Isn't a Media Center/HT case the soon future standard?

[remember]

In this day with more and more TV channels through satellite and ultimately all internet must be through satellite and more and more people becoming independent to work from their homes and install rapidly falling priced projectors for watching big screen TV/ or switching to computer/internet and more. . . aren't the mediacenter/HTPC cases the most logical ubiquitous choice for the very near and distant future?

When I think about the time and money invested in the phenomenon of HD entertainment and the support of nearly all the major electronics/computer parts manufacturers to back the BluRay 5.25" computer burner vs. the HD DVD(which doesn't come in the 5.25" computer installable version) I cant understand why the mediacenter/HTPC case is not the more commonplace type of case for more people, let alone the major assemblers(Dell, HP etc.) when you consider, people will just store all their movies, music, pictures, data, in such a mediacenter/HTPC case which would logically, and neatly organized, be set on top or underneath the amplifier (for all your speakers) and satellite TV receiver for any and all people living under one roof.

It seems only logical that not only will more and more people be watching their TV via their satellite dish, but soon (1-2years?) also using it(sat dish) to access the internet to search for the movies, music, info they want.

And just like a router/modem for letting more than 1 computer access the internet today, some type of single case computer would be required to just switch the button on the many flat screen/touch screen? PC/TV monitors hung all around the house.

So, . . . Would it be illogical to get a media center/HTPC case? Keep in mind, I believe it has to allow 2 provisions.

1) The ability to expand data storage like a server?(at least more than the now average 6-7 HDD bays)
and. .
2) And the ability to upload or just communicate with all the other monitors in the house.

And if this seems logical/possible, What is the maximum amount of HDD bays I can install in a media center/HTPC case?

 

[lovely?]

why would you think that you need so many? you could have like 3 terabytes on three hdds

 

[remember]

1TB on 1HDD?

Ive never seen more than 750GB on 1 HDD and its more than twice the price of a 500GB HDD.

Anyway, I think HighDef TV is going to be pretty hard to avoid within 1-2 years. Thats 1080i or 720p resolution. So if a normal DVD is only 480i and has 4.7GB capacity and you can only record 1 hour on XP (or is it SP) mode, then how many hours or rather minutes can a 1080i resolution video hold? (about 20 minutes?)

So 20 minutes of high def video per 4.7GB is only about 35 hours of video on an entire 500GB HDD. (17 movies-per 500GB HDD)
Thats why I think its necessary to have a mediacenter/HTPC case that's stackable. After 1080HD, there will be QuadFullHD (3840 x 2160)- so larger HDD will just counteract increased resolutions.

But Why wouldnt you want to have more than 3TB's capacity? You dont have to use all your HDD bays the day you buy the case. But I definitely want to be able to have the ability to store more data. If its possible and cost feasible, Why not?

 

[ceewi1]

aren't the mediacenter/HTPC cases the most logical ubiquitous choice for the very near and distant future?

I feel that media center PCs have their place, but not as a direct replacement for the traditional PC. When we consider media center PCs, we're typically looking for something that consumes little power, produces little noise and has a small footprint. By contrast, modern gaming PCs are moving towards the power sucking, noisy approach, in order to maximize performance.

When I think about the time and money invested in the phenomenon of HD entertainment and the support of nearly all the major electronics/computer parts manufacturers to back the BluRay 5.25" computer burner vs. the HD DVD(which doesn't come in the 5.25" computer installable version) I cant understand why the mediacenter/HTPC case is not the more commonplace type of case for more people, let alone the major assemblers(Dell, HP etc.) when you consider, people will just store all their movies, music, pictures, data, in such a mediacenter/HTPC case which would logically, and neatly organized, be set on top or underneath the amplifier (for all your speakers) and satellite TV receiver for any and all people living under one roof.

A huge part of the problem from the consumers point of view has been the cost. Large companies such as Dell and HP have been charging an exorbitant premium for so called 'media center PCs'. It will also take some time for consumers to make the conceptual switch between traditional devices and a do everything PC, particularly with the price of DVD Recorders and other alternatives falling rapidly.

