View Full Version : Which XBMC platform is most developed? is Linux, Mac, or Windows best for end-users?
Hi, I haven't messed with XBMC for about 2 years now on my xbox but I am just blown away at how much they managed to improve it.
I'm planning on making a kick ass HTPC setup mainly for movie/music/photo viewing and was curious which platform (Linux/Windows/OSX/ Xbox) has all the latest bells and whistles and stability?
The reason I stopped using XBMC in the first place was because it was having a hard time viewing 8 megapixel pics (5-8mb) on my Xbox.. I just figured it was a hardware limitation having to do with only having 64mb of ram...
Anyway if anyone has opinions on best platform and why that would help me out alot. And please no flame war on operating systems... I will run what ever XBMC works best on. Thanks ;)
Best is relative. Here's some facts, not opinions...
Windows Pros & Linux Cons (think opposite of)
more vendor driver support
more apps to integrate with (PVR, Media tools/apps/utils)
more hardware available for use (goes with vendor support)
possible integration with Sideshow remotes
wider possible user base... >90% of the worlds PCs
Windows Cons & Linux Pros:
XBMC's main branch is on Linux... thus other branches 'might' lag on fixes/features
'Might' miss Linux only features... not sure if any in Linux that could not be in Win?
OSX:
Not enough info for me to lay out facts here
Warning: Do not read below if you are offended easily when someone does not agree with you or gives personal experiences or view point.
Recent personal experience w/ Linux XBMC and Ubuntu...
I really wanted to, and tried to, use Ubuntu but for my hardware and software integration needs (many more choice on Windows with Home Automation, Home Theater, etc) it is not easy or worth the effort for me.
I REALLY like the Ubuntu's speed and interface and utils available for free...
If you ensure your hardware has great Linux support from the vendor and all the apps you want to use are on Ubuntu... I'd say look at Ubuntu.
Last year I bought a dedicated C2D machine to run XBMC on Linux Ubuntu x64. I felt this was a good way for a Win vet to learn Linux, which I have nearly 0 experience with. I messed with OSX and Xubuntu for several months to learn the basics of each.
After using Ubuntu on/off for the last month and trying to config the hardware for XBMC (LIRC for IR remote) and such I have decided that Linux is too much of a PITA to deal with: relying on a small community (relatively) for support and not getting it is frustrating. I now understand why Linux is not more widely adopted by desktop users. This is not a flame on Linux! Linux is a totally different animal to Win and in MANY ways better... it is just not as easy to use, get help with, find/compile updates/fixes (many apps/drivers seem to need obscure patches) even for a "computer guy".
Again... this is from an experience Win professional... not a casual user and not a Linux guy. I'm sure someone with years of Linux experience would have a much easier time then I did.
Thanks Affini for the reply... I noticed this in the quote
I REALLY like the Ubuntu's speed and interface
Do you or anyone else happen to know if the XBMC is a tad bit faster for Linux than Windows? He could be just talking about the OS's speed in general in comparison to Windows I suppose...
Now im curious if the Linux version has an edge over the platforms ??? I'm thinking of just picking up a intel based mac mini and formatting it to which ever has the best support... assuming the xbox is under par in terms of performance especially with large files.
1st choice in hardware for me still has to be the XBOX!!! 64mb and 733Mhz of pure genius! a M$ HD pack, 720p and a good pannel TV and it can still blow people away 8 years after its release THANKS TO THE TEAM XBMC! "all thats comming from that xbox??" is a cry I've heard on many occasion when I show people!
Squeeze in a bigger quieter 7200rpm HDD, an ATA100 cable and a Akasa 80mm fan and maybe a wipe of silver grease on the CPU/GPU and it will sit there happily all day long... I'm accessing mine now from my PC via the web interface choosing my music while I surf!
Old Xboxes dont die!! they just get XBMC'd!!!!
2nd choice Windows..... I like lunix but better all round support for Bill's Baby makes life easy... and WiSo is doing a dam fine job! running here on my 4gb RAM Quad core Vista x64 machine very well....
