Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Intel's Linux Based Home Media Gateway 158

Posted by CmdrTaco from the this-oughta-take-awhile dept.
An anonymous reader writes "This article at LinuxDevices.com takes a look at a new 'home media gateway' design that was unveiled today by Intel at the Intel Developer Forum in San Jose, CA. The device is expected to be manufactured by multiple consumer electronics manufacturers in Asia, and will enable the distribution of PC digital media to TVs and stereos throughout the home. The gadget is based on one of Intel's new XScale processors running a customized version of Linux, provides support for JPEG, MP3, and WMA digital content, utilizes 802.11b wireless networking, and supports NTSC/PAL/S-video TV connections and AC-97 stereo connection. The home media adapter is a key component of Intel's 'Extended Wireless PC Initiative', which is part of Intel's greater Digital Home initiative."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel's Linux Based Home Media Gateway More

Intel's Linux Based Home Media Gateway

Comments Filter:
  • intel in graphics.
    • With Intel's recent announcment that they will be embedding DRM directly into their next generation Pentium's, I imagine this new system will have DRM measures in place. And if it does, I don't want it. So their so-called push into creating a digital home is a joke and is completely useless as far as I am concerned. Unless I will be able to play ANY of my current MP's on any future system, I won't buy it unless it allows me to freely use my own music and media the way *i* see fit.
      • I'm sure you'll be able to use your *own* music and media as you see fit. That's not what DRM will be about, though. It'll be about downloading video and music over the Internet and not being able to record or redistribute it.

        Now think about that for a second, and you'll see what Intel clearly has in mind for this thing. Sure, it'd be cool to play your MP3 collection on your home stereo using this device. (I think Intel would be idiots to not include in this box some sort of MP3 jukebox browser controllable from your television.) But that's not what this will be intended for -- it's for downloading video over the Internet and playing it on your television.

        Right now, that's a bit of a pipe dream. Televisions aren't connected to the Internet without a lot of customization, and computer screen are either too small or too poorly placed to be useful for viewing. Plus you have to set everything up with a mouse instead of a remote control. This box could (emphasis on "could") solve all that, by letting you download video on your computer and have this remote-controlled box pick it up for your television, all automatically and wirelessly, so your computer doesn't even need to be in the same room of your house.

        Don't worry about DRM affecting your ability to play your own media; in this case, at least, it'll only affect your ability to play somebody else's media which you downloaded, with the understanding that it's not yours to keep.
        • Actually, playing your personal MP3 collection is excactly one of the primary purposes and usage models of the digital media adapter. Playing video over the interent on the television will be supported in future adapters. The first rev supports playback of MP3 and WMA audio, along with viewing digital photos.

          The on screen application also provides the ability to browse your music and digital photo collections on your television to answer a previous comment.

          -Jack

  • How many of these are out there? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KelsoLundeen ( 454249 ) on Thursday September 12, 2002 @12:48PM (#4245462)
    I bet this one will be as popular as Indrema.

    Whatever happened to Indrema, BTW? I know they closed and went out of business, but for some reason I thought they'd written a bunch of code and given it out under GPL after they went under...
    • Whatever happened to Indrema, BTW? I thought they'd written a bunch of code and given it out under GPL after they went under.

      Who cares? All they wrote was a weak form of copy protection. Everything else they demoed was GPL and still exists today.

    • Indrema didn't have a $79 bill of materials. It was meant to compete with the XBoxes and PS2s of the world which are sold for a loss. This required Indrema to have a ton of cash to get the ball rolling. This Intel device is not meant as a game console and doesn't have any of the expensive 3D hardware or CPU power. It's basically a PDA-level core with an 802.11b radio and TV out and could probably be sold for around a hundred bucks retail.

      Hmm, I bet it'd make a nifty MAME-style emulator platform. Nothing like paying a hundred bucks for a device you could get on eBay for pennies..

      The basic design could be useful though. I bet you could make a neat answering machine out of the core components.

      Features:
      -Automatically puts you messages on a secure web site or emails them for remote access.
      -TeleZaps those annoying Telemarketers.
      -Separate voicemail boxes for everyone in the house.
      -Automatically routes calls based on Caller ID.
      -Simple calendar, contact list, etc. through the phone using voice recognition/keypad and Text-To-Speech or over the Web.
      -Internet telephony.

