Future Trends In Home Computing

James Bell writes: "I just read an interesting article over here that talked about future trends in home computing and what is and isn't driving the home computer market. I thought it was interesting that the author said that more people where adding DVD players and surround sound speakers to their home computer in hopes of makeing it their new home theater. I think a lot of people are bringing their computer to the home theater in the family or media room and converging it that way."

Comments

Gateway had this idea several years ago

[KarmaBlackballed]

Gateway was ahead of its time. About 5 years ago they sold a home entertainment package built around a PC and a large screen TV. Price was steep and it did not catch on at the time.

Perhaps now is the time.

Re:Gateway had this idea several years ago

[pheonix]

This exact product has been the core of my home entertainment system for around 3 or 4 years now. A 36" monitor, a massive HD upgrade, and a soundcard upgrade and it serves as a MP3 server, television, DVD Player, TiVO style HD recorder, internet surfing and game playing. I've got to say, I've had very few hiccups and can't say enough good things about PC-ing my entertainment center.... but it's expensive (or was) at around $6,000 for nothing more than a mid-range PC and huge monitor.

Re:Gateway had this idea several years ago

[MisterQueue]

As an Ex-Gateway worker (ACK I'm OUTED!) who was working there at the time these came out, I can say that even on the back-end these things were nice. Lovely resolutions and compatability all around, the problems? Price and Support...the support teams weren't really sure of what to do with these since they weren't strictly PC units (they've ironed some of that out now I hear from colleagues who are still there). The Price was ungodly, $4,500 for one of those babies, which is nice for a 32" screen but I'll go get me a plasma screen for that price and get a Nvidia Geforce 3 or ATI with tv out and do about the same thing for less at better quality. I dunno, just seems like an unecessary hybrid to me.

-Q

Comprimise

[vought]

"Many people" may be bringing their computers into the living space to use as media players, but that doesn't mean that they are well-suited to that task.

Remotes? An optional, kludgy addition to a computer.

Sound quality? I'd rather not use stereo miniplug -> RCA jacks for sound, thanks. But that's what's on the majority of PCs.

Video quality? Acceptable, I'm sure, but what about the aforementioned remote control of all thos nifty features?

Stick with components - replace or upgrade pieces as needed - just like with your PC.

Re:Comprimise

[joshamania]

I beg to differ on the video quality. I've got a video out (RCA/S-VIDEO either or) on my Geforce and the quality of DVD's on my television is shite. I can select 640x480 or 800x600, neither of which is suited to my television.

When I bought my computer, I figured I'd pop it down next to my television and not have to purchase a DVD player. I watched one movie from my computer/television setup.

I then proceeded straight to Circuit City to buy a real DVD player.

Re:Comprimise

[zulux]

I then proceeded straight to Circuit City to buy a real DVD player.

I went the other direction - I got rid of my crappy NTSC TV and replaced it with a 21" computer monitor. DVD's look a lot better and my Sega Dreamcast games that support the VGA output box look wonderfull. I watch TV broadcasts using a TV PCI card. (In MS Windows, unfortunatly

I'd love to hook up my computer to a good LCD projection system - but that a bit expensive.

Keep in mind that a lot of HDTV tuners have a VGA output as well.

Re:Comprimise

[joshamania]

First, thanks to all who wrote quite informative replies to my complaint.

Second, the $125 I spent on my DVD player is much less than what my time to implement all your various solutions would cost me. ;-) But thanks anyways!!!

Re:Comprimise

[KernelHappy]

Your pretty quick to just dismiss the value of a PC in a home theater system. Your points are valid but only because the better solutions are not obvious. I still firmly believe that you're better off purchasing a dedicated DVD player but the experience of using a computer on a TV can be greatly improved as follows:

1) Remotes
There are many options here and many of them are better than kludgy. I personally use a cheapy Packard Bell Fastmedia remote that can be purchase for between $9-15 online or at computer shows. It consists of a cheapy receiver and a remote. There are even better solutions out there especially for a geeks home theater. Some contain IR receivers and transmitters, allowing you to customize macros and control more than the computer and the components. The biggest problem with these solutions are not the remotes themselves but A/V equipments general lack of a singal standard for connecting multiple devices together to act as one devices (would be nice to power on the DVD player and automatically select the input, audio configuration and picture adjustments).

I personally use a program called Girder to control my win box. Another popular program for linux is Lirc.

2) Sound Quality
Newer sound cards have improved drastically in terms of SQ but you are correct, the minijack is less than ideal and computers in general add noise to the mix. For a better solution connect you computer to your A/V receiver using one of the digital audio inputs. This removes the possibility of the minijack or the computer itself adding noise to the analog signal (most newer A/V receivers have digital inputs that use an internal DAC). Mp3s may not be the ultimate in high fidelty, but for most pop music its good enough and having a huge library online for casual listening is worth the trade off.

3) Video Quality
This is as much a fault of the computer as it is the fault of the TV. Most TV-Out capable video cards have pretty crappy picture quality, in fact I've yet to see one that knocked my socks off. Dedicated VGA converters generally do a better job, but are expensive and probably still won't give a picture as good as a $200 DVD player. But for the lucky few who have HDTVs there is hope. Some HDTV's come standard with a VGA or RGB interface and this is the ideal solution for hooking up your computer to such a set. For me, my HDTV doesn't have a VGA connector so instead I have to use a VGA->Y/Pb/Pr (component) transcoder. Using one of these transcoders provides a signal cleaner than any VGA out I've ever seen plus it allows me to use HD resolutions.


I don't recommend using a computer as a primary source in a home theater, but having a PC in the mix can be quite useful. Being able to control an entire home theater, being able to play mp3s and being able to play mame on a large tv make pretty compelling reason to throw a CPU into the cabinet. The AVSForum - HTPC (Home Theater PC) forum has many people who have a PC connected for various reasons.

That is a good idea...