Just curious. Want to return to XBMC after selling my Xbox but I don't want to spend $500 on a mini pc (or build one) if there isn't enough developement behind the version.
Gamester17
2008-07-10, 14:49
XBMC for Linux currently have most daily active developers working on it, however as XBMC is cross-platform and Mac OS X and Windows are using the same code tree as the Linux version means that any generic improvements (such as new platform-independent features and functions or bug-fixes) that goes into XBMC for Linux also automaticly are available in XBMC for Mac and XBMC for Windows (and vice versa).
So there really isn't a whole lot of reason to choose one over the other? I would rather remain in a Windows environment as I haven't spent a lot of time in Linux but not sure if it's good idea to go that route since they are just two working on the windows version right?
Gamester17
2008-07-14, 13:14
Well, Windows as an operating-system really contain a lot of bloot that slows it down and make it unstable, (and you absolutly need to have an anti-virus program running if you are using Windows and got it connected to the internet).
If you want a dedicated computer for XBMC, you know 'set-top-box' style to get the same type of experince in your lining-room that you got with your Xbox then Linux is really the way to go, and Mac OS X on a Mac Mini is a close second. There is a LiveUSB version of XBMC (meaning a bootable USB image) which remove some of the needs for the user to know Linux as long as he/she are satisfied with the defaults and buying standard hardware, today it will give you the closest to the 'set-top-box' style experince similar to the Xbox. XBMC LiveUSB is still under development so is still not super easy to use but as the development of it progresses we think that we will get there someday.
Otherwise, if you want a close to 'set-top-box' style experince but don't want to be bothered with Linux at all then I would recommend you get a Mac Mini instead and run XBMC for Mac on that today (or even Boxee, or Plex, which are two forks of XBMC). Then re-install it with XBMC for Linux later, (or dual-boot), once it get more mature for beginners.
leeharris100
2008-07-14, 13:31
Hello,
I'm a long time user of XBMC on the Xbox and I'd like to make the move to a PC version. I'm curious, however, as to which build gets the most attention. It seems that the Linux port is the main priority and the Windows/Mac builds are an afterthought. If I am looking for the most features and good stability, which platform should I go with? I'd like to stay with Windows if there isn't much difference because I'd like to use Windows apps/games without using Wine or a VM.
Thanks!
"Windows as an operating-system really contain a lot of bloot that slows it down and make it unstable"
Windows unstable? Not my builds! maybe years ago... but years ago we drove cars with drum brakes and rubber dampers... they were unstable but things get better!
Must be a Mac user :)!
Most of the windows crashes stem from unstable drivers. A good example would be my first 2 weeks with Windows Vista and about 30 bluescreens ;) I deinstalled, waited for 2 months and installed again, and since then my operating system hasn't crashed once, my ubuntu installation and compiz on the other hand ... The bloated argument stands though, at least for Vista :) My nlited xp on my subnotebook on the other hand works better with the 500mhz 256mb ram environment than the linux installations I tried before because the drivers are better, hybernating works and the default shell is replaced with a low memory litestep theme.
But still, gamester is probably right that linux is the way to go if you really want to run xbmc as the sole application because you can strip down every single component if you put the time into it. If you then want email, browsing etc. working in some way in the background ... maybe the possibility to use the hardware acceleration your graphic card provides for some troublesome 1080p movies then the choice of os resurfaces.
Gamester17
2008-07-14, 16:07
Must be a Mac user :)!I am actually I a Windows Server technician by profession, and been so for the past 10-years. I am not saying that Microsoft make bad operating-systems, I use Windows XP/Vista for all my desktop computers at home, but what I am saying it that Windows not something that I myself would want to base an dedicated HTPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTPC) on, (dedicated HTPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTPC) meaning a Home Theater PC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTPC) that will not be used for anything other than as a media center in the living-room with no other GUI than XBMC, so it will boot directly to XBMC and XBMC is the only thing used as an interface on it, just as my Xboxes).