I think that there are two fundamentally different concepts in play here. The idea of a media center PC, which would become a replacement for a DVD player, DVD recorder, set top box, and other similar devices, and a media server, which could deliver media files via a network, and would not even need to be located in the same room as the rest of the equipment. What you seem to be describing is the latter, but I don't really see that it requires a specific media center case.

It seems only logical that not only will more and more people be watching their TV via their satellite dish, but soon (1-2years?) also using it(sat dish) to access the internet to search for the movies, music, info they want.

1) The ability to expand data storage like a server?(at least more than the now average 6-7 HDD bays)

So 20 minutes of high def video per 4.7GB is only about 35 hours of video on an entire 500GB HDD. (17 movies-per 500GB HDD)

These numbers would only be accurate if we retained the existing MPEG2 compression codec, which isn't going to happen. Newer Blu-Ray and HDDVD are already using improved compression techniques.

Actually transferring HD footage at the file sizes you're talking about would be impractical. Streaming it even over a high speed network connection would be impossible.

Obviously, hard drive capacity will also improve over time. If you do intend to use additional drives, keep in mind that you can make use of the 5.25" bays to hold them

2) And the ability to upload or just communicate with all the other monitors in the house.

This is definitely the media server field, which, as I mentioned, is very much in it's infancy. It's perhaps a little early to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[remember]

Dear ceewi1:

Why? "When we consider media center PCs, we're typically looking for something that consumes little power, produces little noise and has a small footprint."

What is it, that determines how much power is consumed? The HDD or MOBO? or perhaps the CPU? As far as the noise is concerned, Isnt that determined by the number of fans? or what kind of fans? I dont think the RAM makes much noise? or maybe it does. I have no idea.

As far as the footprint, Is that the amount of floor space the case takes up? Because the media center is laid down flat, which takes up more footspace than a upright "tower" case, so I dont think I know what you mean by footprint. Can you explain that?

Also you say "It will also take some time for consumers to make the conceptual switch between traditional devices and a do everything PC, particularly with the price of DVD Recorders and other alternatives falling rapidly."
The price of normal DVD 720 by 480 DVD recorders might be falling, but in this day of crazed HD TV demand, don't you think that more people will want to have a HD DVD capable recorder? Otherwise, whats the point of often spending at least twice as much for a HD TV vs. a non HD TV, if you cant even record in HD?

As far as this "media center" style case replacing DVD players and recorders, yes, that sounds good, but I dont know of any way to replace a satellite reciever. (I think they would have to replace the TV tuner cards, somehow)I would like to have 1 room dedicated with my 100" big screen projection screen, connected to my HD projector, which is connected from my satellite TV receiver box which not only sits neatly on top of my computer case but operates or blends in with my other Audio/Visual equipment. I "imagined" that this computer case could be easily switched from movie mode to internet surfing mode, still with my 100" projection screen and eventually networking with any other PC/TV monitor in the house.

In all honesty I dont know why I am so fixated with the "media center" style case. Besides the "look" of it being able to blend in nicely with my other A/V equipment, I just thought that, that was the purpose of a "media center" case. So at this point I think I should just start another thread to find out what the differences between these cases are? I would however prefer a case that consumes little power, and produces little noise.

I'll have to find out about these new compression systems for the HD DVD's. I dont understand anything about what your saying about that. If I record something from the HD Discovery Channel in 1920 x 1080 resolution, that is 6 times more than the resolution of a normal DVD only capable of recording at 480 x 720. Therefore it seems, that with a HD DVD/BluRay disc, I can only record 1/6 the amount of time compared to a non HD-DVD. So I would need 6 times the amount of GB space to record a TV show in HD 1920 x 1080 resolution versus the 720 x 480 DVD resolution.

