erland;219430 Wrote:
I think some people look at NAS solutions because it's a bit cool and
other people are tricked into NAS solutions by getting them to think
that this is the cheapest way to get a small silent SlimServer
solution, but the thing is that it is neither the cheapest way nor
Michaelwagner;219296 Wrote:
Something I don't think got mentioned in this thread ... many of us
owned a fat (or at least fatter than an SB) mp3 player - the Audiotron.
While there were many reasons why it failed, it's fatness (and the
consequent slowness by the time it got to market) was one
But you've just explained (very well in fact) why it isn't.
As soon as you build the server into hardware, you're stuck with the
limits of the hardware at the time your unit was built. Worse, with the
Audiotron (and probably with most units) you're stuck with the hardware
at the time your unit
Michaelwagner;219334 Wrote:
But you've just explained (very well in fact) why it isn't.
As soon as you build the server into hardware, you're stuck with the
limits of the hardware at the time your unit was built. Worse, with the
Audiotron (and probably with most units) you're stuck with
Listener;219361 Wrote:
Some of the discussion on this thread has been about an all-in-one
device - a fat client+server. That is a different kettle of fish.
I don't think it is entirely different. Something needs to make up
These are the albums I have sorts of lists, unless Browse Music
Listener;219361 Wrote:
I think that the h/w has matured enough to allow for a Audiotron-like
architecture to be adequately implemented now. The kind of
architecture I have in mind would support playback of MP3, MP4a (AAC),
WMA, Flac and Wav formats at a minimum with decoding on the client.
The only reason I can see for a fat device is simplicity.
I think that Slimdevices is rather limited by their heavily geek
customer base. In the wider world, simplicity is a very desirable
characteristic.
If you anyway need a NAS box or fileserver, I don't really see
the point with a fat
It seems if Slim bundled a sufficiently powerful NAS with the software
at a reasonable price, that would solve the non-geek problem. Many
people just want an appliance that works. I think even most geeks can
appreciate the idea of one server, many clients, one per room.
The technology to do all
Michaelwagner;219416 Wrote:
It seems if Slim bundled a sufficiently powerful NAS with the software
at a reasonable price, that would solve the non-geek problem.
Isn't this what SD were aiming to do when they put together the Infrant
bundle. It doesn't get mentioned on the main product pages
Listener;219412 Wrote:
As I said earlier in this thread, I think the perfect solution
would be if Logitech sold 2 separate boxes, one client box
(the SB3) and one server box (with pre-installed,
pre-configured SlimServer). If these are made in a nice
dockable setup, some users can
I'd say this is more about performance than modularity. Performance
*really* sucks on a NAS if you have to use faad/mplayer and/or multiple
client. I use slimserver on freelink(Debian) Linkstation Pro.
A single client (SB3) works, also with AAC. Multiple clients suck.
I would very much welcome a
MrSinatra;218527 Wrote:
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?Ok, so you
want more for equal amount of money ?
I'm afraid I can't see how this equation could be solved. Someone
obviously
It would be great if someone could explain the major advantages of
having:
- A fat device in a single box with a separate harddisk or NAS
Compared to:
- A slim device and a separate pre-configured silent, small server box
which run SlimServer with an internal harddisk and optionally external
erland;218553 Wrote:
Even though most people doesn't have a PC running 24/7 today, I think
this is going to change.
I personally don't know anybody who turns off his home PC. Laptops,
yes, desktops, no. And a growing number of them have home file servers
that also run 24/7.
--
JJZolx
just fyi, i'm not trying to be argumentative, i think we just need to
agree to disagree.
snarlydwarf;218550 Wrote:
I wonder why? Could tossing a bunch of complex electronics into the
same box as the DAC create problems? So perhaps throwing in a more
powerful CPU and such wouldn't improve
erland;218552 Wrote:
Ok, so you want more for equal amount of money ?
I'm afraid I can't see how this equation could be solved. Someone
obviously has to pay for the development costs, faster CPU, more
memory...
I'm pretty sure Logitech won't give it away, after all they are into
this to
* Possibility to do the music scan and browsing tree compilation on a
desktop and transfer the database file to the NAS.
I'm not convinced that scanning is such a heavyweight process that it
couldn't be run efficiently on the lightest computer platforms. What
needs to happen (for many
I wonder if a device like the linutop
http://www.linutop.com/
has enough power to run SS already today. Hell, it even has an VGA-out
and of course ethernet and the concept of running the OS from an USB
key makes software upgrades almost idiot-proof from the vendor side.