In my experience though most people who buy a complete PC system for their living room don't want to give up all the features their pc could potentially deliver (email, browsing, ripping DVDs etc.) and are thus presented with two options:
a) wait until the wanted features are implemented in the htpc gui, in the core or with plugins (I have a VDR system stuffed with plugins to do most of the things I need)
or
b) have a window manager in the background so they can "alt-tab" to the desktop and use it normally. let's say with a wireless keyboard / mouse combination.
Buying a 500$ computer and then "waste" alot of its potential is something not alot of people want to do, that's why I think windows and osx are reasonable choices for the os, even if you lose some bootup speed.
hotzenpl0tz: I personally don't care about any of those other things as I have a desktop for all of that. and a laptop. I strictly want to build the best htpc possible along with XBMC support. I have set aside about $750 for this very purpose.
Gamester17, when you say standard hardware, what do you mean exactly? Here is what I was thinking of going with...
Shuttle SG33G5M-Deluxe Intel Socket T(LGA775)
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 Wolfdale 2.53GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor
mushkin 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
Western Digital Caviar GP WD10EACS 1TB 5400 to 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM
Will try to work with the onboard video first.
wish there was an edit function. hotzenpl0tz, not sure how that comes off but I was just saying that I'm not really concerned about building htpc that would allow me to use it as I use my main desktop. I only want it for htpc functions and nothing else
QuiescentWonder
2008-07-16, 08:28
My experiences with XBMC on Windows Vista SP1and Ubuntu GNU/Linux (8.04):
1. The interface is WAAAY faster in Ubuntu than in Vista.
2. XBMC crashes way more often in Ubuntu.
3. Occasionally when XBMC crashes in Ubuntu I have to restart my entire system.
4. XBMC is updated way more often for Ubuntu if you want constant SVN builds.
5. It's not stable enough yet on anything but Xbox to be worth anything.
I'm really looking forward to a more stable XBMC on Linux. If you're already a Windows Power-User then it should only take you three or four days to pick up on Ubuntu and know your way around enough to be comfortable with using it for everyday tasks. If you want to run XBMC on Windows I would really recommend XP unless you have good hardware that can handle it running in Vista.
goku31640
2008-07-26, 09:48
I wanted to ask a question. Which is better?
I have been using XBMC for XBOX for years and I love it, but I am starting to get alot of High Def which sucks because I love my xbox, but There are so many options for XBMC now that I dont know which to choose.
I have windows vista 64-bit right now using XBMC for WIndows, but its not very stable using Rev13859, and Rev14125 completely broke watching DVD's.
I was thinking about building a linux machine so I can still keep my computer as just that a computer, but the cost of building one is exceeding $600, and thats the price of a mac mini.
Now I have 3 Choices
a.) Build a PC for around $600 and use XBMC for Windows and hope it improves fast
b.)Build a computer for around $600 and run XBMC for Linux (dont know much about linux
c.)Buy a Mac Mini for around $600 and run XBMC for Mac OS X (dont know much about macs)
Which would you guys prefer for a Living Room Media Center?
first of all, there is no "OSXBMC", there never was. It was a PETNAME for the FORK that is now known as Plex.
Are you maybe reffering to "XBMC for Mac" ?
goku31640
2008-07-26, 10:12
Sorry I am. I searched for xbmc for mac and the name osxmbc popped up several times so i assumed it was the name of it.
goku31640
2008-07-26, 10:14
I just searched for PLEX, and even the website is http://www.osxbmc.com, so I think you might be able to understand my confusion of the names.
Yes I understand very well the confusion, and it's why I asked you to clarify. I will edit your Question
goku31640
2008-07-26, 11:22
Thanks. While you're here, which one do you have? And do you know which one is better?
I prefer the linux port simply because its all opensource.
Also the plan is to run xbmc fullscreen, then a full commercial OS behind it makes little sense.
