PC to TV

[Wolf K]

On 6/4/2013 3:26 AM, NY wrote:
[...]

As an aside, why does *anything* that stores to a filesystem or reads
from a filesystem still use FAT, given that NTFS has been the standard
for Windows PCs for many years? [...]

As an aside, why do we still have dumb drives that need guidance and
control from an OS? Why should the OS know or care what file system a
storage device uses?

It's way past time to for storage (and other) devices that from an OS
POV are merely data destinations and and sources. Let the device handle
everything else.

So, you're saying that if you decide to change file systems, you'd rather
have to go out and buy a new hard drive? Or even something as "simple" as a
firmware upgrade?

Why would I "decide to change file systems"? The only reason this is
even a meaningful question is precisely because the FS is linked to the
OS. As for firmware upgrades, for the vast majority of users I don't see
any need for them at all. They just don't stress their HDDs enough to
make a few percent improvement in throughput meaningful in any way. They
are far more likely to need additional storage, and that should be
completely plug'n'play.

File systems are constantly evolving. Maybe not so much in the Windows world,
where's there's relatively few (a handful of FAT systems + a few revisions of
NTFS), but the *nix file systems see constant development. The last thing in
the world I'd want is to have to upgrade the *disk* to support the *file
system*.

Frankly, I don't get it. If the storage device is data source and
target, why do you need to mess with its file system? As I understand
it, a file system defines how data is stored on the disk, and how data
is tracked. That's all. I see no reason why that shouldn't be built into
the device. Or that any upgrades to it shouldn't be done the same way as
BIOS or other firmware upgrade is done now. If you actually need an
upgrade, that is. See above.

I repeat: the OS and any attached device only need to know how to
connect, and how to exchange data. That's all. How either one
accomplishes its data processing task(s) is irrelevant to the other.

Besides, you'd still need drivers for the disks anyway. (Modern drives *are*
a lot smarter than they used to be, but that's the hardware, not the FS.)

Why would you need a driver for what is essentially an address? "This
HDD needs a driver" means "My machine has to do stuff that the HDD can't
do for itself". Give the HDD a URL, and send/request data, just like you
do with any other URL.

I notice that my system exchanges data with systems with different OSs
all the time. Why should a HDD be any different? I can even exchange
data with computers on my home network with different OS's. So why
should any of those machines have to know stuff about their own HDDs
that they don't need to know about the HDDs in the other machines?

Bottom line: storage devices as presently designed are kluges based on
past practices, when CPUs were a lot more expensive than they are now.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 6/4/2013 3:26 AM, NY wrote:
[...]
As an aside, why does *anything* that stores to a filesystem or reads
from a filesystem still use FAT, given that NTFS has been the standard
for Windows PCs for many years? [...]

As an aside, why do we still have dumb drives that need guidance and
control from an OS? Why should the OS know or care what file system a
storage device uses?

It's way past time to for storage (and other) devices that from an OS
POV are merely data destinations and and sources. Let the device handle
everything else.

So, you're saying that if you decide to change file systems, you'd rather
have to go out and buy a new hard drive? Or even something as "simple" as a
firmware upgrade?

Why would I "decide to change file systems"? The only reason this is
even a meaningful question is precisely because the FS is linked to the
OS. As for firmware upgrades, for the vast majority of users I don't see
any need for them at all. They just don't stress their HDDs enough to
make a few percent improvement in throughput meaningful in any way. They
are far more likely to need additional storage, and that should be
completely plug'n'play.

File systems are constantly evolving. Maybe not so much in the Windows world,
where's there's relatively few (a handful of FAT systems + a few revisions of
NTFS), but the *nix file systems see constant development. The last thing in
the world I'd want is to have to upgrade the *disk* to support the *file
system*.

Frankly, I don't get it. If the storage device is data source and
target, why do you need to mess with its file system? As I understand
it, a file system defines how data is stored on the disk, and how data
is tracked. That's all. I see no reason why that shouldn't be built into
the device. Or that any upgrades to it shouldn't be done the same way as
BIOS or other firmware upgrade is done now. If you actually need an
upgrade, that is. See above.

