[althekiller]

You're right. Do you have any HDD suggestions? Maybe Sata raided disks or SSD?
I have a 100MBps internet connection and sometimes torrenting can become very diskintensive.

The only way you can hope to combat seeking and throughput issues is with multidisk striped RAID solutions. I'd recommend RAID5 (RAID6 if you have some cash) with as many disks as you can afford. Also get a quality raid controller card, AFAIK NO motherboard raid controller support hardware parity creation (it's offloaded to the CPU) for RAID5/6 so make SURE the controller you purchase has this otherwise performance is severely bottlenecked.

@malloc, the SATAII interface is good for 3Gbps but the physical disk has no hopes of running near that speed. You usually see sustained average reads ~60-80Mbps with writes obviously a bit lower. Of course you can burst much higher if you hit the cache. Only way I know to get HIGH sustained average reads is with RAID.

[HenrikDK]

Ohh a discussion I love these

"I don't see here any comparison with ATI or Intel speeds."

Yes interesting, I seem to be currently unable to find any "digg" threads or nagging forum complaints about intel's open source drivers release schedule.

"What? So they removed XvMC in all of the line up instead of just some of it? That's a good thing?"

No, the point I was making is that Intel drivers still support XvMC on all their chipsets... Nvidia has removed this feature, but I guess you could choose to understand my words as saying the opposite

"Maybe I have to read the 100 page long thread to understand what's going on here, but I saw nothing in the first page. So Intel is behind some standard that may or may not be well adopted. We've got a GSOC student working on hardware acceleration. I bet he's not using Intel."

The point of that link was to show that nvidia has been hearing complaint about the lack of hardware acceleration for a long time, but has choosen to do nothing. And yes the GSOC student is doing amazing work but as far as i know he has had to resort to using opengl 2.0 and shaders to achieve this goal, and as far as i know this will also work with Intel solutions..

"I've seen previous Intel chip sets wreck havoc on XBMC when you enable the wrong OpenGL setting. I'm sorry, but if you don't support something in OpenGL, you shouldn't make the system go to 1fps on enabling it. You should just silently ignore it. Perhaps if Intel developed its own drivers this wouldn't happen."

Nvidia does the same thing, I own an old laptop with a geForce 5200 card that doesn't support the "nonpower of 2 texture rectangle extension" in the openGL ARB spec, and it displays the exact same behavior (ie switching to software renderer even though it doesn't support the feature). I even posted information on this forum helping d4rk fix the problem but have since lost interest in using that card (for obvious reasons). The only difference is that nvidia cards are high-end and thus usually support the latest and greatest features, so it takes a really old card like the 5200 or nvidia's recent indifference to linux driver development, to illustrate these problems.

Ohh and who said intel doesnt develop its own drivers?
http://www.intellinuxgraphics.org/team.html

"Sure, we've had issues with NVIDIA cards also, but as far as I know, we've never had to fix them."

You never had the possibility of fixing these problems, it's closed source

My question is if your problem stems from the fact that Intel doesn't really do high performance "gaming" cards but instead focuses on the low budget integrated market?

I wouldn't choose Intel if I was building a gaming setup, but then again I wouldn't be building a linux system if I wanted pc-gaming. I would point out though that Intel currently delivers very capable HTPC chipsets and boards (the G45 seems like it was made for this) and has a long history of providing specs and open source linux-drivers for their products.

Nvidia on the other hand looks to be pretty much dead in the water on linux while offering a pretty bleak outlook, but hopefully the GSoC project will mediate this.

[BLKMGK]

Nice! I was thinking about a DG45ID myself or maybe a
Gigabyte GA-EG45M-DS2Hhttp://www.giga-byte.com/Products/Mother...EG45M-DS2H who has its audio codec ALC889A supported by ALSA.

Okay, i'll display my ignorance - what does having that codec supported in ALSA buy you exactly? Near as I can tell that codec has something to do with HDCP crypto? Or 7.1 sound? I'm not sure reading what I could find that this will buy us anything but I'm all ears. I'd love to be able to support something like True-HD or whatever on my system but I am told that it's too bandwidth intensive for coax or optical out. If this is sound over HDMI I'm interested in hearing more please if you can explain it.

Thanks!

[malloc]

Yes interesting, I seem to be currently unable to find any "digg" threads or nagging forum complaints about intel's open source drivers release schedule.

With lower expectations comes less nagging. And what of ATI?

