Prisimq MediaServer Support For Linux

martinde writes "The Prismiq Media Player is a networked set top box that can play MP3s, streaming media, browse the web, and do other cool stuff. It runs Debian on the dedicated hardware client, but in the past it has required a Windows server on the backend. It looks like now there is beta support for Linux in the backend. Anyone tried this device, with or without Linux?" This is a device that I've been playing with/testing - our sister (Yes, Virginia, they are owned by OSDN) site Thinkgeek sells them. Pretty cool device - reminds me of a XBox Media Player in terms of function, but with less soldering, and a keyboard. I'll be trying the Linux backend server - that would solve one of my major complaints, which is that the media server currently is Windows-only.

Comments

Oh no...

[JoeLinux]

Begin "This is shameless thinkgeek advertising" whining by lamers in 3...2...1...

Re:And?

[garcia]

it's available on Thinkgeek, the box is Debian based, there is now a server (back-end) available for Linux (which has oddly enough only been tested on RedHat and SuSE when the box runs Debian?), and it's similar to what you can get w/the XBox for only $100 more (and not quite as much effort or "illegal" behavior).

Does that about answer it?

Save Money and have fun.

[elinenbe]

The xbox media player XBMP, can do everything this can do and more. xbox=$179, chip=$20, media player which is constantly updated=free. Plus you can play some fun games.

This is just another ad for thinkgeek crud.

No on-box display?

[Dr. Blue]

The biggest problem I see with this (or with using an X-box for similar things) is the lack of any display or controls on the box itself. I don't want to have to turn on the TV to listen to music, and I don't really want to have to search for a remote either. Why can't people put a very simple user interface on the front of the box??? Something as simple as the iPod interface would be great and very functional.

Re:No on-box display?

[Zathrus]

Simple -- cost.

Would you be willing to pay an extra $100 for the unit for those features? Do you think the number of people who would be willing to pay an extra $100 outweigh the number of people who would no longer be willing to purchase it? And that $100 is conservative, if anything... the additional material costs, additional programming/UI design, two entirely different methods for accessing the same content, additional QA for both hardware and software, etc.

While I agree that a display and buttons are a good thing, I don't think the additional cost will come out positive in the long run. Especially since the entire point of a networked audio player is that you don't need to walk up to it and plop in a CD to listen to whatever music you want. Like I said, I agree with the advantages of not having to turn on your TV, and it's something I'd like at times, but realistically it's not a winning feature for the price.

If, however, you do want this, and are willing to give up an OSD to the TV, then look into the Turtle Beach AudioTron. Music only (obviously), no video. It does have a small screen on it, with buttons for control. Costs about the same as the Prismiq.

And there's stuff out there that has the OSD, does music/video, has an on-box display, buttons, etc. too. Be prepared to pay upwards of $500 and (often) have all the data storage be on device, with really absurd pricing for expanding storage.

Re:No on-box display?

[smartin]

I agree, my main stereo system is not in the same room as my tv. I'm currently using an old rio receiver to do the job but would like to have something better. A ps2 or xbox (running linux) seem like an attractive solution but i need to be able to control it without a tv.

One option is to have the box run a web server and control it from a laptop or maybe a small handheld device such as ipaq or palm pilot, or maybe even one of those lcd screen remote controls. All of which of course adds to the cost and complexity of the system.

Sigh. No component out.

[renehollan]

Kind of useless for streaming my archived DVDs at 480p to my TV, or for later streaming HD content at 720P or 1080i from the same home server.

Such products frustrate me to no end, because the idea is good, but the execution is poor.

Then again, these limitations might have something to do with tyhe influence of the MPAA w.r.t. playblack resulution via analog outputs (still, that doesn't explain not having component out at at least 480p).

On sale at buy.com only $189

[A Commentor]

buy.com has this on sale for only $189 after $50 mail-in rebate. It's their 'price mistake of the day' item. There is currently a free shipping coupon available at my site. See link below in my signiture to find the coupon.

Not quite what I'm looking for

[selderrr]

to many features that I wont use. For my movies, I got a DVD player. For IM, I rather use my computer since reading text from TV is too painfull for my eyes. For mp3s, I want something that fits my home stereo equipment and connects to my iTunes library (AAC + playlists).

This brings me to the related question : why is there so little hardware available that plugs into my home stereo (a Marantz system in our living room, pretty decent and it used to cost me half a leg so I'd rather not replace/extend it with a computer that takes up to much space and would just sit there doing nothing in a hidden corner) and in my airport network ? All I really want is a stereo tower box that is stylish, fits my stereo and performs the features of my iPod (okay, forget parachute) without having to haul my iMac to the living room. the iTrip is one way to go, but I would prefer something that goes wirelessly straight to my music library.

