|
Can anyone recommend a decent wireless keyboard that has a trackpad as well? I was hoping to spend less than 100 bucks but google didn't give me much help with that.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2008 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Not under a $100, but is the bomb. http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/keyboards/keyboard/devices/3848&cl=US,EN (may be able to find it cheaper elsewhere)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2008 04:12
|
|
|
TraderStav posted:Not under a $100, but is the bomb. Yeah, I've got one. Works fine if you don't do much mousing, the track pad is very small and not very accurate. Also when used a d-pad it is significantly harder to get it to recognize a "down" click vs the other 3 directions; I read a bit online and i think most of the complaints about it match my observations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2008 06:52
|
|
|
dfn_doe posted:Yeah, I've got one. Works fine if you don't do much mousing, the track pad is very small and not very accurate. Also when used a d-pad it is significantly harder to get it to recognize a "down" click vs the other 3 directions; I read a bit online and i think most of the complaints about it match my observations. I have one as well and I have these problems too. Mousing is ok but every now and then it spazzes out. The down click is definitely harder than others. Also, occasionally (maybe once a month) the device hard locks and I have to pull the battery to get it working again. Overall I still like it since I almost never use a keyboard/mouse on my htpc, but it works ok enough when I have to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2008 15:17
|
|
|
NO.JPG posted:Can anyone recommend a decent wireless keyboard that has a trackpad as well? I was hoping to spend less than 100 bucks but google didn't give me much help with that. This is what I use and I couldn't be happier. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16879212011 or with free shipping on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-3...28322282&sr=8-1 You will also need to buy a Bluetooth dongle if your computer doesn't have one built in, but this will still keep the cost under $100.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2008 17:37
|
|
|
I really like the concept of the popcorn hour (simple tiny box that plays most things) but I'm concerned with the multitude of playback issues the users seem to be reporting. Its been a very very long time since I've had an HTPC (back in the Athlon XP days), but what I'm hoping to do is build a cheap HTPC with similar functionality. Does software exist that I can simply point to a directory full of DVD ISO's on my server and it will play them with a minimum of fuss. I don't need any TV tuners or Blu-ray support. Basically, I'd like VLC with a pretty front end I can navigate with a remote. Can you guys point me in the right direction?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2008 20:20
|
|
|
UndyingShadow posted:I really like the concept of the popcorn hour (simple tiny box that plays most things) but I'm concerned with the multitude of playback issues the users seem to be reporting. XBMC would probably be your best bet. http://xbmc.org/
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2008 20:51
|
|
|
UndyingShadow posted:Can you guys point me in the right direction? Almost any of the popular front-ends (and most of the not so popular ones) will be able to do this: - Meedio: Although a daunting user interface, you could do what you're looking for with ease. - Media Portal: has support for browsing media as well. - XBMC: I'm pretty sure has complete support for this. It would also help to know what OS you want to use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2008 20:54
|
|
|
EC posted:It would also help to know what OS you want to use. Windows XP or Linux. I tried Mythbuntu and while the actual OS was easy to setup, the MythTV setup was so annoying that I got it configured properly and never used it again. It felt like they bolted everything they possibly could onto a powerful framework. I really don't feel the need to setup a MySQL server just to manage my media  I had no idea XBMC had been ported to the PC. I'll check that out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2008 21:52
|
|
|
UndyingShadow posted:Windows XP or Linux. I tried Mythbuntu and while the actual OS was easy to setup, the MythTV setup was so annoying that I got it configured properly and never used it again. It felt like they bolted everything they possibly could onto a powerful framework. I really don't feel the need to setup a MySQL server just to manage my media I use MythTV on linux as my front-end currently, but I've compiled the XBMC port and played with it a bit and I have to say it's really slick. For pure media management and playback, it definitely blows Myth out of the water but I use Myth as a DVR too and have it pretty well tweaked to meet my needs at this point. I may still opt to use XBMC as a replacement frontend at some point and continue to use the Myth backend to record TV shows. It'll be an experiment for a rainy or snowy day
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2008 23:12
|
|
|
