------------------------------------------------------------------------ A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43198 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Question: Do you agree with this posting? - Yes - No - In the middle ------------------------------------------------------------------------
radish;267424 Wrote: > First off - please check your quoting MrSinatra, I didn't say half the > things you've attributed to me. > > That aside... i'll be sure to never make that mistake again! radish;267424 Wrote: > I'm sorry, but this is just idiotic. You seem to be comparing things > because their both "complex". My car is a complex device, my DVD player > is a complex device, and a 747 is a complex device. Yet, somehow, they > end up costing very different amounts of money. Why? Because they are > DIFFERENT complex devices which do DIFFERENT tasks. An ipod shares very > little common functionality with a server. Here's one example, just for > kicks. Do a search on your ipod, watch how it takes up to a minute (in > my experience) to return the results. Now do the same on SC and watch > how it takes typically less than a second, even though it's searching > (in my case) a vastly larger collection. no, wrong. strawman. i am saying that if you were to specialize the hardware to do SS in a fat box it could be comparable to an ipod touch, but not b/c the tasks are the same. such a fat box couldn't do what an ipod touch does, b/c it would be specialized to do different thigs, but it would cost in the same neighborhood imo. if apple can do it, so can logitech. radish;267424 Wrote: > Indeed it is more specialised. And in this case, that allows them to > save money. It doesn't do most of the things that SS does, and so it > doesn't need the power that SS does. A Mac mini has an OS, browser and > wifi, and in fact you can run SS on it just fine. Costs more than a > touch though...why is that? It doesn't even have a screen... sarcasm, the last refuge... radish;267424 Wrote: > And my point is you couldn't. As I suspect neither of us are in a > position to build such a device commercially I don't think we'll get > much further, but I would point to the simple lack of such a device on > the market as evidence that it isn't as easy as you seem to think it > is. In my experience if something's easy to make and there's huge > demand, someone has already made it. by that logic no one would ever invent or even evolve anything. whats with you guys? whats so wrong with the idea of having another logitech/slim product that combines SS and SB into one fat device? (and i'm not even asking for embedded internal storage for music) if tivo can sell me their unti for $400 and it has storage and can handle TV (which is much higher bw) and etc... surely slim and logitech could do a fat box. radish;267424 Wrote: > So it's magic? It can somehow run software and do all this stuff and yet > not be a computer? You don't seem to be understanding that pretty much > everything in your house with a power cord is a computer of some kind, > they're just more or less powerful and more or less general purpose. yep, magic. more sarcasm. did i EVER say that what i am proposing is NOT a computer? STRAWMAN. i said what i am proposing wouldn't NEED a computer, and it wouldn't. radish;267424 Wrote: > Tivo does not need a computer because it IS A COMPUTER. no duh. lay off the strawmen. radish;267424 Wrote: > It's a low powered one for sure, with a couple specialist chips for > things like video encode/decode, but it's a general purpose computer > running a general purpose O/S (linux). It also doesn't have enough > memory or CPU power to run SS, and the hardware is sold at a subsidised > price because of the subscription. like i said, $400 total, hw and subscription. nothing else is ever paid. i didn't say i want tivo to run SS. i am saying a fat box could do more in hardware, less in software, do it without a "normal" rpm type HD, (flash, etc) and cost a lot less than a transporter, and within range of a highend SB. again, i am not saying lets replace the entire current slim line of products, i am merely suggesting that such a product would definitely serve a certain segment of the population. i really don't understand the hostility to the suggestion. -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 w/SS 6.5.5 (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=43198 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