      Jeez, maybe I should quit my job & make this puppy! ;)
  • Wireless! I wonder what the catch is? I bet it will cost a bundle. What about DRM? I didn't read any thing about that.
    • I bet it will cost a bundle.

      Had you read the article, you'd know that it's actually projected to be quite affordable:

      When can I get one? . . . and for how much?


      Intel expects consumer versions of the digital media adapter to begin showing up during 2003.

      Based on an estimated total bill-of-materials (BOM) cost in the neighborhood of $79, Intel anticipates that PC vendors will bundle the media adapters with multimedia PCs in order to allow consumers to deliver music and video to their entertainment centers from their PCs
      • ***Had you read the article, you'd know that it's actually projected to be quite affordable:
        ***

        it's actually projected as extra weight thrown in to get customers to buy _your_ oem box over the neighboring firms.

        anywas.. jpegs+audio.. geez.. sure.. moaning and pr0n in bed.
      • I read that part. I just didn't know what actual cost might be. $79 just seemed too cheap for some reason for a transmitter and reciever.

        Anyhow, maybe I missunderstood. I thought it delivered that via wireless. I could see $79 for the PC end. If that is for both, cool!

  • Any notice (Score:4, Funny)

    by interstellar_donkey ( 200782 ) <pathighgate AT hotmail DOT com> on Thursday September 12, 2002 @12:49PM (#4245475) Homepage Journal
    On their little diagram showing photos of individual components, that the TV in the 'living room' appears to be displaying an MS blue screen?

    That gave me a chuckle.

    • blue screen (Score:3, Funny)

      by wiredog ( 43288 )
      Several years ago at Comdex one of the casinos (MGM Grand?) had their outside display blue screen on them. It was the talk of the show. Well, that and the new digital LCD screens.

      Come to think of it, digital LCD screens were the last new consumer item that everyone at Comdex was talking about.

    • Funny, but not quite; what's on the TV is one of the sample user interfaces. It just happens to use a lot of blue :>.

      -Jack
  • The article gives the cost of one of these (material costs) at about $80. So, retail would they go for about $150?

    Looking at the back, they only really have one set of AV/ out cables. Kind of disappointing, it would have been nice to make this device more like a receiver.
  • if not it seems like a really good idea...

  • Media Box Wars (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JayDiggity ( 70168 ) on Thursday September 12, 2002 @12:50PM (#4245490) Homepage
    So here's what we have so far:

    Sony's new PS3 may have some digital media capabilities, but no one's quite sure. But it would seem to make sense considering that there are rumors all over that the MS XBox 2 is going to serve as a hub for digital family entertainment. Course, that's running the XBox OS (or Linux depending on the hack). And now Intel is coming out with something that's running Linux? Intel and Microsoft are usually in bed together, and suddenly they're releasing competing products and Intel's is even running Linux? People are fleeing Microsoft in droves... maybe their tactics are coming around to bite them in the butt? At first it was "Game Console Wars," and now it's "Digital Media Center Wars." Let's sit back and watch.
    • The computer is (and will always be IMHO) the center. It plays the stuff. It stores it. It sends it out to the 'terminals' (the TV/Receiver in this case) which can display it.

      My question is, why doesn't the computer provide the GUI and hand off the screen caps to this Intel Device? Seems to me that way, if you have multiple hubs like this in your house, say one for the living room, one for the rec room, you dont have to replicate or use another GUI to access the content?

      It seems to me that the dumber and thinner you make these supposed 'hubs', the more centralized your functionality is on your computer, and the better off the technology is. Plus, things like playlists, etc dont become specific to a particular wireless hub, as I'm prone to think it would be in the case of the device in the article. I'm also working on the assumption that adoption goes up when people dont have to learn how to use that new technology.

      The computer should do everything - thats what it was built to do! These room-specific hubs should basically be wireless dump terminals that just show X-like or Remote Terminal Services-type sessions from your 'digital media' software running on your computer.
      • >My question is, why doesn't the computer provide
        >the GUI and hand off the screen caps to this
        >Intel Device?

        Actually that's exactly what this thing does. There is no application specific code running on the adapter; everything that you see on screen is being rendered on the PC and then remoted to the TV via the adapter. That's partly why this solution is so cost effective, all the hard work is being done on the PC.

    • And now Intel is coming out with something that's running Linux? Intel and Microsoft are usually in bed together, and suddenly they're releasing competing products and Intel's is even running Linux?