Attach a simple USB hard
MrSinatra;218421 Wrote:
i still don't understand why they want a slim device. why be slim?
why not put the SS and SB into one chasis? why not give that chasis
usb ports (or whatever ports/readers) so you can hook up an ext drive
directly to it? (along with wired/wireless of course)
i
MrSinatra;218560 Wrote:
could it be attached to an ext usb drive? could it access a huge
playlist, and do random for it well?
Not without hacking. It is a USB client: the USB port is so that you
can plug it into a PC to copy files to it. (Painfully slow.) You can
reflash it to enable
erland;218554 Wrote:
It would be great if someone could explain the major advantages of
having:
- A fat device in a single box with a separate harddisk or NAS
Compared to:
- A slim device and a separate pre-configured silent, small server box
which run SlimServer with an internal
I wonder if a device like the linutop
http://www.linutop.com/
has enough power to run SS already today.
I guess it would rather be at the lower end. Those embedded Geode cpus are even
less powerful than the Via C7 class processors.
Michael
___
JimC;218565 Wrote:
Since the SB3 is designed as an across the room experience, why would
a color screen be preferred? Unless it was a pretty big screen, it
would be harder to use and if were big, it would be pretty expensive.
Just curious to understand what you perceive as the
MrSinatra;218560 Wrote:
just fyi, i'm not trying to be argumentative, i think we just need to
agree to disagree.
We obviously agree on some things and disagree on others, I'm not sure
this discussion is going to make it any clearer. I think the
differences is just mostly related to if one
As one of the major problems with SlimServer on NAS devices is memory
consumption, I wonder why there aren't more users trying to offload MySQL to
some other machine. I once made my SlimServer use a MySQL instance running on
my web host. Or get yourself a NSLU as a DB server - you could call
erland;218578 Wrote:
The only reason for a color screen as I see it to be able to browse
cover art. What I really would like here is some integration with media
center solutions as I partly mentioned in my previous post.
That's something I dream of, but rather than a tv with media center
Michael Herger;218586 Wrote:
As one of the major problems with SlimServer on NAS devices is memory
consumption, I wonder why there aren't more users trying to offload
MySQL to some other machine. I once made my SlimServer use a MySQL
instance running on my web host. Or get yourself a NSLU as
If you have a web host, why not run SlimServer on that to and just keep
the music on the NAS ?
I don't have root access to that machine, only web based management. I couldn't
run SlimServer on it, but have MySQL available. But most hosters will block
external access to MySQL anyway.
Michael
erland Wrote:
users with large houses that needs to be able to play different music in
different parts of the house, but also sometimes wants to play the same
music in the whole house
Yes! And it's not that large a house either, but I have two
squeezeboxes and wouldn't rule out buying at
Mr Sinatra seems to want Slim to reinvent the wheel. There are already
iPods, Media servers with internal storage, mp3 car stereos, laptops,
mac mini, SFF PCs, etc. What he's proposing would be a LOT clunkier
than the current architecture, and pretty useless without some kind of
NAS or noisy
Michael Herger;218573 Wrote:
I wonder if a device like the linutop
http://www.linutop.com/
has enough power to run SS already today.
I guess it would rather be at the lower end. Those embedded Geode cpus
are even less powerful than the Via C7 class processors.
Michael
The Zonbu
mflint;218611 Wrote:
I bet there are digital picture frames with ethernet, which can be
controlled externally. I'm sure some enterprising folks could hack
together a SlimServer plugin solution to control one of those...
After looking closer to the subject, the only advantage of the picture
Hi all,
I guess this has been up in other threads before, but I think this
issue is worth bringing up again. Are there any efforts to do an SS
Lite which suits a low power and low capability NAS? Some ideas:
* Possibility to do the music scan and browsing tree compilation on a
desktop and
This sounds like an even more geek-oriented solution than we have now.
At least without everything you've mentioned being done under cover
without any visibility to the user, beneath a polished interface.
Logitech needs to move to a more consumer-friendly approach. Creating
some branch that
I think the thing to do here is to make SlimServer more modularized.
This will give several advantages like:
- It makes easier to replace one specific module with your own
customized version
- It makes it easier to remove a specific module if you don't need it
- It makes it easier to run
At least the question worth be asked. I did it in the past weeks with
the same basic ideas (database constructing on another computer,
etc.).
What erland says is quite true. Better user-friendlyness really matters
now. And a lot of people don't mind having a computer switched on to
play music...
vrobin;218382 Wrote:
The first question everybody's asking when they see my squeezebox is:
And you can play your music without your computer on? With an usb hard
disk plugged in it?
