VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: usa
    Search Comp PM
    I'm wondering whether my moderately old PC is capable of setup for video streaming to my TV.
    I'm running WinXP with a pentium dual-core E5200 @ 250 GHz, with 2G RAM. I'm using wired internet access (no Ethernet card).
    Is there anything that I need to add to my PC in order to enable such things as Roku or Apple TV to function?
    Any special soundboards or videoboards necessary?
    Can streaming be run, instead, from a smartphone?
    Or do I have to simply get a new PC in order to take advantage of streaming?

    Thanks for any responses.
    Quote Quote  
  2. I'm a MEGA Super Moderator Baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2000
    Location: Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    Stream what? 1080p video to 1080p realtime transcoding wont work.

    But stream sd video should work fine.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: usa
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Baldrick View Post
    Stream what? 1080p video to 1080p realtime transcoding wont work.

    But stream sd video should work fine.
    Sorry, but not quite sure what realtime transcoding means (though that's probably what I need)
    What I'd like to be able to do, for example, is to watch a netflix movie or an internet video directly on my tv, rather than on my PC monitor. I guess that's 1080p?
    If it won't work, what about the smartphone apps that are available?
    Quote Quote  
  4. I'm a MEGA Super Moderator Baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2000
    Location: Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    Transcoding is realtime conversion to a format that your portable player supports.

    So it's best to get portable player that can play as many formats as possible. Then is your network speed important...
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: usa
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Baldrick View Post
    Transcoding is realtime conversion to a format that your portable player supports.

    So it's best to get portable player that can play as many formats as possible. Then is your network speed important...
    running 2.85 mbps from my ISP, but I'm not "networked", and am not sure quite what you mean. I'm real new to this stuff, and barely computer literate. But I'm still getting the impression that WinXP is not a sutable OS for the "real time" streaming that I desire.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by atlantis43 View Post
    Originally Posted by Baldrick View Post
    Transcoding is realtime conversion to a format that your portable player supports.

    So it's best to get portable player that can play as many formats as possible. Then is your network speed important...
    running 2.85 mbps from my ISP, but I'm not "networked", and am not sure quite what you mean. I'm real new to this stuff, and barely computer literate. But I'm still getting the impression that WinXP is not a sutable OS for the "real time" streaming that I desire.
    You need a router and a home network of some kind (wired or wireless) for streaming. A wired network is faster, more reliable and has the ability to serve more devices at the same time. A wireless network is more convenient to set up and can work, if the speed and quality of the connection is sufficient, but has more limitations.

    If you don't have a home network, you can't stream. All you can do is connect your PC's video out to the TV and use the TV as a monitor.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 24th May 2014 at 11:15.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: usa
    Search Comp PM
    [QUOTE=usually_quiet;2323418][QUOTE=atlantis43;2323415]
    Originally Posted by Baldrick View Post
    You need a router and a home network of some kind (wired or wireless) for streaming. A wired network is faster, more reliable and has the ability to serve more devices at the same time. A wireless network is more convenient to set up and can work, if the speed and quality of the connection is sufficient, but has more limitations.

    If you don't have a home network, you can't stream. All you can do is connect your PC's video out to the TV and use the TV as a monitor.
    So does that mean that devices like apple TV or Western Digital TV Live are actually routers for HDMI, or are actual networking routers additionally required to do live streaming?
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by atlantis43 View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    You need a router and a home network of some kind (wired or wireless) for streaming. A wired network is faster, more reliable and has the ability to serve more devices at the same time. A wireless network is more convenient to set up and can work, if the speed and quality of the connection is sufficient, but has more limitations

    If you don't have a home network, you can't stream. All you can do is connect your PC's video out to the TV and use the TV as a monitor.
    So does that mean that devices like apple TV or Western Digital TV Live are actually routers for HDMI, or are actual networking routers additionally required to do live streaming?
    Yes, actual networking routers are additionally required to do live streaming. Your modem may or may not include a router. Cable modems usually do not include a router, but DSL "modems" may also function as wired or wireless routers capable of supporting a home network rather than just one individual PC. However, when I had DSL service, my "modem" included a one port-router that supported just one PC. I had to put the "modem" in bridge mode and get a router to be able to connect more devices to the network.

    The media player (Roku, Western Digital, Apple TV, Chromecast, etc.) is a device connected to the network via the router, like a PC or a networked printer is a device connected to the network via a router.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 24th May 2014 at 12:30.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: usa
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Yes, actual networking routers are additionally required to do live streaming. Your modem may or may not include a router. Cable modems usually do not include a router, but DSL "modems" may also function as wired or wireless routers capable of supporting a home network rather than just one individual PC. However, when I had DSL service, my "modem" included a one port-router that supported just one PC. I had to put the "modem" in bridge mode and get a router to be able to connect more devices to the network.

    The media player (Roku, Western Digital, Apple TV, Chromecast, etc.) is a device connected to the network via the router, like a PC or a networked printer is a device connected to the network via a router.
    Thanks for the clear summary. Yes, my DSL modem serves as a router (as per verizon).
    It seems that I'll still need to get a mini-tower or something, as my pc doesn't have either DVI or HDMI ports, and then use that for my needs.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by atlantis43 View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Yes, actual networking routers are additionally required to do live streaming. Your modem may or may not include a router. Cable modems usually do not include a router, but DSL "modems" may also function as wired or wireless routers capable of supporting a home network rather than just one individual PC. However, when I had DSL service, my "modem" included a one port-router that supported just one PC. I had to put the "modem" in bridge mode and get a router to be able to connect more devices to the network.