No, the point I was making is that Intel drivers still support XvMC on all their chipsets... Nvidia has removed this feature, but I guess you could choose to understand my words as saying the opposite

My bad, I read it a bunch of times, but kept replacing "nvidia" with "intel" in my head. So intel was removing it, but continuing to support it. It really made no sense to me. Now it makes much more sense. So shame on NVIDIA for not supporting MPEG decoding hardware acceleration. If only CPUs were fast enough to do this...

The point of that link was to show that nvidia has been hearing complaint about the lack of hardware acceleration for a long time, but has choosen to do nothing. And yes the GSOC student is doing amazing work but as far as i know he has had to resort to using opengl 2.0 and shaders to achieve this goal, and as far as i know this will also work with Intel solutions..

Yes, he had to "resort" to 2.0 shaders because, surprise surprise, there is no API out there that will do it. Not even from Intel! Also, because we like things to just work here at XBMC, it wouldn't be good enough if NVIDIA supported something and Intel didn't.

Nvidia does the same thing, I own an old laptop with a geForce 5200 card that doesn't support the "nonpower of 2 texture rectangle extension" in the openGL ARB spec, and it displays the exact same behavior (ie switching to software renderer even though it doesn't support the feature). I even posted information on this forum helping d4rk fix the problem but have since lost interest in using that card (for obvious reasons). The only difference is that nvidia cards are high-end and thus usually support the latest and greatest features, so it takes a really old card like the 5200 or nvidia's recent indifference to linux driver development, to illustrate these problems.

XBMC is completely unusable on some Intel chips if you enable VSYNC. Can't navigate the UI, can't play a video.

Ohh and who said intel doesnt develop its own drivers?
http://www.intellinuxgraphics.org/team.html

OpenGL says so. At least last I checked. And from wikipedia: "In August 2006, Intel added support to the open-source X.Org/XFree86 drivers for the latest 965 series that include the GMA (X)3000 core.[40] These drivers were developed for Intel by Tungsten Graphics." FOR Intel BY Not Intel.

You never had the possibility of fixing these problems, it's closed source

I meant having to put a hack into XBMC. Are Intel's drivers OS on Windows also? If not, we can't just fix the driver as the behavior would still be wrong in Windows/OS X. Open source is wonderful, I support it, XBMC supports it, but it sometimes means shit. If it's not open source on all platforms, it's worthless. How receptive is the team to external patches? If they don't take them and integrate them, it's worthless.

My question is if your problem stems from the fact that Intel doesn't really do high performance "gaming" cards but instead focuses on the low budget integrated market?

No, I actually recommend integrated graphics from NVIDIA. My problem stems from that VSYNC issue.

I wouldn't choose Intel if I was building a gaming setup, but then again I wouldn't be building a linux system if I wanted pc-gaming. I would point out though that Intel currently delivers very capable HTPC chipsets and boards (the G45 seems like it was made for this) and has a long history of providing specs and open source linux-drivers for their products.

As far as XBMC is concerned, there's no point to open source graphics unless they're open on all platforms. AFAIK, Intel hasn't opened its drivers for Windows and OS X, so we can't do anything with the Linux drivers either. Fixes have to go into XBMC.

Nvidia on the other hand looks to be pretty much dead in the water on linux while offering a pretty bleak outlook, but hopefully the GSoC project will mediate this.

Bleak outlook? Are they not able to play videos and show music visualizations? Are the viz and videos slower than they are on Intel? Less detailed?

Once again, ATI is left out of the conversation.

[michal]

I meant having to put a hack into XBMC. Are Intel's drivers OS on Windows also? If not, we can't just fix the driver as the behavior would still be wrong in Windows/OS X. Open source is wonderful, I support it, XBMC supports it, but it sometimes means shit. If it's not open source on all platforms, it's worthless. How receptive is the team to external patches? If they don't take them and integrate them, it's worthless.

No, I actually recommend integrated graphics from NVIDIA. My problem stems from that VSYNC issue.

As far as XBMC is concerned, there's no point to open source graphics unless they're open on all platforms. AFAIK, Intel hasn't opened its drivers for Windows and OS X, so we can't do anything with the Linux drivers either. Fixes have to go into XBMC.

This thread is about the G45 specifically and it is in the Linux sub-forum. Is any of this relevant to the Intel G45 under Linux?

