Slashdot Mirror
Roadkill on the Convergence Highway
Duke Weber writes "Microsoft sometimes gets it right after three tries. Not so with Windows Media Center 2005. You do get a dancing Scooby Doo. You don't get much Media." From the article: "As a DVR, one tuner was just OK, with a second tuner working, it was still OK, provided you weren't too picky about mouths moving at the same time words came out. Out with the snazzy Realtek integrated sound on the ASUS-A8V motherboard. In with an Audigy 2ZS to lessen the load on the AMD 64 3000+ processor. More gadgets. That cured the synch. The picture still was no where close to a vintage Tivo. But it does keep track of the programs, important with a terabyte of disc."
The biggest issue with media centers is a very practical one: tuning. How do you tune channels from cable or satellite providers when a set top box provided by cable or satellite provider is essentially required? The "IR blaster" solution is inelegant at best, and gets even more inelegant if you want more than one tuner. That was Microsoft's biggest miscalculation in the media center strategy.
Conversely, the cable and satellite providers themselves will be able to provide one device that can record all of your digital content, AND acts as your set top box, AND has multiple tuners AND handles SD, HD, digital, and analog, AND doesn't require a large initial expenditure: most providers will give you all of this for under $10/month, in a turnkey solution that "just works". Granted, it's not as flexible and capable as your own box, but most will accept this tradeoff. Most won't even know there *was* a tradeoff.
But what of all your other media? Your music, your movies, your videos? Indeed, Apple's media center strategy is a novel one: it includes all traditional media center functions except perhaps the primary one: television recording. Instead, it's taken the bold next step: bypass the tuning issue and the recording issue entirely by bypassing the cable and satellite operators entirely, and delivering the content directly to you. The cable operators will still provide a service: it will just be bandwidth, and not content.
the only roadkill I see on the convergence highway will be the consumers.
That is the final curse of Media Center. Even if it worked, it would still be Windows .
I've never used Windows Media Center, but almost all of the problems he's complaining about sound like hardware problems, driver issues, or he chose the wrong hardware to begin with.
I have a feeling that if he had chosen his equipment better, or done a little more research before buying everything, he wouldn't have had the problems.
Besides, he's complaining about things like a broken S Video connector in his review, that is hardly Microsoft's fault.
Primal cravings make people do strange and stupid things. They made me build a Windows Media Center PC. ... snip ...
The first secret is that you need to scam your way into getting a copy of Windows XP Media Edition 2005, which is only sold to OEMs.
I bet if this guy tried to build a real TiVo, it might suck as well.
Perhaps windows media center is sold to OEMs only because they are the ones that know how the machines have to be built to work properly?
Reviews like this are why Apple will never license MacOS X for PCs.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
For me the big issue here is that the aim of a central server that controls all of your media means that people will have to all become system adminstrators. This is hardly likely, the idea of my Wife worrying about menus to record programmes off the TV is not the sort of thing I look forwards to. Something like a TiVo is perfect as its a TV device that intends to record programmes and nothing else. My wife's iPod is perfect to listen to music on even if there is the irritant of having to connect it to the PC (and this is an irritant for her) and finally actually having paper photos to hand around is what her and her friends like doing. We could have a digital home with me as the sys admin... but my wife would hate it.
The alternative of lots of seperate devices that do their jobs pretty well and have to communicate together clearly requires too much collaboration and innovation for those companies pushing the "Digital Home" vision around a central server.
Media Centre is a great example of a company trying to force an idea it think SHOULD make it billions down the throats of people who don't want it. Give us loosely coupled devices that work together seemlessly not videos that chase us around the house or a central server that needs constant administration and updating.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Eventually I broke a nail and had to abandon the project before any more damage was sustained.
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
and this article illustrates why. Hacking together a MCE box from parts is a masochistic enterprise. MS only sells MCE to OEMs who are willing to QA their setup (acronym overload!). This writer just got a taste of what QA at Dell and HP must feel like.
You clearly need a dual processor. One processor for each tuner. Throw enough horsepower against Microsoft and even MSWord has a decent framerate.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
cheaper than Tivo over 5-10 years
Hmm...
DirecTV with Tivo: $0 + $4/month = $480 over 10 years.
Standalone Tivo: $50 + $299 = $349 over 10 years.
Complete Windows Media Center PC: $800+ and probably won't be supported for 10 years and will require upgrades
Build your own Media Center PC: $150 (software) + $300+ (minimum, for PC with sufficient specs) + $30 (remote) + $50 (cables) + $??? (who knows what else) = $lots. (And it still won't be supported in 10 years)
Good luck with that cheaper part.
He lost my interest when I found the pic of the destroyed s-video cable.
I've been in video since the 80's and I've seen that ONCE.
You have to be a complete idiot to break an s-video cable off like that, so I can't take anything else in the article seriously. I guess he breaks keyboard and mouse connectors off too?
