Hello all, I want to get in on the HTPC scene. The intel VIIV system looks very enticing assuming Directv will have a card reader for it later this year. The only reason I haven't built my own HTPC yet is because there has been a lack of Directv/Digital cable card support. If I can get one of these boxes, I will definately get rid of my directv hd receiver, dvd player, and vhs player (as I will finally have a decent medium to record to). What about you guys? Are there any major limitations of getting a VIIV?
Will you buy an intel VIIV system this year?
- Thread starter 50
- Start date
No, VIIV is just a marketing gimmick. My MCE box works just fine as is. I will buy a Vista box to replace it at the end of the year.
What about Directv support? Does anyone know if it will only be for VIIV boxes? I realize you can make a HTPC for a much lower cost than intel's boxes (also could someone tell me what the minimum would be to be able to run lets say 2 HD tuners), but if Intel is the only brand that supprots dtv cards then I will be forced to get an intel box.
Don't know. I've got cable and lots of people are working on CableCARD tuners. All you'll need is Vista for that. I know MS announced partnerships with DirecTV as well, so I bet it's more a Vista thing and Intel & DirecTV are just entering a marketing partnership.
Why the hell would getting HD cablecard support, support for massive music libraries, better navigation, transparent guide and menus, native ripped DVD/HD DVD (movie library) support, an interface designed for widescreen from the ground up, and many, many more features with Vista MCE be stupid, now, kid?
Because it's all bloatware... 512MB ram requirement is the most asinine thing I've ever heard.. The problem with microsoft and other companies like them is the fact that because people have fast computers, it gives them the excuse to write programs that are inefficient and resource intensive...
MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
why? computing power is always increasing, so why write software that requires less than what is available to most of the public? that would be stupid because everyone would have way too powerful of a computer if windows needed 64mb of ram to be optimized.
you are such an armchair general. if you think windows sucks so bad, why dont you write your own OS?
How about you ask me "why I don't program", and the reason is not only do I not have time to learn programming but I couldn't find the patience to do it... How is the simple request that an operating system be lean and useful unreasonable? "everyone would have way too powerful of a computer...." WTF? You think like dell/intel, oh we need to make sure that these computers aren't too fast, otherwise people won't upgrade :roll: I use to ask how is it that windows 98 uses twice as much ram as 95 and so on, with windows XP using in excess 128MB of ram-200.. And when I made comparisons, people would always say "windows xp is so much more secure blah blah blah". Fine, you think that it requires 200MB of ram to be secure? how about fscking Windows NT? Last time I checked it used just as much ram as windows 95 did, now there isn't an excuse IS THERE!?!!:|
"Windows 9x was such a POS, I'm so glad microsoft has dumped support of that POS excuse for an operating system". Fine so windows 9X was unreliable and windows 2000/xp are a definate improvement, so why is it that this "improvement" requires so much goddamn ram? I didn't realize you needed more processes running inorder for you to fix holes in your operating system....:roll: I don't see how disallowing code to run or removing it entirely requires more ram, to be perfectly honest, I just don't fscking know how.
You're just as stupid and wasteful as half the people in our government, "well if the money is there, why don't you spend it?" That is the SAME FSCKING LOGIC you're using to justify an operating system that requires more resources for no apparent reason. There is a reason we have a deficit and there is a reason windows XP can run dog slow on a system with 128MB of ram and it seems that the reasons go together, it's because of people like YOU who have this logic that because it's available, you HAVE TO USE IT! Otherwise it's being wasted :roll:
MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
wow. goku you really need to learn some programming or anything about computers actually before you get involved in a heated debate.
if you want all of your fancy options and features in an OS, that requires more power. the amount of ram in a computer is constantly on an upward slope, so it is expected that software will start taking more and more of it simply because it is getting cheaper. if everyone thought like you, we would still have 6.4gb 5400rpm hard drives, 32mb of ram, and S3 diamond trio video cards because, well, why upgrade and waste money if windows should be able to work on POS hardware?
if you have no clue how complicated programming can be then you really have a totally useless and invalid opinion on this subject. more stuff built-in (which 99% of people want newer, better features) requires more raw processing power, available ram, disk speed, more efficient input/output, etc.. you must be very immature if you still think your way of doing things is the only right way.
if you want all of your fancy options and features in an OS, that requires more power. the amount of ram in a computer is constantly on an upward slope, so it is expected that software will start taking more and more of it simply because it is getting cheaper. if everyone thought like you, we would still have 6.4gb 5400rpm hard drives, 32mb of ram, and S3 diamond trio video cards because, well, why upgrade and waste money if windows should be able to work on POS hardware?
if you have no clue how complicated programming can be then you really have a totally useless and invalid opinion on this subject. more stuff built-in (which 99% of people want newer, better features) requires more raw processing power, available ram, disk speed, more efficient input/output, etc.. you must be very immature if you still think your way of doing things is the only right way.
Right, because people can't benefit from having a 7200rpm drive unless they have windows XP :roll: We probably wouldn't still have 32MB of ram in our systems still but we wouldn't be requiring 2GB for a fscking game, admit it, BF2 is poorly programmed just as much as Windows XP is in relation to conservative memory usage. You can have more features with out using 512MB of ram before the system starts up... :roll: And believe it or not, but average joe-sumer couldn't care less about "more features" because "more features" means more confusion and more likely to just give up... Only people who benefit from "more features" are computer savyy people and computer savyy people tend to want to have as much ram available as possible.
Programming being complicated is no fscking excuse for using 256MB of ram on startup, sorry but you're wrong on this.. It's funny how CONVIENTLY windows uses at least TWICE as much ram as it does in prior versions and there is no "actual thing" to point the finger at because microsoft masks so much of the ram usage that it's practically impossible to know...
Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
goku tell him how you really feel.
lol...
to me it seems like goku has a valid point in his own mind, which is fine, but it is unsupported and false for the most part. it is ignorance basically.
I guess you're right. I should have XP use 2GB of ram so that it can use 50Mb textures for icons on the desktop, 500MB of ram for the interface and when I want to play BF2, I'll just pick up some elcheapo 2GB sticks for a low low price of $150... ya real cheap...:roll:
Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.
MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
its impossible to get a hold of your point of view when you talk yourself in circles. try forming a coherent thought without all of the emotion and stupidity... i.e. grow up.
but i thought you said there should be no reason for an OS to hog system resources so i said 5400rpm hard drives should be fine. who said anything about that being specific to windows xp? i sure didnt. so are you arguing with yourself?
says the guy who knows nothing about programming. it would be impossible to relate how stupid this statement is knowing you are completely ignorant of how this whole thing even works.
oh really? then why is the trend to constantly add new devices, bells and whisltes to everything from cars to lawnmowers to input devices for the computer? thats right...because people want more advanced features that enhance the experience. there is no need for GPS navigation in a car or for an LCD on a keyboard, but the market tends toward stuff like that because "average joe-sumer" likes it. again, you have on clue what you are even saying.
oh wow you proved me wrong there...nice logic. "im right because i said so."'
nice technical arguement again. what would the world of computing do without your vast knowledge and infalliable logic?
Sphexi
Diamond Member
- Feb 22, 2005
- 7,280
- 0
- 0
For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?
You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.
Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.
You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter