Marc Sherman;218450 Wrote: > snarlydwarf wrote: > > . Higher cost for many people (ie, my server is also my router, file > > server and web server). > > Exactly. It was the fact that the SD model fit in so nicely with my > existing home server infrastructure that attracted me to the > squeezebox > in the first place. I already had all of my MP3s on the linux server > in > the basement, and my wife and I were listening to them on our windows > desktop boxes via samba, long before I bought my first squeezebox. If > SD > were only selling an all-in-one thick client like MrSinatra wants, I > wouldn't have given it another look. > > The niche that I occupy may be a relatively small one, as consumer > markets go, but I'm quite happy that SD has chosen to serve it so > well. > > - Marc
this was an earlier post in the thread where basically i was wondering what i asked above... if a fat device gave you a better, more functional exp, without costing more or taking away any benefit you enjoy now, why be against it? -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 w/SS 6.5.4 (beta!?) - Win XP Pro SP2 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37279 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