Since this is the first Intel graphics chipset to support OpenGL 2.0 none of the previous chipsets even met the minimum XBMC requirements. Even so I've heard that the G45 could manage decent 720P performance. Is this the chipset with the VSync problem? If not then it really isn't relevant to the discussion is it?

I mean no offence, I'm just confused by your obvious dislike of Intel chipsets and their drivers with regard to XBMC under Linux. Am I missing something?

I myself was going to chose a motherboard with the 630i with embedded Nvidia 7100 but have now decided it's worth paying twice as much for an Intel G45 based board because it will in fact be BETTER suited for the very specific purpose of running XBMC under Linux. This will totally alleviate the dependency on EnvyNG or manual install of closed source drivers. A simple apt-get install will be enough for a fully functioning system if the latest Ubuntu 8.10 alpha is any indication.

[HenrikDK]

I came back to this thread wanting to post my reply but i can see that michael has already illustrated my point making this post pratically useless, so I will refrain from further spamming of this thread after this last post ..

With lower expectations comes less nagging. And what of ATI?

we seem to be coming back to the issue of dedicated graphics vs integrated graphics again, i would presume that intel would have atleast the same level of nagging as nvidia as the currently own 90% of the graphics industry throught their integrated chipsets, while nvidia continues to occupy the dedicated space. But maybe this world is guarded by other laws that are unbeknown to us, anyway its all speculation. I must admit though that your continued refusal to acknowledge nvidias failings in this space is quite impressive, I really hope they're paying you well..

As for ATI, I choose to focus my second post on your criticism of intel, but I would stille say that ATI drivers are progressing on the issue, whereas nvidia is standing still.

So shame on NVIDIA for not supporting MPEG decoding hardware acceleration. If only CPUs were fast enough to do this...

Why disable working functions on excisting hardware? Sure modern cpu's can keep up, but what about people using older hardware, and why waste cpu cycles on something that can already be handled else where? Seems nvidia only cares about the latest and the greatest, it's just and odd thing to do if you ask me.

Yes, he had to "resort" to 2.0 shaders because, surprise surprise, there is no API out there that will do it. Not even from Intel! Also, because we like things to just work here at XBMC, it wouldn't be good enough if NVIDIA supported something and Intel didn't.

Quite true, one can only dream of a cross platform unified video acceleration api, but it's not very likely to happen.

XBMC is completely unusable on some Intel chips if you enable VSYNC. Can't navigate the UI, can't play a video.

Yes and so is a geforceFX5200, same thing cpu goes to 100% every things frozen or incredibly slow and video results in a horrible green mess. Cant really see what the difference here is, older nvidia card that don't support the openGL 2.0 ARB spec, seems this is another case of comparing nvidias latest and greatest to intels legacy chipsets..

OpenGL says so. At least last I checked. And from wikipedia: "In August 2006, Intel added support to the open-source X.Org/XFree86 drivers for the latest 965 series that include the GMA (X)3000 core.[40] These drivers were developed for Intel by Tungsten Graphics." FOR Intel BY Not Intel.

Wow this is retarded, I just pointed to an Intel page with the names of developers currently employed by Intel to develop linux drivers, and you give me an old story from wikipedia (that modern bastion of truth). Incase theres any doubt checkout the xf86 developemt changelog and compare it with what wikipedia and intel are saying:
http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=xorg/dr...bfa03d0bf3

And by the way what is wrong with hiring and external firm to develop an initial driver release? Many companies do this in open source, even ATI and this doesn't seem to stop them from producing functioning drivers.

I meant having to put a hack into XBMC. Are Intel's drivers OS on Windows also? If not, we can't just fix the driver as the behavior would still be wrong in Windows/OS X. Open source is wonderful, I support it, XBMC supports it, but it sometimes means shit. If it's not open source on all platforms, it's worthless. How receptive is the team to external patches? If they don't take them and integrate them, it's worthless.

As far as i know team XBMC has already put patches for nvidia driver errors in XBMC's codebase (the geforceFX5200 error being one of them). Reality is every driver manufacturer has errors, what matters to the platform is the response time between releases and lately nvidia has neglected linux as shown in previous posts. From a multiplatform-developers standpoint your comments about open source make sense, but from a (linux) user perspective, it doesnt, windows has and always will be the home of closed source software so your basically asking for the impossible. As far as intels responses to patches I cant speak, but their linux driver development is integrated into the main xorg development tree, so they follow their bug-reporting / patch application process, so one can atleast guess it would rival that of team-xbmc.