I repeat: the OS and any attached device only need to know how to
connect, and how to exchange data. That's all. How either one
accomplishes its data processing task(s) is irrelevant to the other.

Besides, you'd still need drivers for the disks anyway. (Modern drives *are*
a lot smarter than they used to be, but that's the hardware, not the FS.)

Why would you need a driver for what is essentially an address? "This
HDD needs a driver" means "My machine has to do stuff that the HDD can't
do for itself". Give the HDD a URL, and send/request data, just like you
do with any other URL.

I notice that my system exchanges data with systems with different OSs
all the time. Why should a HDD be any different? I can even exchange
data with computers on my home network with different OS's. So why
should any of those machines have to know stuff about their own HDDs
that they don't need to know about the HDDs in the other machines?

Bottom line: storage devices as presently designed are kluges based on
past practices, when CPUs were a lot more expensive than they are now.

In point of fact, NAS devices are a bit much like what you are
describing.

Assuming I have a reasonable idea how NAS devices work, which is not a
foregone conclusion

Anyway, I like your idea...

 

[Char Jackson]

In point of fact, NAS devices are a bit much like what you are
describing.

Assuming I have a reasonable idea how NAS devices work, which is not a
foregone conclusion

Anyway, I like your idea...

NAS is also what came to my mind when Wolf was describing his ideal. The
devil is probably in the implementation details, however.

 

[Char Jackson]

I think I said in previous post.
1) the TV can see and play movies from the other PCs and NAS.
However, some sources present over 200 "movies" that the TV cannot play
or I have no interest in. I have not figured out how to filter out
unplayable and unwanted movies yet.
2) the Win 7 Pro PC running allshare selectively pushes the easily
found movie. But a quick ACCEPT on the TV is stupid.
3) now I have the Win 7 pro media Player pushing movies however it
will not push the Media Center recorded TV movies even though the are a
wrapped mpg file. The TV cannot unwrap them. i.e. no codec. In this
case the movie just plays immediately, no ACCEPT is presented.

Will fiddle some more. but what a poor implementation.
I need less fun.

You've certainly made things hard for yourself, but I think many of us, me
included, have made some similar mistakes in years past. I went through a
few iterations and wasted some money, but my present setup works 100%.

 

[Char Jackson]

Probably because FAT is much more widely-supported than NTFS. Windows is not
the only system available, especially for servers.

I don't think there are too many servers running a version of FAT, are
there?

 

[Char Jackson]

Sadly this isn't the case. I've not yet found a hardware player (as opposed
to Windows software) which can play Microsoft Media Center's native
recording formats .dvr_ms (Vista) and .wtv (Win 7). You have to convert
these to something more generic like .mpg for the player to recognise them.

True, but the obvious solution is to avoid recording with Windows Media
Center. I was in that situation when Win 7 first came out (2007 or so?) and
quickly realized that I needed a non-Media Center solution. I settled on
SageTV and HDHomerun tuners, so everything is straight MPG2 and easily
editable and playable, but there are plenty of other solutions available.

What I want doesn't seem to be made: a self-contained player with a remote
which can connect to Windows network sharename (via Ethernet or wireless),
access the folder structure that I have set up on my recording PC and play
the WTV files that I've recorded. Some devices require you to "push" the
file from the server to the player (and so require you to control the server
which may be in another room to the TV and player) instead of getting the
player to "pull" the files from the server.

Well, actually, it *is* made: it's called a Windows PC!

I went that route for awhile but after a short time I realized that I just
couldn't put up with Windows when I wanted to play something. Hence, media
players, which use Linux but to their credit they completely hide it from
the user. Everyone in my house can figure out how to play anything stored on
my media server, and they don't have to be bothered with Windows as they do
it.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

NAS is also what came to my mind when Wolf was describing his ideal. The
devil is probably in the implementation details, however.

Now you're being non-controversial

(I mean about the devil in the details...)

 

[OldGuy]

What was the other recommended server other than Serviio? Sorry I
cannot find that post even with a search.

