Slashdot Mirror


What Might Have Happened To Windows Media Center

Phopojijo writes: Microsoft has officially dropped Windows Media Center but, for a time, it looked like Microsoft was designing both Windows and the Xbox around it. That changed when Vista imploded and the new leadership took Windows in a different direction. Meanwhile, Valve Software and others appear to be tiptoeing into the space that Microsoft sprinted away from.

18 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. why use anything besides Kodi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Kodi started life as XBMC. Full-featured, open source, free, what's not to love?

    1. Re:why use anything besides Kodi? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      What are you smoking? it works great as a DVR. I'm guessing you never used Kodi and only XBMC from about 10 years ago.
      and to hell with "premium channel support" flip to the RoKu box for that. you do know your TV has more than 1 input.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:why use anything besides Kodi? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      How can I use Kodi to record CableCard content not marked as Copy Freely, like you can do with HDHR + WMC?

    3. Re: why use anything besides Kodi? by sdjafa · · Score: 3, Informative

      The new HDHomeRun DVR software will support protected content on Windows, Mac, and Android - currently on Kickstarter - https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...

    4. Re:why use anything besides Kodi? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2

      Exactly this. There is NO replacement for anyone who has a cablecard system. Until someone else gets an approved recording system, or someone outside the US breaks the encryption, we are all stuck with WMC.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  2. MS confuses GUI design with functionality by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First, I think many GUIs should be provided by MS and should be optional for users.

    For example, if you want the traditional XP type desktop, I think MS should permit that for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying it should be butt ugly but the same buttons should be in the same places that do the same things. You can update the look of those buttons or add animations but the same buttons in the same places.

    Also have a tablet interface for people that have touch screens etc.

    Also have a tv remote type interface.

    Also, a purely text based interface is good.

    If I missed something, then just assume I suggested it. Just put them all in there.

    Second, there is no good reason for the Xbox to be incompatible with the PC and the PC incompatible with the xbox. Xbox games shoul run natively on a windows machine. They are intentionally made to not work that way and that's a dumb move. Why do that? To push your console? But the console doesn't make money. The GAMES make money. Not the console. The console actually loses money initially and it takes years for the company to so much as break even on the initial console costs.

    Now, a possible compromise here is that MS could say "we will permit any Xbox game to run on any windows machine but we will only permit MS approved products to run on the Xbox. And then you make part of that approval process that the company agrees to give a percentage of game sales to MS. I believe this is how Xbox games work. So MS would lose NOTHING by doing this. They'd actually start getting a cut of licensing money for PC games effectively. And porting games back and forth wouldn't be required because they'd effectively be inter-compatible systems.

    Another fun thing they could do with Xboxes is permit them to work as totally normal PCs. Again, I basically think the Xbox should just run windows with TV centric GUI. But if I want to surf websites, do my taxes, or check my email on my xbox, it should be something that works basically the same way as on the PC. Why not? That would if anything improve the value of the xbox.

    MS could annihilate Sony with something like this... bridging the gap between the console and the PC so that they're the same system. That would mean

    Third, I'd like to see more tablets and even phones running desktop operating systems with fully accessible memory. I'd like the firmware chip for example to just be a micro SD card hiding under the battery. So if something goes wrong you can pull the stupid chip, pop it into another machine, sort out whatever went wrong, and then put it back into the phone.

    here people are going to point out "but the gui on a desktop is wrong for a phone"... No shit? What is the title of my comment? My point is that you can have many GUIs for the same operating system. I'd like to see MS really grasp that and possibly during installation query the user to choose which GUI they want the system to default to on boot. It should be something that can be hot switchable without having to log off first or something.

    Basically what we're talking about here are different versions of Explorer.exe. Have explorer be the old school GUI and then have a different version for whatever other variation you're interested in.

    MS could instantly have more apps on their phone than any of their competitors because all the windows apps would run on one of their phones. Now sure, most of the GUIs for most of those programs are going to be inappropriate. However, just as MS can make multiple GUIs for Windows, so too can you make multiple GUIs for those programs. Ideally, MS would pave the way there by having different GUIs for their Office Suite etc.