      In this case the key ingredient is that AFAIK, Winodws doesn't run on XScale.

      The lower power requirements of an non x86 design are a sufficiently compelling argument for set top boxes that Intel can plausibly make this argument to MS, though I'm sure there's been overtures that perhaps WinCE might work.

      You can be assured that if there not enough arguments against using Microsoft's products, that Intel's biggest co-gorilla would have them using Windows or have them on the carpet explaining in great detail why not.

    • I don't see this as being a big deal to them. It runs linux. So? It's not like the average user is going to know it runs linux. It takes stuff from the computer and sends it to your home entertainment center. As far as they are concerned it's an appliance like the stereo tuner - it could be running off of the chained souls of demons and they wouldn't give a shit as long as it does what it's supposed to when you plug it in.
    • It's funny everyone seems to think that this is Intel releasing a product... remember, Intel makes chips! This is just a reference design - the companies selling boxes will probably be the Asian CE & mobo manufacturers. Intel isn't really competing with MS, but they are happy to sell chips to anyone who is...

  • I think the best part (Score:3, Funny)

    by PhysicsGenius ( 565228 ) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <rekees_scisyhp>> on Thursday September 12, 2002 @12:52PM (#4245502)
    is the WEP-enabled 802.3 compatibility layer that will optimize the window polarization diffusion. OTOH, you really have to love the 25 micron fabrication process for the sub-floor insulating layer as well as the silicon-eroded conduction density valences. I was talking with the kids and they feel that the biased temperature inversion lattices and Java insertion sorts embedded in the bathroom towels are going to rock.

    My wife said to stop being stupid and use my money to buy food for homeless people, but that seems like a waste to me. Any thoughts?

    • My wife said to stop being stupid and use my money to buy food for homeless people, but that seems like a waste to me. Any thoughts?

      Yeah, it is a waste. If you are going to give them money, at least have them wash your car or shine your shoes or something. Giving away unearned money is a sin.

  • Except I built it myself, and it probably cost a lot more. On the other hand, I can do a lot more with it. It's called a computer. It not only plays media files, it shares them over something I like to call a network.
  • I wonder if intel will stick their finger out and put some optimisations into gcc or linux for their MMX extentions.
    • That would be really nice. Maybe tremor would benefit from this. Has anybody compiled that program for a XScale machine?
    • I wonder if intel will stick their finger out and put some optimisations into gcc or linux for their MMX extentions.

      The "Multimedia extensions" on the XScale come in two forms: the ARM-9e extensions and their own 40 bit multiply-accumulator coprocessor. It'd be nice to see the ARM-9e extensions in gcc as other processors would also benefit - not just XScale. This would be fairly easy to generate code for as you can "simply" replace two adds/multiplies with a single one in many cases.

      The coprocessor is another matter and needs a lot of work from the compiler to get any speed increase out of its use. Last I looked at the processor documentation, I didn't see much advantage to using the coprocessor at all, even when hand coding assembler - the ARM-9e extensions give you pretty much the same speed increase anyway.

      • The "Multimedia extensions" on the XScale come in two forms

        MMX does not stand for "multimedia extensions", it stands for "matrix math extensions."

        blakespot
    • I wonder if intel will stick their finger out and put some optimisations into gcc or linux for their MMX extentions.

      Hell no, they won't. Have they ever contributed optimizations for gcc? They already have their own compiler, icc, which they'd rather everyone purchase. Why would they help out the competition?
  • cost in the neighborhood of $79

    Is it just me, or does this sound too good to be true?

    • Re:$79.00 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Enry ( 630 )
      That's the BOM (Bill of Materials) cost. That is, the parts. Not including packaging, profit, making back the engineering $, sales, support, and the cost to actually make the thing.

      Expect it to be in the $150-$200 range. Still sounds like a good price for what it provides.
      • Expect it to be in the $150-$200 range. Still sounds like a good price for what it provides.
        I would probably even say - expect it to be in $400-$500 range when it comes out and then drop to $150-$200 in 6 mos or so. They love to mark up new stuff like this, which I can;t say I blame them for. It makes sense because a - they have to recoup R&D costs (everyone forgets that when they count the cost of the device) and b - they know the bleeding edge junkies will shell out the money no matter what.
    • Is it just me, or does this sound too good to be true?

      That's the cost of production (and behold the wonderous miracle of the No Windows Tax) - the cost to the consumer is "How much are you willing to pay?" - everything inbetween is profit.