No, I actually recommend integrated graphics from NVIDIA. My problem stems from that VSYNC issue.

Hmm 5 seconds on google revealed that the issue dissapeard with the 2.2.1 driver:

"http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjI5NA

There may be hope with Intel X 2.2.1 Driver

In Ubuntu 8.04 this problem is gone :-D (Tested with 32bit)"

As far as XBMC is concerned, there's no point to open source graphics unless they're open on all platforms. AFAIK, Intel hasn't opened its drivers for Windows and OS X, so we can't do anything with the Linux drivers either. Fixes have to go into XBMC.

Again that maybe true from a developers standpoint but not really from the users, especially when there's difference in linux support from nvidia and intel.

Bleak outlook? Are they not able to play videos and show music visualizations? Are the viz and videos slower than they are on Intel? Less detailed?

Once again, ATI is left out of the conversation.

No currently everything works in xbmc as it does on intel, but as I have demonstrated nvidias falling behind on their linux support, so as a linux user you might want to choose your product accordingly. And yes ATI was left out of this discussion for reasons noted earlier

[desertoak]

Okay, i'll display my ignorance - what does having that codec supported in ALSA buy you exactly? Near as I can tell that codec has something to do with HDCP crypto? Or 7.1 sound? I'm not sure reading what I could find that this will buy us anything but I'm all ears. I'd love to be able to support something like True-HD or whatever on my system but I am told that it's too bandwidth intensive for coax or optical out. If this is sound over HDMI I'm interested in hearing more please if you can explain it.

Thanks!

Sorry. I just searched the alsa projects website and found this:
"Changelog between 1.0.16 and 1.0.17rc1 releases: HDA Codec driver: hda - Fix ALC889A codec support. hda - Avoid unexpected breakage with ALC889A hack".

[malloc]

This thread is about the G45 specifically and it is in the Linux sub-forum. Is any of this relevant to the Intel G45 under Linux?

Do you really think I would have brought it up if it wasn't relevant? Perhaps you missed my point. It is completely irrelevant that Intel has opened up its drivers on Linux as far as XBMC is concerned. This is OpenGL we're talking about. It's supposed to be the same across all platforms, across all chips. The only difference should be performance, but not such drastic performance. Though I have no idea what version of OpenGL VSYNC came in, if they don't support it, the should return an error. It makes bugs much easier to track down. This, as well as any other GL issue in any driver on any chipset can't just be patched up in the driver unless we can expect that patch to be taken upstream and supported across all platforms. That's not going to happen if their Windows/OS X drivers are closed source because it would contaminate the proprietary drivers with GPL code.

Since this is the first Intel graphics chipset to support OpenGL 2.0 none of the previous chipsets even met the minimum XBMC requirements. Even so I've heard that the G45 could manage decent 720P performance. Is this the chipset with the VSync problem? If not then it really isn't relevant to the discussion is it?

Of course not meeting the minimum requirements doesn't stop non 2.0 chip sets from working still. Previous Intel chip sets could support 720p just fine, you don't need a G45 for that. I have no idea if the VSync issue is fixed, I believe it has been. That doesn't make it any less relevant. It's already been shown that people don't care about current performance. You leave a bad taste in your customers mouth when you screw up once. Intel already screwed up.

I mean no offence, I'm just confused by your obvious dislike of Intel chipsets and their drivers with regard to XBMC under Linux. Am I missing something?

I don't dislike them. I just don't recommend them. My main dev platform used to be Linux with an Intel chip set. Now it's OS X with an Intel chip set.

I myself was going to chose a motherboard with the 630i with embedded Nvidia 7100 but have now decided it's worth paying twice as much for an Intel G45 based board because it will in fact be BETTER suited for the very specific purpose of running XBMC under Linux. This will totally alleviate the dependency on EnvyNG or manual install of closed source drivers. A simple apt-get install will be enough for a fully functioning system if the latest Ubuntu 8.10 alpha is any indication.

Twice as much? I would have recommended Intel to anyone on a budget, but no longer. The problems previously described were with NVIDIA 8800, so I don't see how the G45 is going to be better than the 7100. Maybe it is though, I havne't looked for any performance comparison. I have no idea how complicated EnvyNG is. I thought the whole point of it was to make it as easy to install proprietary NVIDIA drivers as it is to install other open source drivers. But why are you so worried about keeping drivers up to date to begin with. Sounds like you're babysitting your media center too much.