Also when you say, "transferring HD footage at the file sizes you're talking about would be impractical. Streaming it even over a high speed network connection would be impossible." Aren't the routers and devices the connect all the computers to the printers, etc able to connect at speeds of 1000MB/s?
My "Local Area Connection Status" box says 100.0 Mbps for speed, and I think I have sometimes seen it say 1000Mbps. But again I dont know what this is compared to what you mean by "streaming over a high speed network connection"? Can you explaing that?

In conclusion, you say Im trying to do something in the media server field. I dont know what that is or if its anything good or not. But I will look it up on wikipedia. Media server- Is that like what Kaaza is or Napster?

 

[Geoff]

Media Center cases are generally more cramped then full/mid ATX cases. And with todays high end video cards, theres no way you can fit them in a MCE case. Although it is true that they are quiet and consume less power, they also have low end parts inside. If you add say, an 8800GTX, you will have alot more heat and power consumption.

 

[remember]

Low end parts?

I dont want to have a low end video card, if a good video card is required for watching and recording HD TV, but if the video card is mainly for playing video games, then its ok, because I dont play any video games.
Also,
If Im going to build it myself, I can just put whatever parts I would have put in a mid/full tower case in a media case. Is there any reason why I would have to put cheaper quality parts in a Media center case than the others?

I think Id better start a new thread to find out what the differences between the cases are. I dont understand why the power is meant to be less in a MC case or quiter or with inferior parts, when it makes sense that the power consumption is determined by what PSU I install or what quality & quantity of fans and other components I install.

The reason why I started this thread is because I saw that the price of the DVD burners were cheaper than the DVD players-(which cant even record). So if a DVD burner that is cheaper and is also a space saving replacement to a DVD player, then I just thoought that a "HomeTheater" or "media center" case was somehow more compatible for connecting my computer to my TV and stero equipment. It seemed like the MC case is a gradually evolving addition to a "HomeTheater" environment or at least somehow, compatibly friendlier with my A/V equipment? But obviously if a MC case cannot accomodate the space required for video cards, PSU's, the cooling fan(s) and whatever else, then there goes my great idea.

 

[ceewi1]

What is it, that determines how much power is consumed? The HDD or MOBO? or perhaps the CPU?

Most every component you put in a PC will consume power. CPUs, Video cards and multiple HDDs require about the most power[/QUOTE]

As far as the noise is concerned, Isnt that determined by the number of fans? or what kind of fans? I dont think the RAM makes much noise? or maybe it does. I have no idea.

It's mostly the number & type of fans, although disk drives, etc... will also produce noise. Virtually any component you add will produce heat, though, which will require additional (noisy) cooling.

As far as the footprint, Is that the amount of floor space the case takes up? Because the media center is laid down flat, which takes up more footspace than a upright "tower" case, so I dont think I know what you mean by footprint. Can you explain that?

It's really an overall space issue, and what you want will differ from person to person. When you're looking for a media center PC, you generally don't want a full tower taking up too much space, for example. Media center cases are generally not designed to store a dozen drives

Also you say "It will also take some time for consumers to make the conceptual switch between traditional devices and a do everything PC, particularly with the price of DVD Recorders and other alternatives falling rapidly."
The price of normal DVD 720 by 480 DVD recorders might be falling, but in this day of crazed HD TV demand, don't you think that more people will want to have a HD DVD capable recorder? Otherwise, whats the point of often spending at least twice as much for a HD TV vs. a non HD TV, if you cant even record in HD?

Again, this is something that will differ from person to person - there are still people perfectly happy with VHS! Not everyone will want HD for recording, either, and HD movies, broadcasted sports, etc... are also popular. Certainly it is something that will become increasingly popular in the long term, but I think it will take quite a while.

I'll have to find out about these new compression systems for the HD DVD's. I dont understand anything about what your saying about that. If I record something from the HD Discovery Channel in 1920 x 1080 resolution, that is 6 times more than the resolution of a normal DVD only capable of recording at 480 x 720. Therefore it seems, that with a HD DVD/BluRay disc, I can only record 1/6 the amount of time compared to a non HD-DVD. So I would need 6 times the amount of GB space to record a TV show in HD 1920 x 1080 resolution versus the 720 x 480 DVD resolution.