I use linux but I'm also a linux newbie. I haven't tested Windows or Mac OS X ports though
goku31640
2008-07-26, 19:48
I have only tried the windows port and was wondering if anyone knew which one is more stable, is more frequently updated, or has more support for it? I know these are tough questions, but I am building an entire media center around this. The actual computer is just the beggining, I just bought a massive 62 inch TV and transfered my entire movie collection onto 3 Nas devices, and I dont want to have it crash constantly.
I would be interested in some feedback around this question as well.
jmarshall
2008-07-27, 06:36
XBox is the least updated. All the others are updated pretty much at exactly the same time, as they all use the same codebase.
There's really not much in it at this point, other than osx has had a little less work on it in terms of internal testing. Most devs are using either linux or win32 at this point, though there are increasing numbers with OSX machines, so I expect all platforms to be equally capable and stable in a very short period of time (i.e. a month or two).
The main advantage that linux gives is you can much more easily modify the underlying OS to get a better "set top box" feel to it (i.e. hiding the underlying OS completely).
Cheers,
Jonathan
The main advantage that linux gives is you can much more easily modify the underlying OS to get a better "set top box" feel to it (i.e. hiding the underlying OS completely).
Thx JM for the advice. This aspect of Linux is something certainly to think about. My concern with linux (as a noob) is lack of drivers/SW for things that make HTPC's rock. I can only assume this is being taken care of at some level because it would seem many people are running linux HTPC's. I'm currently running a linux based unRAID server, so I had to get up to speed with that - but that seems basic compared to a full blown linux-based HTPC :oo:
garywiscombe
2008-07-28, 22:31
Hi
I've decided to go with the 32bit Linux version of XBMC and build my HTPC accordingly.
What confuses me though, is that all the fast CPU's (AMD2 and Intel dual core) all say they are 64bit. They do however have a 32bit operating mode.
My question is: If you run your cpu in 32bit mode - will it still be fast enough to play Full HD stuff from your HDD?
Sorry if this is a simple question but I'm a Linux noob:rofl:
My proposed setup:
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ 3.20GHz
MOBO: M3A-H/HDMI AM2+ (Onboard Graphics controller ATI Radeon HD 3200 (256 MB) - Shared Video Memory (UMA))
Yes it is, and I personally would avoid using the 64bit distributions for the time being.
goku31640
2008-07-29, 12:55
Hi
I've decided to go with the 32bit Linux version of XBMC and build my HTPC accordingly.
What confuses me though, is that all the fast CPU's (AMD2 and Intel dual core) all say they are 64bit. They do however have a 32bit operating mode.
My question is: If you run your cpu in 32bit mode - will it still be fast enough to play Full HD stuff from your HDD?
Sorry if this is a simple question but I'm a Linux noob:rofl:
My proposed setup:
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ 3.20GHz
MOBO: M3A-H/HDMI AM2+ (Onboard Graphics controller ATI Radeon HD 3200 (256 MB) - Shared Video Memory (UMA))
32 bit and 64 bit has nothing to do with processing power. I normally would say avoid 64 bit, but I believe (hopefully someone can correct me) XBMC runs exactly the same whether you use 32 or 64 bit because it does not use the codecs installed in your computer so there shouldnt be an problems with compatability because XBMC comes with all the codecs you need.
I know in the future everything will be running in 64 bit, but thats still a few years away, the only reason you might want to use 64 bit now is if you are going to be putting more than 4gb of ram in your HTPC, because 32 bit systems cant read more than 3.5 gb of ram.
What is the buzz about the Plex release of XBMC?
I am using a MAC and the Plex-release is a lot more stable than the normal XBMC.
On the other hand I read that it is a "FORK". I am not a native english speaker and I can`t figure out what is meant by this expression?
Is the Plex-Release bad? I mean is there spyware, etc.? Should I avoid this release?
A fork usually means a team took the code of an open source project and build an own project on top of that code, that might go in a different direction then the original project. It still has to be open source though (gpl licence) and in case of plex is unlikely to be malware/spyware or whatever.