baconrad Wrote: > I've been using Squeezebox for a while now and have enthusiastically > recommended it to others (some of whom have actually purchased it). I > can't bring myself to recommend it to someone with the caveat that they > will need another 70-80mb of memory and additional cpu capacity to > support it...even when it's not in use. > > I see the memory footprint getting increasingly bloated. Now we have an > additional 7mb of memory to run some other process in the tray. > > I'm a software developer myself. We have an enterprise wide application > that tracks all the assets and associated maintenance, accounting, etc > for a VERY large institution. It does not use as much memory and other > resources as Squeezebox. >
But is your enterprise application supported on so many operating systems? Do you have any backwards compatibility requirements? It is very clear that a great deal of effort and resource has been put into slimserver. If only it were as easy as "rewrite the plugin architecture"... Having said that, there do seem to be some inefficiencies. For example - what data is being written to the database when searching? Personally I would like to see the whole lot rewritten in Java; then I could fix my own pet peeves, something I can't/wont do in Perl. You probably still wouldn't see any change out of 80MB though, but at least we could have threading, and, erm, be able to read the code ;-) -- clumsyoik _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