[jmccay]

Even if you don't hook up surround sound speakers, moviing the computer into a family room would still be a good idea. Those people who complain about kids surfing to adult sites can be watching (even if it is an occasional glance away from the tv) what there kids are doing. Then maybe the story I heard earlier today about a third grader trading adult pictures for pokemon stuff wouldn't happen.

Computer as part of Home Theater

[ackthpt]

Yeah, that would work... buy $5,000 in audio gear, nice monitor, couple La-Z-Boys to watch it in. Then listen to the fans whining away in your PC.

There's a good article, a while back, about quieting down your hotrod. But I'd tend toward just cutting that umbilical cord and having seperate DVD's for the computer and for the Home Entertainment Megaplex.

Biggest driver of trend around my shack is "isn't more bother to deal with."

Re:Computer as part of Home Theater

[ChazeFroy]

By the time you spend large amounts of money on your new computer to act as a home theater, you could have had a lot better A/V equipment with less money.

I'd rather have a Sony 36" Wega with a decent surround-sound system for $2500 than a beefy computer with a 21" monitor.

Re:Computer as part of Home Theater

[NeMon'ess]

What about the fact that if you spent all of that $2500, you'd have no computer at all? You really would go without a computer entirely? I think people are taking their relatively fast new or newish machines, and adding on to them, or buying them with the plan being all-in-one.

we're in a transitional phase...

[turbine216]

I think a lot of people are bringing their computer to the home theater in the family or media room and converging it that way.

You're right about that, but I think that this merely marks a transitional period between the "multimedia pc" era (started about 7 years ago) and the "wired home" era (3 years down the road?). Eventually, I think what we'll see is more of a decentralized structure in the home PC area. We're already seeing it today, with wireless e-mail terminals and MP3 audio components for home stereos (a la the RIO Receiver and its bretheren). Look for more integrated versions of these in the future (i.e. wall-mounted touchscreen panels, linked to a file server that pipes MP3 music to any single room in the house).

Not very insightful

[Rupert]

I stopped reading when the author started talking wbout integrating the telephone with a home computer. I know a number of people who tried this years ago, but all are now using standalone answering machines or telco answering services. It seems to me that the reliability of PCs has actually gone down since then. I can't imagine changing something that just works, to something that often doesn't, for some nebulous benefit of integration.

Re:Not very insightful

[_Ash_]

I can't imagine changing something that just works, to something that often doesn't, for some nebulous benefit of integration.

DOS -> Windows 95?

Re:Not very insightful

[JoeShmoe]

I know what you are talking about. Compaq Presario computer came with the same kind of stripped down answering machine software. I never met anyone who actually used it.

But the idea isn't a bad one. I personally think it is a great idea. Answering machines are a pain in the ass to program, have the crappiest recording quality, store abismally short messages (unless you want to go back to the 80's and get tape) and are pretty darn insecure (two digit security codes? C'mon, that takes under an hour to wardial).

Here's why it's never caught on:

1) Most family types don't want to leave their computers on. We power users and techies are used to having everything running 24/7. At most we'll put our monitors to sleep. We either don't care about power savings or we have an overriding need to be able to access the box without some silly remote power-on device. But this is not how Mom/Dad/Grandma/Grandpa view a computer. They turn the darn thing on and off a hundred times in the day. So the idea of leaving it on just to answer the phones is a contradicting idea to them.

2) There's never been a home operating system that could stay up long enough for the function to work. Cheap 95/98/ME OS plus cheap voicemail software plus cheap winmodem means the only messages you get are written on a bright blue screen. But now there is XP, which is at least a passing attempt at a stable platform. Now if they just get some software to run as a service (IE, sitting there quietly in the system tray where it is unlikely to be closed) then perhaps home users will see the value in it.

I like it because the next step is to merge in VoIP services or videoconferencing or other power features. If we can get a large base of people using to thinking of their computers as telephony devices we can hopefully open a market for some real digital phone services.

Not to mention, it gets people adjusted to the idea of having a home server, which I think every home needs. If you leave it on all the time for answer machine functions it isn't a stretch to add other funtions like media/music server or security/webcam monitor or light/appliance controller.

- JoeShmoe

.

Re:Not very insightful

[MrResistor]

Compaq Presario computer came with the same kind of stripped down answering machine software. I never met anyone who actually used it.

I've tried a few telephony packages, and they have all sucked. The first was whatever came with my dad's computer (Acer Pentium 100, should give you an idea of the time frame) which was real crap. All it had to offer was a bunch of "wacky" prerecorded greetings, basically the same stuff being sold on late-night TV commercials at the time (the 30 second spots, not the spiffy paid programs). Then we tried WinFax Pro (7.0 I think) and it sucked too. It was difficult to configure and not very reliable. It was always confusing voice and fax calls. As an added bonus, it sent the fax handshake before the voice greeting. I'm sure you can imagine how much my Grandmother liked that!

Probably the biggest problem, though, was that with only 1GB HDDs there wasn't that much room for the messages, especially since they were all being recorded at stereo CD quality (roughly 10MB/minute)! Not really an issue these days, especially if the software compressed the messages to MP3 or something.

Anyway, I tried a few of the internet telephony packages when that started up. My conclusion is that there's a pretty good reason you don't hear much about that anymore. I couldn't actually get any of them to work.

The PC entertainment system has interested me for a while, but the remote control problem is definately a barrier, as well as boot time (although since the local power company killed our TV and we've inherited my in-laws old one, I'm not sure it would be that noticable). Of course, as I got older the realization that my life doesn't really require a 24/7 soundtrack crept in and my MP3 collection has seen a lot less use, so the appeal is somewhat diminished. I still like the home theater aspect, though, particularly with a high-res projector. It never occured to me to care about TV res until I got a job testing professional digital video equipment. Full res HDTV is really jaw-dropping.

Hmm... kinda strayed from my point, but I guess that just means I only have to post once on this topic :)

Re:Not very insightful

[renehollan]

Not to mention, it gets people adjusted to the idea of having a home server, which I think every home needs. If you leave it on all the time for answer machine functions it isn't a stretch to add other funtions like media/music server or security/webcam monitor or light/appliance controller.