    Now see this in operation in the corporate world... imagine if corporations could put desktop apps on your phone?

    Here people are going to point out the whole x86/arm thing about the various CPUs not being inter-compatible etc. I am aware. I don't credit the notion that you can't put an x86 CPU in a phone or tablet. The only thing that would be r

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:MS confuses GUI design with functionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First off I think Microsoft made a path for Windows 8 based on crisis management. When the iPad was released Microsoft was in a terrible position because it lacked no real path to a good tablet. I personally think Microsoft lost interest in tablets and so they never believed that tablets were wanted in the Windows community.
      So when the iPad had major success Microsoft got worried and pushed through a hurried Windows version that would be tablet friendly. That of course was Windows 8. The problem Steve Sinofsky designing Windows 8 for a tablet is that he totally ignored Windows core users and simply focused on what was only a perception that everyone would want a Windows tablet. The better solution for a lack of a Windows tablet would have been to actually design a Windows tablet OS and have Windows 7 go through its normal upgrade cycle for PC's. However, Microsoft would have had to start development of a tablet OS long before it even started Windows 8 and so it became clear to Sinofsky and Ballmer that a cobbled together Windows 8 would have to do. This would not only start a series of OS upgrades that addressed more platforms. But in Microsoft's minds it would be better because they would deal with one OS rather then what Apple did doing a separate mobile OS and its OS X for Mac's. of course we know now what happened. Windows PC users became disenchanted that Windows 8 was so unlike what they were familiar with and while Windows 8 was not so bad for tablets. Microsoft and its PC partners failed to deliver any really good tablet to counter what Apple had done with the iPad. Which was already into next generation models so the iPad was already firmly controlling the tablet market. Unfortunately Microsoft's first Surface models were not going to compete with the iPad. The Surface RT was not what Windows users wanted, and the pro model was just too expensive.
      Fast forward to Windows 10 and Microsoft still struggles to define how PC users and tablet users can coexist within one OS and all be happy.

    2. Re:MS confuses GUI design with functionality by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      As to messy UIs, MS is a big enough company to handle it. Especially since most of the coding etc is not going to change that much.

      I also think it isn't unreasonable if certain features are locked to a give UI. For example, if you're modifying the registry, I don't think you need a touch GUI version of regedit etc. Also when you deal with say the TV interface, you really don't need to maintain the GUI as TV friendly for more than what you would on the TV. So again, deep system settings could be desktop standard GUI.

      As to what program providers do, that is up to them. I think you'll find that some program providers will PICK a GUI they want to primarily support and largely ignore the rest. This wont' matter in most cases. A touch centric GUI on a program that is being used on a computer with a keyboard and mouse is going to be fine. A little clunky but functional. Only the very popular open source projects and the AAA flagship applications are going to bother putting compatibility for lots of GUIs. And they have the manpower to do that if they want.

      As to what people choose to use, you're assuming the default is going to be the same on all machines.

      First, most people are not installing their own operating systems. It is installed either by the OEM or it is installed by your company IT department. And THEY will chose which GUI you will default to. If you don't like the GUI they defaulted you to, then you can change it.

      However, the primary GUIs should remain consistent pretty much for the foreseeable future. Changing up the interface is sort of like releasing a car with a joystick instead of a steering wheel. No one gives a fuck what you found out in a focus group. If your car can't use a steering wheel you're going to have problems. This is what happened with Vista and Windows 8. Windows 7 by and large was MS putting the steering wheel back. Then they took it out again in Windows 8 and then were screamed at so they put it back in in 8.1.

      I am perfectly fine with you innovating. However, if you take the steering wheel out and smugly tell me it is better that way... expect an unhappy customer. I do not care what your focus group says. Maintain a standard GUI. Go nuts with alternatives. Anything you like. Take away the primary GUI and I'm coming for someone's nuts.