That would only be the case if you were using the same compression codec. DVDs use MPEG2, whereas HD-DVD/Blu Ray use superior techniques such as MPEG-4 AVC and VP1. Basically, these allow you to further compress the data without loosing quality. If you're talking about files to be stored on the PC, you can choose whichever compression methods give you the best balance between image quality and file size, without being constrained by compatibility.

Also when you say, "transferring HD footage at the file sizes you're talking about would be impractical. Streaming it even over a high speed network connection would be impossible." Aren't the routers and devices the connect all the computers to the printers, etc able to connect at speeds of 1000MB/s?

Firstly, it's 1000Mb/s, not MB/s. Secondly, those speeds are theoretical, actual transfer rates are slower. Thirdly, it's often nice to be able to use wireless transmission, where the speeds are far more restricted. To give you an example, though, the maximum bitrate allowed under the DVD specification is 9800kb/s. At 6 times this much data, you'd be talking about just under 60Mb/s. With Gigabit ethernet, this is OK. Not so with wireless, and really a stretch under Fast Ethernet as well.

In conclusion, you say Im trying to do something in the media server field. I dont know what that is or if its anything good or not. But I will look it up on wikipedia. Media server- Is that like what Kaaza is or Napster?

No. By media server I refer to a PC that is not directly connected to your monitor/projector and stores your media files, and delivers them via a network. This allows you to use a larger/uglier PC for this task, and have a small, cheap, good looking PC in your projector room.

I dont want to have a low end video card, if a good video card is required for watching and recording HD TV, but if the video card is mainly for playing video games, then its ok, because I dont play any video games.

The high end video card is really just for gaming.

Is there any reason why I would have to put cheaper quality parts in a Media center case than the others?

Space is something of a concern, as I mentioned earlier you won't fit too many drives in a standard media center case. You'll also want to watch out for cooling requirements. If you want to keep the physical size down, and use a micro-ATX case, this limits component choices greatly.

I dont understand why the power is meant to be less in a MC case or quiter or with inferior parts, when it makes sense that the power consumption is determined by what PSU I install or what quality & quantity of fans and other components I install.

Simply a case of what the user typically wants out of it rather than any technical considerations. Afterall, would you want a loud PC running when you're trying to enjoy your favorite movie? Prebuilt media PCs are usually sold with this in mind. If you're building your own, you have free reign.

The reason why I started this thread is because I saw that the price of the DVD burners were cheaper than the DVD players-(which cant even record). So if a DVD burner that is cheaper and is also a space saving replacement to a DVD player, then I just thoought that a "HomeTheater" or "media center" case was somehow more compatible for connecting my computer to my TV and stero equipment. It seemed like the MC case is a gradually evolving addition to a "HomeTheater" environment or at least somehow, compatibly friendlier with my A/V equipment? But obviously if a MC case cannot accomodate the space required for video cards, PSU's, the cooling fan(s) and whatever else, then there goes my great idea.

I'd say it's a good idea, provided you're not intending to have the PC double as a gaming PC.

 

[remember]

Thanks, I dont know how I would ever be able to learn so much so fast

Well, I think I pretty much understood everything you said or at least feel I have had most of my antsy curiousities mellowed out. But a few things I still dont understand are. . .

"By media server I refer to a PC that is not directly connected to your monitor/projector and stores your media files, and delivers them via a network. This allows you to use a larger/uglier PC for this task, and have a small, cheap, good looking PC in your projector room."

So a media server does not have to be in a media center case? But to have a media server, I would have to have 2 computers? Someone told me before that I was trying to put together a "server farm". Is that the same thing?

Also, "Simply a case of what the user typically wants out of it rather than any technical considerations. Afterall, would you want a loud PC running when you're trying to enjoy your favorite movie? Prebuilt media PCs are usually sold with this in mind. If you're building your own, you have free reign."