They are very disappointed when I must admit there must be a computer
on to use the squeezebox... and
Once again I can only agree with what you say.
Maybe SB hardware is just (connectivity, processing power, RAM)
powerful enough to become uPNP compliant. If possible, it would be a
very hard work and the result wouldn't be very thrilling, just
enough.
If memory size for codec matters today, this
How about working with one of the NAS companies to offer a more powerful
NAS optimized to run SS. Should have easy update capability for SS and
popular plugins.
--
Pale Blue Ego
Pale Blue Ego's Profile:
i still don't understand why they want a slim device. why be slim?
why not put the SS and SB into one chasis? why not give that chasis
usb ports (or whatever ports/readers) so you can hook up an ext drive
directly to it? (along with wired/wireless of course)
i have never understood why they
MrSinatra wrote:
i'm sorry, but to me, having a device that needs me to run stuff on my
computer is old school. yes, SN is a good workaround, for everything
EXCEPT your own local music. (SN basically emulates the fat device i
am talking about, but doesn't do your local tunes AND requires
MrSinatra;218421 Wrote:
the advantages of a fat device are legion:
You have left out disadvantages:
. More heat
. More noise
. Lots more moving parts moved into custom-repair (when a pc breaks
you have a huge range of choices on how to fix it with commodity parts
from fans and drives to
MrSinatra;218421 Wrote:
wouldn't it be cool if you could just grab your fat SB, an ext drive,
and jump in your car and road trip with it via bluetooth to your car
stereo?
You want an ipod :)
--
bonze
QNAP TS-101 (version 2.1.0 build 0612T)
SlimServer Version: 6.5.1 - 11206 - Debian - EN -
well, yes and no... altho there is a lot of truth in what you say, AND
it shows the level of interest in such a product, (ipod is pretty
successful, isn't it?) contrary to other opinions.
the problem with the ipod is that there first of all isn't one big
enough for my music. secondly, i don't
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
thx for the response, allow me to clarify some things i guess i was
unclear on:
snarlydwarf;218448 Wrote:
You have left out disadvantages:
. More heat
. More noise
. Lots more moving parts moved into custom-repair (when a pc breaks
you have a huge range of choices on how to fix it with
i was unaware of both products.
can you provide links? i definitely would like to check them out.
good to see you again btw bpa... just fyi, i did DL ethereal and play
with it a bit but i was somewhat fedup with SD by that point and i just
let my issue go at that point, thinking i would come
MrSinatra;218454 Wrote:
i disagree what i propose would cost $1000.
what would it cost? i can't say, BUT perhaps the increased
manufacturing costs would be offset by lower development and support
costs.
???
No, the increased manufacturing costs would also have increased
development
The Nokia N800 is being used by many SB users as a better remote
control, but it is a very capable system itself and many users are
developing s/w for it.
Nokia N800 web site
http://europe.nokia.com/n800
What is missing from above is that it has an FM radio built in as
well.
canola
MrSinatra,
The N800 pretty much matches your hardware spec and possibly the price
point and the canola media streamer provides most of the media
functionality now.
What would differentiate your product from it ?
--
bpa
Please, I was only joking... this is turning to baby troll, even if
you're sincere. The post rate, the amount of yes it's good, i think it
isn't, etc. not going really far inspired me this little critic, please
don't be offended.
--
vrobin
I think he meant din mounts as in the standard mount within a dashboard
where the stereo slots in.
Are there Linux based head units available?
--
bonze
QNAP TS-101 (version 2.1.0 build 0612T)
SlimServer Version: 6.5.1 - 11206 - Debian - EN - utf8
2 x wireless SB3 (Firmware Version: 81)
oh come on... i am giving my honest opinion and feedback.
why is that only labelled troll when its something some people
intrepret as critical of SD?
gimmie a break already.
as to linux car stereos or din mounts in cars, i know nothing about
that. it definitely wasn't what i was proposing
first of all, a laptop is too big and bulky.
secondly, the SD team already takes parts and designs them into the SB,
which they also write the FW for.
all i am suggesting is that they include the chips necessary to that to
do SS and an OS they could customize for SS, and make very lightweight.
bonze;218459 Wrote:
I think he meant din mounts as in the standard mount within a dashboard
where the stereo slots in.
Are there Linux based head units available?
I think what we really need, the definitive thing... is a new orignal
troll subject... and we found it ;).
--
vrobin
I can only see two solutions to this:
Option 1: Remake the complete SB system and change SB to a fat device
instead of a thin device. Would be a huge development job.
