resources used by V5?

[eastavin]

Can anyone comment if they find v5 to use more, less or the same amount of Windows 10 resources as v4 did?  Many thanks.

[sub]

It's pretty similar really. I wouldn't expect either to be that much different for the same type of activity.

[BrettB]

Can anyone comment if they find v5 to use more, less or the same amount of Windows 10 resources as v4 did?  Many thanks.

As sub commented, for "the same activities" it should be about the same. However, be aware that v5 has a new web browser interface used for setup/configuration/etc. And it also allows for playing recordings (in the web browser). But depending upon the format of the source/recordings, playing recordings in the web browser will require transcoding which can be quite resource intensive.

[mvallevand]

It depends on your client. If you desire to use the web player I would go as far as saying much more unless your content is IPTV.

Martin

[sub]

As sub commented, for "the same activities" it should be about the same. However, be aware that v5 has a new web browser interface used for setup/configuration/etc. And it also allows for playing recordings (in the web browser). But depending upon the format of the source/recordings, playing recordings in the web browser will require transcoding which can be quite resource intensive.

The v4 web app could play recordings too - and it had pretty similar resource requirements.

There is some mitigating features in the v5 web app that can make it a little lighter for playback of recording and live tv, like the use GPU encoding, and whether you've used the 'Recording Auto Transcode'.

[mvallevand]

The modern interface didn't really get used all that much and it was default for a short time, before that the traditional web app NEWA used VLC for streaming Based on the posts almost every new user and likely v4 users too start playback with the web interface so I am not at all surprised to that people might feel it is heavier.

Martin

[sub]

So in summary, I wouldn't expect either to be that much different for the same type of activity....

resources while recording are about the same as it was in v4
resources for streaming to other clients (like kodi, or the iOS/Android apps) are about the same as it was in v4
playback in nextpvr.exe is about the same as it was in v4 in nextpvr.exe
playback in the web browser was about the same as a it was in v4 in the web app (but hardly anyone would have used the web app for playback in v4)

(yes, comparing web playback in v5, to nextpvr.exe playback in v4 will seem like it's using more resources, but that's comparing apples and oranges)

[BrettB]

The modern interface didn't really get used all that much and it was default for a short time, before that the traditional web app NEWA used VLC for streaming  Based on the posts almost every new user and likely v4 users too start playback with the web interface so I am not at all surprised to that people might feel it is heavier.

Martin

(bolding added)

Yes. That is the point that I was trying to get across.

With v4, it would be rare for a new user to start using the web interface and trying to play things from there for setup, testing, etc. But with v5, you must use the web interface to even do the install and configuration. So it is perfectly natural for people (especially new users) to think that trying to watch live tv or make a sample recording and play it from the web interface is the "preferred"/"default" method.

(yes, comparing web playback in v5, to nextpvr.exe playback in v4 will seem like it's using more resources, but that's comparing apples and oranges)

From a technology point of view, yes, this is comparing apples and oranges. But, from a user point of view, it is not because you are playing something from the same interface used to setup and manage NextPVR. The fact that the initial interface changed from the native Windows .exe to a web interface is lost on most non-technical users.

Don't get me wrong, sub, I'm not posting this as a criticism of you or NextPVR v5. I fully understand and support the move to having the configuration and control be done via a web interface which supports having the server running on many different platforms (no longer just Windows). I just think that it is helpful for new or migrating users to understand how the playback (particularly in the web browser) works so that expectations correspond to the limits of that.