What I want is just to make the right decision. I did a lot of reading and debating to finally realize or at least I hope I realized correctly that BluRay, despite its more than slightly higher cost, is the better choice than HD DVD for now and the future. . Again I hope, I guess, its very hard for me to figure it out.(like betamax vs. VHS)

If I knew what the technical considerations were, I would be able to make a better decision. Of course I dont want a loud PC, but I do want something that not only allows me to use the internet, but also easily converts/co-operates with the TV/projector for all the recording I had in mind. I want to do some video editing or some film "pastiches" as I think they are called. Hence, all my concern for the amount of video I can store. I already know I will have to record many 2 hour movies/documentaries just to find each of the 6 second lines Im looking for.

I feel bad to keep asking you for more time and information. Any more and they will say you're grooming me for the chairmanship of "Sony Intl." but last question for now. You say. . .
"you can choose whichever compression methods give you the best balance between image quality and file size, without being constrained by compatibility."
What compatability are you talking about? If Im going to spend $5-600 for a 1080 burner, I dont want to diminish the quality? The Blu Ray website says that with a BluRay disc of 25Gb, you can only record about 4 hours in 1080 quality. Obviously I can record in lower resolution and store 20 hours on one BluRay disc, but then its permanently fixed and I cant change the resolution once its recorded. Its like taking a photo with my digital camera. I can choose between 1MP and 8MP, but once I choose the resolution and take the picture, I cant change it. So needless to say, I dont understand that compression issue.

 

[diduknowthat]

So a media server does not have to be in a media center case? But to have a media server, I would have to have 2 computers? Someone told me before that I was trying to put together a "server farm". Is that the same thing?

Yup, the server can be sitting outside of the media center, as long as it is someway connected via wire or wireless to media PC.

If I knew what the technical considerations were, I would be able to make a better decision. Of course I dont want a loud PC, but I do want something that not only allows me to use the internet, but also easily converts/co-operates with the TV/projector for all the recording I had in mind. I want to do some video editing or some film "pastiches" as I think they are called. Hence, all my concern for the amount of video I can store. I already know I will have to record many 2 hour movies/documentaries just to find each of the 6 second lines Im looking for.

You are starting to wonder out of the realm of media PC as video editing would most likely involve encoding. Building a silent PC is easy, just buy a well insulated case, like the P180B, get really quiet fans, and get passive heatsinks for the CPU, video card and NB. However, the case will be much larger than your typical media PC case.

 

[ceewi1]

"By media server I refer to a PC that is not directly connected to your monitor/projector and stores your media files, and delivers them via a network. This allows you to use a larger/uglier PC for this task, and have a small, cheap, good looking PC in your projector room."

So a media server does not have to be in a media center case? But to have a media server, I would have to have 2 computers?

That's the general idea of it. Please don't think i'm trying to persuade you that one is better than the other, but based on your first post I thought that this was the way you are looking to go.

Here's a article on it that I quickly googled: http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Media_... Centres/Build Your Own Media Centre/M5X8Q2T3
It's not for everyone, but it is an alternative worth considering.

Someone told me before that I was trying to put together a "server farm". Is that the same thing?

No. A "server farm" refers to multiple servers.

What I want is just to make the right decision. I did a lot of reading and debating to finally realize or at least I hope I realized correctly that BluRay, despite its more than slightly higher cost, is the better choice than HD DVD for now and the future. . Again I hope, I guess, its very hard for me to figure it out.(like betamax vs. VHS)

You're in the same boat as the rest of us here. There's all sort of speculation, but nothing solid as to which will win. Personally I think it's a little early to jump on either bandwagon.

If I knew what the technical considerations were, I would be able to make a better decision. Of course I dont want a loud PC, but I do want something that not only allows me to use the internet, but also easily converts/co-operates with the TV/projector for all the recording I had in mind. I want to do some video editing or some film "pastiches" as I think they are called. Hence, all my concern for the amount of video I can store. I already know I will have to record many 2 hour movies/documentaries just to find each of the 6 second lines Im looking for.