[malloc]

we seem to be coming back to the issue of dedicated graphics vs integrated graphics again, i would presume that intel would have atleast the same level of nagging as nvidia as the currently own 90% of the graphics industry throught their integrated chipsets, while nvidia continues to occupy the dedicated space. But maybe this world is guarded by other laws that are unbeknown to us, anyway its all speculation. I must admit though that your continued refusal to acknowledge nvidias failings in this space is quite impressive, I really hope they're paying you well..

How are we coming back to integrated vs dedicated? Didn't I already say I was recommending integrated NVIDIA? I would never recommend dedicated for a media center only computer. Just like I would never recommend integrated for a gaming computer.

The nagging has nothing to do with share of the market. It has to do with expectation. If I buy a $400 video card, I expect $400 of performance. Yes I'm going to raise hell when I only get $300 worth. If I'm Joe Shmoe buying a new laptop and don't give a shit about graphics, chances are I'm getting integrated Intel and have no idea and couldn't care less. So am I going to say anything when Vista isn't working? Maybe I'll mention it to someone and they'll say my graphics card is shit and I'll go back to doing nothing about it. Or more likely I never knew Vista had higher capabilities to begin with. Yes, I'm using Vista as an example, but Linux works just as well. If Linux has 10% of the OS market and Intel has 90% of the graphics market then it's likely 10% of the chips Intel is putting out go on Linux, so they'd better have a working driver, open source or not. However, it's not so true for the $400 dedicated graphics card from NVIDIA. Chances are the buyer is running Windows and wanted the card for games. So NVIDIA concentrates its efforts on Windows, because that's where more money is coming from.

As for ATI, I choose to focus my second post on your criticism of intel, but I would stille say that ATI drivers are progressing on the issue, whereas nvidia is standing still.

How nice of you to assert your opinion without a plethora of authoritative digg links.

Why disable working functions on excisting hardware? Sure modern cpu's can keep up, but what about people using older hardware, and why waste cpu cycles on something that can already be handled else where? Seems nvidia only cares about the latest and the greatest, it's just and odd thing to do if you ask me.

To save transistor space? To cut costs of hardware? To save developer maintenance time? To cut cost of driver development. All of those equals money in YOUR pocket. Or you could pay more to have the completely useless feature... This was done in the x86-64 architecture as well. All previous x86 instruction sets were backwards compatible. Then they changed their mind. Woops. People got upset. Nothing changed.

Yes and so is a geforceFX5200, same thing cpu goes to 100% every things frozen or incredibly slow and video results in a horrible green mess. Cant really see what the difference here is, older nvidia card that don't support the openGL 2.0 ARB spec, seems this is another case of comparing nvidias latest and greatest to intels legacy chipsets..

I was unaware. You win this one. Though when Intel screws up, it effects more people since they do have 90% of the market.

Wow this is retarded, I just pointed to an Intel page with the names of developers currently employed by Intel to develop linux drivers, and you give me an old story from wikipedia (that modern bastion of truth). Incase theres any doubt checkout the xf86 developemt changelog and compare it with what wikipedia and intel are saying:
http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=xorg/dr...bfa03d0bf3

Sorry, I'll try to use more reputable source like the unbiased digg.com or perhaps the output from an OpenGL query to the driver.

And by the way what is wrong with hiring and external firm to develop an initial driver release? Many companies do this in open source, even ATI and this doesn't seem to stop them from producing functioning drivers.

No problem, unless they screw up. Except they usually have less details about the hardware.

As far as i know team XBMC has already put patches for nvidia driver errors in XBMC's codebase (the geforceFX5200 error being one of them). Reality is every driver manufacturer has errors, what matters to the platform is the response time between releases and lately nvidia has neglected linux as shown in previous posts. From a multiplatform-developers standpoint your comments about open source make sense, but from a (linux) user perspective, it doesnt, windows has and always will be the home of closed source software so your basically asking for the impossible. As far as intels responses to patches I cant speak, but their linux driver development is integrated into the main xorg development tree, so they follow their bug-reporting / patch application process, so one can atleast guess it would rival that of team-xbmc.

Hmm 5 seconds on google revealed that the issue dissapeard with the 2.2.1 driver:
"http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjI5NA

There may be hope with Intel X 2.2.1 Driver

In Ubuntu 8.04 this problem is gone :-D (Tested with 32bit)"

Please please please could you link to articles that have the relevant information IN them? I don't like to click through 50 pages to find information. I didn't find the information on the initial page nor the bug it linked to. If it's fixed in Linux, bravo. I would hope it's fixed in Windows and OS X as well, otherwise we get to add more ifdefs. Horay!