    The media player (Roku, Western Digital, Apple TV, Chromecast, etc.) is a device connected to the network via the router, like a PC or a networked printer is a device connected to the network via a router.
    Thanks for the clear summary. Yes, my DSL modem serves as a router (as per verizon).
    It seems that I'll still need to get a mini-tower or something, as my pc doesn't have either DVI or HDMI ports, and then use that for my needs.
    Some here people may disagree with me, but seeing as how XP security updates from Microsoft have ended and you describe yourself as not being tech savvy, getting a Windows 7 PC may be a very good thing to consider regardless. HP and some others still sell them, although Windows 8.1 systems are more common. My tech un-savvy sister went from XP to 8.1 with no great problems (after installing a start menu replacement Classic Shell and setting up to boot into the desktop with my help), but many people have less difficulty adapting to Windows 7.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: usa
    Search Comp PM
    Actually, MS is still supporting XP-----they seem to have given in to the public outcry! (but they haven't given public acknowledgement of the fact).
    But yes: I'm going to pick up a junk laptop or mini-tower, that will allow me to do what I desire. Looks like there's no way around it.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by atlantis43 View Post
    Actually, MS is still supporting XP-----they seem to have given in to the public outcry! (but they haven't given public acknowledgement of the fact).
    But yes: I'm going to pick up a junk laptop or mini-tower, that will allow me to do what I desire. Looks like there's no way around it.
    Just because Microsoft has patched or promised to patch a couple of big security holes in IE, doesn't mean they haven't left a number of other known issues unfixed for the public. Only those businessess and government agencies paying an exorbitant sum for extended support are still getting more than the patches for the two IE problems after April 8. Eventually Microsoft will just stop patching IE 8 for the public too, A very high percentage of the remaining XP users are running unlicensed copies and Microsoft has little incentive to keep them happy.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 24th May 2014 at 22:14.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: usa
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by atlantis43 View Post
    Actually, MS is still supporting XP-----they seem to have given in to the public outcry! (but they haven't given public acknowledgement of the fact).
    But yes: I'm going to pick up a junk laptop or mini-tower, that will allow me to do what I desire. Looks like there's no way around it.
    Just because Microsoft has patched or promised to patch a couple of big security holes in IE, doesn't mean they haven't left a number of other known issues unfixed for the public. Only those businessess and government agencies paying an exorbitant sum for extended support are still getting more than the patches for the two IE problems after April 8. Eventually Microsoft will just stop patching IE 8 for the public too, A very high percentage of the remaining XP users are running unlicensed copies and Microsoft has little incentive to keep them happy.
    Did I not hear correctly that only about 8% of XP users had actually upgraded by the expiration date? Almost every business I come in contact with (even a large hospital) is still running XP, with no imminent plans to upgrade.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by atlantis43 View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by atlantis43 View Post
    Actually, MS is still supporting XP-----they seem to have given in to the public outcry! (but they haven't given public acknowledgement of the fact).
    But yes: I'm going to pick up a junk laptop or mini-tower, that will allow me to do what I desire. Looks like there's no way around it.
    Just because Microsoft has patched or promised to patch a couple of big security holes in IE, doesn't mean they haven't left a number of other known issues unfixed for the public. Only those businessess and government agencies paying an exorbitant sum for extended support are still getting more than the patches for the two IE problems after April 8. Eventually Microsoft will just stop patching IE 8 for the public too, A very high percentage of the remaining XP users are running unlicensed copies and Microsoft has little incentive to keep them happy.
    Did I not hear correctly that only about 8% of XP users had actually upgraded by the expiration date? Almost every business I come in contact with (even a large hospital) is still running XP, with no imminent plans to upgrade.
    The hospitals here wisely switched to Windows 7 in the past year.

    8% worldwide? I believe that. The third world, which contains the largest percentage of XP users mostly runs pirated copies of XP on older PCs, and won't spend the money to upgrade. Also some news stories count Windows Embedded as Windows XP, although one Windows Embedded release will receive patches until January, 2016 and users still have some time left before they need to move on. (Windows Embedded is only run by things like ATMs, cash registers, and other appliances or industrial machines.)

    Windows 7 is the preferred choice now for most large corporations. http://www.dailytech.com/Windows+XP+Abandoned+by+5+out+of+7+Enterprise+Users+in+the+Pa...ticle34920.htm

    Many of the larger institutions and businesses in the US still using XP are paying $200 per PC per year (capped at $250,000 per year) for extended support to maintain better security. However, since Microsoft makes having an upgrade plan a condition for receiving said support, they will likely be leaving XP behind in the not too distant future. http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-chops-the-price-of-custom-windows-xp-patches-7000028512/ PCs with Intel's Haswell CPUs won't even run XP because Intel did not create chipset drivers for it, so if a business needs to buy replacement PCs, it will have fewer options available that will allow it to keep using XP.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 25th May 2014 at 02:06.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: usa
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks for the far more complete analysis of the news about MS. I was simply very amused when MS sent their first XP security update out just 2 days after the deadline (I even thought it was a malware scam, and had to check before I allowed download), and then sent another a few weeks thereafter!
    And almost all of the updates regard network security, which I always thought had little to do with the individual PC user (perhaps ignorance is bliss?)
    Anyhow, off to check on a USB to TV streamer or a cheap minitower(with Win 7 or 8) today.
    N.B:
    Quote Quote