Author Topic: Minimum Processor?  (Read 5003 times)

jgaffney

  • Douchebag
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Minimum Processor?
« on: January 23, 2008, 06:54:12 pm »
Hello,

Apparently my Athlon XP 1.2 GHz processor doesn't have enough juice to watch digital TV smoothly.   Can some of you list your processor speeds that are successfully playing HD TV.  I'd like to get a feel on what is actually required for smooth performance. Not sure if it matters but I'm using HDHomeRun for my TV source.

I can cheaply upgrade my processor to 2 Ghz Athlon XP,  does anyone know if that would be sufficient?  or am I looking at a new PC purchase  :'(

Thank you.


jgaffney

  • Douchebag
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2008, 12:20:31 am »
28 Views and nobody had TV working smoothly?  Strange....

golgoj4

  • NEEDS to work for LinuxMCE
  • ***
  • Posts: 1097
  • hrumpf!
    • View Profile
    • Mah Website
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2008, 12:34:38 am »
have you searched the forums? Im pretty sure its been covered.
Official Releases
http://deb.linuxmce.org/QOrbiter-release.apk latest Qt4 android apk  http://deb.linuxmce.org/QOrbiterQt5-release.apk for the Qt5 Android version http://deb.linuxmce.org/QOrbiter-release.dmg for the MacOSX version

Unstable Nightlies
http://langstonball.com/downloads

tom_say

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2008, 03:39:07 am »
here you go bro look at the cpu section but for hd you at least need a 2.8 p4 at the very least

http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php/Hardware

jgaffney

  • Douchebag
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2008, 04:26:16 pm »
Thanx Tom, that's what I was looking for.

Golgoj4,  why post if you have nothing useful to contribute?   There seems to be quite a bit of people out here that do nothing but tell people to "search the forums".   The forums are to help people, not tell them to do what they already did.  The facts are the Wiki is not well organized or 100% accurate.  Searching the forums does not always return results, especially when people have a different sense of terminology or don't know exactly what they are asking for.  So instead of wasting yours and everyone else's time in the forums why don't you contribute to the Wiki so there are less repetitive questions that are so painful for you to help out with.

Loki008

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2008, 04:37:54 pm »
Thanx Tom, that's what I was looking for.

Golgoj4,  why post if you have nothing useful to contribute?   There seems to be quite a bit of people out here that do nothing but tell people to "search the forums".   The forums are to help people, not tell them to do what they already did.  The facts are the Wiki is not well organized or 100% accurate.  Searching the forums does not always return results, especially when people have a different sense of terminology or don't know exactly what they are asking for.  So instead of wasting yours and everyone else's time in the forums why don't you contribute to the Wiki so there are less repetitive questions that are so painful for you to help out with.

On that point, is there something wrong with the wiki that makes it non searchable, or was i just missing somehing when i tried?

rrambo

  • Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2008, 05:40:25 pm »
Thanx Tom, that's what I was looking for.

Golgoj4,  why post if you have nothing useful to contribute?   There seems to be quite a bit of people out here that do nothing but tell people to "search the forums".   The forums are to help people, not tell them to do what they already did.  The facts are the Wiki is not well organized or 100% accurate.  Searching the forums does not always return results, especially when people have a different sense of terminology or don't know exactly what they are asking for.  So instead of wasting yours and everyone else's time in the forums why don't you contribute to the Wiki so there are less repetitive questions that are so painful for you to help out with.

On that point, is there something wrong with the wiki that makes it non searchable, or was i just missing somehing when i tried?

You missed something...

Zaerc

  • Alumni
  • LinuxMCE God
  • *
  • Posts: 2256
  • Department of Redundancy Department.
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2008, 05:47:18 pm »
...
Golgoj4,  why post if you have nothing useful to contribute?   There seems to be quite a bit of people out here that do nothing but tell people to "search the forums".   The forums are to help people, not tell them to do what they already did.  The facts are the Wiki is not well organized or 100% accurate.  Searching the forums does not always return results, especially when people have a different sense of terminology or don't know exactly what they are asking for.  So instead of wasting yours and everyone else's time in the forums why don't you contribute to the Wiki so there are less repetitive questions that are so painful for you to help out with.

Your question was already answered in the wiki, had you bothered to look around you would have found it.  Which is exactly why people tell you to search before asking.  You (and people like you) are the ones wasting everyone's time by not looking properly before asking.  So why don't you "contribute" yourself by looking into something before asking and stop acting like a customer.

"Change is inevitable. Progress is optional."
-- Anonymous


jgaffney

  • Douchebag
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2008, 06:09:31 pm »
So your one of those guys  ::)

The Wiki does not have the info to answer my question.  Tom gave me the answer I was looking for.  There is no reference to the minimum processor needed to smoothly display High Def.  There is no reference to High Def at all for that matter that I can see.

Maybe you should do some searching yourself before playing tough guy.
It's people like you that turn others away.