  • Only "JPEG, MP3, and WMA" ? No Video? So this is basically a TiVo without the "Unpause" button, plus an MP3 player.
  • I didn't see anything about ogg vorbis support. That's a pity.
  • Wow, talk about using you're 802.11b spectrum. Imagine having at home the following devices (assuming they detected the correct clear band!): 1. Intel's new fangled wireless media gateway on channel 1. 2. Your access point on channel 3 with your other PC's. 3. Your wireless home alarm system on channel 5, burgulars love this one! :) 4. Your cordless phone around channel 7. 5. Your wireless headphones on channel 9. 6. Your X-10 video camera blowing away channel 11! Sounds crowded, then again who will have so many wireless gadgets at the same time? Oh wait I do! (channels spaced according to 802.11b standard 20MHz+guard band) Ho
  • Does anyone still make a 1U MP3 or Internet Radio Streamer? What about that tiny MP3 streamer that was the size of a nameplate? Is that still in production?
  • It does not look like it supports H/W MPEG2 decoding (stream DVDs from the home server, yum!), nor have component video or DVI output.

    Also, wired ethernet would be nice -- if I'm streaming unencrypted DVDs from my server to my TV I want to play nice with the ??AAs (At least to that degree) and not broadcast them to my neighbor.

    Still, not a bad start: add a Sigma Designs em8470 H/W MGEG 2/4 decoder, and component or DVI video output, and it starts to look useful.

    • it's a reference design, not a consumer level product. Manufacturers will base their products on this design, and no doubt include some of the stuff you mentioned, if necessary.

      Btw, that does look like an ethernet jack in the back of the box, which as it seems, is clearly marked DELL, not Intel.

  • whats the real feature? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Thursday September 12, 2002 @01:00PM (#4245573) Journal
    "Intel anticipates that PC vendors will bundle the media adapters with multimedia PCs in order to allow consumers to deliver music and video to their entertainment centers from their PCs."

    Ok, aside from it not using the PCs CPU horsepower, how is this altogether different from a really long set of A/V cables? (or a 900mhz broadcaster?)

    Oh yeah, DRM.. Silly me. Asked and answered.

    Of course this is automagically wonderful because they used linux to save time during development.
    • You can sit on your couch and run it via remote control, with a good interface. That's the reason I bought a Rio Reciever.

      Sure, you can rig up a PC to do all that, but I bet it costs more and doesn't work as well as this. The price point is a deal. My Rio Reciever was about twice that much.
    • Ok, aside from it not using the PCs CPU horsepower, how is this altogether different from a really long set of A/V cables? (or a 900mhz broadcaster?)

      Two things: you don't need to worry about installing a TV-output card on your computer, and you don't need to figure out how to run the cables from your second-floor office to your first-floor living room.

      Not everybody's a geek with a studio apartment, you know. Some of us actually like to pay a few bucks have things neat, tidy and simplified.
      • The only thing they got wrong is that its GUI should be thin .. the GUI should be on the computer. I always thought it was funny that these devices are called 'hubs', when really the hub is the computer. These things are just thin clients to access the content on the computer.

        In that respect, centralize, centralize, centralize! These things should just host GUI-output from your computer, and accept commands from the remote and hand them back to your machine. I'm not sure why they'd put a device-specific gui on it when the computer might as well provide that in the case where you have 2 or 3 of these things around the house and you'd rather have a consitant interface and consistant playlists/settings/etc.

      • Re:whats the real feature? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by KelsoLundeen ( 454249 ) on Thursday September 12, 2002 @01:26PM (#4245766)
        Yeah, but you know you've got the mojo crackerjack when you're a geek in a studio apartment -- and you have a a Murphy bed.

        That said, I have to wonder if Bill Gates (for once) was right when he suggested several years ago that "media convergence" isn't really a thing that people want. People want to compute on computers, watch TV on a television, and watch movies in a movie theater. Converging the three into the single PC -- or the PC breakout box hooked up to a PC -- is nifty and very George Jetson-like (and who can forget his boy Elroy spiralling down from the old man's hoverbug in a mini-hoverbug of his very own?) -- but it seems that technology (in this case and others [palladium and MS's MediaPC's especially) is thinking too far ahead for its own good.