Does anyone know if anyone makes an atom board with HDMI out. I have an old 2600 base media PC that I want to replace with something smaller and quieter. I don't need full HD playback on it, because it is mostly used for old games that I don't want to have to constantly pull out of storage. As far as I can tell no one has a board with and atom and HDMI out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2008 00:29
|
|
|
Juriko posted:Does anyone know if anyone makes an atom board with HDMI out. I have an old 2600 base media PC that I want to replace with something smaller and quieter. I don't need full HD playback on it, because it is mostly used for old games that I don't want to have to constantly pull out of storage. As far as I can tell no one has a board with and atom and HDMI out. I think the recently announced eee-box update has hdmi out, the model it trumps sells for a bit over 300 bucks but I haven't seen pricing on this latest version. edit: link http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/03/asus-eee-box-b204-b206-grows-an-hdmi-port-handles-high-def-ma/
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2008 07:49
|
|
|
Can I force the GeForce 6800 to do 24Hz?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2008 01:45
|
|
|
So say I'm looking for a cheap PC to use with a HDHomerun tuner and Windows Vista MC (External ethernet based dual ATSC/QAM tuner), what am I looking at in terms of needs for graphics/cpu power? I am looking to use it for watching and recording live TV into my 32" LCD TV + light web browsing. Any suggestions on cheap pre-built machines (unless I can find a dirt cheap used Shuttle or some such)? HP sells refurbed slimline PCs that seem well suited for the job on uBid. Lastly, IR receivers and media center. Will any work? I have a Harmony remote that I would program with MCE codes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2008 06:14
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:So say I'm looking for a cheap PC to use with a HDHomerun tuner and Windows Vista MC (External ethernet based dual ATSC/QAM tuner), what am I looking at in terms of needs for graphics/cpu power? I am looking to use it for watching and recording live TV into my 32" LCD TV + light web browsing. HD or SD content? You'll probably want to go for at least a core2duo 2.0ghz or better if you plan on playing back HD MPEG2 content, especially if you are going to do any post processing like deinterlacing. I'm not sure what the current state of hardware acceleration is in graphics cards under Windows that might give you an edge, so someone else might be able to comment. Given that an nvidia 8xxx series card can be had for like 30 bucks, this is probably the low-end of what you'd want to do for graphics. There are a number of models that have HDMI out (including digital audio passthrough) and some that are also fanless for quieter operation (a must in a serious HTPC build) quote:Lastly, IR receivers and media center. Will any work? I have a Harmony remote that I would program with MCE codes. Yes, this is quite common, a bit of googling should help you find a good USB-based IR setup that is compatible (a number of capture cards even come with remotes, although I'm guessing the HDHR does not?) Once you have the base remote programmed, you can simply assign the same harmony keys to it. I have this done in my own setup with my harmony mapped to the remote that came with my HTPC case
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2008 08:00
|
|
|
vanilla slimfast posted:(a number of capture cards even come with remotes, although I'm guessing the HDHR does not?) the HDHR actually does have an IR receiver built into it, I've not used it myself, but did find some documentation on using it with linux when I was first trying different software/hardware configs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2008 08:34
|
|
|
Currently I have an Athlon64 3500+ on an ASRock 939Dual-SATA2 with 2GB of RAM, and an 8600GT with 1GB of RAM. For my first attempt at an HTPC, it's actually not running too terribly. It plays 720p just fine (locally), but stutters a little bit on Hulu's 720p HD content. Local 1080p content is playable, but stutters just enough to be annoying. So, I want to upgrade the system enough to be able to handle 1080p, but I don't have a ton of money to throw around. It's been a couple of years since I last built a computer so I'm not up on all the latest technology, which is why I am here. Would an Intel E7300 be enough to put me over the hump? edit: changed amount of video RAM Jayzer fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Dec 12, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 13:30
|
|
|