Bingo!

Until people have a need/use for a home server, 24/7 applications (like answering machine, possibly alarm system, home control, etc.) aren't going to happen. Of course, there is no need for a home server if there are no apps to run on it 24/7 so you have a chicken and egg problem... what is the "killer app" for the home server?

email

The thought of connecting and polling some remote POP/IMAP/whatever server for email periodically sucks: I (or some application) wants to know I have email the instant it is delivered to my mailbox. This is kind of a pain with a dial-up connection (and keeping it up is likely a violation of the terms of service unless you have a dedicated connection), but very easy to do if you have a cable or DSL connection. One of the first things I did when I got my DSL connection was configure my PC to sink email for my domain (yes, I have a remote backup MX; no, I do not relay) and adjust my DNS records accordingly. This humble P200 PC will soon be relegated to the headend where it will serve as an email/media server.

Of course, an answering machine is little more than a repository for email with a voice attachment in disguise, so, with the right modem, this becomes a slam dunk. Remote monitoring of the house (sensors, webcams, etc.) is the next logical step. While we're at it, might as well provide remote ssh-tunneled access to that email and voice mail.

This is just the start, really. For example, why do TiVo and ReplayTV need hard disks? Shouldn't they just stream to local home storage (perhaps encrypting the content to keep the MPAA sharks at bay, not that I'd like this)? I see a potential revival of "push" technology services, when the possibility of caching, i.e. time-shifting, content becomes the norm.

Hard drives are noisy, and frankly computers are ugly in a family/livingroom setting. It might be reasonable for streamed media playback devices to accept local CD, DVD, or other media, but it makes little sense for them to cache locally -- cache on the home server. With less as opposed to more integration in such devices, planned obsolescence becomes easier: you aren't throwing out a whole computer when you upgrade an essentially integrated component. A plus: storage becomes independent of content -- you grow storage as you want.

Re:Not very insightful

[JoeShmoe]

Well, I was simplifying things with that statment. My point was that there are a few voicemail programs out there that run as an applications and it is extremely easy for people to close them. Not to mention, if you don't login they don't run.

Just like your SQL example, the voicemail service would run on startup and do things like monitor the modem and save input to the hard drive. When the user logs in they would get a separate application that provides the tray icon, probably a status indicator that runs some kind of voicemail management application when clicked.

Home Theatre Setups

[Roarkk]

In regards to combining computers and home theatre, I couldn't agree more with the statement that many people are hooking their equipment up in this way.

One of the most compelling reasons to do so is cost. I have been able to purchase a 2x DVD and decoder card combo for my computer for under $40, and a Soundblaster AWE 64 Gold (which has RCA outs instead of mini DIN) for under $20. By running good cabling from the computer out to my living room, I can hook up the DVD to both my stereo and TV, as well as all computer sounds and MP3's, for much less than a standalone solution would cost. In addition, the ability to run cable back and buy mini stereo speakers instead of computer speakers gives me far better computer sound at a much cheaper price.

Instead of TV and radio being listened to over the computer, I find more and more people using the computer to inexpensively and effectively listen to TV / radio / movies.

FILTH

[LazyDawg]

The trend in home computing for the past ten years has been and will continue to be away from the WIMP interface and towards the FILTH interface.

The desktop metaphor of Windows, Icons, Menus and Programs was nice for quite some time, and does have some advantages over the console (sometimes,) but it still left too much of the work to the user.

Forms, Images, Links, Text and Hypermedia interfaces let you treat the system you're handling like a web page. These are already all around us, in web pages, some authoring tools, etc. Rather than worrying about menus full of cryptic commands and window after window that you have to cycle through, imagine navigating the OS or filesystem as if it were a web site, perhaps with a WYSIWYG text editor so people can once again "turn it on and write."

The majority of users have a hard time cycling windows, understanding the difference between closing an application and quitting it, etc. They also tend to only want web, email and word processing. Games and specialty applications can come later, but you won't see them running in a window floating around above the FILTH much.

Re:FILTH

[PCM2]

The majority of users have a hard time ... understanding the difference between closing an application and quitting it

And they're not alone. What, pray tell, would that difference be?

Well I know that Mac OS X, for one, has this awesome feature where you can close every single window of the foremost application (say, for example, the application called System Preferences) and it keeps running until you explicitly quit it with a Command-Q. It's another Apple first -- they've managed to completely separate the functions of quitting an application and closing it. No more worries about accidentally quitting out of System Preference there! And god forbid you can't keep a TextEdit process running at all times...

Re:FILTH

[gowen]

hey've managed to completely separate the functions of quitting an application and closing it.

s/closing it/closing all the windows/g

Which isn't what was said. With most window managers Emacs and Gnuserv will do what you describe.

(Oh and MacOS has had that featured since at least version 8. I hated it then, too, since apps I thought I'd quit were sitting in the background eating memory...)

Re:FILTH

[Graff]

Well I know that Mac OS X, for one, has this awesome feature where you can close every single window of the foremost application (say, for example, the application called System Preferences) and it keeps running until you explicitly quit it with a Command-Q.

First of all, this is not new with MacOS X. This has been true of just about any application on a Mac, except the occasional few which buck the trend or have a need to quit when no windows are open.

Second, it really doesn't matter if you have none or a dozen applications sitting in the background on MacOS X. The operating system only assigns processor time to those applications actually performing work, and it pages out the memory used by idle programs if the memory is needed elsewhere. The net effect is that the idle processes have virtually no effect on taking up system resources, so who cares if they are still running?

Third, the paradigm of the MacOS is not document-centered, it is application-centered. This can be a very good thing when you are working with multiple documents, as only one instance of a program needs to be opened for multiple documents. This results in less memory being used, more efficient use of processor time, less chance of clashes over just which instance controls a particular file or service. Also, just because you close a window it does not mean that you are finished working with the program. There are many times when I'll close a window, then create another to work on a new document. If I had to re-run the program every time I wanted to do this I would waste a lot of time waiting for the program to start up.