        Watching TV on a computer is (for me, at least) much like reading e-books on a palm or an Ipaq or on the computer screen in a library -- it gets the job done, yes, but it's not very enjoyable. (I'm trying to figure out why the only ebooks I'm able read at any length are non-fiction. I can't, for example, bring myself to read fiction electronically. It seems, well, not right. And not comfortable. Yet I can sit on my little ragged sofa -- feet up, trusty Bawls soda beside me -- and can read deadtree fiction until the cows come home. But that's another story for another day ...)

        • I'm trying to figure out why the only ebooks I'm able read at any length are non-fiction. I can't, for example, bring myself to read fiction electronically. It seems, well, not right. And not comfortable.

          Try it with an e-Book reader designed for the purpose, rather than a computer or PDA.

          I like my e-Book *better* than dead trees; more comfortable, more portable (I carry a dozen novels with me at all times), more resistant to damage (when enclosed in a ziploc baggy), never loses my place, is visible in the dark, doesn't require two hands, etc., etc., etc.

          • Regarding reading e-books on a PDA, in my opinion a jog dial makes all the difference in the world. Reading on my Clie (either the old S300 or the new NR70V) is pretty comfortable. Not that I'm giving up the dead tree medium or anything, of course, but being able to carry around 20 books with me on trips is pretty nice.
            • If I got rights to a copy of the ebook with the paper purchase, I'd be all over this, but I'm assuming it's a seperate purchase for about the same cost. There may be some books that I would not want a copy of in my library,but mostly, I like to accumulate books, but I also want to be able to easily take several books on trips without adding 10lbs to my bag. Any ideas?
      • I wonder if anyone can respond to a question/comment they disagree with without insults.

        I'm not a 'geek' with a studio apartment, I have a 3000 sq foot 3 level home. Not that it matters.

        "you don't need to worry about installing a TV-output card on your computer"

        No, you just need to worry about installing 802.3 hardware. Being as the end-user is too technically challenged to install a video card, expect to see lots of insecure WAPs for the sake of looking at 'net porn in the living room.

        "and you don't need to figure out how to run the cables from your second-floor office to your first-floor living room."

        http://www.x10.com/products/x10_vk53a.htm
        http: //www.x10.com/products/x10_ak11a.htm

        (IIRC, they're the same thing, just different software bundles)

        So I reiterate, what's the feature? Oh yeah, DRM, and maybe a prettier box.
        • For the record, these things actually work pretty well. I use it 2 fold

          To watch divx movies from my linux machine that is downstairs in a closet to any tv in the house

          Allows me to get rid of all the kludgy vcrs that I used to have attached to each tv. Having a child who has more vcr movies than dvds this is a great thing.
    • "Intel anticipates that PC vendors will bundle the media adapters with multimedia PCs in order to allow consumers to deliver music and video to their entertainment centers from their PCs."

      Ok, aside from it not using the PCs CPU horsepower, how is this altogether different from a really long set of A/V cables? (or a 900mhz broadcaster?)

      It's more like having two devices which can use DVDs off the same shelf. The key thing here is that multiple people can use it at the same time, and you've got local control in both places.

      Still, the DRM's as much of a bitch as ever.

  • hmmm.... (Score:3)

    by edrugtrader ( 442064 ) on Thursday September 12, 2002 @01:08PM (#4245626) Homepage
    "home media gateway" gets translated in my head as "RIAA funded home media rights management filter"

    might want to check the source before you turn it on...

  • WMA on Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by namespan ( 225296 ) <namespan.elitemail@org> on Thursday September 12, 2002 @01:13PM (#4245668) Journal
    The interesting surprise for me is the idea of WMA-enabled applications running under Linux. Is this a first?
  • All that talk about video had me thinking it could transfer video. :-( Looks like audio only, the video is for navigation menus.

    Note to marketing weasels: Don't be using the generic term "media" when the more specific "audio" will suffice.

    But, please let me know when it supports mpeg streams to video and zeroconf, aka, rezendezvouss (plus a bunch more french letters, look, if you aren't going to pronounce them I don't see why I should be bothered to remember where they go in the word)

    Ideally it should have a tuner and an mpeg encoder, but thats going to rack up the cost. Note I didn't say it needed a disk drive. My computers can take care of that.
  • I hope they put in a SCART cable at the back in any European versions they do. I'd hate to be stuck with just composite video when I could have crystal clear RGB...
    • Whoops - I missed the S-Video out on the first look..

