autopilot;380007 Wrote: > To put it simply as i can, Squeezebox's are 'thin clients' - most > operations and functions are handled by the server (squeezecenter). > Sonos on the other hand do more processing locally - Sonos players are > more complex and have far less server requirements (in fact all they > require is a basic share or upnp server). > > Pro's and cons to both approaches - but the main upshot for the > Squeezebox approach is cheaper devices, and an open source extensible > server architecture that allows for all the plugins and flexibility. > Many of the best functions come from plugins, which Sono's don't have. > The main 'pro' for sonos IMO is the extra stability, easier setup and > slightly better networking - but it was never enough to sway me, even > if it means a high speced server is required (still cheaper in the long > run, if you have 2 or more rooms).
Thanks that explains it well. I still believe the pro's for SB far outweigh the Sonos, but I guess their approach is "easier" for NAS's which cause a lot of SB users issues -- socistep ------------------------------------------------------------------------ socistep's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18860 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57738 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