      As to consistent hardware, you're saying this like this is hard or special or something. PC game makers do just fine with variable hardware. Yes, consoles have consistent hardware but that doesn't mean much. That just means you have one version of the operating system with one set of drivers that are slightly better debugged than what the PC people deal with. So what.

      Look, I'm not taking your console away. By your xbox. I'm just saying that there is a net gain if the xbox is actually just a streamlined subsidized by licenses gaming PC.

      As to strong reasons why things are the way they are, then things would never change and common misconceptions would never be alter.

      The reason things are the way they are is because of console history. It is a legacy business model from a time when gaming PCs didn't really exist and the hardware was very different. Think of the computer you'd need to buy to get something as nice as a Nintendo NES for game playing. The market has iterated on what is largely a restrictive Japanese business model for a long time and it is a game Microsoft especially doesn't need to play. Sony frankly profits from the status quo because if it were to change they'd be boned. MS is apparently competitive in this setting but they could utterly crush their competition if they shifted.

      I suspect they'd be hit with more monopoly lawsuits were they do this and nothing screaming success like your market competitors being so frustrated with competing with you in the open market that you start begging the government to make the bad man stop.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:MS confuses GUI design with functionality by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The entire system to support MythTV including full desktop GUI support, the command line, and the IR remote interface system as well as things like database support and a full build environnment clocks in at a whopping 4G. It doesn't have to be a bloated pig.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  3. tiptoeing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Valve is not tiptoeing into anything, they got a boot in and they're coming in after it.

    Microsoft, as ever, decided to play the hardass with users and lost. If they had embraced both Xbox and the PC solution then it would be "Steam what? Valve, they're the Half-Life guys, right?" And maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't even have to suffer uplay or origin.

    Too much is being made of the Media Center connection here. Games for Windows(tm) also puts the games into the games explorer. That's a genuinely cool feature that I actually use, and I wish more games would play along. If you're going to bother doing a game for windows, you might as well make it as much like a Game for Windows(tm) as you can, so long as it's not expensive or difficult. That part is probably pretty easy.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Vista imploded because of Media Center. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    One of the most ambitious projects Microsoft undertook was to thwart the "audio-video pirates". Its logic was this: "If we deliver a platform where it is impossible to pirate audio and video content delivered to the users, MPAA and RIAA will line up behind us, all the songs/videos will be released for our platform and we will be rolling in dough".

    The high fidelity way to steal content was to write an audio/video driver that installs itself between the code and the device forming a T. Then silently record the stream before delivering it to the audio/video cards. So they went ahead and created the "protected audio/video path" concepts, signed drivers, accepted possible incompatibility with all the existing devices as the price to pay. ??AA did not like Apple's dominance and being forced sell tracks dollar a pop with Apple getting 30 cents commission. iTunes was allowing people who bought songs to make CDs (yes, CDs were quite dominant at that time) etc. So the logic of Microsoft was quite sound, and it makes sense among the suits.

    But they forgot the crucial "IF" that formed the foundation of the logic. Can anyone thwart the alleged pirates? Even if the protected signed drivers stopped this method, there was always the analog hole. One can record with reasonable fidelity audio out. Similarly, with more difficulty, the video out too.

    The entire concept of Vista was to take command of the living room entertainment center the way MS-Office took command of the corporate desktops. They could not deliver ??AA what they wanted and were promised: a piracy-proof entertainment platform. But it complicated the OS to such an extent it was very unstable. This on top the par-for-the-course bungling of MS suits. Certifying under powered machines as vista capable to play favorites with intel over AMD, that sort of thing.