Could it be that too many hardware vendors are tied to much to the recording industry, which still considers mp3 pretty much illegal ?

Re:Wi Fi option

[Anonymous Coward]

Try http://sourceforge.net/projects/madwifi/ for example, works for me.

Complex sentence construction

[GillBates0]

This is a device that I've been playing with/testing - our sister (Yes, Virginia, they are owned by OSDN) site Thinkgeek sells them. Pretty cool device - reminds me of a XBox Media Player in terms of function, but with less soldering, and a keyboard. I'll be trying the Linux backend server - that would solve one of my major complaints, which is that the media server currently is Windows-only.

*clap *clap* -- Another wonderful, gramatically correct, hyphen/(parenthesis)-laden sentence from a /. (slashdot (Thinkgeek's sister site)) editor. I, (for one--ofcourse), thought he was talking about playing with his sister (or something )--but that was before before I managed to read it through.

Re:Negative soldering.. hmmm..

[mbourgon]

I'll one-up you. You don't even have to crack the case. Go to xbox-scene.com and check out the no-mod tutorials.

Live Video Review/Demo by Seattle Wireless

[Prizm]

This product was actually covered in a previous slashdot story from a couple of months ago, seen here.. The Seattle Wireless group reviews this product, gives a live video demonstration of it, and basically describes how it works. You can see the video here under the July archive. It's the last segment in the video.

This device has next to no CPU power

[drinkypoo]

...at least by modern standards. The PD61130 MPEG2 Decoder, as NEC calls it, provides 200 Dhrystone MIPS at 167 MHz / 160 MIPS at 133 MHz using an "Integrated high-performance CPU: NEC MIPS(R)-based VR4120A(TM) core". Note that these are MIPS, or Meaningless Indicators of Processor Speed. Meaningless why? They're produced by benchmarks! Anyway, it only supports up to 64MB of SDRAM... Thinkgeek's "specifications" says the processor is a "NEC uPD61130 32-bit MIPS microprocessor with integrated MPEG decoder", but they don't bother to mention that it's an MPEG2 decoder, not MPEG2+4.

They say the device plays DivX, but since it doesn't have an MPEG4 decoder, it all has to be done in software, and I'm skeptical about the device's ability to play high-bitrate MPEG4 (DivX, XVid, others) streams. And while they say that the device will be easily extensible to support future formats, if they are anything like MPEG4, then it certainly won't be fast enough to play them.

MIPS is kind enough to provide a newsletter which comes up in a search for "4210A" which contains the following interesting paragraph:

EMMArchitecture2 is designed for mid/high-end STB/ DTV applications such as Personal Video Recorders (PVR) and wireless IP STBs. It uses the NEC-designed MIPS CPU 4120A, plus NEC's original audio DSP, versatile stream processing engine and ATA I/F, together with a PCI bus. This unique architecture allows not only a single-chip, mid-range PVR configuration, which is controlled by an on-chip 200-mips 4120A CPU, but also a high-end, multi-chip STB configuration, which utilizes a PCI to connect an external high-performance CPU such as NEC's 500-mips, MIPS-based(TM) VR5500A CPU, together with a PCI bus bridge.

But, as the specifications for the PrismIQ show, they are not in fact including a VR5500A, just the VR4120A-based PD61130. I assume this plays the majority of MPEG4 content today, or else they wouldn't be selling it, but as bitrates rise, I believe that they will be in trouble.

Note that I have never seen let alone tested one of these, so I am just wanking in the dark here, but it doesn't seem likely to really provide the necessary longetivity. We all know that amazing things can be done with a 200MHz MIPS chip, go ait down at an SGI Indy sometime if you don't believe me, but I think the lack of an MPEG4 decoder will hurt them in the long run. There are numerous MPEG4 hardware solutions available today, and unfortunately, they did not see fit to use any of them.

Re:This device has next to no CPU power

[glitch!]

They say the device plays DivX, but since it doesn't have an MPEG4 decoder, it all has to be done in software, and I'm skeptical about the device's ability to play high-bitrate MPEG4 (DivX, XVid, others) streams.

The MPEG4/DivX streams are decoded in software, but on the server PC. I just now tested a decent quality (about 700kb/s) DivX movie on my 1700 Athlon, and the utilization was just under 20%. Sure, that's a lot of CPU cycles on one hand, but on the other hand for anyone who has a relatively recent PC, it's not a burden either.