Lastly, in the MacOS it is up to the programmer to determine if his program should quit when there are no more open windows. The developer should keep track of how many open windows there are and if none are open, either keep the application running or quit. There are some applications which do this, but it is decided on a case-by-case basis - as it should be.

Re:FILTH

[spitzak]

Um, I think Mac OS has done this for a long time. Certainly I have been fooled by closing all the PhotoShop windows, then thinking the menu is for the Finder and trying to pick a menu item.

I agree with the questioner as to why the user should care. We need to come up with an interface where there is not difference between closing all the programs and quitting the application.

The GUI purpose of this is to make menu items that create a new document, or configure the program, available, even though the program is closed. I don't have any good ideas here. The original Mac had "paper" that you clicked on to create new documents, one piece of paper for each application. You could also create a new document if you click on the application icon (most do this already). I don't know about configuration, the best I can think of is to require an open document to configure.

Systems where the user cannot tell if the program has really exited are pretty common. People here have mentioned Emacs, but also IE on Windows (and a lot of other MicroSoft software) do this. It would be nice if these hacks were not necessary, if programmers would stop being so lazy and perhaps improve the startup time so having the program already running is not so necessary! But it does not look like that is going to happen, sigh...

If "System Preferences" does something unwanted on exit, I would consider it a bug if it can be exited without at least asking the user!

Re:FILTH

[rtaylor]

If MacOS X uses standard BSD VM systems it'll actually be faster to 'load' the program out of swap than it would be from the normal filesystem -- even if you discount CPU work involved.

Games not driving upgrades.

[spiro_killglance]

Maybe not recently, but i'm willing to bet that
the huge increase in graphics complexity of
Unreal 2 and the hardware demands it will make,
will push many people to upgrade.

Home networking is coming

[Artifice_Eternity]

Obviously we don't interact with our PCs the same way we interact with television or video game consoles. So I can't really see using one monitor, for example, to surf the net and work and also to watch TV and movies.

But as home networking becomes increasingly common, people may have one "box" that can handle all their computing and audiovisual/entertainment needs. There will be a "workstation" (monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc.) and an "entertainment center" (large widescreen TV, audio console, game console), maybe in separate rooms. In fact there may be multiple control/input/output systems, all over the house.

This could be a good thing...we've been hearing about the benefits of the smart house for years. But let's keep an eye on who is going to control and sell us this technology. Apple is clearly interested in the "digital lifestyle" niche, but there's another company that seems far more likely to use its monopoly power and vast cash reserves to dominate in this area. Yes, I mean the owner of WebTV, XBox, and Windoze...Micro$oft.

Most home theater installers are clueless...

[S. Allen]

...about computer technology. When I was re-doing a basement as a home theater, just about every installer/dealer that I spoke to was either completely ignorant of the state of computer technology and/or dismissed it outright. The stuff you buy in AV stores is pretty much identical to the stuff you bought 15 years ago. Control: IR! Where's the serial port or LAN hookup? Modularity? Zip or proprietary. C'mon.

Re:Most home theater installers are clueless...

[S. Allen]

Which confirms my experience... that if it is available, it's only on the expensive stuff and even then it's still highly proprietary and very limited. This industry could use a dose of PC-like standardization. It hasn't substantially improved it's offerings in decades.

And yet no decent cases...

[Rob Parkhill]

You would think that with the interest of using a PC as a home theatre component that there would be a lot more choice in the market for a decent looking PC case!

I mean seriously, there is maybe 2 PC cases on the market that will take standard PC compnents and looks like it actually belongs in your A/V cabinet. And these cases tend to be in the $250+ range, which is nuts for just a case.

A PC w/ an HDTV tuner card, optical sound output, a DVD drive, a software line doubler/tripler/quadrupler, and a fast network connection (and gobs of sound-deadening material of course!)is a great thing to have in your home theatre, but it sure sticks out like a sore thumb!

Re:And yet no decent cases...

[LMCBoy]

One of the big differneces between a PC case and a "standard" home theater component is that there's no need for it to be a visible part of the cabinet. Other than the power button, it has no controls or displays. So, why not just hide it in the closet?

This brings up the question of interface. The PC interface of keyboard/mouse/monitor is overkill for the A/V stuff you'd use it for in a home thater. Anyone know of PC remote controls or other slick ways to control a hidden PC?

Re:And yet no decent cases...

[Rob Parkhill]

Well, if you have a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive in your home theatre PC, then you do need to have access to it.

And a desktop case painted black isn't what I am looking for either. I want something that looks like it belongs with my amp, VCR, and DVD player. Same width, same goofy round metal legs, power switch on the same side, etc. You'd think it would be easy to find such a beast.

Re:And yet no decent cases...

[LMCBoy]

Good point...maybe a rack-mounted system is closer to a stereo component? At least in physical size. Still would require quite a bit of customization, though.

Where do HDTV's fit in and other questions

[wessto]

This is somewhat related. I am looking to buy a HDTV and am wondering if it can be used with my computer in some way? Will it interface with a computer display adapter? I followed the link on this article and someone posted a comment there about using a wireless keyboard/mouse, etc. with a HDTV. This is indeed a nice thought, but will it work? If so, what kind of performance do you get?

I believe that products like the Slimp3 player mentioned yesterday on slashdot are a nice preview of the kinds of technologies that we can expect to have, but will they thrive if the computer is brought into the living room? Is it a cosmetic issue that is keeping a PC from being put in the stereo/video cabinet? If so, what's keeping it from being visually pleasing? A bunch of questions, I guess, but I want to know!

Re:Not very insightful - Already there

[KarmaBlackballed]

All our entertainment devices are becoming computers. DVD players, CD players, Tivo, and high-end TVs come to mind. Look for a microprocessor or two inside and you will find them. There are too many examples and new ones adding every year.

The computer already snuck into the living room and we did not notice.

I doubt it...

