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. > > It seems like the software needs to be rearchitected so different > plug-ins are only loaded as they are used and are unloaded when not in > use (see Eclipse). > > Sorry to go negative, but I would like to see the software improved. The "slim" device approach of running an enormous server and a slim client is great if you can appreciate the elegance of this architecture. As a software solution for a consumer audio product, though, it leaves a lot to be desired. I'm afraid I'd be unable to recommend a Squeezebox to any but a few highly computer savvy friends because of the size and complexity of the software.
-- JJZolx Jim _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
