[Hitcher]

Since I started compiling my own builds of XBMC and testing them on my XP SP2 PC I've noticed that it's a hell of a lot more stable than on my Vista Home Edition PC (which is the main one I use as it's hooked up to my plasma TV).
So I've decided to set up a dual boot on it but would like to hear peoples opinions on which Windows OS is 'the best' for XBMC.
Thanks.

[djdafreund]

i can give you great feedback on x64 pro. works great. been using it since early on

[gabestover]

I don't know if I can tell you what's "best" in terms of which version of Windows, but I have been using Vista Ultimate 32-bit since XBMC for Windows has been around (moved from XBox to Ubuntu to Vista) and I really couldn't be happier. For me, it's nearly as stable as the XBox version was, and I can resume my PC from sleep and have XBMC waiting for me before my TV even turns on. That's all just my two cents though.

[DragonFly]

and I can resume my PC from sleep

Is that OS dependant?

and have XBMC waiting for me before my TV even turns on.

Please elaborate.



Anyway. XP is less resource hungry than Vista. But wrongly configured, it can be just as "slow" (mind the quotes ) as Vista.

It all depends on what you want to do with your Computer. If you want to use it as a dedicated HTPC, use a slimmed down version of XP and subsequently "hide" the OS.

If you also want to play direct 10 games, use (a slimmed down) Vista

[zeuss-axis]

I'm on WinXP SP3 and it's a lot more stable than when I used Vista Home Premium...and a hell of a lot easier to configure than when I tried Ubuntu!

[gabestover]

Is that OS dependant?

The Sleep/Resume isn't OS dependent at all - just noting that I'm happy with my vista install. I'm presently using a copy of Vista that I slimmed down to the basics with vLite. XP definitely uses less RAM, but I've got 2gb in my XBMC machine - more than enough for even a full Vista install. I think I'm using about 30%-40% of my RAM with XBMC playing videos, etc - so it's not a big deal to me.

Please elaborate.

The TV I have is a 42" Westinghouse using the energy saver mode. From the powered off state, the TV takes about 22 seconds to fully power on. The Logitech Harmony remote I have turns on everything at one (which in my PC's case, just resumes from sleep). By the time my TV has powered on, the PC has resumed from sleep and XBMC is ready to use. I don't game at all on my PC (using an onboard GeForce 7300, so gaming is virtually out of the question), but I wanted to use Vista anyway.

[Hitcher]

If you want to use it as a dedicated HTPC, use a slimmed down version of XP and subsequently "hide" the OS.

That's exactly what I use it for but what do you mean by 'slimmed down' version?

I'm on WinXP SP3 and it's a lot more stable than when I used Vista Home Premium...and a hell of a lot easier to configure than when I tried Ubuntu!

SP3?

[Gamester17]

what do you mean by 'slimmed down' version?
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=34325
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=34756
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=34966

[quote=Hitcher]SP3?

Service Pack 3 for Microsoft Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/detai...laylang=en

[keithskaggs]

I originally installed XBMCPC on Vista Ultimate and ran both the Media Center and XBMC (testing the playback on both). I had a lot of issues with Vista an eventually erased the drive and installed WinXP Pro SP3. Mine runs great, on all the time, CPU fan throttled down to 20% and system is ultra quite while maintaining 40C temp at idle and 50-52C when playbg back 720p. Only issue is audio stutters on some 1080p stuff.

Processor - P4 3.0GHz
RAM - 2GB (PC2 5300)
Video - Onboard NVidia 7100 HDMI out
TV - 42" LCD 720p and 1080i

Keith

[desperz]

I'm using first XP no !sp whats the point if you don't have prob.
Latest is not always faster or better /Mustang rocks

[DragonFly]

XBMC is far less OS dependant than any other HTPC-software I've ever worked with (and I've tried 'em all). That XBMC's strongpoint.

Take Mediaportal for instance. It heavily relies on the dotnet Framework. The configuration module takes "ages" (relatively speaking) to start and so does the main program. If a developer writes an 100 kb plugin that requires framework 3.5 you'll have to install the huge framework 3.0 plus package. Granted, modern-day HD's are large, but still the HD needs to seek through hundreds of framework files to get it's plugin working and that takes time (seek times are the Achilles heel of an HD).

I've been using an dedicated HTPC for ages. It's an old Celeron 1300, socket 370 (that's pre WWII stuff ). When using a standard XP installation, it takes some 40 seconds to boot. Using a slimmed down version of XP it needs 15 seconds, only using some 80 mb of memory. When resuming from standby (S3) it only needs a second to be fully operational.


Desperz uses no SP version. That's the beauty of it all. If all of your hardware is working, why bother to install an Service Pack. XBMC doesn't need it, only other programs using the OS do.

• Why bother to use the DHCP services if you can use a Static-IP.
  
• Why bother using the Theme services if the OS remains "hidden".
  
• Why bother using Universal Plug en Play if all you hardware is already installed
  
• Why bother to use the login screen or fast-user switching if there's only one user?
  

These are just a few things to make an OS start faster by using less resources, dependencies and disk-seek times.


If you're trying to boost your OS, I'd go for XP. It's been there for years and when slimming down your XP, you can use nLite which is far more developed than vLite for Vista. At this moment vLite doesn't even have half of the cleaning/tuning options that nLite has.

[keithskaggs]

Dragonfly,

I agree that you don't need SP's for WinXP to run XBMC for Windows, however, if you use your HTPC like I do and occasionally surf the web or check email (or any one of a dozen other things that would expose you to the net), you really need a good AV/AS program and all the latest security updates. Also, all the latest add-ins (flash, shockwave, etc...). Sometimes, it just far easier to keep the system up to date than deals with the fallout from a poorly maintained (software wise) system.

Just my two cents, no harm intended.

I don't mind the 1:31 seconds to XBMC and since I leave mine on 24/7, I only see that on the rare occasions when I reboot.

Keith

[bb10]

I'm using first XP no !sp whats the point if you don't have prob.
Latest is not always faster or better /Mustang rocks

It's very silly of you if that machine is connected to the internet.

[DragonFly]

@Kieth

You're absolutely right. If you're using your computer to do other things than using it as a dedicated HTPC, you'll need to keep an up to date system in order to keep malicious things off your PC AND to use software that's otherwise depended on the OS.

But I believe the question was "what's the best OS for XBMC".
And I say again, for the sole purpose as HTPC, I'd use XP because at this moment it can be better tuned and slimmed down for the use of XBMC which really doesn't need OS's overhead.

My HTPC runs for 5 years now, is connected with the outside world and has never been infected, using ONLY the Media software to stream content (Meedio, MediaPortal, XBMC and many others).

To keep things fresh and perky, I restore a Ghost image automatically with a click on the remote button and subsequently have a fresh system within minutes. That's because the C:\ Partition is relatively small and only contains the OS (some 600mb) plus XBMC. Databases, cache, content, etc is kept on other partitions.

[Hitcher]

I finally decided to give TinyXP (SP3) a go and haven't regretted it one bit - in fact I've reformatted the HDD and got rid of Vista altogether.

XBMC hasn't crashed once and I've been giving a damn hard time by playing 1080p videos - skipping back and forwards, rewinding and fastforwarding x32, you name it I've tried it.

Thanks for all the help guys.