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
...as long as it's easier than MythTV to set up and cheaper than Tivo over 5-10 years, I'll do it.
Decent Tivo box: $200
Lifetime Subscription: $300
If you can get a windows media center box for $500, lifetime service included, then by all means...
Even with a 5 year lifetime, Tivo ends up costing you under $10/month.
But it seems that companies are doing it backwards, where they they want to be in a single spot and they're sending arrows out everywhere.
This doesn't seem like convergence to me...more like...diffusion.
After long years of being a Mac-only guy, I broke down and bought an Intel box this year. And guess what? It was a Media Center 2005 PC. And you know what else? It was painless to set up and it works exactly as advertised. This guy seems to be complaining about things like broken S-Video cables ... I can hardly see how that should be Microsoft's fault.
On the other hand, he does bring up some important points. With Media Center and the hardware that came in my box, picture quality is not all that great. (I hear the Hauppauge cards offer the best quality; I might try one of those out.) You also can't time-shift FM radio. But then, like many TV tuner cards, mine didn't come with FM radio support, so it's a non-issue anyway.
Also, for a "convergence" device, recording from a video source is exactly as painful as he describes. I could find NO software on my system that would let me record from VHS tape, except for one program that required me to insert DVD media. Unlike his case, it worked for me. But the point remains that this is totally stupid. What if I don't want to burn it to a DVD? What if I'd like to, um, you know ... check to see that I was getting a signal from my VCR first? Sorry, no way to do that. Your best option is to set it for a five-minute trial run and check to see if it worked after the program burns the results to a DVD.
Another semi-retarded thing about Windows Media Center is that it records TV in a proprietary Microsoft format, DVR-MS. I am told that this is MPEG internally, but you need to export it with a different piece of software (NeroVision Express works) if you want to get a usable file that you could convert to XviD, for example.
What's more, every video format you play in Windows Media Center is handled with a DirectShow filter. That's good, in the sense that when you install new codecs in XP they are automatically picked up by Media Center, so you can play your DivX, XviD, etc. There is one caveat, however, and that is that you can't stream these formats to another system via a Media Center Connector or whatever you call it, like your Xbox 360. I think only Windows Media and MPEG formats are supported.
And another glitch with the DirectShow involves timing, which inevitably means you get these stutters in your video every few minutes when you're watching them on a TV. The guy who invented ReClock explains it all in great length. The downside is that ReClock doesn't seem to work so well with Media Center yet.
So, yeah, this "review" is dumb, and you shouldn't expect to be able to bash together a Media Center PC in a weekend and expect it to work. In fact, you may just want to spend $1,400 and buy one, like I did. But even if it works, Media Center is pretty far of from being a "TiVo killer" just yet. If all you want is a DVR, you should buy one of those. I bought the Media Center PC primarily because I wanted an x86 PC, and in that dual capacity it works fine for me.
Breakfast served all day!
This guy's problem is not Windows Media Center, it is because he built the machine himself. If he did any research, he would have learned that hardware compatibility is key to having a smooth running MCE. Using built in sound chip? PUHLEEZE! Unless you have Intel chipset, you are going to have some major problems (VIA boards SUCK!!!) You could have gotten a $20 Chaintech AV-710 and he would never have had to deal with his sound problems. And poor picture? I am guessing he purchased some cheap 1st generation tuners. If you would have gotten ATI 550 based tuners, the picture quality would surpass that of any Tivo. And did you even try HDTV??? IT ROCKS!!! It is VERY important that you test out hardware compatibility before building an MCE yourself (unless you want to do a LOT of experimentation). Which is WHY MS DOES NOT SELL MCE by itself!!! If you have the right hardware setup, MCE is a pleasure. I have over 500GB recorded TV and another 100GB of music and picture. I also have about 50 DVD's ripped on the hard drive that I can watch without ever getting up from the couch. There is no other device (including APPLE) that will allow you to do that as easily as MCE.
CableCard will fix this problem when it becomes mandatory and ubiquitous.
This is the one good thing about the FCC overstepping its bounds and mandating hardware support (unlike the broadcast flag).