DirecTV support won't be coming with Windows 7 Over the last couple of months I fell hard in love with Vista Media Center but lately the number of omissions ("issues" is being too kind to MS) that are there and apparently have been there since the beginning is making me look elsewhere. The lack of an internal h.264 codec or the ability for people to dependably use their own codecs is simply loving ridiculous. There is no excuse. This thing should be treated as a platform for running a house's digital media but MS appears to see it more as just another thing in the Accessories menu. At least if there was h.264 support we could use the Hauppauge HD PVR with it and not have to buy an entire new PC and $300 tuner to watch HD cable. (please don't be the "what are you talking about I use ClearQAM and get 12 channels!" guy, that's not what I'm looking for and you know it). They could have played Media Center in the 360 in a way that made it a counterpunch to the PS3's BluRay support, but they didn't. They could have courted developers in better ways than making GBS threads out a poorly-documented SDK, but they didn't. I love that I can throw OTA HD to my 360 but gently caress, they could do so much better so easily! vanilla slimfast posted:HD or SD content? You'll probably want to go for at least a core2duo 2.0ghz or better if you plan on playing back HD MPEG2 content, especially if you are going to do any post processing like deinterlacing. People need to stop saying this. My ballsack can do HD MPEG2. My single-core athlon 64 3000 does it. It's the HD h.264 you have to worry about with old systems. Jayzer posted:Currently I have an Athlon64 3500+ on an ASRock 939Dual-SATA2 with 2GB of RAM, and an 8600GT with 512MB of RAM. For my first attempt at an HTPC, it's actually not running too terribly. It plays 720p just fine (locally), but stutters a little bit on Hulu's 720p HD content. Local 1080p content is playable, but stutters just enough to be annoying. I hate that the internet decided one day to go to all-flash-all-the-time. Those sites are all motherfuckers on your CPU. TheScott2K fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Dec 11, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 22:52
|
|
|
So I picked up a Harmony One tonight from Circuit City, and set it up based on my TV, receiver, and 360. However, I have no clue how to set it up to work with SageTV on my theater PC. I tried finding various SageTV items within the Logitech program, but nothing seemed to work. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 05:07
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:(please don't be the "what are you talking about I use ClearQAM and get 12 channels!" guy, that's not what I'm looking for and you know it). Have you actually tried using clear QAM? I get about 40~ channels plus another 25 foreign language and home shopping type channels which don't interest me AND about 50 music only channels. With the exception of "premium channels" like HBO and Showtime, neither of which I'd pay for anyways, I get nearly all the same HD content I'd get with a comcast provided HD box. YMMV, but don't discount it till you've tried it. Oh yeah there are the "bonus" channels that they broadcast other peoples' OnDemand movies which you can also watch but don't have any scheduling info to show whats coming up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 06:49
|
|
|
dfn_doe posted:Have you actually tried using clear QAM? I get about 40~ channels plus another 25 foreign language and home shopping type channels which don't interest me AND about 50 music only channels. With the exception of "premium channels" like HBO and Showtime, neither of which I'd pay for anyways, I get nearly all the same HD content I'd get with a comcast provided HD box. YMMV, but don't discount it till you've tried it. Oh yeah there are the "bonus" channels that they broadcast other peoples' OnDemand movies which you can also watch but don't have any scheduling info to show whats coming up. This depends entirely on your local provider. The only 'real' clear QAM channels I get are same channels I can get OTA since they are legally obligated to not encrypt them. The others are either PPV previews, shopping, the state legislature feed or music. It makes sense since it allows them to charge extra service and box rental fees for digital and HD service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 07:43
|
|
|
dfn_doe posted:Have you actually tried using clear QAM? I get about 40~ channels plus another 25 foreign language and home shopping type channels which don't interest me AND about 50 music only channels. With the exception of "premium channels" like HBO and Showtime, neither of which I'd pay for anyways, I get nearly all the same HD content I'd get with a comcast provided HD box. YMMV, but don't discount it till you've tried it. Oh yeah there are the "bonus" channels that they broadcast other peoples' OnDemand movies which you can also watch but don't have any scheduling info to show whats coming up. Many of us who pay for HD cable are also interested in the "premium channels" like HBO, which are actually some of the best HD channels out there. I'd list ESPN with that as well, since I've never seen its HD channel come through anyone's ClearQAM. Either way, ClearQAM is not a replacement for actual digital cable support. It's an odd curiosity, not a solution. I don't want a few channels that I can see thanks to a confluence of federal regulations, I want the real poo poo. Right now the only real way to get HD cable into a computer is using cablecard, and if the posts on The Green Button are any indication even that is dependable maybe half the time. The Hauppauge HD PVR gives an analog-loophole way around this, but MS of course is years late in adding h.264 support. I haven't seen anything that can touch Vista Media Center in terms of stability and slickness, but there has to be some way to attain that without adding a 2-year lead time to every new feature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 12:28
