Interesting thoughts.
While embedded processors are getting cheaper and
more powerful, they still can't come close to the
power and flexibility of regular processors.
Also there's the issue of firmware. Firmware
changes in such devices are still limited and
difficult. But software changes in the server are
quick and easy, comparatively.
Will this change? Yes, embedded processors will
become even cheaper and even more powerful, and
changing them will become easier. But I still
like Slim's model of a low-cost, low-complexity
client with a much higher-complexity server.
In the future, I wouldn't really care if the
player became even "dumber" with more power than
ever in the server. All the player really needs
is a wireless card and audio circuitry. I don't
mind paying for either. Paying for an even more
complex embedded processor doesn't offer me
anything, unless it means smoother wireless
communication or better playback. In fact, as
these processors become cheaper, who wouldn't mind
paying *less*, or the same but with a better
wireless card, audio circuitry or display?
The issues with SqueezeNetwork are another story.
Only Slim knows how scalable it is. Obviously
it's costing money - servers aren't free, nor is
bandwidth! The breaking point will come when they
are forced to start charging for the service. Now
I like SqueezeNetwork, but if that were to happen
I'd just get all my Internet radio through
SlimServer. I suspect a lot of others might as
well. Personally, I don't see much value in
moving SqueezeNetwork functionality to the
Squeezebox firmware, even if it keeps the service
free, since I can just do this in SlimServer. I'd
rather not pay for increased Squeezebox processor
power just for that.
But this is balanced out by what's coming in
SlimServer 7.0. SlimServer is becoming so
complex, low power servers like NAS devices are
having difficulty running it. 7.0 aims to break
up SlimServer into modules. While desktop and
laptop PCs have immense resources to run
SlimServer and should handle SlimServer 7.0
without much difficulty, the problem arises when
these low-power servers try to tackle it. So
adding complexity to SlimServer and reducing or
maintaining the same complexity in the Squeezebox
may be reaching its limits.
Hopefully you don't see my response as
confrontational. It's interesting to speculate on
future trends as it relates to our favourite toy. :-)
shvejk wrote:
> The latest load/performance issues with
SqueezeNetwork got me
> thinking...
>
> Is slim architecture still a good idea in 2006, when
cheap embedded
> devices are getting more and more powerful?
>
> SqueezeNetwork provides ( so far ) little
functionality. If the same
> functionality is available in firmware, then there
is no longer need
> for centralized server/network infrastructure.
> And when SlimDevices sell many thousands of SB3s,
the cost of the
> infrastructure will be very significant ( I think ).
>
> Any comments?
>
>
--
___________________________________
Mark Lanctot
___________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