[cavemanf16]

In addition to the ever-increasing demands of the operating system, computers are attaining a whole new purpose as complete home entertainment systems. If one invests in a large, crisp monitor and high quality speakers, they can experience unrivaled clarity from DVDs and video games. All modern computers, when equipped with a DVD drive and decoder, should be able to play a DVD without skipping frames, or jerkiness. In addition to DVDs, many new computers now come with video cards that allow TV signals to be played on the monitor. Some even include Radio tuners! Thus, users may eliminate the need for a separate DVD player, TV, and/or Radio simply by buying a computer! Also, the advent of file-sharing services such as Napster heralded the beginning of the end for the stand-alone CD player. I now play all of my music on my computer, as it has better sound fidelity than any CD player I own. Computers are also becoming the preferred gaming medium of the 21st century. Microsoft?s new Xbox appears to be a standard videogame console, but is actually just a regular computer built from mostly off-the-shelf components, albeit modified.

Ok, the article was looking pretty pathetic, but then I got to the above paragraph. HA! is all I have to say. This guy has been living in a box, and has obviously NOT tried to accomplish such a feat! I have. Here's my observations:

1. DVD's only work on the computer. The reason for this is because even if you have a dual ouput video card, you MUST have digital rights management equipment on your TV or other input source to view it on the TV, otherwise, legally made DVD software for the computer won't output the DVD image to your TV. Pretty ultra-retarded caveat if you ask me. Obviously, not only are they trying to limit my ability to 'copy' the DVD, I'm apparently not even allowed to 'copy' the image to a source other than my computer's monitor, if I don't have the latest and greatest digital rights management equipment!! How ridiculous.
2. Napster is dead. DEAD! The RIAA effectively killed it, and now they're trying to kill it's siblings like Kazaa and Gnutella. Listening to my own self-built 'mp3 radio' is increasingly more difficult if you're 'obeying all the rules.'
3. mp3 /= better than CD!!! Duh! The reason I go and buy CD's at the store, is because while easy to use, mp3's are not the original source. It's a lossy format, but much better than cassette tapes for longevity's sake.

In conclusion, I think the person who wrote this article is a drone, and has very little real world experience with the obstacles to creating the in home entertainment utopia described in this article. Somebody needs to do some clue-stick bludgeoning before this guy gets around to describing how "Using a cell phone in the car has never been easier!"

Re:I doubt it...

[cavemanf16]

1. My point here was that the computer was becoming the home theater application. I'm noting that the TV can be entirely eliminated.

I understand that, but a 22" or 29" computer monitor (for a decent one) costs twice as much as my 25", multiple input TV cost 3 yrs ago. Doesn't make sense to me to eliminate my TV as a general consumer unless I'm made of money. Therefore, I have to resort to sending the output to my TV, which doesn't have digital rights management equipment on it, and therefore I have to 'circumvent' that.

I just want to reiterate that, yes, for the technical geek crowd, putting together a home theatre out of nothing but computer parts is doable, but not very practical. Besides, how do you account for the fact that I need to use the computer to write a program, or essay, or log in at work, while my girlfriend wants to watch regular old Cable TV? We can't BOTH be using that 22" (or worse, 29"!) monstrosity of a monitor to do that at the same time...

Re:I doubt it...

[ChaosDiscordSimple]

DVD's only work on the computer. The reason for this is because even if you have a dual ouput video card, you MUST have digital rights management equipment on your TV or other input source to view it on the TV, otherwise, legally made DVD software for the computer won't output the DVD image to your TV.

I don't know what video card and DVD playing combination you're using, but I suggest you change brands. I've been watching DVDs playing on my computer routed out my TV out for some time. Matrox's video drivers specifically offers a DVD Clone option to display DVD video simultaneously in a window on your computer monitor and full screen out the video out. The only restriction is that the TV out on my Matrox card enables Macrovision, meaning I get nasty signal degredation when I route the signal through my VCR. So I route the video directly to my television. Irritating, but not a big deal. This sort of implementation is widely available on multiple brands of video cards.

Sure, Hollywood would like to require every piece of hardware in your AV chain to support the misnamed "digital rights managements," but it's not the rule yet.

Convergence

[swordboy]

I've babbled on about this before but Microsoft is the only company out there who knows what is happening with convergence. With Xbox, you have DVD and 3D graphics/gaming with future capabilities for PVR and much more. As the underlying technology progresses and becomes smaller/integrated/cheaper, look for Microsoft to push Xbox into all-in-one set-top boxes. Included with your [insert TV content provider here] subscription could be an Xbox based device that will provide gaming, DVD, PVR, internet gateway, etc etc...

Sigh...

Does anyone know where the Indrema code went? Was there any code? Why wasn't it GPL'ed or something? The Xbox represents the beginning of Microsoft's world domination and we are left to sit by and watch. Hell, I'm actually all for it but it would be nice to have an alternate to choose from.

clueless article

[Lumpy]

Sorry but the trends of home automation point in a very different direction. Granted HA is not for the average person. But it is where the techie is heading. Centralized audio and video systems, and automation systems along with the computing network is where it is going. covering what you can buy at best-buy is not giving anyone any information on the direction. It's just an opinion piece from someone that wanted to write an article with a minimum of effort in research.

Just do some basic research in home automation on google. you will find more information that you want in what the current trends and direction it is heading.

Other Way Around

[deebaine]

I think the article is half on-target. Integration of media in the home seems a desirable goal for any company in the media industry. It opens the door not only to horizontal expansion, but also to cooperation with others that can enable a variety of features simply unavailable when the computer and the tv are in a different room.

But I don't think the tv is coming into the computer room; I think the computer is going to the tv room. Personally, it would not surprise me if Microsoft's 10 year plan were to become a media giant as well as a software company--a sort of uber-AOL-Time Warner. The writing, I think, is on the wall, and for once, I have to credit Microsoft for their vision (regardless of how much I may despise their business practices). Xbox is way too much to be a gaming console; it embraces a variety of media and connections that suggest that it may soon evolve into something that could lay claim to be the only box between the wall and your tv (Zapstation anyone?). Coupled with XP and .NET, Microsoft could become a ubiquitous presence not only on your desktop, but also in your living room.

