JJZolx Wrote: > 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. > > > 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.
Do that many people really have NAS boxes in their homes? And is having to have a NAS device on continuously really that much better than having to have a computer on continuously? Is performance really an issue? If someone can afford a suite of Sonos devices, I suspect they're not running a 90MHz Pentium. I know people seem to make a big deal of the integrated server in the Sonos products, but I just don't see it as being that big of a deal. Also, the ZP80 (the one that has S/PDIF out in the stead of an internal amp) isn't available yet. -- rudholm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ rudholm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2980 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=21684 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