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:
Yep. if all you are planning on doing is mpeg-2 then basically anything is good thats somewhat recent nowadays. If you are having trouble with it, look at your codec or your video card first. And even then your video card probably isn't a issue unless you are trying to use a VMR or EVR mode and trying to play at 720p or 1080p resolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 13:44
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Many of us who pay for HD cable are also interested in the "premium channels" like HBO, which are actually some of the best HD channels out there. I'd list ESPN with that as well, since I've never seen its HD channel come through anyone's ClearQAM. Either way, ClearQAM is not a replacement for actual digital cable support. It's an odd curiosity, not a solution. I don't want a few channels that I can see thanks to a confluence of federal regulations, I want the real poo poo. I'm well aware that not everybody has the same desires nor the same experiences. I wasn't being rhetorical when I asked if you had tried it yet. Comments like yours about "12 QAM channels" that dismiss it out of hand add confusion to the discussion for those who don't understand all the options. If your previous experience with QAM is that YOU only receive 12 channels and that YOU would like to receive premium channels then it is more informative for everyone when you spell that out early on. Your follow up isn't much better since Clear QAM is plenty "HD cable" and a viable alternative to cablecard for many people and others who pop into this thread whose needs don't match up with yours are going to read your comment and think that there is only one viable option. So, maybe instead of just dismissing things out of hand or assuming that we all are shooting for the exact same goal maybe you can post something a little clearer than "thats not what I'm looking for and you know it." because we certainly do not know what it is that you are looking for and if you go back through the pages of this thread it becomes apparent quite quickly that many others who thought they new what they wanted actually didn't have the whole picture and were able to come up with a good solution that was easier and/or cheaper than what they thought they were going to have to surmount. None of the above is meant to be a troll or back seat moderation or anything. I've been posting in this thread since it's inception and would just like for everyone to have all their options clear so we avoid retreading the same debates over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 21:58
|
|
|
dfn_doe posted:[jabbering] ClearQAM is not "plenty HD cable." If a person is looking to watch HD cable on their PC via ClearQAM, the odds are very heavily in favor of them being disappointed. I'm "looking for" what everyone else is looking for. Nobody wants ("wants" as in "is building an HTPC in the hopes of receiving") the few channels that their cable company *might* give them over ClearQAM, they want the lineup they're paying for. Your situation with the 40 channels is not the rule, it's the exception. Most people running ClearQAM are getting their locals, home shopping nets, and not much else. If someone is looking to watch HD cable on their computer and hook it up to ClearQAM they're probably not hoping to just get locals-plus. If I seem dismissive it's because this consolation prize of a technology doesn't do the job, and is therefore worth dismissing. Just because you like it doesn't make it a viable solution to CableCard. My cable box gets 200+ channels, including about 40 HD channels. You're the greatest success story I've ever heard of on the ClearQAM front and all you get is 40 total, and I'm betting that includes some poo poo that doesn't really count as TV. How can you be savvy enough to build an HTPC yet still have standards that are in the basement? Edit: And the whole remark was in the context of MS dropping the ball with DirecTV and CableCard being completely out of reach for the home builder. ClearQAM isn't what HD cable-seekers are looking for, it's what people who can't receive OTA signals are looking for. Sorry I got your panties in a twist over your awesome semi-cable. TheScott2K fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Dec 12, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 22:40
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:ClearQAM is not "plenty HD cable." If a person is looking to watch HD cable on their PC via ClearQAM, the odds are very heavily in favor of them being disappointed. The very fact that it may work for some people and it may be what they want does actually make it a viable option. Since you seem to be the only one who is being so vocal about discounting it as an option maybe you should just not use it instead of trying to tell others what they are looking for... I'm not quite sure why you are being such a jerk about it, but I can't say that I really care.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 23:36
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:
I feel like MS has kind of written off most of the functionality Media Center. They got burned by blueray and cablecard and it seems like they just don't want to put money into supporting something they can't have enough control over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2008 01:08
