JJZolx Wrote: > 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.
I reluctantly agree with this, and stability of the s/w falls into the same category, I think. My brother was over for a visit and seemed really interested in the SB2. However, he is not very comfortable with computers (limited pretty much to internet browsing) and certainly not with any networking. Since he's halfway across the country, I can't just drop in to fix things for him. This is a bit OT, but an example I've been having issues with 6.2 and 6.5 beta. I have not been able to figure out what's going on, but sometimes the server will just stop (when music is not playing) and the SB2 will not be able to re-connect. It requires me to restart the computer, even though no slim-related processes are going. Last night, I loaded 6.5 beta, started it up and was playing around with somthing else for about 15 minutes. When I went to play a song, slimserver had already stopped. I was able to restart it this time without restarting the computer, and then it played fine. Slimserver is still running this morning. Who knows why this happens? For all I know, it could be something someone else is doing on the 'puter when I'm not around. But I have other programs which do not just "stop" like slimserver does. Anyway, these issues are not a big deal for me; just a minor inconvenience. But I agree it makes the SB harder to recommend to others. -- Dave D _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
