+- Kodi Community Forum (https://forum.kodi.tv)
+-- Forum: Discussions (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=222)
+--- Forum: Hardware (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Thread: Your Very First HTPC? But Where do You Start? (/showthread.php?tid=94199)
- itsjwills - 2011-07-04
Yes I do have a wireless home network already. Obviously I would want to try and make a wired connection between the two XBMC boxes though.
So I wouldn't be able to build just one machine for storage and have two Apple TV 1 boxes with the CrystalHD Card and XBMC installed on them running to the TV's?
Wouldn't that be easier than having three different machines (and cheaper)? What would be the downside of having Apple TV rather than another complete XBMC machine?
Thanks for all the help!
- Superorb - 2011-07-04
I don't know the limitations of the ATV1 and the CrystalHD chip as far as high bitrate 1080p rips are. You will see no benefit by using a wired network between just the two XBMC boxes, as they won't talk to each other anyways. Wired from the XBMC boxes to the file server is what you want wired.
There are also several Powerline options too. You plug one end into an electrical out let near the switch/router, and the other one into an outlet near the XBMC boxes. It creates a wired network over the electrical wiring in the house.
- bluray - 2011-07-04
itsjwills Wrote:Yes I do have a wireless home network already. Obviously I would want to try and make a wired connection between the two XBMC boxes though.If you're planning to stream 1080P with HD audio, I'm not recommending any wireless device. It's troublesome, and wired network is the best for this task.
So I wouldn't be able to build just one machine for storage and have two Apple TV 1 boxes with the CrystalHD Card and XBMC installed on them running to the TV's?
Wouldn't that be easier than having three different machines (and cheaper)? What would be the downside of having Apple TV rather than another complete XBMC machine?
Thanks for all the help!
If you really want wireless, these devices received highest reviews among critics and users: Asus RT-N56U Dual-Band Gigabit Wireless-N Router and Western Digital WD Livewire Powerline AV Network Kit
- eskro - 2011-07-05
Agreed, 1080P via WiFi is not recommended....
- mcgeebc - 2011-07-05
This is a great write up. Thanks.
I don't understand the need for a more advanced video card for 3D playback.
Couldn't I play a SBS (side by side) video and let me TV convert it to 3D? It seems like no matter what format 3D file I have, my TV does all of the work to convert. What am I missing?
- eskro - 2011-07-05
must be a special feature your TV has i dunno
i know that using POWERDVD, if i recall good, it can kinda convert 2D to 3D...
- alkit - 2011-07-06
eskro Wrote:Agreed, 1080P via WiFi is not recommended....
I'm not speaking for everyone, just what I have running in my setup.
I have an Asus RT-N56U Dual-Band Gigabit Wireless-N Router with a Linksys Dual Band USB wireless adapter.
I connect in the 5G frequency, and I'm able to stream an 11gb FULL HD (with DTS sound track) mkv file. (I haven't tried a blueray ISO file or anything as large as that, so I can not say whether that will work ok or not)
If you are not too far from the router, and buy a decent router, I think you should also be fine doing 1080P HD streaming.
- bluray - 2011-07-06
alkit Wrote:I'm not speaking for everyone, just what I have running in my setup.Internet HD streaming and MKV streaming should work fine with the dual-band wireless router, because it is lower HD. If you have time, please try streaming BD m2ts and ISO files. If you can stream these two files, it is a great router.
I have an Asus RT-N56U Dual-Band Gigabit Wireless-N Router with a Linksys Dual Band USB wireless adapter.
I connect in the 5G frequency, and I'm able to stream an 11gb FULL HD (with DTS sound track) mkv file. (I haven't tried a blueray ISO file or anything as large as that, so I can not say whether that will work ok or not)
If you are not too far from the router, and buy a decent router, I think you should also be fine doing 1080P HD streaming.
- Sean1516 - 2011-07-07
I have a quick question about the hard drives, I want a 2TB HDD to store all my movies and music, what can you suggest for me?
- eskro - 2011-07-07
* Hard Disk Drives ($80)
- chrisuk11 - 2011-07-08
This is slightly off topic to the usual hardware discussions.
I currently have a NAS for all my meda. Currently using my PC (testing) for XBMC. With the aim of building a HTPC very soon. I will be using an SSD drive.
So my question is, what is the difference between xbmx and xbmc live?
What are the benefits / negatives of each?
I was thinking of using windows 7 as the OS. Though ultimately, am looking for a very good boot time, no more than 15 - 20 seconds to boot and load xbmc if possible. Is this achievable?
thanks in advance
- claypigeon - 2011-07-08
chrisuk11 Wrote:So my question is, what is the difference between xbmx and xbmc live?
What are the benefits / negatives of each?
I was thinking of using windows 7 as the OS. Though ultimately, am looking for a very good boot time, no more than 15 - 20 seconds to boot and load xbmc if possible. Is this achievable?
thanks in advance
Well, there no such thing as xbmx :-)
I think you are asking what is xbmc live vs other implementations.
I suggest you read the wiki http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=XBMC_Live it should answer your questions.
15 - 20 seconds the Openelec version of xbmc is that fast even off USB thumb drives. I don't know if you could get that fast with windows, but I would think that the only way you might is to use a SSD and keep the configuration minimal.
- Superorb - 2011-07-09
^^ Or just sleep the HTPC, then it's faster than Open Elec by a long shot. My XBMC Live box comes back from sleep in around 3 seconds, and this is on a 15+ year old machine.
- claypigeon - 2011-07-09
Superorb Wrote:^^ Or just sleep the HTPC, then it's faster than Open Elec by a long shot. My XBMC Live box comes back from sleep in around 3 seconds, and this is on a 15+ year old machine.
So you are saying that return from sleep for linux is faster that return from sleep for linux? Since live and openelec are both linux, I am not sure of your point, resume from sleep would be fairly fast on most platforms. Resume from sleep only takes a couple of seconds on openelec too, and I would guess it would be about the same for windows, it is resume from sleep not booting, as the OP was asking.
openelec is just a different distribution of linux (OE linux) designed for running xbmc, while live is Ubuntu cut down. There are pros and cons of each version, for example openelec boots fast and does not require much if any configuration outside of xbmc, but Live is more flexible you can customize other apps out side of xbmc. They are just a different version of mostly the same thing with different pros and cons.
- Superorb - 2011-07-09
claypigeon Wrote:So you are saying that return from sleep for linux is faster that return from sleep for linux? Since live and openelec are both linux, I am not sure of your point, resume from sleep would be fairly fast on most platforms. Resume from sleep only takes a couple of seconds on openelec too, and I would guess it would be about the same for windows, it is resume from sleep not booting, as the OP was asking.I said that waking from sleep is faster than booting, and then it doesn't matter which distribution you're using as wake from sleep is always faster than booting up. I haven't cold-booted in months on my box.
openelec is just a different distribution of linux (OE linux) designed for running xbmc, while live is Ubuntu cut down. There are pros and cons of each version, for example openelec boots fast and does not require much if any configuration outside of xbmc, but Live is more flexible you can customize other apps out side of xbmc. They are just a different version of mostly the same thing with different pros and cons.