    The damage lingers on to this day. There is a service that runs on all Windows platform that watches all the code crashes and pop up the dialog "I saw something crash? Do you want to try it in WinXP compatibility mode?" That service collects data all day and phones home at night. Our company consolidated three locations into one new building. Some 1500 computers phoned home using the same gateway at the same time. Random crashes on machines that used to run for weeks without rebooting. Traced it to this damned thing. Somehow 500 phone-homes per gateway was ok, at 1500 it crashed randomly. There are hundreds of such things buried deep inside OS due to Vista fiasco.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Vista imploded because of Media Center. by ITRambo · · Score: 2

      Media Center began in XP Media Center Edition 2004. It was improved and made more stable in XP MCE 2005. Vista was the result of MS trying to tack SQL onto NTFS. Longhorn took over ten times longer to boot because of it and was eventually killed. Vista, while slow to boot was an improvement. Media Center continued in Vista. Since Media Center was already several years old when Vista was released, I don't think it's "entire concept" was to become an entertainment center. That was simply a feature that was continued from XP MCE 2005. Now, with all the serious rewriting going on with Windows 10, Media Center is not a priority. If enough people demanded it, by, posting at insider.windows.com, it just might be put in Windows 10 some day.

    2. Re:Vista imploded because of Media Center. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Nice conspiracy. The bit about the reason for implosion I mean, the rest of your post including the phoning home bit is right on the money.

      But really there's an easier answer. Vista imploded because the driver model had changed considerably and not just as a result of the protected path (which I personally think was more to do with malware than MS's attempt at becoming an AV company but we'll leave that aside), but the entire push to 64bit too.

      We have a system that changed everything in a world where backwards compatibility was something fine. Windows XP worked on 2000 drivers. The move from 98 to 2000 was cushioned by the fact that there were parallel operating systems that provided backwards compatibility (ME was backwards compatible with 98 at a time where people were already developing drivers for the NT kernels). Vista changed EVERYTHING. This is one of the reasons for the compatibility mode. It changed that much. Compatibility didn't work and ultimately the world wasn't ready. They completely re-wrote large parts of the system which had lots of bugs.

      That's why Vista imploded. We weren't ready. Drivers weren't ready. Software wasn't ready. The OS itself wasn't quite ready. When it got to our computers, computers themselves were not ready (seriously they were selling Vista on computers with 1GB of RAM). MS appeasing the MAFIAA was the least of Vista's problems.

  5. Re:Doesn't matter for Microsoft by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Rather unlikely. You might see a move like that from Google, they're still "young" enough to be agile, but MS already suffers heavily from the usual corporate red tape load. Bureaucracy is running wild in corporations like that, and turning them around is like trying to turn around an oil tanker. Yes, it is possible, but you have to waste a LOT of resources and it takes a LOT of time.

    Once supertankers like MS are set on a course, they're sailing.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. By far my favorite MS software by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 2

    The first replacement that comes out that works 1/10th as well as my media center will get my money. So far nothing works with my cable card because 100% of the channels are drm'd and the need for a tuning adapter to all the channels that I don't really watch anyway.

    There are some things in MCE that just flat out rock as well, the excellent guide, ease of recording, just everything. [Well except for the time it forgets to record your favorite show for no apparent reason]

    So it looks like I'm going to keep it running 7 until something changes and peeps are allowed to connect to the cable card with little to no hindrance.

  7. Re:And what a direction! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    Sigh....has NOBODY here even tried the Windows 10 Beta? Hell has nobody even tried Windows 8/8.1? The reason they don't really need WMC anymore is that they already HAVE a perfectly good 10 foot UI in the Metro UI, fuck IMHO its really the only thing other than tablets that Metro is good for, and of course if that isn't "media centric" enough there is always MediaPortal which is quite good, along with whatever they renamed XBMC to.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  8. Re:And what a direction! by ai4px · · Score: 2

    I remember having WMC on Vista back in 2008. I had DTV tuners and told it to record a TV show off air for me. It allowed it to be scheduled but when time came to record, it did not due to DRM. Gotta love it! Also I bought a media extender that wouldn't work over 802.11G, it required N at the time....another bone head move. Kodi for me now.

  9. Re:And what a direction! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    Copy the address for the video you want to download, paste it into Savedeo and choose whether you want the vid in SD, HD, hell you can choose MP3 if its a tune or you want it as a podcast...oh and you're welcome ;-)

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.