Posts: 35
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
0
(I didnt scroll through older posts to see if a similar topic exists)
Now that XBMC for XBOX1 is no longer going to be developed, what about a role for the XBOX1 as an extender for the Win/Mac/Linux version? A small client that connects and downloads its GUI from the main XBMC.
That way there is no need to keep developing for xbox1 and maybe other manufacturers can use that same client code to develop alternative "extenders" that will have the extra horse power to play HD content.
I know only of Microsoft using extender technology, but having the same GUI and library in each room of the house is a really nice feature that I would like to see implemented in XBMC.
Posts: 369
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation:
0
An Extender seems unneccessary with the UNPNP service for XBMC, just turn on the UNPNP in Window/Linux/Mac/XBox ports and use that to serve media. (just an opinion and suggestion)
Posts: 35
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
0
Although UPnP works for sharing the media with other devices, it doesn't give me the (one library/centrally maintained) XBMC experience throughout my house.
Posts: 26,215
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
187
That is something I hope to work on in the future.
Posts: 196
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
0
what do you mean with xbmc is no longer going to be developed for xbox1? :O
Posts: 127
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
Slightly off topic but needs saying..
If XBMC development is going to be halted on xbox1 i think it will be a bad mistake for the project and shows bad project leadership.
Ok, so it is old tech, but it works great, is cheap as chips these days and is far from dead. It is also the quickest system to boot from power on (not including sleep).
Ok we will all move on one day, but while there are still users aplenty (which you can tell from the forums that there are), it would be silly. New incompatible additions can still be added for the other systems. That is not a reason.
If a tiny bit of code were added to the builds that logged the build, system and country to a remote server, i think you would be surprised at how many xboxes are still going.
I think the main reason for the rumoured halt is that the current dev(s) can't be bothered coding for an "obsolete" system anymore. Which in the grand scale of things, is wrong while 1) there is still an audience 2) it works 3) hardware is still available.
The xbox can also be used as a benchmark platform. Which keeps the material on the other platforms from getting out of control and making XBMC sluggish for people without the latest high end systems. We dont all upgrade every 2/3 years you know.
On a side note, XBMC on WIN32 still doesnt work for me without topping out the cpu (Intel p4 2.8Ghz, 2Gb RAM). XBMC Live doesnt work properly with my "old" intel graphics chip (Intel 82845G).
But then I guess that is the XBMC project for you (from my perspective at least). Some things are brushed over/disregarded without asking the users opinion.
And although the web manual is very good, i will never understand why one is not included as standard within the program itself to help new users.
Dont get me wrong with this rant, i love XBMC, but i feel it is losing its way a little bit.
And the barrier to entry (for the latest version) looks like it is about to be moved higher which is sad.
Posts: 127
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
1. Dead for games yes, not for XBMC
2. This is where i dont see a problem. With clever programming, the items that are deemed as beyond the power of xbox are disabled.
3. Sure T3CH is still compiling (for the moment), as is Bird42 on the torrents nearly every week at present which is great, but i'm talking of development by the xbmc devs on the xbox branch coming to a halt..
Posts: 23
Joined: Jul 2006
Reputation:
0
An extender is not a bad idea, but I'd like to get a discussion going about possible directions the project could go with this. I think that extender type applications should mainly be reserved for "specialty" devices where a standard build will not run out of the box such as the Xbox, however there is another side to this as well. With PXE you could have a single XBMC server appliance and only need to update one box, the others would be automatically updated with the main server. This would take a lot of maintenance out of setups where XBMC is run in multiple locations around the house. Of course that means you either need to use a client bridge or have a line pulled to each location you have an XBMC box, but if you are streaming media across your network you should be using a hardwired connection anyway. PXE also opens up a lot of other feature possibilities that go beyond the scope of this thread, I'm curious to hear what any interested developers think at this point.
Posts: 23
Joined: Jul 2006
Reputation:
0
Is there really no interest in this?
