I don't agree, if we start upgrading the hardware, the software will become relaxed and would require everybody to upgrade to always be at the latest and greatest level of hardware. Then maybe later on we will see more byte-code orientated languages creeping in. Just take a look at windows.
<br><br>Klaus enforced strict control over the software and obviously had to work on low end hardware (optimized, so that it doesn't turn into another heater), which meant that it would run even better on the new hardware.
<br><br>Intel claim to run at 11 watt idle, but the rest of the main board requires ~90 watt. I my self currently am using a desktop 24/7 and running vdr on the same machine. But I have to set every desktop application's nice level to 19 so that it doesn't interfere with vdr's output. Of course I'm running low end desktops like xfce or fluxbox.
<br><br>I am still convinced that an external multimedia device would help in different ways:<br><br>- steering vdr into multiple networking client setups, <br>- h.264 decode will happen on the client's hardware. still require vdr to accept
h.264 in its core.<br>- still low end hardware on server/clients, requiring efficient code, no heaters. <br>- doesn't require you to upgrade your existing hardware. Just another add-on to your setup.<br><br>My 2 cents.
<br><br>Theunis<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 19/11/2007, <b class="gmail_sendername">VDR User</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Nov 18, 2007 4:20 PM, Alasdair Campbell <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:<br>> I know what I'd go for...it's just a shame that hardware HD decoding<br>> hasn't grown enough for there to be some competition and innovation.
<br><br>I think the cost of producing such hardware HD cards doesn't make<br>sense when you can build a new pc that can handle software HD decoding<br>for cheap anyways. Also, as I understand, the chips which can do it
<br>contain many other functions that are just a total waste when you put<br>the chip on a card to be only a HD decoder. Besides, I don't think<br>that many users are still using some ancient pc with a slow cpu like<br>
Klaus has. Why would you bother when you can buy something way better<br>& faster for cheap these days?<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>vdr mailing list<br><a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org
</a><br><a href="http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr">http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Style may not be the answer, but at least it's a workable alternative.