On Friday 06 April 2007 12:52:38 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:02:08 -0400 > > From: "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > You seem to be working on a different project than maddog and I. > > You also appear to have different standards for usability and > > complexity. > > You have to understand that, in this experiment, I was playing the > _role_ of someone with cheap and/or old hardware. I, personally, have > no interest in getting MythTV running on a 600 MHz P3 or of using > MythTV, myself, on _any_ platform. I *do* have an interest, however, > in making the MythTV accessible to as many people as possible. And in > that regard, I believe our goals are the same. The purpose of the > particular experiment was to see how far the hardware boundaries of an > InstallFest could be stretched. Don't confuse _me_ with _my role_ in > the experiment.
I was considering going back and replying to more emails in this thread, but for the most part, I'd be saying things very similar to what Ben said. > > We're going this to help the "home user" crowd who see the computer > > as a tool, and just want it to work, with a minimum of effort and > > fuss. If any > > In keeping with the FOSS spirit of openness and inclusivity, I would > like to see InstallFests open to as many different budgets and > different types of hardware as is *practical*. That is, without being > an impractical burden on the rest of the event. It was the intent of > this experiment to sniff-out where this boundary _really_ lies. (Not > where we assumed it lied.) And, in that regard -- proof, ego, and > quibbling aside -- I believe that the experiment accomplished its > intended goal. I don't. And I wasn't assuming anything. I know how minimal a system you can run on. I've actually seen an old 800MHz system run quite respectably in the past, at least for watching a pre-recorded show. But that is entirely beside the point. The idea here was to come in with minimum specs where we're going to see a consistently good experience for all users with a minimum of hardware-induced problems. If you insist this system is viable and/or proves something, I'd like to know the following: Have you tried watching a recording while another was in progress on that box? How about watching one recording while another is being commercial flagged, and another is recording? How does it hold up playing back DVDs? How well does it play back xvid/divx-encoded files? If it can't do any of those things reliably, the system isn't viable for what we're trying to do here. Those are mostly rhetorical though -- I already consider that box a failure based on the stuttering playback you illustrated. That's completely unacceptable, especially when the box isn't doing anything else. The only thing I'd say is yes, we could perhaps have slightly lower cpu and memory specs for non-HDTV systems, but not by a whole lot if we want to maintain quality of user experience. -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