Again that maybe true from a developers standpoint but not really from the users, especially when there's difference in linux support from nvidia and intel.

Odd, I would think open source would only matter to developers. The user doesn't benefit unless there are developers interested in the fact that something is open source and they are willing to contribute.

No currently everything works in xbmc as it does on intel, but as I have demonstrated nvidias falling behind on their linux support, so as a linux user you might want to choose your product accordingly. And yes ATI was left out of this discussion for reasons noted earlier

So because there's a bug related to KDE, NVIDIA is falling behind? Or is it because NVIDIA doesn't support OpenGL 3.0, even though Intel...doesn't...odd. I don't see what KDE or GL 3.0 have to do with XBMC.

[desertoak]

OK. Thank you guys. I think i finally made up my mind.

- Mainboard: Intel DG45ID
- CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 8400 3GHz
- Memory: Corsair DDR2 PC6400/800MHz CL5 4GB
- Eclosure: Antec Fusion Black 430
- HDD: Samsung SpinPoint F1 HD753LJ 32MB 750GB
- Keyboard:Ione Scorpius p20
- Blu-ray/HD DVD drive: None. Although i found this: Play HD DVD and Blu-Ray films under Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

Comments:
I choose a Intel G45 mainboard because i think they would be most likely to support hardware acceleration in the future an i like their support of open source drivers.
After reading althekiller post i also think a Intel Core 2 Duo 8400 3GHz will do just fine.
4GB of memory may be overkill but it won't hurt (thinking about the future). Memory is anyway cheap nowadays.
I also think Antec Fusion Black 430 is an affordable alternative.
I think i just wait with this raid controller and buy one if i need one. With no raid i will have my photos remote-backuped to another computer in my LAN. HDD performance when torrenting/watching movies maybe suffering but i will test it first to see if it is really a problem.
Blu-ray/HD DVD drive: I think i'll wait to buy it. Although it seems to be possible playing blueray/hd-dvd, xbmc have no support for it.
I will install Ubuntu from a left over dvd drive i have at home.

Any commets? suggestions?

[malloc]

Good choices. That's a sexy case. A good RAID controller will be very expensive, so probably best that you're waiting. I'm not sure you'll see Blu-ray support in Linux or even XBMC for Windows anytime soon, so don't hold your breath.

[BLKMGK]

I'm familiar with that BD linky, looked it over ages ago when trying to figure out BlueRay on my HTPC. It works for movies that aren't encrypted and there is\was code for some earlier crypto schemes - since changed - and no support to decrypt BD+ titles either. That link will get a FEW titles running and frankly the native codecs on the disk can be a PITA.

If you want watch BlueRay on Linux rip\compress\store to a NAS. They take as little as 8Gig to as much as 14Gig compressed. If you want to know how to do the whole rip\compress thing lemme' know - I do HD-DVD and BD\BD+ all the time. You will need Slysoft AnyDVD HD, the rest of the software is free - and Windows based. My sig has some info.

[hazeh]

I'd prefer to buy into intel gfx, assuming xbmc works - I like the idea of much more open hardware and software.
I wouldn't worry about a raid controller. You need to spend some serious money to get anything that is more than just a potential point of hardware failure. I'd happily sacrifice rebuild speed and a few cpu cycles for data throughput for my use. I wouldn't use my htpc as a (large/fast) storage server for a fair few reasons.
Worrying about torrents and streaming/disks at 300MBs/market shares/etcetc is all a bit silly.
Looks like a nice keyboard, Would like to hear your feedback on it. Have you got your Dinovo now blkmgk? Spam refreshing the other post and hovering over the 'buy' button waiting on you
I don't have any interest in optical media on xbmc, I do the same as the previous poster. By the time I have people coming round my house with and wanting to watch films on bluray disc there and then, I'm sure it'll be suported in xbmc and I might consider putting one in.

[proctor]

@desertoak

After first considering the P5E-VM HDMI, and then the M3A78-PRO. I have decided to go with the DG45ID and an E8400 too. I'll be picking up the parts next week.

[desertoak]

@desertoak

After first considering the P5E-VM HDMI, and then the M3A78-PRO. I have decided to go with the DG45ID and an E8400 too. I'll be picking up the parts next week.

Nice! I will hopefully be picking up parts this week.