-db

Expensive Experiment

[ConsigliereDea]

All of the integration is nice except where non-techies are in the home. How many people have small children or spouses that aren't tech savy? I would hate to have my telephone, home theater, or anything else connected only to have it crashed by someone trying to figure out how to dial the phone.

Compartmentalization

[yoink!]

I think people are really scared of integration. In general, boundaries, good or bad, provide a limit to each area of life. Take something as simple as TV... it was really, and for the most part is really, easy to use and understand (on a superficial level). Turn it on, change the channel, change the volume... pretty simple. A lot of TVs now have CC on mute, but few people turn the option on. I think if too many things are crammed into one device people shy away from it. People don't want to have to upgrade their kernels in their televisions (well wait... not thems normal peoples :-P ) because of a possible filesystem error, or worry if their overclocked tv can switch channels faster than yours, they want to grab a bag of doritos and forget about everything else.

Take the public's concept of a PC computer 10 years ago. Generally they were regarded as difficult to use and understand, but they could do everything and anything you could program them to do. Now we use them for e-mail, music, movies (maybe) and word processing, and we pay a whole lot to have really fancy ones that we don't know how to really use because we're not told what we can use them for.

When someone wants to watch a movie, who cares if it's connected to the web to deliver relative content... in the end I think companies are pushing wired integration of content delivery systems so they have a unified platform for marketing and marketing information.

A Cost Effective Alternative

[sabinm]

Acutally, my pc(s) have turned into a cost effective solution of getting expensive media equipment. For instance, I've got an 900mhz athlon proc on a 10x dvd player that serves as my linux box. We set up our monitor in our living room and I have the boxen hidden in a small entertainment center. MP3's are loaded into the XMMS and then played on my stereo system. That the whole setup cost me less than 300 USD (without the monitor. the monitor I already owned. ) Funny thing is, I tried this first on my windows box. didn't work. DVD kept stalling and couldn't produce frames fast enough. After a recompile on my Linux box, it was great.

What i'd really like is some info on a good streaming media format to utilize this "home theater anywhre in my home (i'm already networked)

DVD on the PC is only good for games...

[don_carnage]

When I heard that they were making DVDROMs, the first thought that crossed my mind was, "Wow, there are going to be some really bitchin' games for the PC now that we have all that space available on a DVD." I would never buy a DVDROM to watch movies on my computer.

Somebody should do this now

[KarmaBlackballed]

I can imagine a market for high-end consumers if they would use a projection device and good stereo sound.

I'm planning to build a home theater in a few years and would consider that kind of packaged setup. Key of course is that it not seem like a computer with theater features. It should just be a real cool home theater package that happens to have an expandable computer at the core.

Home Theater PCs are catching on...

[sdo1]

If this discussion forum is any indication, there are a lot of people building Home Theater PCs.

I recently put one together to co-exist with my home theater setup in the living room. A low end machine... 800 MHz Duron, 32MB Radeon, Hauppauge WinTV card (for video capture), 512MB ram, 80G HDD... the whole thing set me back about $700. I painted the case and all front panels black... it fits in quite nicely with the rest of my stereo.

With that system I can now capture video, compress it to mpeg1 (or mpeg2) for burning onto VCD and/or SVCD. I'm copying many of my most played CDs over to it, so I'll have an audio jukebox. I can play non region 1 DVDs. I can read /. on my TV. I can listen to internet radio stations. Pretty much anything I could do before on my office PC, I can do here... but now it's intergrated with my Home Theater.

We had a holiday party last week, so I ripped all of our holiday CDs, downloaded some other songs, recorded some of the "seasonal" music channel on the satellite, created a playlist, and threw it into random mode... and all day the thing happily churned out Christmas music from a fairly large library.

Money well spent so far...

-S

PC Devices Converging on Functions

[KarmaBlackballed]

That is exactly the point. There is no reason every computer should have a keyboard and expansion slots. Other examples are XBox, GameCube, Playstation, etc.

I consider these all personal computing devices that have been specialized.

If we define a personal computer as something that looks and misbehaves like what we have today, there will be no such thing as a personal computer a few decades from now.

What's kludgy about remotes?

[roystgnr]

A friend of mine had a computer hooked up to receiver (and TV, for onscreen xmms display) for mp3 playback. He gave it one of the modes on his all-in-one remote, installed the IR control module for xmms, and just let it run constantly. He could switch the TV and/or the audio over to the computer at any time, and control all the MP3 playing functions from one of the modes on the remote.

What's the problem with that? It's not like the remote controlled his DVD player perfectly, then screamed "I'm a kludge!" whenever he used it on MP3s.

(he used 320kbit mp3 files and a sound card with digital output, BTW; the sound really wasn't distinguishable from a CD jukebox)

Re:What's kludgy about remotes?

[Dyolf Knip]

How do you get the computer to receive IR signals from the remote? That the remote control can be used as such and that software could interpret the signals is obvious, but how do you get from one to the other?

Re:What's kludgy about remotes?

[Sloppy]

I use an IRMan plugged into a serial port. Then LIRC reads it and translates the codes into something more generic, and provides an easy-to-talk-to socket interface for apps.

Buy a can of spray paint!

[sdo1]

I put together a HTPC system and I too was frustrated by the lack of black PC cases for reasonable $$$. Instead I bought a nice Antec case for about $60 and a can a black semi-gloss spray paint for about $3. Remove the buttons and clear plastic pieces, clean with grease and wax remover, scuff with a scotchbrite pad, and paint. It's also pretty easy to take the bulkheads off of floppy drives and CD/DVD rom drives to paint those as well.

What I ended up with was a surprisingly good looking black case that goes extremely well with the rest of my equipment.

Anyone capable of putting together a computer from scratch really should be able to paint one as well. It's amazingly easy.

