[un1versal]

Actually bad example IMHO. MPEG-4 could be MPEG-4 Part 2 (xvid and cousins) or MPEG-4 Part 10 (aka h.264) and could also be mistaken by some for .mp4, a container format that has nothing to do with hardware decoding.

You don't say Moving Picture Experts Group Revision 2 Audio Layer 3 either, MP3 is fine. Most people think about XviD et al. when they hear MPEG-4.

By most ppl you mean you? We are not talking about shortening names, There's like thirty parts to MPEG-4 alone and maybe a dozen levels, not all of these could be assumed working with such a setting (as you serve as example), given hardware limitations and existing code limitations.

The point is, settings (in any program) can attempt at best to be descriptive of the primary function they intended, whether or not they do what you assume by its description and knowledge you may or may not have about what the description attempts to imply, throws your theory right out the door. Not mentioning of course going through language barriers. A very great deal of settings in XBMC are not as obvious (to all -- especially users which is the important and only valid part here) as you and others would like to have us believe by such statements.

I have ultimate respect for anyone who is a developer, but what developers understand by reading settings/code and what users know or think they know is by large a great divide.

Now thats offtopic.

uNi

[negge]

I get your point. I still believe that the very vast majority of people think of XviD when they hear MPEG-4. In any case, let's not waste time over this detail.