[Milhouse]

I think XBMC on the Pi is a marvellous achievement, but for me the most obvious benefit is that the weak processor in the Pi highlights improvements that are possible in the XBMC design which can/should/do benefit everyone, not just Pi users.

It's a miracle that XBMC runs on so many different platforms, but inefficient design has crept in because most developers use powerful kit. The Pi as the lowest common denominator is now starting to reveal some of those design mistakes and many have already been eliminated while the Pi was brought up.

Embrace the Pi, don't denigrate it.

I hate them because its not a full experience and never will be. So whats the point?

Hate is a strong word, but that aside your definition of "full experience" is clearly different to mine - I can stream 1080p media just fine on a Pi with no skipping or lag, also music, iPlayer and YouTube. You may want a few extra bells and whistles, but the fundamentals of XBMC are working just fine so there's a lot of point. That's not to say it couldn't be better, but throwing more hardware at the problem isn't always the smart solution.

[GortWillSaveUs]

^^^ Well stated.

[azrael17]

Just picked up a couple Pis to play around with. So far one is working beautifully as a secondary XBMC client. Overclocked and running off USB flash drive with openelec.

[Ned Scott]

You make a fair point, jammyb. I certainly wouldn't use a Pi as my main machine.

[nickr]

I have only used XBMC on a 256M Rpi and only because we had an old CRT Tv with composite in - which is hard to find on any modern graphics cards.

It basically worked but sucked. Possibly if I had persevered more I could have made it better, but also probably needed a 512M Pi.

If it had been my only XBMC experience I would have gone and looked for something else.

So I kind of agree with jammyb, people do go to t Pi without really thinking whether it meets their needs, whether those are DTS-HD, Aeon Nox as a skin, 10bit Anime, or any oof the other things that will create a fail.

OTOH is people have one lying around and want to play around to see what a live XBMC system looks like, they may very well have themselves a good bedroom or kitchen (ie not main HTPC) machine and move on to better things for the lounge.

Someone above made the point that improving the code to make it efficient enough to work on low power machines increases performance on better machines too. That is a very good point. Maybe we should throw the devs some Z80 machines and say "when it works on my Sinclair Spectrum, it's efficient enough" LOL.

[memeka]

Yes, the pi was not made for XBMC. But then again, i7 was not made for XBMC as well. So what's your point?

I also can't see why the pi has severe limitations with respect to XBMC. All the core features of XBMC run perfectly well. Yes, if you want to install some eye-candy skin that needs dunno how many addons, it will choke, but I would not call that severe limitation. I'm sure somebody can make a skin that can choke a i7. You don't buy a 10K car and complain that you can't reach 100km/h in 5 seconds, or that you can't go with 300km/h on the highway.

Also, those that complain, I am sure they are perfectly aware the limitation comes from the pi, and not XBMC. If you complain your car is slow, you don't consider buying a plane, but a better car. It does not mean all cars are slow.

There are many ways to use a media center, and the pi certainly fits a large number of people. For example, I hardly watch 1080p, and I only use 2 streaming addons. I love having CEC and using only my TV remote. I never found a video in my (small) library (~800 hours of video) that the pi was not able to play extremely well. And if I do find one, I will probably play it on my computer and get over it (that would be <1% videos, acceptable error). If I would constantly need something that the pi can't provide, I would upgrade the pi to something that can. Just as if I would find myself driving every day in the outback, I would change my Yaris with a SUV or something.

To conclude, no, I am not sick of my rPi. It does exactly when I expect it to. And when I will expect more with regards to XBMC, I will find another media player that does that, but keep using the rPi because, in addition to being a media player, it's also my home webserver, file server, temperature monitor, and soon to be home monitor (just got a movement sensor the other week).

EDIT: I have a 512 rPi clocked at 900MHz.

[kortina]

While everyone is venting...

I too get frustrated with the *budget* category of users.

I do not sympathise with users who go and spend
$100 on an ATV2
$50 on a RPi + 10 hours trying to get some cheap remote to work
$100 on a Pivos

At the end they are still anyoned that their experience is not great.

Spend the money ONCE, spend the time ONCE and enjoy your media centre.

I am still running
1 x Celeron 440 (2Ghz) ITX system - 6 years old - Original cost $800
1 x Atom D510 Nettop - 4 years old - Original cost $550

These systems have run XBMC perfectly and given MANY years of service, taking very little time.

Yeah, I could have done it cheaper... but I also might have had to have replaced the systems earlier. Given the long lifetime and the high WAF, I will certainly be able to justify building a nice i3 Haswell-ITX if either of my systems die.

I would guess that XBMC has delivered over 4000 hours of video playback in my house over the last 7 years. (2 hours per day on average). This is why I donate, This is why I buy nice gear not cheap gear.

[Milhouse]

Also, those that complain, I am sure they are perfectly aware the limitation comes from the pi, and not XBMC. If you complain your car is slow, you don't consider buying a plane, but a better car. It does not mean all cars are slow.

