Originally Posted by Nerys64
I think this statement is largely incorrect. Windows is used in many different situations. You may say "windows is not designed to run inside cars" but that happens on a multitude of entertainment units and data loggers. PC's are able to play dvd, blu-ray, games, and audio. These present a multitude of formats and listening configurations. It is not fair to lump all computers into some 2.0 30 dollar logitech speaker category given what a computer is capable of. At the end of the day, a computer is what is responsible for creating most of the AV data we consume anyways.
1) There's a big difference between something bespoke for a particular purpose, and something that is able to do something.
2) I didn't lump all computers into anything, I made a comment on the target market of Windows. Look at where 99% of Windows licenses/PCs are deployed, they're deployed in enterprises (where you're lucky if you get a 2.0 system), schools, home offices, etc. The percentage deployed in HTs or connected to TVs as primary entertainment devices is infinitesimally small.
3) (Most of) the things you mention that are embedded and run Windows run Windows Embedded or Windows CE, not desktop Windows. Yes there are similarities but there are also significant differences.
What you are saying is a gross generalization that refers to the most commonly used configuration for end users. And most of us on this forum are not end users.
It is, and it's the perspective that Microsoft and the PC industry have. PCs overwhelmingly aren't used for serious
media playback, they're used for work, development, surfing the internet, etc. This means that Microsoft has essentially no interest in making things like automatic audio format switching working.
My PC is meant to be a device that can do everything. It may not play a blu-ray as seamlessly as the embedded customized software/hardware combo of a blu ray player but it is entirely capable of getting just the same amount of performance and even the crappiest of laptops is capable of at least proper playback.
This is exactly my point, the difference between being designed
to do something and being able
to do something. If Windows were designed to
playing media, it would play things as seamlessly other dedicated devices. It would automatically switch output formats (audio and video) to match source formats, the audio/video clock would be tied together, the video output would be locked to the input, etc.
I'm not trying to invent some new method of home theater stuff here. I have a single device that fits all of my needs. Yours may be different, but in a tiny little room I have space for this one-size-fits-all device and dont want to waste thousands of dollars fiddling with various pieces of equipment that each accomplish exactly one task.
Essentially you could say that everyone here is trying to "invent" a new method. Look I'm not knocking your system or anyone else's system. But I see it a lot here that people wonder why things don't work as smoothly or seamlessly, or well. They seem to forget that the HTPC market is an infinitesimally small portion of the overall PC market, and on top of that we, with HTPCs, are essentially system integrators.
Also, all of the att set top boxes and brighthouse boxes run a customized version of windows.
It's probably about as close to running Windows as the Xbox 360 is. But again, we're back to my point about being bespoke. Mediaroom is designed for being a media hub, something that Windows 7, 8, XP, etc are not. Oh, and MS has sold Mediaroom, and basically abandoned Windows Media Center. That should make clear where Microsoft's priorities for media playback are.