|
|
|
I ended up ordering a GIGABYTE GA-MA790GP-DS4H, an Athlon 64 X2 5200+, and 4GB of RAM. I'm especially excited about the motherboard. It's certainly more expensive than I'd originally intended to spend, but I think it will be worth it. Surely this should be enough power for 1080p?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2008 10:16
|
|
|
I just put together a new HTPC fairly cheaply, but it's stuttering on some 1080p content. Athlon 5000+ X2 Asus mb with integrated radeon 3200 w/ hdmi output 2gb ram 3x1TB sata yadda yadda I assumed that the 3200 would do just fine, and I have a hard time thinking that the 5000+ X2 isn't up to the task of 1080p. Is it really an issue with the video card?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2008 16:48
|
|
|
slaphappynickname posted:I just put together a new HTPC fairly cheaply, but it's stuttering on some 1080p content. Depending on what you are using to play the 1080p stuff, the 5000+ X2 could very well be the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2008 16:54
|
|
|
evilalien posted:Depending on what you are using to play the 1080p stuff, the 5000+ X2 could very well be the problem. I got MPC-HC and enabled DXVA which made all of the movies that wouldn't play before just dandy now, but now some of the movies that were great before suck balls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2008 17:52
|
|
|
dfn_doe posted:The very fact that it may work for some people and it may be what they want does actually make it a viable option. Since you seem to be the only one who is being so vocal about discounting it as an option maybe you should just not use it instead of trying to tell others what they are looking for... I'm not quite sure why you are being such a jerk about it, but I can't say that I really care. I think the bigger issue is that both of you haven't really gone into what it is mostly reliable in getting. Local channels only. Some of us may live in a area where you can get more, and some of us like me can get 2 of the 4 big locals but all of the public access channels. It is what it is. Nice if it works for you, but not really reliable for content or access.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2008 18:34
|
|
|
slaphappynickname posted:I just put together a new HTPC fairly cheaply, but it's stuttering on some 1080p content. You need to clarify what type of 1080p content it is. MPEG2? x264? I don't believe the radeon will provide much (if any) hardware acceleration, so everything is dependent on the CPU. What does your CPU utilization look like when playing back this content? If it's pegged, then that's your answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2008 19:00
|
|
|
Ryokurin posted:I think the bigger issue is that both of you haven't really gone into what it is mostly reliable in getting. Local channels only. Some of us may live in a area where you can get more, and some of us like me can get 2 of the 4 big locals but all of the public access channels. It is what it is. Nice if it works for you, but not really reliable for content or access. I agree a hundred percent that people will have varying experiences, which is why I started my response asking if he had actually tried it. If he hadn't AND didn't have a want for premium channels I would have recommended that he give it a shot and see if it provided an experience like he was looking for. Like I said previously, my experience with clear QAM has been really good and it has saved me the hassle and money of trying to cobble together something HD-PVR based. Had someone advised me that clear QAM was useless and not worth the effort in the beginning I probably wouldn't have even pursued having TV capture capabilities in my HTPC. At any rate I'm not trying to say that my solution is necessarily the best for everyone, but it definitely suits me. As an additional bonus my captured HD content is in regular mpeg2 transport stream format which, being a bit more vanilla, seems to give me more playback and media extender options than what is available for x264 content which was part of Scott2k's initial complaint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2008 21:54
|
|
|
dfn_doe posted:I agree a hundred percent that people will have varying experiences, which is why I started my response asking if he had actually tried it. If he hadn't AND didn't have a want for premium channels I would have recommended that he give it a shot and see if it provided an experience like he was looking for. Like I said previously, my experience with clear QAM has been really good and it has saved me the hassle and money of trying to cobble together something HD-PVR based. Had someone advised me that clear QAM was useless and not worth the effort in the beginning I probably wouldn't have even pursued having TV capture capabilities in my HTPC. I was going to leave this alone but you had to come back and oval office up the thread with more whining so here we are. Tell me something - have you ever received your full cable lineup through ClearQAM? Do you know anyone who has ever received their full cable lineup through ClearQAM? Of course not because it doesn't loving happen! I was talking about it in the context of DirecTV/MS killing a piece of hardware that actually unlocks