Some of the limitations are inherently due to the Pi, agreed, but others are due to legacy coding, for example loading the entire Movies media library and converting into C objects, then only displaying 10 items at a time. If a function is coded in a less than scalable way, it will eventually choke even an i7 (and sooner an i5, i3, Cortex-A9 etc.). Fix the function so that it scales and performs well even on a Pi and you'll never have a problem with a Cortex-A9 let alone the i7. The point is, just because something performs well on an i7 but like cr@p on a Pi doesn't mean the Pi is the problem.

Another issue is the excessive CPU use for no apparent reason, most likely due to something that is not quite right in the dirty regions code. "Oh look, the Pi always runs at 100% CPU - what a PoS!". Yes, it does, but it shouldn't...

Generally speaking, thanks to the GPU and work done by XBMC developers, popcornmix and the R-Pi Foundation, playback on a Pi is pretty stellar (particularly for the price/size/power consumption). Unfortunately it's the XBMC GUI that still has a number of choke points that can, should and hopefully will be eliminated over time.

If you want a car analogy, with all the legacy code written years ago targeting Pentium3 x86, XBMC is like running a modern V8 on low octane fuel, the V8 will still get the driver from A to B in good time but that same fuel in a single or twin stroke motor (Pi) may not even get you started - is the motor at fault here? By the way I am not a petrol head so the analogy may not be exact... ;-)

Also to be clear - I'm not criticising XBMC developers, just pointing out that XBMC on the Pi will only get better over time as more of the "limitations" are eliminated.

[Nu7s]

I have only used XBMC on a 256M Rpi and only because we had an old CRT Tv with composite in - which is hard to find on any modern graphics cards.

It basically worked but sucked. Possibly if I had persevered more I could have made it better, but also probably needed a 512M Pi.

I have both a 256MB and 512MB RPI. I notice NO difference in performance between them both regarding XBMC.

I understand the main frustration expressed in this thread, but please don't generalise. Not every RPI owner who uses it for XBMC is complaining.
Also, the development on the RPI has come a long way. If you are complaining the RPI didn't do it's job 2 years ago, you are the idiot. RPI builds weren't even Alpha then. Try a recent version first before judging it's performance.

[nickr]

I have both a 256MB and 512MB RPI. I notice NO difference in performance between them both regarding XBMC.

I understand the main frustration expressed in this thread, but please don't generalise. Not every RPI owner who uses it for XBMC is complaining.
Also, the development on the RPI has come a long way. If you are complaining the RPI didn't do it's job 2 years ago, you are the idiot. RPI builds weren't even Alpha then. Try a recent version first before judging it's performance.

Interesting that you don't notice the difference between a 256 and a 512M Pi, I find that difficult to comprehend, but as I haven't tried it I will bow to your experience. Makes you wonder why they increased the RAM. Mine is doing sterling service (and probably massively under utilised) doing dhcp/dns on my LAN.

I appreciate that not everyone is complaining, but I do notice a reasonable number of people who find that the Pi isn't really right for them, after seeing (and believing) people raving that it's a cure to all their media pc needs as well as a cure for cancer.

[Nu7s]

They increased the RAM to 512MB because the supplier couldn't supply the 256MB chips anymore.

[Ned Scott]

They increased the RAM to 512MB because the supplier couldn't supply the 256MB chips anymore.

I'm fairly certain the reason was because they were able to use 512 and still keep the same cost for Model B. Model A is sold with 256MB RAM still.

[tallnerd1985]

Who needs a fancy skin? If the rPI can play HD movies fine and potentially DTS-HD audio, just use your phone, tablet or whatever to tell XBMC to play the media file kind of like they are doing with Chromecast.

Ever since the original software for the Xbox, I've always used the IR remote to control XBMC and always worried about having the best skin for my box. Now, especially since everyone has a smartphone or tablet, I've found it more convenient to search and control my XBMC boxes around the house. Its weird at first but now its natural and WAF (Wife Approved Functionality).

[Rourke]

I want to use XBMC in it's full glory, which means a nice skin with all the information I want and plenty of usefull addons. Raspberry Pi just can't handle this. I also learned this the hard way.

I did my research beforehand though, and found that mostly the communities were apparently happy with the way the interface worked. I didn't find any advice from people saying I shouldn't do this. In the end I regret buying this for XBMC. I ordered all the parts for a (windows build #1) HTPC, and can't wait to build it and see how smooth XBMC runs.

TL;DR don't use a Raspberry Pi for XBMC.

[Milhouse]

I didn't find any advice from people saying I shouldn't do this.

Given the specification, size and cost of the Raspberry Pi, that should have been rather obvious.

The limitations of the Pi with respect to XBMC are widely known and acknowledged, don't blame the community for your own unrealistic expectations.

TL;DR don't use a Raspberry Pi for XBMC.

No, don't use a Raspberry Pi for XBMC if you have unrealistic expectations and requirements, such as running full fat skins and lots of addons.