-S

GUI Bloat?

[mttlg]

Windows XP features a new Graphical User Interface (GUI) with pretty colors, higher quality images and icons, more inviting sounds, and a spate of other enhancements that make it easier to use than any previous version of Windows.

I guess Microsoft is slowing down the feature bloat and ramping up GUI bloat development. This is just what I need - all of these "pretty colors, higher quality images and icons" taking up screen real estate and leaving less room for anything useful. Apple's Aqua style is bad enough, and I doubt Microsoft will do a better job. Whatever happened to the days of a simple, common interface? Why does every application/OS/web site/etc. have to have its own unique interface style that is designed for looks and not functionality? I guess we can look forward to the computer equivalent of breast implants, painted-on eyebrows, and botox...

Whatever...

[gillbates]

With 512MB or more, XP should run like a dream. This will prompt many users to plunk-down the $50 or so necessary for the extra memory, and feel that it was worth it.

I can think of a very stable OS that runs in 2MB of memory. Windows XP is a shining example of what is wrong with today's High Level Language (C, C++, C#) coders - they generate copious amounts of sloppy and inefficient code. Ask yourself: Why is it that, even though XP doesn't add any significant functionality, it requires more memory and processing power? The answer is simple - it was written by stupid programmers. Microsoft has re-invented the wheel, made it less efficient, and wants to charge you more for it.

Re:Noise from the PC

[sdo1]

I agree that noise is a big concern, and it was for me as well. My HTPC is not silent, but it's fine unless it's really otherwise quiet in the room.

There are companies that specialize in building quiet PC parts. This was discussed not terribly long ago.

I also agree with the comment about mp3 quality. I too think it sounds pretty crummy, and having a HTPC as part of my regular stereo system really brought that home. A decent system really exposes the flaws. But for "casual" listening when I've got friends over and whatnot, it's just fine.

That said, I'm finding that the quality really isn't too bad if I encode the files myself with something like razorlame using VBR.

-S

Less system administration

[Junks Jerzey]

In all seriousness--and I'm a programmer, not a luddite--I'd trade 50% computing power for something that didn't give me fits every few months or so. Every time I have to upgrade something, be it under Linux or Windows, it kills a couple of evenings and involves numerous trips to the store. "Okay, I just bought a new video card because Game X doesn't work with my old one, but then Game Y doesn't work with the new one." Or having to constantly upgrade drivers and worrying that one upgrade might cascade into a whole series of them.

No one has to do this kind of thing with their Palm, cell phone, or DVD player. I'd happily be behind the times in the coming years if I could buy the equivalent of an Atari 800 or Commodore 64 with the capabilities of, say, a bottom line Athlon. Seriously. People were mining the capabilities of the C64 for ten years, and we're talking about something with 500 times the raw capability.

Home Entertainment PC's are nothing new

[PbHead]

I know of plenty Home Entertainment PC's. When I was still in college, I needed a new computer, but a TV/VCR would have been nice to have also. Instead of getting a moderate PC and some home entertainment, I decided to spend all I could on my new PC and try to combine the two. Keep in mind it was 1996 and the tech was'nt as good as it is now. CD-Burners were still concidered new-wave stuff and TV capable video cards were nowhere near as abundant.

I put together a P233 with a 17" Monitor and Home Stereo Speakers driven off a small 40 Watt Car Audio Amp that was powered from the 12 Volt leads on my computer Power Supply (Some small Capacitor Mods needed for cleanliness).
This Unit served as my Computer, Internet Surfer, CD/Wav/MP3 Player, TV, Video Recorder (athough space was real tight if you wanted more than one show), and most importantly my Gaming Machine. After I got a VCR, It would play movies as well as my new Play Station. It looked better than a TV in fullscreen mode, and sounded great. It was more than enough to satisfy a geek cramped in a little pad, and impressed all my friends that came to visit and play Tekken.

There are many good and bad points to having a setup like this though. For a single guy in school its great, but any more than that would require more than one PC. (IE. Woman wants TV, I want Web.)
I now have an actual Entertainment center (Mostly for the Woman) and two Entertainment PCs. When I decided I needed more processing power, I designed my new unit with all the same features. It's a bit better of course with a 19" Monitor, DVD-Rom, better video in/out, and an 80 Watt amp, but the idea is the same.

As for the old 233, I upgraded it to a 450 and gave it some other new equipment. Now it's known as the bedroom box. Perfect for TV in bed, watching movies, Musical Alarm Clock, and checking slashdot before coffee.

As for the market on this idea, the only thing to say is slow. I work at Local PC sales and repair shop and I suggested building Home Entertainment PCs as part of our sales line. I could make them for a reasonable price, but the salesmen just could'nt move them out very well. Most people were not intrested because they already have a nice Entertainment Center. They want a PC at a good price and thats it. As to be expected, the only people that wanted our HEPCs was the soon to be college student who was going to be stuck in the dorms for a couple years, a few geeks that wanted everything and more, and a few old guys that found them perfect for hiding in their shop/study/office away from the wife. The rest of the market just was'nt ready.

If time allows, maybe I'll recap this post on TQY3, with some pictures and better descriptions of my experience with HEPC's.

Builtin IR or serial port

[roystgnr]

The computer he was using didn't have any built in IR ports, but he found a little IR receiver that plugs into the serial port for ten or twenty bucks.

It didn't have a long enough cord, though. The computer really should be stuck in a closet (or built with a fanless CPU) for this sort of thing; he had to turn it off to enjoy movies without purring fans as background noise.

Re:Timeline

[Dyolf Knip]

I'm planning out the A/V network to run alongside the ethernet one. It'd basically end up with the DVD on channel 1, MP3/DivX/VCD's from the dedicated media computer on 2, the hacked satellite on 3, my work computer screen on 4 (goes nicely with the wireless keyboard and mouse!), the surveillance camera outside the front door on 5 (hmmm, ThinkGeek sells remote controlled deadbolts), etc, etc. Run that coax line to all the rooms and you can show whatever you want on any TV. The expensive part is the equipment that merges the RCA A/V lines onto the coax. But nearly all of it could be controlled from a single universal remote and some inventive programming.