the entire lineup while at the same time lamenting the lack of options for actual digital cable support. I dismissed ClearQAM because it was and is irrelevant to the subject of true digital cable support in media PCs. Tell me how it's relevant, shithead. Tell me how the fact that you get your local channels plus QVC plus Telemundo unencrypted is in any way a substitute for or alternative to the true digital cable support that the homebuilt HTPC sector lacks and, it appears, will lack for the immediate future. You can't because it's not. You've had several chances to defend your assertion that ClearQAM is a viable alternative to CableCard and, by extension, true digital cable support, but rather than do so you've instead chosen to whine about the forcefulness of my language and "dismissiveness." I take it you have no actual defense for your position other than "it's fun to watch my neighbors fast-forward their ondemand movies." I don't think ClearQAM sucks. It's a neat little piece of tech that lets people with bad reception get highdef locals and gives tech savvy folks some bonus channels via digital means they otherwise wouldn't have. It is not, however, the real deal. It just isn't. In my original post I wanted to talk about the real deal. Doing so necessitated excluding ClearQAM. Otherwise we would have gone through a solid page of explaining to the rest of the thread what it is, why people use it, why it isn't really full digital cable, etc. Instead we got a page of you cunting around with your feelings and me getting pissed at you. Egg on my face, I guess. I had hoped to hear more people's thoughts on HD digital cable and the "elephant in the room" it has become to HTPC enthusiasts, but you decided that making yourself feel better about the smattering of content you get unencrypted through the wire was more important. Well done, you completely took the wind out of my sails. Now kindly gently caress off and watch some more NASA Channel. Edit: Might as well share some knowledge so the post isn't a complete waste: slaphappynickname posted:I got MPC-HC and enabled DXVA which made all of the movies that wouldn't play before just dandy now, but now some of the movies that were great before suck balls. I'm currently running an Athlon X2 4200 and I find still not guaranteed full framerate on high-bitrate movies unless I'm running the right codec. The answer always seems to be CoreAVC. The basic version only costs 8 bucks and while it doesn't include GPU support (the $16 version does) it should still do the trick if some demanding h.264 files are dropping frames. Vista support was rocky at first but it's been rock solid for me under Vista64 the last six months or so. The latest versions even have a beefed up config screen that lets you force off deblocking (among other things), which can make all the difference in the world lower-end CPUs. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2008 05:02
|
|
|
Actually GPU acceleration has been promised in CoreAVC for ages and hasn't been delivered as they say that both ATI and Nvidia are pretty vague in providing information to allow it. As a side note, if you don't have the funds right now, it is worth trying the mt builds of ffdshow tryouts if you have a multicore processor. The only thing multicore about it at the moment is h264 and mpeg-2 but at least in the h264 bit It's just slightly behind Core in speed. It's worth keeping an eye on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2008 05:59
|
|
|
Ryokurin posted:Actually GPU acceleration has been promised in CoreAVC for ages and hasn't been delivered as they say that both ATI and Nvidia are pretty vague in providing information to allow it. Well now I'm glad I only bought the $8 version.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2008 11:38
|
|
|
Ryokurin posted:Actually GPU acceleration has been promised in CoreAVC for ages and hasn't been delivered as they say that both ATI and Nvidia are pretty vague in providing information to allow it. I bought coreavc last night and gave it a whirl. I think there's some other issue with the other files because they are hiccuping every few seconds where before they did not at all, but the other 1080p files that were stuttering before now play great. It's not a money issue, so if I need to just buy a better processor I'll do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2008 13:42
|
|
|
slaphappynickname posted:I bought coreavc last night and gave it a whirl. I think there's some other issue with the other files because they are hiccuping every few seconds where before they did not at all, but the other 1080p files that were stuttering before now play great. Could you give us some information about the files that do stutter and the files that don't? Maybe we can help smooth this out. Unless you're using an intensive front-end an X2 5000 shouldn't have trouble with video playback.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2008 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
slaphappynickname posted:I bought coreavc last night and gave it a whirl. I think there's some other issue with the other files because they are hiccuping every few seconds where before they did not at all, but the other 1080p files that were stuttering before now play great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2008 20:10
|
|