      Well, that'd be better than nothing I suppose.
      • I noticed that too, S-Video should be sufficient. I didn't see a optical audio jack though. Digital audio would be a nice addition. The soundcard and A/D converters in the typical computer are pretty crappy.

  • DRM issues - Research before posting, please! (Score:4, Informative)

    by BenEnglishAtHome ( 449670 ) on Thursday September 12, 2002 @01:24PM (#4245756)

    From the FAQ [slashdot.org] at the Intel developer's site for this thing:

    How will audio, imaging and video content be protected using the digital media adapter?

    Protection of digital media content is a concern of Intel and many other industry leaders. Although several viable solutions exist today, a singe standard has yet to emerge that will satisfy the needs of all content owners. Intel is actively working with the Copy Protection Technical Working Group and other industry bodies to get comercial content protected when it is created. In the interim, Intel believes that the first phase of Digital Home will focus on personal content.

    Emphasis added.

    In other words, they're hedging their bets by going to market with a product/product spec/development framework that might not be all that the content providers want while still saying they're a bunch of cooperative guys.

    How should we read this? How about - "Buy it when it comes out, because as soon as the CPTWG people get their act together, the next generation will be crippled"?

    • I'm sure glad to know that we "content consumers" are being considered in this standardization process.

      I need to write to "my" folks in DC about this. I keep meaning to do so, and never have time. As far as I'm concerned, the ??AA can go ahead and push all the DRM and content protection encumbrance into their delivery systems that they want, with only ONE condition:

      Full capability for recording/editing/playing unprotected media must NEVER be removed.

      As long as this capability is retained, I wish them luck, and hope they impose ever-more-onerous constraints on their content. They're digging their own graves by treating artists like dirt and viewing/listening like taxable criminal activities. Nor do I particularly care if there are legal consequences legislated for removing watermarks, etc.

      IMHO removal of recording/editing/playing of unprotected media is and should be protected under the First Ammendment. When digital media distribution becomes the norm, gatekeepers like the ??AA gain unconstitutional power if capabilities for unprotected media are removed. Aside from this, unencumbered capabilities permit the genesis of a 'replacement media business model.'
  • I always enjoy seeing a RISC processor making it in the market. As any Electrical or Computer Engineering student are aware, from Computer Architecture courses, RISC processors are great for hacking projects with easy-to-use assembly language. Any product made with a RISC processor is that much easier to hack and customize. Hopefully there is a Xscale assembler out there soon(probably already is) because this product has great potential.
  • Intel and Microsoft announced the CDS Road Map [bbspot.com].
  • If it's from Intel, why does the photo [linuxdevices.com]have a Dell logo on it?
  • It is feasable to do this stuff, and do it well. It's the "well" part that'll get you. However, if they get it right the first time, It would sell... in fact, I'd buy something like this. Yes, as an earlier poster said "computers" do this now, but nobody really knows how to integrate their computer into the home entertainment situation, except those who are really technicaly proficient.

  • why this idea misses the mark (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jjtime4sko ( 321416 ) on Thursday September 12, 2002 @02:22PM (#4246168)
    Here's what the customer experience has to be to make something like this OK for the mass market:

    1. Turn on.
    2. Select media.
    3. Push play.

    What this idea would look like:
    1. Turn on "media adapter"
    2. Walk across the house to where the computer is.
    3. Boot computer. Wait 5 minutes for boot.
    4. Walk back to living room.
    5. Find remote for media adapter.
    6. Browse through dozens of menus and file systems to locate content.
    7. Computer crashes. Repeat steps 2-6.
    8. Push play.
    9. Wait for content to buffer.
    10. Little Johnny decides to play his new networked game.
    11. Repeat steps 9-10 until (A) Johnny doesn't get to play any more or (B) you give up.
    12. Turn off media adapter.
    13. Shut down computer.
    14. Go to bed.

    I'll wait for the Apple version, thank you.
    • Here's what the customer experience has to be to make something like this OK for the mass market:

      1. Turn on.

      Get universal remote for TV/STB and turn both on and select the STB as TV input. Maybe turn on A/V [5|6|7].1 A/V receiver too. Perhaps user has a fancy remote with macros to do this with one button.

      2. Select media.

      Browse for media like one would a channel guide, with a web-like interface on the TV, perhaps.

      3. Push play.

      Click on desired program.

      What this idea would look like:

      1. Turn on "media adapter"

      O.K., we've done that.