Option 2: Sell two packages:
Third option: upload your music collection to mp3tunes, switch to
SqueezeNetwork, shut down your
I think the thing to do here is to make SlimServer more modularized.
What modules would you see?
Michael
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Michael Herger;218495 Wrote:
I can only see two solutions to this:
Option 1: Remake the complete SB system and change SB to a fat
device
instead of a thin device. Would be a huge development job.
Option 2: Sell two packages:
Third option: upload your music collection to mp3tunes,
I think there are basically two types of people:
Category 1: People that already have a 24/7 running server in their
home or easily can setup one.
- Often geeks or techincally savvy people
- I suspect most of the current SB owners are in this category
Category 2: People that don't have a 24/7
Michael Herger;218497 Wrote:
I think the thing to do here is to make SlimServer more modularized.
What modules would you see?
Michael
I haven't given it much thoughts in details, but here are some ideas.
It would be good to be able to run the scanning process on a separate
machine. As I
vrobin;218501 Wrote:
Michael Herger;218495 Wrote:
I can only see two solutions to this:
Option 1: Remake the complete SB system and change SB to a fat
device
instead of a thin device. Would be a huge development job.
Option 2: Sell two packages:
Third option: upload your
erland;218503 Wrote:
===
Now, saying all this, there is a solution to this problem which I also
mentioned in my previous post.
- Leave the SB as a thin device
- Sell a hardware solution with pre-installed, pre-configured
SlimServer.
This way the users in catetory 1 can just buy the SB
I exposed some quick ideas about this in this very same thread a couple
of months ago:
This said, I continue to think (I can be wrong) that there really is a
need for a simple and very light slim server software (for NAS or very
small silent pc) and a more powerfull server software for real
erland;218503 Wrote:
Now, saying all this, there is a solution to this problem which I also
mentioned in my previous post.
- Leave the SB as a thin device
- Sell a hardware solution with pre-installed, pre-configured
SlimServer.
I think that is a huge opportunity for someone (a ton
this is a brilliant post imo, i totally agree with the premise outlined
below:
erland;218503 Wrote:
I think there are basically two types of people:
Category 1: People that already have a 24/7 running server in their
home or easily can setup one.
- Often geeks or techincally savvy people
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
MrSinatra;218527 Wrote:
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?
Because I already -have- a fat
ok, i can see where for you it would be redundant, but for most other
people, it would actually be good as most people don't want to leave a
computer on 24/7.
i also think you're somewhat exaggerating just how much extra heat and
elec it would use. and consider that such a device would probably
MrSinatra;218538 Wrote:
what if the fat device allowed you to power off the OS/SS stuff, and go
into a legacy mode, so it would act as it does now...
would you still be against it?
Yes, just as I would be against paying for thee latest and greatest
super 3d video with 512M ram and all
MrSinatra;218525 Wrote:
SS already has a linux flavor. just make the fat device run enough of
linux to run SS as it now exists. is that such a hard thing to do?
and SS will have local SB access, it won't need to TCP/IP to the SB.
enough of linux would be pretty much what existing NAS
MrSinatra;218545 Wrote:
clever, but the laptop would not include the SB. i am talking about
one device only, all in one, and of a different form factor and type.
No, but it WOULD have a sound driver and likely even an IR sensor for
remote control
So,, yeah, that would be one device
snarlydwarf;218539 Wrote:
enough of linux would be pretty much what existing NAS boxes do.
The catch is that for a lot of people a low-end NAS box is going to be
too slow to be usable. There just isn't enough CPU or RAM to make it
feasible. So increase CPU to a 1Ghz x86 and toss half a
snarlydwarf;218540 Wrote:
Yes, just as I would be against paying for thee latest and greatest
super 3d video with 512M ram and all sorts of support for the latest
games on a headless server...
I dislike paying for hardware that I don't use.
thats a good point, but i already said it should
no, its not.
i want the audio qualities of a SB. no laptop has that, nor do i want
to buy an addon for it.
and you misread what i wrote... the laptop is of the WRONG kind of
form factor and type, and is just too much for my purposes.
i am really interested in the nokia stuff bpa posted. i'm
MrSinatra;218549 Wrote:
no, its not.
i want the audio qualities of a SB. no laptop has that, nor do i want
to buy an addon for it.
I wonder why? Could tossing a bunch of complex electronics into the
same box as the DAC create problems? So perhaps throwing in a more
powerful CPU and
75 matches
Mail list logo
