[tebicenter]

Sorry if this has already been answered.

I'm about to reinstall xbmc, because i'm going to change motherboard, processor and memory.

So, the question is, which is better for XMBC? Windows or Linux? If windows is the chosen one, XP or Vista? if Linux is the chosen one, wich distro?

Hope someone could explain me the main differences and advantage of each one.

Thanks in advance

[krypt2nite]

This is a very subjective subject.

My opinion, keyword opinion, is Windows Vista. Vista provides the least amount of headache for a modern HTPC. Really depends on what you want to do, but if you want easy and functional go with Vista.

[kizer]

Do you know Linux? Are your drivers easily available for your
Sound Card
Video Card
and every other device?

[danillll]

I second kizer, if you have all the drivers needed to run your hardware under linux, then go with linux or even install the live version
check my post, it's a small summary of what I noticed trying windows and linux

http://forum.xbmc.org/showpost.php?p=277...stcount=24

[tebicenter]

Do you know Linux? Are your drivers easily available for your
Sound Card
Video Card
and every other device?

good point there, about drivers...have to check it out.

I have been using linux for servers but never for desktop machines or media center.

I know that it's easier to setup in windows, but my question was if there was something that make the difference between windows and linux. i.e boot speed, boot splash configuration, etc.

[tebicenter]

I second kizer, if you have all the drivers needed to run your hardware under linux, then go with linux or even install the live version
check my post, it's a small summary of what I noticed trying windows and linux

http://forum.xbmc.org/showpost.php?p=277...stcount=24

Checked your link and if only you have conclude that there was only a small cpu usage difference, I prefer to keep XBMC in windows

Thanks

[timdog82001]

I can't say I understand what is so much better about vista for media centers as opposed to XP. I suppose it may be easier if the whole idea of installing an OS is a bit foreign to you as I think they simplified that process a bit, from what I heard...But the whole thing is much, much slower and memory intensive compared to XP.

It largely depends on what your priorities are, I think. I did a similar post a while back you might want to look at as it lists a few of the advantages of the two different OS's.

http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid...dows+linux

EDIT: and by the "two different OS's" I mean linux and windows, not xp and vista, just to clarify

[Aenima99x]

I'm using Ubuntu and I'd say the 2 biggest negatives are -
1. No ability to play BluRay direct from disc
2. Sound issues - PulseAudio just sucks.

[theophile]

Xubuntu ships without pulseaudio (IIRC). If not, it's trivial to remove it. Then it's simply a matter of 'apt-get install xbmc'

Couldn't be easier.

[natethomas]

I'm going to guess, for the average user, that the difference between Vista and XP as it relates to running XBMC is nonexistent.

The only real difference I've noticed between the two has virtually no effect within the confines of the media center. That one difference: RAM usage. Vista, for better or for worse, does tend to require more RAM than XP does. However, if most people start at a baseline of 2GB, the differences in OSes become negligible.

In terms of how Vista and XP interact with XBMC, you only need to worry about three things. 1) CPU. There is practically no difference between the OSes. 2) Video card (drivers). This can be an occasional problem, but it's an occasional problem for both systems and can almost always be resolved by downloading the newest driver from the manufacturer's website. 3) Memory. This, more than anything, is a baseline issue. Either your computer will or will not run your OS well. If you have enough RAM to run Vista (2 GB), you have enough RAM to run XBMC.

As far as iterations goes, for the sake of simplicity, I'd probably recommend avoiding the x64 editions of either XP or Vista. XBMC does work under those systems from what I hear, but there is a mild increase in headache that is really only justified if you use programs other than XBMC that can actually take advantage of the 64 bit operating system. Also, XP Media Center Edition and Vista Home Premium are recommended over other versions (save, possibly, Vista Ultimate) for their built in remote control support.

My recommendation? Don't spend more money. If you happen to have either Vista or XP, you are good to go. Neither one is necessarily better than the other. Beyond that, make sure you have either the Media Center or Home Premium edition for better remote control support. As mentioned previously, if you don't have 2GB of RAM and have absolutely no interest in purchasing any more, I'd probably avoid Vista.