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Three letters QAM: I presently get my Cable TV without a Cablebox. It wasn't really an intentional decision on my part (I hate to admit this, so maybe I will delete that bit when I finish). I was rebuilding the familyroom and the new Samsung HL-R6168W was delivered too early:). I am paying my Cable company for "Basic" and "Family" and was able to receive them in Analog. So I had to test the new TV within 30 days (30 day return no questions) so I just plugged it into the Coaxial and set it to "find" all the channels. So so it did, for ALL my analog channels and then surprise it kept going and going... In all seriousness it found the "digital" (480P)equivalent of the Basic + Family set I am paying for, well at least when those channels have a digital signal. Then it found all the Broadcast channels in "HD"! Surprise!!!! I asked around a few questions of senior people on forums, from the Cable company I use (helpful and honest people) and they "admitted" that TVs with "QAM" tuners can decode all the digital and HD signals NOT encrypted. So that means that I still don't get HBO either analog, or HD, or ESPN HD, or SHowtime HD. NONE of the chanels I don't pay for can I receive. Fair enough isn't it? Please note if you have a QAM enabled tuner you MUST check that the Cable signal is compatible, mostly the answer is yes...but do check first. SO to summarize I get: o All the original channels I pay for: in analog o The equivalent: in digital 480P 0 The equivalent broadcast type channels: in HD 720P/1080i o I even pick up at least one PBS HD channel It all depends what you want. If you want a decent service thru HD w/o Premium channel content, you don't need a Cablebox of any kind. And a PC with a QAM based HD Tuner, like the Fusion, would also be able to record ALL the above and replay in the same quality received. If you want Premium Channels and especially if you want them in HD, then you have not only to pay for the extra service, but also the digital HD decoding Cablebox and remote.
I just wish Apple would produce a media center
I guess you missed the last round of product announcements from Apple?
The new iMac G5's ship with a bundled remote control, and a media shell called "Front Row" that bears more than a passing resemblance to the interfaces of Tivo, XP Media Center, and the like.
All that's missing from the equation is TV tuner support. There's one or two OEMs that sell external tuners for the Mac, but they key moment will come when Apple throws their support behind an internal, integrated solution. And to those who think that won't happen soon: were you also confident that Macs would never migrate to x86, and that iPods would never get video support?
The contrast between Microsoft and Apple's product strategies is noticeable. Microsoft rushed to market with a decent but inelegant system, and refines it little by little each year. Apple has taken its time getting their initial product out there, but the extra care they take is readily noticeable in the useability.
What? I can only watch 4 lousy ABC shows? What? Only 320 by 200 resolution???
You fail to think of the future, when there could be a lot more TV shows there. Possibly even in better resolution though the current one is more than good enough to convey the subtle nuances TV has to offer (I can tell you've not tried watching any of them). It's definatley a far cry better than VCR or over the air quality.
The basic principle is sound. Why bother with all the UI and technical architecture issues you have with recording when the whole point of a PVR is to get a file into a random access digital file anyway? Aren't you simply better off starting with a whole digital file and working from there? Why does there need to ever be a time component involved other than when content is initially put up for aquisition?
TV viewers are like someone waiting at an airport luggage carosel, waiting until just the right interval of time arrives to get what they want. Why should TV viewing be that unpleasant now when there is no need. Why doesn't your video luggage just arrive and wait right in front of you for you to get it, now that it can.
I can also watch HD football on the Mac BTW - either with an HD tuner or downloading a torrent of same. In the future I should just be able to come home any time and start a football stream from scratch if I like.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Having run XP MCE 2005 since it came out, I have to believe that this "review" is useless and the "reviewer" is clueless. There's several things in the article which, just one of them, could be a mistake, but all of them together make it seem like the reviewer is not qualified to review XP MCE.
First of all, the author thinks that the IR Blaster is a receiver. Secondly, the reviewer resorted to using S-Video over HDMI...then managed to break an S-Video cable. Not that PowerStrip is easy to use, but it seems that the author was incapable of using it.
As to adding music, I'm not sure what's wrong with the author's network, but I have about 100GB of music and MCE adds it relatively quickly - certainly in minutes, not days as the reviewer indicated.
I'm not sure what the reviewer's problem is with the radio - did he not realize you could manually select a station with the seek function?
As to the general problems relating to him implying it was sluggish on his PC (Audio Sync Problems, slow importing time, etc) something is clearly wrong with how he configured his PC - I have MCE 2005 running on a machine less than 1/2 the speed (P4 1.6GHz) and it runs great with two tuners. Is XP MCE perfect? No. But I've used TiVo, ReplayTV, MythTV and XP MCE and so far MCE is my favorite.
Anyway, I conclude that the reviewer is unqualified to offer a review on a product like this - especially because he blamed MCE for his faults/problems he took on by building his own box, rather than buying a prebuilt one. It's certainly not hard, as I did it, but clearly he had problems.
The hidden value proposition of analog cable has, for a long time, been that one did not need the expense of a cablebox for additional TVs (to receive non encrypted service one was already paying for). I doubt that analog will be encryped now as the future is digital (though I find the digital sound WORSE than analog and sometimes more difficult to hear speech). IF ALL digital becomes encrpted as a way for cable companies to MAX out their Revenue (extras like a Cablebox and remote etc etc for every TV) the value proposition of Cable TV service falls...... With other services becoming available it's not a good time for Cable companies to try to MAX OUT their Revenue IMHO. Yup I am aware that some Cable companies already encrypt. That's one of the reasons whu I suggested users do their due diligence up front re type of signal etc.