Talk:Video hardware compatibility

Why?
It's understandable to have an audio page since not every video card has HD audio passthrough, but there's no point for listing the abilities of every video card. It's just not relevant, since any graphics card made in the last 4 years will have the same decoding abilities. It might make sense in the future to start listing h.265 decoding hardware, but even then such a page wouldn't look like this and would likely just be a part of the existing H.265 page. It makes sense for Android VPUs, but not for x86 GPUs. -- Ned Scott (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2014 (EDT)


 * Go talk to kib about his idea, I dont care either way, this is largely a WIP and I carried over some data (from Audio) to get something already filled in, to aid in visualizing...
 * to see where this idea can be expanded and how, to which hardware, again this is something kib had visualized and
 * I am trying to make some sense of, but either way.

if you starting to have some itch you want to scratch before this is even half done or anywhere finished, there's two things you can do.

1) wait till its more or less finished

2) take it all over

This all page is a

that means work in progress and anything thus far is not representative of anything in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by uNiversal (talk • contribs)


 * Look, I'm not trying to squash your dreams or anything, but I see exactly where you're going with this, and I know you are going to spend a lot of time and effort on it. I can either try to warn you early on so you don't waste your time, or I can wait so you can get mad because you feel I ruined what you worked hard on. My whole job is to help make sense of the entire wiki, and I'm just trying to tell you that this direction that this page is going isn't going to get you very far. The idea isn't bad, but there's a lot of ways to implement hardware type pages.


 * Try to ask yourself various questions when making new pages, like:


 * Who is this helping? What role is this page and information providing?


 * I'm not trying to demean your work, but this page looks like filling out information for the sake of filling it out.


 * What level of detail is maintainable? Is this information that will be outdated fast, and if so, will it stay up to date?


 * This is something I went through for the Android hardware page, several times, and it still is evolving. Right now the best direction on that page is to not list every possible hardware model and configuration, but to give general advice and try to cover generic sets of hardware. For the video decoding formats, you'll notice only three columns are there, because those are three groupings where things vary and are the three that are most relevant to users looking this info up.


 * In this context we can do the same thing, like looking at a whole series of graphics cards, or if all graphics cards from AMD for the last X years have the same facts, group them and say that. Sometimes, there are other websites that already have this information and are better at it, and there is little reason to re-invent the wheel. Obviously, there's a balance to it all, but I'm just trying to direct you to what I think will be more balanced.


 * How does this fit in with the rest of the wiki?


 * I've pointed out to you more than once that we have a hardware page called devices (that used to be called just hardware, and both titles direct to the same page). It's a section that is still growing and evolving, but even now you should see that the bulk of the advice is organized by OS, and for a specific topic/task. How are people going to find this page? What is the flow of information, of pages, that they might take? These questions impact how this information should be stored, and what information is even needed, so that it doesn't just become another cluttered page of facts that don't really have context, that no one can find unless they already understand the topic they are searching for.


 * Look at the mininav template at the top of the page. Instead of using it as breadcrumbs, which is what it is for, you're using it to toggle between two pages that aren't particularly related other than the fact that they both involve XBMC hardware. It's not much yet, and more will be added, but there is an existing system of bread-crumbs, landing pages, sectional linking, and "guide/series" navigation that you keep ignoring.


 * A good portion of what I do here is just cleaning up old stuff that was left behind by other people. I don't mind doing that, but you should listen to me if I tell you that a certain page might not be a good idea. -- Ned Scott (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2014 (EDT)

Final answer

 * Who is this helping? What role is this page and information providing?

Wghat htpc do I get? What TV do I get, what AVR do I get, What OS, what XBMC version? these pages try to answer all of that.

This is not about a specific device, this is about many and the way they work or not together with xbmc. Someone reading should when wondering what shit (in the whole not just Htpc) to get they look at here and go ok. ideally.... this is far from whats its meant to be atm....

None of the pages you point to do that in a whole, its just one or the other and its missing tons of general infor which can be wrangled somewhere and these two pages is a overview... on a glance ya this combo works/not
 * What level of detail is maintainable? Is this information that will be outdated fast, and if so, will it stay up to date?

Is it maintainable yes, its a community contribution. Each user that already has a working setup comes in here and fills it in. Others come and read and buy or not that set of equipment. Does it get outdated fast? Doesnt everything? or we just doing any of this because its timeless information? wat?

1) HPTC whatever you want be it x86 android or whatever.

2) TV set could be 3d able or smart or dumb could be final way for audio/video or whatever

3) receiver/avr

4) XBMC build and OS what combo works best in the whole comparison/overview.


 * How does this fit in with the rest of the wiki?


 * This idea was something kib had Im trying to visualize implemetnt a rough something to VISUALIZE, however that idea gets fulfilled idk.
 * Also, this is supposed to be a user contributed pages, its supposed to be ideally interactive but my skills waiver on what kib has in mind.
 * So we dont get detracted much from set, it is not even done, yes thank you for warning, that it may not work, tbh idk if it will work or how yet.

If this means the page gets nuked from high orbit, so be it.

You know, talk to kib (again this was something he spitballed in IRC Im just trying to give it some shape), maybe you can instead get his idea off the ground and in a better way instead of whatever it is you call this, intervention...?

This is not suppose to be what you think it is, its suppose to be a general setup cobo compatibility thing with TV/Receivers/HTPC/XBMC mix, so again, you wanna squash and destroy it because it doesnt fit with your vision go ahead. Im more or less done and going to ask kib what he thinks, as its the only opinion that matters to this idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by uNiversal (talk • contribs)


 * So to review, you don't know what the page is for, you refuse to use things I've already set up that I worked hard on, and you expect this page to be some catch-all hardware page? I'm sorry that you don't get it. It works against what I've been working towards, what others have been working towards. Take it personally if you want, I'm just trying to give you some honest advice about where you should go with this. Work on it all you want, but don't expect anyone to even know why this page exists, let alone help you with it. -- Ned Scott (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2014 (EDT)

wat? nonsense! This is not even finished and you already at the start want to NUKE it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by uNiversal (talk • contribs)


 * Unfinished isn't an excuse for something that is horribly unorganized and has zero direction. Now you're adding ARM info to this? You don't even know what you're doing. I was willing to let you work on this and waste your time, but this is absurd. And yes, I have that authority. -- Ned Scott (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2014 (EDT)
 * On second thought, keep working on it if you want. It's less work than trying to explain to you why it's a bad idea. -- Ned Scott (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2014 (EDT)