Input Request

[captain_slinky]

I'd like your opinion, please...

BACKGROUND: We cancelled our cable TV two years ago. Since then we have been using a Windows Vista PC connected to our TV to stream content off the internet and watch downloaded files; we're using the HDTV as a great big monitor. We control the TV through a free Remote Desktop program called "Team Viewer". DOWN SIDES TO THIS ARRANGEMENT are that the computer is constantly running low on memory (which causes stuttering of the video) and unpredictable log-outs from the Team Viewer program (free version must have a time-out function or something). AND SO I have been looking at all sorts of alternatives such as Roku, AppleTV, Slingbox and the likes.

For Christmas, I asked Santa for (and received) what seemed like would be the most bestest and cost-efficient solution, a Google Chromecast.

Chromecast is an adorable little dongle that plugs directly in to your HDMI port on your TV and BOOM! You can stream (almost) anything from your Chrome browser! Controlable with ease from any tablet or smart phone, which is pretty cool. DOWN SIDES TO THIS ARRANGEMENT are that it works wonderfully with Netflix, Hulu, YouTube AND THAT'S ALL. Amazon Prime won't work. The Hola Unblocker won't work. The bazillions of other streaming websites don't work. And the one "File Server" program that they have for streaming files off your hard drive is a convoluted, complicated, messy joke.

SO HERE'S WHERE I WANT YOUR INPUT! Should I

(a) Stick with the Chromecast in hopes that, since it's a Google product, it'll *probably* get a whole lot better?

(b) Trade in the Chromecast for a Roku box (about $20 more than the Chromecast) because it has a couple thousand "channels" and several years head start on streaming from your hard drive, Amazon Prime support but NO YOUTUBE?

(c) Trade in the Chromecast and upgrade the memory in the Vista PC (about $50 more), go back to full PC functionality?

Comments

[snarky-imp.livejournal.com]

I have none of the above but my friends have a Roku and aside from the last time I visited any attempts to watch anything required a sacrifice of some sort. It stalled, stopped, froze, and even laughed at them until the sacrifice was over.

[waygroovy.livejournal.com]

I have a lot of hope for the chromecast. I've got two of them. That said, their limited functionality out of the box is frustrating. But, you can chromecast a TAB from chrome on any wifi device. Even tabs running amazon video or something similar. Unless it has some draconian copy protection sceme.

That said, I don't think the chromecast is ready to be my primary video viewing device yet.

It probably will get better. It probably will get better with hacking and with additional third party integration.

I'd probably go with computer upgrades, but that's just me.

[susandennis]

The top of the line Roku - their Model 3 - does get YouTube BUT... from what I can gather, you kind of 'send' each video (ala Chromecast) and the interface if clunky. I think, eventually, Chromecast will have the better YouTube integration and by eventually, I mean this year.

Having said that, for EVERYTHING other than YouTube, Roku wins hands down.

[tfcocs.livejournal.com]

I would suggest getting a Roku or a Blue Ray player with streaming capabilities. This way, you have a dedicated device that is not piggybacking on another device.

[aurora77]

The Chromecast is good for Netflix, but occasionally I can't connect to it or it gets stuck on a particular Youtube video. My opinion is that Google still has a ways to go to make it a truly useful device. Last I checked, they supposedly haven't quite completed the developer API, so people haven't been able to develop apps to take advantage of it yet, except for the people Google has worked with directly, like Netflix. I suspect it will only be a few months until there's better functionality available, but in the meantime, I don't use it a lot.