Video editing is a CPU intensive task, although there are measure that can be taken to limit noise when the CPU load is not so heavy (e.g. adjustable speed fans, fan controllers, and Cool 'n Quiet technology)

"you can choose whichever compression methods give you the best balance between image quality and file size, without being constrained by compatibility."
What compatability are you talking about? If Im going to spend $5-600 for a 1080 burner, I dont want to diminish the quality? The Blu Ray website says that with a BluRay disc of 25Gb, you can only record about 4 hours in 1080 quality. Obviously I can record in lower resolution and store 20 hours on one BluRay disc, but then its permanently fixed and I cant change the resolution once its recorded. Its like taking a photo with my digital camera. I can choose between 1MP and 8MP, but once I choose the resolution and take the picture, I cant change it. So needless to say, I dont understand that compression issue.

By compatibility I refer to compatibility between your created disc and standalone DVD/BluRay players. If you've played around with creating DVDs before, you'll find that the format is far from optimal. You'll end up creating larger files to ensure compatibility with standalone players than you would need to if you were storing it solely on the PC.

One way or the other you will be compressing your video. Uncompressed video would involve creating a uncompressed bitmap for every frame of the movie. Even at DVD resolution you'd be left with a file that's about 150GB in size. MPEG2 and other compression codecs work to reduce the file size without adversely affecting quality. If you're creating a DVD/BluRay/HD DVD disk, you need to work within the constraints of the format, and choose a compression codec that is supported. If it will be stored on the hard drive only, you can choose whichever compression codec you'd like. As I mentioned earlier, MPEG2 is quite inefficient, although the newer codecs for BluRay and HD DVD are far better.

As you say, you can't increase the resolution later, so it's always advisable to make sure your raw footage is captured at a sufficiently high resolution/quality setting. Naturally, this will vary depending on what the footage will be used for.

 

[remember]

still reading

I read the smarthouse link once, but I got to read it again. There are a lot of terms I just dont understand. I either use wikipedia or webopedia, so I hope those are ok, unless you know of a better place to learn computer concepts or use a glossary. This is getting very complicated, but Im determined to learn it, so dont think Ive lost any steam, at least not for asking questions.

I just had another thought. I really hope its possible. When first I asked and then you said in the post just before this. . .

(Me)So a media server does not have to be in a media center case? But to have a media server, I would have to have 2 computers?

(You)That's the general idea of it. Please don't think i'm trying to persuade you that one is better than the other, but based on your first post I thought that this was the way you are looking to go

First of all, I dont really understand why I need 2 computers, in this day of dual and quad core processors, but. . .since

I assume you are saying yes to having 2 computers in order to become/have a media server, in which case I wonder, if instead of spending the usual hundreds of dollars on a CPU,(Core2) RAM, etc for each of the 2 computers, couldn't I just buy one Xeon (quad core 1.6Ghz) CPU for one computer and just have multiple TV/monitors throughout the house? The price of this Xeon used to be the same as the Core 2 2.4Ghz, but now its $100 more. http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/xeon_quad_core_e5310_1.6ghz.htm (And most vendors charge about $200 more on top of that) Anyway, I thought if the Xeon CPU is for servers, maybe that would qualify as just being able to build one mammoth(in regard to its 4 cores) but still a good computer that could save me from having to spend more building 2 computers, instead of the one 4 core.

Anyway I think Im starting to get confused here, with all the terms and names.

This is what I thought a server is. A server is able to connect to many monitors. As a server computer is supposed to have multiple cores, so each monitor & keyboard user is just using the server for their computer needs(as opposed to having several computers for each monitor.) It seems more economical to me, as long as there are no drawbacks to using the quad core CPU I mentioned versus say 2 distinct computers each with their own Core 2.

Aside from the noise, this server computer should be in the bedroom where the big screen projector is, where I can use both internet and record movies, and if somebody is in the living room, they can either watch a movie on the TV/monitor in that room or just search for anything they want for that matter on the internet, using just one computer, the server computer?

