS to not support as many codecs as possible.
I mean if there are legal issues involved I can see MS not supplying certain codecs (I guess like Quicktime and RealPlayer), but other than that, I don't see any reason for MS to not support as many codecs as possible.
It would be nice if the extender fetched the necessary codecs off the host computer, kinda like how printer sharing can fetch drivers from the host. But maybe the codec has to be written for the hardware platform rather than the OS. I don't see how that could be the case though, with AMD/Intel and a whole host of video card options on the PC. Another possibility is that the 360's OS isn't quite so compatible with XP beyond the file system and support for "major" formats like MP3 and WMV. But there should be hacks, and that'll make life easier for everyone, save the 360 tech guys. PEACE.miyuru said:
will it play videos off a USB HDD?
Whatever, it seems largely pointless, so my XBMC will remain.
Borghe, you tried scanning the music files first? If you scan your folder, XBMC will build up its own internal database of metadata, which it uses for searching for stuff to play. Before I did that, I also had a big problem with it taking ages to play anything.
Whatever, it seems largely pointless, so my XBMC will remain.
Borghe, you tried scanning the music files first? If you scan your folder, XBMC will build up its own internal database of metadata, which it uses for searching for stuff to play. Before I did that, I also had a big problem with it taking ages to play anything.