Next goal is to try and put the landline phone and my cellphone into the mix.

Slightly the wrong way to go

[fireboy1919]

I think that rather bringing home entertainment into the computers (i.e. turning a computer into a home entertainment system), the future is giving home entertainment systems computerized components.

How about using smaller computerized components for the system? For instance, using a biscuit-PC as a controller for a surround sound system, and another as a controller for all the lights...etc. No one would think twice about leaving those on. They could connect to each other via ethernet to be able do simple detection tasks. Why waste power, money, and all the extra features that come with a full size PC when you can get it all in a small one?

The parallelism is also much more suited to solving tasks that have to do with a house.

Re:sweet jesus...

[TheAwfulTruth]

XP is absolutely no more a ram hog than 2k is. There is no living room media application that would requre 512 meg in an XP box. Saying so is pure FUD. 256 meg (uh, $26-$36 USD) is MORE than enough.

Cultural distinctions

[epepke]

You are corect. Pointing out the technical similarities misses the point. A PC is in a completely different cultural category from an entertainment device.

For one thing, the expectation of reliability is much higher for an entertainment device. Companies that put software in televisions are therefore held to a higher standard that those who write software for PC's. Needing to reboot a television set ever is unacceptable. The PC has a culture so accepting of unreliability that any report of any bug or security problem on Slashdot generates a number of replies to the effect of "So what? All software has bugs. Get with the times, luser."

Culturally, building an entertainment center around the PC rather than embedding computers in devices will probably either

1. Frighten consumers who would correctly believe the system would be less stable, or
2. Force consumers to accept a lower standard of stability

Re:one tool, one job

[Dyolf Knip]

It's nice to be able to use the computer for more stuff because adding new capabilities is often just a matter of a new program for it. With dedicated equipment, it's virtually impossible to change how it works without simply replacing it. And while linking devices together is certainly a requirement these days (what good are electronics if they can't talk to one another?), the protocols they use change rather a lot.

How long till DVD players (or as you suggested, a separate device that just reads the data and plays it) can play all of today's popular video formats? Two years; three? If I buy a dedicated MP3 player today and then tomorrow Ogg becomes more common, I'm stuck with a fairly useless piece of equipment. Waiting for it to be implemented in hardware is not an answer anymore. Designing the device so that it can load and understand new codecs would be make it nearly as complicated as a normal computer and certainly more expensive.

If it's properly done, for instance having a dedicated Linux box that plays MP3's, DVD's, whatever and does nothing else, then for all intents and purposes it is as stable as your tape deck. And its capabilities can be changed by adding a new piece of software, something your tape deck can never do. The PC was designed to be a multi-purpose machine, after all. It's just a shame that the range of its applications has increased faster than its reliability.

HDTV

[AlpineR]

I was just wondering:

• Since stand-alone HDTV's are so damn expensive
• While DVD players are common in new computers
• And I have a computer anyway
• With a nice, high resolution monitor

Is it possible, now or in the near future, to watch DVD's or play Game Cube at HDTV resolution through a desktop computer?

AlpineR

My 50 home computers

[peter303]

Two of them have monitors and keyboards.
The other 48 are in game machines, appliances,
vehicles, etc.
The future of home computing is invisibility.

Re:It was called MacTV

[KarmaBlackballed]

MacTV-> 15 inch monitor

When it comes to TV, size does matter.

TV cards have been around since at least the late 80's for the PC. I would not call them serious entertainment systems. They are just novelties without a grand display.

I'll get slammed for this...

[bryan1945]

but most people (including me) don't want to include a computer and software and video cards and sound cards and monitors or displays and etc, etc... into thier home theatre. When it comes to the basic TV/DVD/music experience, who the fuck wants to make it go through 2 billion ICs? Ahh, no one! There is a reason all-in-one remotes sell well- people want their movies quick and easy.

I know that the /. crowd loves to hack their Tivo and route their multimedia through a Sun 10k, but the average Joe likes it easy. (I could go with a Windows analogy here about easy, but that would be wrong since Macs are the easiest).

It seems that this article wants Aunt Martha to hook here MP3 player into her mainframe to get a sonic overlay over her HDTV videophone, or other some crazy shit. NO!!!! Christ people, they eventually made VCRs that self-programmed their clocks so people wouldn't have to look at the blinking 12:00!!!! General public = not/. and never will be.

Oh well, I will be labeled as a stupid technophobe with no l33t skills. So be it.

Re:font police (OT)

[uebernewby]

Actually, no. Serifs were added to fonts because it made the ends of the raised characters on the wooden (later: lead) blocks they used to transfer them to paper less prone to breaking. You'll find, therefore, that sans serif fonts started to be used widely (i.e. for large chunks of text, not just decorative headlines and such) only when offset printing became common (1960's or so, I believe).

It just so happens that serifs make a font easier to read as well, but that's a lucky coincidence (and it actually wasn't true for a long while, as you can attest to if you've ever seen facsimiles of poorly set 17th century texts, where the serifs add clutter rather than facilitate reading).

Mine works *perfectly*

[bill_mcgonigle]

2) There's never been a home operating system that could stay up long enough for the function to work.

I don't understand. I've been using MegaPhone on a PowerMac 7200/90 running MacOS 8.1 since, well, since MacOS 8.1 came out. Before that it was running MacOS 7.6. It's never crashed. It sleeps until the GeoPort Telecomm Adapter wakes it up, it takes a message, and goes back to sleep after a few minutes. The PPC601 uses only a couple watts during sleep. I move the mouse when I come home and the machine wakes up, turns on the monitor, and I check the messages. I delete them sometimes, but mostly I just let them go away automatically after two weeks. If I could get broadband at home I'll write an AppleScript to mail the messages to me at work (they're standard sound files). What more do people want?