As far as Linux goes, I don't typically bother. I understand from an intellectual standpoint that Linux offers more versatility. For example, boot times are theoretically lower and you can boot directly into a working copy of XBMC. However, I am a Linux idiot and simply cannot understand how to make video and audio drivers work. Plus, I like pointing and clicking and fear Terminal. If you don't have surround sound and aren't afraid of the linux environment, everything I hear would probably lead to a Linux recommendation.

[kizer]

However for a file server IMHO I would go Linux hands down, but for a daily use I like the easiness of windows, but have used Xwindows in Linux many times.

Of course in the old days you had to literally download each driver and compile it. Now a days most distros come with support for nearly everything which I totally applaud the guys for all the hard work.

[gilgongo]

Might also consider the issue of licensing and upgrades over time with Windows. In theory at least, if you build an HTPC, you'll need to get your wallet out for a few hundred extra bucks to put Bill's baby on it...

[Kjetil N]

I cant say I agree with you folks.

Windows Vista and Xp can be just as much a pain. And driver support is not always that great. In my experience Ubuntu has better driver support for the HW I've been using. Ie. My old asus mobo had audio chipset not supported by Vista, it cind of worked with the XP drivers but not like it should. So I tried XP, then the sodding pinnacle remote kit did not work like it should. I used hours to enable SW RAID5 support. and after all that it crashed frequently!
Then I tried with Ubuntu, had some issues with the pulseaudio but after downloading the latest cvs and compiled, my setup have been stable, not one crash in one month!

My reasons for choosing linux is:

1. Its's a challenge, one might actually learn something.
2. You dont need to buy a license, or use "cracked" versions.
3. In my experience its way more stable, less crashes.
4. You dont need a f**king anti virus sw
5. Support for SW raid, no need to patch XP to get RAID5 and so on.
6. It works, and I love using the ssh terminal

But hey if I was a M$ fan i guess I could come up with some good reasons why to choose windows.

[tebicenter]

I'm going to guess, for the average user, that the difference between Vista and XP as it relates to running XBMC is nonexistent.

The only real difference I've noticed between the two has virtually no effect within the confines of the media center. That one difference: RAM usage. Vista, for better or for worse, does tend to require more RAM than XP does. However, if most people start at a baseline of 2GB, the differences in OSes become negligible.

In terms of how Vista and XP interact with XBMC, you only need to worry about three things. 1) CPU. There is practically no difference between the OSes. 2) Video card (drivers). This can be an occasional problem, but it's an occasional problem for both systems and can almost always be resolved by downloading the newest driver from the manufacturer's website. 3) Memory. This, more than anything, is a baseline issue. Either your computer will or will not run your OS well. If you have enough RAM to run Vista (2 GB), you have enough RAM to run XBMC.

As far as iterations goes, for the sake of simplicity, I'd probably recommend avoiding the x64 editions of either XP or Vista. XBMC does work under those systems from what I hear, but there is a mild increase in headache that is really only justified if you use programs other than XBMC that can actually take advantage of the 64 bit operating system. Also, XP Media Center Edition and Vista Home Premium are recommended over other versions (save, possibly, Vista Ultimate) for their built in remote control support.

My recommendation? Don't spend more money. If you happen to have either Vista or XP, you are good to go. Neither one is necessarily better than the other. Beyond that, make sure you have either the Media Center or Home Premium edition for better remote control support. As mentioned previously, if you don't have 2GB of RAM and have absolutely no interest in purchasing any more, I'd probably avoid Vista.

As far as Linux goes, I don't typically bother. I understand from an intellectual standpoint that Linux offers more versatility. For example, boot times are theoretically lower and you can boot directly into a working copy of XBMC. However, I am a Linux idiot and simply cannot understand how to make video and audio drivers work. Plus, I like pointing and clicking and fear Terminal. If you don't have surround sound and aren't afraid of the linux environment, everything I hear would probably lead to a Linux recommendation.

Thanks for this info man !!!! it's great, great explanation...

The only thing about windows is that it's very easy to setup, in general...no need to compile and stuff like that, at least I think that it's not necessary to make this kind of work in a Media Center, maybe in a server is worth it.

[Maxim]

Only go with Linux if you're A) Familiar with it. B) Willing to get your hands very dirty and learn about it.

If you don't have the time to learn then just go for Windows.