I read the definition of server on wikipedia, at that is what it seems like to me. Whereas my Pentium 4 could only perform with 1 monitor or for just one user, the server computers are meant to be connected for several users, each doing their own thing on their own monitor, at least thats my interpretation/understanding. It makes more sense to me like that, because I dont really understand any other way. Its kind of like my satellite receiver boxes. I have to have 1 for each and every TV, otherwise every TV would have to watch the same channel. Thats what a normal, non-server computer seems like to me.

Anyway sorry for my ranting, Im just getting more overwhelmed by all this information. I have to study it better. Let me get a bit more organized so I can figure out what Im doing.

 

[ADE]

If your worried about noise theres always water cooling...as fo TB HDD's just hope there is no HDD failier if it is 9/10 full...

 

[ceewi1]

II just had another thought. I really hope its possible. When first I asked and then you said in the post just before this. . .

(Me)So a media server does not have to be in a media center case? But to have a media server, I would have to have 2 computers?

(You)That's the general idea of it. Please don't think i'm trying to persuade you that one is better than the other, but based on your first post I thought that this was the way you are looking to go

First of all, I dont really understand why I need 2 computers, in this day of dual and quad core processors, but. . .since

You don't really need two PCs, it's just an alternative to having a large, noisy PC in your projector room. You can store the large PC in another room, and use either a small, cheap PC or wireless device (as described in that article) to interface with it. The large PC could then deliver data to any other unit in your home.

I assume you are saying yes to having 2 computers in order to become/have a media server, in which case I wonder, if instead of spending the usual hundreds of dollars on a CPU,(Core2) RAM, etc for each of the 2 computers, couldn't I just buy one Xeon (quad core 1.6Ghz) CPU for one computer and just have multiple TV/monitors throughout the house? The price of this Xeon used to be the same as the Core 2 2.4Ghz, but now its $100 more. http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/xeon_quad_core_e5310_1.6ghz.htm (And most vendors charge about $200 more on top of that) Anyway, I thought if the Xeon CPU is for servers, maybe that would qualify as just being able to build one mammoth(in regard to its 4 cores) but still a good computer that could save me from having to spend more building 2 computers, instead of the one 4 core.

Not really. You don't need a server grade CPU or even a high end processor just to receive or provide movies. You'd only want a stronger CPU on the machine you'll be using to convert video, the others can be ultra-budget systems.

You can't really just have a monitor on its own. You need some other device to actually receive and process data, for example a cheap PC.

This is what I thought a server is. A server is able to connect to many monitors. As a server computer is supposed to have multiple cores, so each monitor & keyboard user is just using the server for their computer needs(as opposed to having several computers for each monitor.) It seems more economical to me, as long as there are no drawbacks to using the quad core CPU I mentioned versus say 2 distinct computers each with their own Core 2.

No, a server is a central more powerful PC that stores data, applications, etc... You can't just have monitors and keyboards, you do actually need a PC. There's nothing special about having multiple cores in this regard - you can't use one core to control each PC, for example.

Aside from the noise, this server computer should be in the bedroom where the big screen projector is, where I can use both internet and record movies, and if somebody is in the living room, they can either watch a movie on the TV/monitor in that room or just search for anything they want for that matter on the internet, using just one computer, the server computer?

In this case, you'd just have your one powerful PC in the bedroom. If you need to be able to watch a movie and surf the internet in the lounge room, you really need a second PC in the lounge room.

I read the definition of server on wikipedia, at that is what it seems like to me. Whereas my Pentium 4 could only perform with 1 monitor or for just one user, the server computers are meant to be connected for several users, each doing their own thing on their own monitor, at least thats my interpretation/understanding. It makes more sense to me like that, because I dont really understand any other way. Its kind of like my satellite receiver boxes. I have to have 1 for each and every TV, otherwise every TV would have to watch the same channel. Thats what a normal, non-server computer seems like to me.

Not really. You still need to have other PCs. Depending on what it's used for, a server may store data and/or run applications etc.... This allows for a central data storage point, and reduces the system requirements of the other PCs. If you look it up, you'll find there are many different types of servers that perform different functions. A media server is similar to a file server, except that it stores media files rather than ordinary data.