stokessd Wrote: > The lack of a server does strike me as a very useful thing for a lot of > consumers, but this thing still needs a computer, so what's the > difference? The computer requirements are considerably lessened if it doesn't have to run a server. Also, you'll see see much less of a performance difference within the music system itself due to running on this or that hardware or operating system. Even more so with an NAS, where you don't have to worry about performance and whether the server could even run on the device due to Perl or other software compatibility issues.
> Maybe this is covered somewhere else, but it seems to me that the > squeezebox is really half a product. I love what it is and what it can > do, but it strikes me that for many consumers, the lack of a simple plug > and play server box is a serious hurdle. That's the road they've chosen. It works well for me and the more geekly of consumers, but it's not likely to be a successful mass-market approach. The coworker in question is a full-time software developer and part-time network administrator. So the geek appeal of the Squeezebox obviously has it limits when someone just wants to listen to music in their home. -- JJZolx Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=21684 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