      2. Walk across the house to where the computer is.

      Whatever for?

      3. Boot computer. Wait 5 minutes for boot.

      Why? The home media server should be burried away somewhere, in a closet, or basement, or utility room, or something -- always on. It's prolly sinking your email and scraping TV channel lineups as well.

      4. Walk back to living room.

      Not necessary. See 3 above.

      5. Find remote for media adapter.

      If ya dinna hafta go nowhere, how could you have lost the darned thing? O.K. O.K. TVs should have a button that makes the remote go "beep".

      6. Browse through dozens of menus and file systems to locate content

      Er, kinda like a satellite channel menu? Maybe better organized. Maybe we can have several "favorites" buttons on the remote, you know, "B" for Britney Spears video, and "J" for Jenna Jamison pr()n. [Note to self: remember to implement mod_parental for Apache]. Seriously, though, I can imagine third-party installable sites and skins for organizing stuff like this on the web server sitting inside the media server.

      7. Computer crashes. Repeat steps 2-6.

      What part of "Thou shalt not run a Microsoft O/S" didn't you get in hacker-wannabe school?

      8. Push play.

      Heck, by this time the geek is already groping around for something to clean his mess up with, having pushed the "J" favorites button.

      9. Wait for content to buffer.

      Repeat after me: s-t-r-e-a-m-i-n-g---v-i-d-e-o, not to mention the nice, fact, predictible 100 Mb/s switched ethernet ya got. 802.11b would leave old Jenna'Ho as jerky as..., well never mind. Besides, you really don't want all the local geeky teens in your front yard, with their laptops, drooling, or worse.

      10. Little Johnny decides to play his new networked game.

      I said SWITCHED ethernet! Pay attention. Besides, Johnny has his OWN gaming machine (such is the price to pay to keep him off the pr()n server).

      11. Repeat steps 9-10 until (A) Johnny doesn't get to play any more or (B) you give up.

      Heh, if you can "repeat" enuf times, you can trade the J-button for the real thing.

      12. Turn off media adapter.

      I suppose, if you must.

      13. Shut down computer.

      Look, if you're that cheap when it comes to electricity, perhaps you need to look at other priorities besides uber-hacker-coolness.

      14. Go to bed.

      Nah! Just slam another Dew, dude! I'll wait for the Apple version, thank you.

  • How is the Xscale an improvement to the StrongArm SA-1100?? Is there a comparison? Thanks.

    blakespot
  • Did anyone else notice that the antenna's are not connected to anything. And, that they look like the Linksys antennas, while the Wi-Fi card looks like one of those crappy PRISM2 cards?

    It looks more like a mockup than a reference design. Some video of it working might have made it more convincing, or source code... though I guess under the GPL they can just distribute that to their licencees. (Who really don't have a compeling interest to redistribute unless say the FSF buys a kit.)
  • Intel has pushed numerus innovations out the door before and only to be forced to take them off the market by Microsoft. This gadget will collide with microsofts dream of being in everybodys home. It will dissapear soon believe me. The biggest thing Microsoft destroyed from Intel was their effort on building an platform ontop of their processors that would enable crossplatform applications between all sorts of processors. Like JAVA but on hardware level and thus extremely faster. MS stopped it cold by threeting to not support intel in windows.

    Think of the hardware we could have had if Intel had been able to drop x86 10 years ago?
  • So, will someone tell me how Intel (who recently stated they'd build DRM into their next generation CPU's [slashdot.org]) is going to successfully market this item to the RIAA and MPAA who just love to share their stuff </sarcasm>

    Not to mention that as soon as M$ gets wind of this, they'll make sure that Palladium hammers it down.
  • Because up til now... playing videofiles just plain sucked... Slow as hell. Ok, I don't have the latest hardware at my home, but that's not the problem. If I play a video file on the same hardware on whatever linux distro or Windows 98SE, MS ALWAYS wins in performance AND quality.
    And yes, next time i'll read the article before I start flaming.
  • I must say I am very pleased to see busybox and uClibc getting another design win. It is very gratifying to see them being adopted by so many large scale commercial systems. Now if only they would share part of the money they are making. :-)
  • This is a project that exists only to gain kudos with Microsoft by agreeing to axe it in favour of their DRM Home system. Who do they think they're kidding?

    TWW

  • I wonder how long before someone ports Linux to it.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close