I am happy with my SqueezeBox 3. The touch sounds interesting. The only thing that worries me about is is the fact that it requires a USB drive to be plugged in if using the built in server. This would mean scanning a large music collection would be dreadfully slow compared to a server using internal IDE drives. Also since the internal server of the Touch is operating on the Touch only (no web interface), if something happens to the Touch display you are stuck. At least I can control SC from my computer and my SqueezeBox. I would only be able to control the built in SC on the Touch from the Touch. Although I would be able to play it on my PC using SqueezePlay. I wouldn't have the option of using SqueezeSlave with a web interface.
Surely something like intergrated CD/ripping/server solutions that are sold by places like cooltipia or ripcaster are better than the touch since no USB drives lying arround (faster DB scan). Another point about Sonos. Surely the "Sonos has less information" than SqueezeBos is untrue. This is exactly the same as the duet. The reciever has no display the display is in the SBC/iPhone. And Sonos has an iPhone client. Sonos has a controler (and has a new touch controler). I chose the SB3 because I couldn't read the Sonos controller and couln't try out the SBC but realiesed it was probably going to be extemely difficult to use. With the new server software in the Touch, it appears that anybody having an existing installation can't use the Touch without transfering there library to the Touch and USB drive combination? And a Touch would'nt like a SB3 + Boom + SC server installation? -- Declan Moriarty ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Declan Moriarty's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23670 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67040 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