Regarding Serviio.
Serviio download Serviio Pro that reverts automatically to Free version
after 15 days.
Not sure what I will lose. Yes, I looked at the comparison but I do
not understand the terms used.
I downloaded and installed on the the Win 7 Pro PC.
It also caused an installation of Java 6.
Their documentation is not too good but I fiddled with it for a while
and could not figure much of anything out.
Later I went to my TV and found that a new Serviio icon was there as
well as the DLNA for that Win 7 Pro PC.
I did not understand that that it was a server in the sense that it
sits there waiting for the TV to request a push. And yes, Windows
Media Center Recorded TV is transcoded and looks and sound very good.

The Samsung TV on screen was quite confusing.
1) Media Center recording from the Win 7 PC show up but many had
multiple duplicate entries.
2) Some entries seemed to have bad length. eg. a 1 hr recording showed
as 4 hrs. That one did play but after an hour I got bored and shut it
down.
3) The folders on the TV are hard to navigate primarily because the TV
recording as sorted poorly by things like Genre. There is no one place
where all are listed to select from. By Titles has all but there are
subfolders by alpha order. e.g. "The Best .." is sorted into B folder.
4) I set Serviio movie source to a NAS folder but none of those
Recorded TV videos showed us a the TV. Drats!

TV remote Pause and Stop and Play work on the pushed media.
Unfortunately fast forward and reverse do not work.

And what was the other non-free server? Maybe I'll look at that one.

 

[Paul]

What was the other recommended server other than Serviio? Sorry I cannot find that post even with a search.

Regarding Serviio.
Serviio download Serviio Pro that reverts automatically to Free version after 15 days.
Not sure what I will lose. Yes, I looked at the comparison but I do not understand the terms used.
I downloaded and installed on the the Win 7 Pro PC.
It also caused an installation of Java 6.
Their documentation is not too good but I fiddled with it for a while and could not figure much of anything out.
Later I went to my TV and found that a new Serviio icon was there as well as the DLNA for that Win 7 Pro PC.
I did not understand that that it was a server in the sense that it sits there waiting for the TV to request a push. And yes, Windows Media Center Recorded TV is transcoded and looks and sound very good.

The Samsung TV on screen was quite confusing.
1) Media Center recording from the Win 7 PC show up but many had multiple duplicate entries.
2) Some entries seemed to have bad length. eg. a 1 hr recording showed as 4 hrs. That one did play but after an hour I got bored and shut it down.
3) The folders on the TV are hard to navigate primarily because the TV recording as sorted poorly by things like Genre. There is no one place where all are listed to select from. By Titles has all but there are subfolders by alpha order. e.g. "The Best .." is sorted into B folder.
4) I set Serviio movie source to a NAS folder but none of those Recorded TV videos showed us a the TV. Drats!

TV remote Pause and Stop and Play work on the pushed media. Unfortunately fast forward and reverse do not work.

And what was the other non-free server? Maybe I'll look at that one.

Try an article like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_UPnP_AV_media_servers

Paul

 

[OldGuy]

Try an article like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_UPnP_AV_media_servers

Paul

Thank you. You must have read the whole Internet. Your knowledge is
vast. Are you a computer?

I am going to to give a try:
1) Universal Media Server
2) KooRaRoo Media

Both have a free and paid version.
I do not mind paying for using even the free version but I will
download both free and paid 1 & 2 and give them a try.

Probably cannot have both 1 & 2 running at the same time.

Serviio works but has rough edges. Maybe my setup: Samsung TV
I did go to the Samsung website and it said there was no firmware
update for my model. Did you find otherwise?

Hopefully 1 or 2 will be easier for me to use.

 

[Seth]

I am going to to give a try:
1) Universal Media Server
2) KooRaRoo Media

Both have a free and paid version.
I do not mind paying for using even the free version but I will download
both free and paid 1 & 2 and give them a try.

Also check out TVersity (what I am currently using to make media available
to multiple devices) and Plex (what I am going to look at to see if it is
any better this weekend).

 

[Ken Blake]

Also check out TVersity (what I am currently using to make media available
to multiple devices) and Plex (what I am going to look at to see if it is
any better this weekend).

Do any or all of these work with a Roku box?

 

[Seth]

Do any or all of these work with a Roku box?

Can't say for sure as I haven't a Roku to test with. They are simply DLNA
server apps that do on the fly transcoding so should work.