Dogberry2 wrote: > aubuti;398831 Wrote: > >> Seriously, Ralph would be appalled at either of us whining about how the >> old way or the new way is "too hard". In fact, neither one is really >> that difficult. But neither is the ideal solution, or even an ideal >> compromise. I've read somewhere on these forums (so it must be true) >> that many of the developers aren't happy with the current sync UI, so I >> expect there are more changes coming our way. But I'd be surprised if >> they looked exactly like anything we've seen before. >> > You're absolutely correct. Truth is, neither way is really a big-deal > issue; it's not as if I switch multiple players in and out of sync > groups twenty times a day. I've almost always agreed with your position > on nearly everything you post, and I've also gleaned a number of helpful > nuggets of information out of the things you've said, and on this > particular issue we just happen to differ in opinion. And Emerson would > merely shake his head at both of us. In the big Slim scheme, it's a very > minor point. >
Wouldn't it be a good idea if you could define sync-presets with the SC web interface (or any other interface) and then choose them by name with the controller or ir-remote? I suppose the number of useful sync-combinations would be limited in most households (no, no, not all, don't bother point that out). This could be added to the existing sync-interface. Regards, Peter _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