Loki008

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2008, 06:21:40 pm »
Thanx Tom, that's what I was looking for.

Golgoj4,  why post if you have nothing useful to contribute?   There seems to be quite a bit of people out here that do nothing but tell people to "search the forums".   The forums are to help people, not tell them to do what they already did.  The facts are the Wiki is not well organized or 100% accurate.  Searching the forums does not always return results, especially when people have a different sense of terminology or don't know exactly what they are asking for.  So instead of wasting yours and everyone else's time in the forums why don't you contribute to the Wiki so there are less repetitive questions that are so painful for you to help out with.


On that point, is there something wrong with the wiki that makes it non searchable, or was i just missing somehing when i tried?

You missed something...


Yeah, but something is off with the wiki search, the reason i was thinking it didnt work was i tried to search for n770 or 770 to find the directions for building the n770 orbiter. However the Wiki search doesnt get hits for either of those searches, which lead me to belive that the search was not functional because i knew both of those terms should have resulted in hits.

Zaerc

  • Alumni
  • LinuxMCE God
  • *
  • Posts: 2256
  • Department of Redundancy Department.
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2008, 06:24:52 pm »
So your one of those guys  ::)

The Wiki does not have the info to answer my question.  Tom gave me the answer I was looking for.  There is no reference to the minimum processor needed to smoothly display High Def.  There is no reference to High Def at all for that matter that I can see.

Maybe you should do some searching yourself before playing tough guy.
It's people like you that turn others away.
I guess that's because nobody that has HD working could be bothered to contribute, now let's see if you will add this missing crucial piece of info... somehow I doubt it.
"Change is inevitable. Progress is optional."
-- Anonymous


Loki008

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2008, 06:38:56 pm »
So your one of those guys  ::)

The Wiki does not have the info to answer my question.  Tom gave me the answer I was looking for.  There is no reference to the minimum processor needed to smoothly display High Def.  There is no reference to High Def at all for that matter that I can see.

Maybe you should do some searching yourself before playing tough guy.
It's people like you that turn others away.

I have to agree with this, If the forums get under your skin so much, maybe you should step back a bit and take a deep breath, you do not need to personally respond to every thread. Your negitive responses are not adding anything to the project and if anything are driving people away that may otherwise add some sort of valuable input or promotion to the project. I recall a thread reciently in regards to foldering that you participated in that i think hit the nail on the head. The quote i am refering to is from ChrisBirkinshaw in http://forum.linuxmce.org/index.php?topic=1842.30 about media organization.

Quote
I've worked in a consulting role on a number of UI projects within the multimedia and broadcast industry, and have found some of the responses in this thread alarming and to be honest a bit worrying. I'm really concerned that LMCE is going to remain stuck in the same place because a few people are being stubborn about certain issues.

Joe Bloggs says "I find it really tedious to wash all these dishes".
Everyone else says "Stop being lazy, it isn't that hard!"
Joe Bloggs is an edge case.

...

If someone says media is too hard to navigate, then perhaps they have a point. They might be wrong on the detail, they might be stupid, they might not have read the manual, it might piss us off that they ask before thinking it out properly, but you have still have to take their experience of the product into account. They are the general public, and the general public should be able to use LMCE - right? Or do we want it to remain a geek-tool hidden away from the mainstream? This isn't what the simple DVD install suggests.

You and i have already had this converation once in the past in the thread that i posted when i was looking for help when i first came here. And on some level you are right, more people need to document their experiances, but by broaching the subject in the way you are with these threads you are driving valuable members away from participating and providing their experiances in this forum and possably from linuxMCE all together.

Zaerc

  • Alumni
  • LinuxMCE God
  • *
  • Posts: 2256
  • Department of Redundancy Department.
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2008, 06:49:06 pm »
Yeah excuse me for getting annoyed because somebody throws a fit when asked if they looked around, which they obviously haven't...
"Change is inevitable. Progress is optional."
-- Anonymous


jgaffney

  • Douchebag
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2008, 07:19:06 pm »
Yeah excuse me for getting annoyed because somebody throws a fit when asked if they looked around, which they obviously haven't...

You just acknowledged there is no HD info in the wiki,  and come back with this comment?

Your a real piece of work Zaerc.  There is no use for trolls here.   

shortydigital

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Minimum Processor?
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2008, 08:07:03 pm »
jgaffney is your 1.2 ghz a core, a MD or a hybrid. I think it should do hd fine if its a MD, but for a core or hybrid every thing read leads towards ups 2's or a 3 ghz. You didn't mention how much ram, but it seems that for HD you need 1 gig in a core and 512 mb in a MD. A hybrid would probably benefit from more but mds and core don't seem to show an improvement from any more ram then listed even for HD. Not that they need an improvement they seem fine with the above. I'll be testing this out in a couple weeks with the same tuner that u have, trying a 3.0ghz for a core only and 1.1 ghz for a md, both intel and using the ram listed above.

Shaun