It's been a while, just thought I'd report back..
Seems that the problem with Firefox on my set up was Flashblock - much
quicker once localhost and 127.0.0.1 are added to Flashblock's white
list. Still a bit slower than 6.5.5, but that's to be expected.
--
ShadowWar
I've been using it under Windows Vista platform for about 8 weeks now
and have upgraded it occasionally with the 'daily'. It has worked 100%
once running and the Squeezebox playing has been fine.
Only one issue I have had is that I had to figure out it is best to
login as the admin account
jfo;259601 Wrote:
I thought I would try SC7 after reading it was quite stable, but didn't
have success. It installed fine, but ran very, very slowly. For
example, it took a long time to load the album screen(with art) and
then would take 10-12 seconds to select an individual album. It would
takes between 1 and 2 minutes to start and then maybe 30s to 1 min to
display anything whenever I click a link.
Your machine is much stronger than what I'm using at home (server Via C3/1GHz,
client Pentium-M 1.4GHz). But I can't confirm this.
Are you using Firebug or any other browser add-on
I've reported this a few times now and it's still the case.
When the Default skin is shown in Firefox, it uses 100% CPU time.
When it's loaded but not the visible tab, CPU usage drops to 0%.
I do not have Firebug installed.
It's making the new interface unusable for me, and these reports are
ShadowWar;259656 Wrote:
Jim, I've got definite speed problems as well, but only on the new
interface. Switch to classic and it's fine. PC's quite old (AMD 2.7GHz,
1GB RAM, Win XP Pro SP2) but doesn't have too many speed problems
otherwise. I was playing back an album encoded with FLAC on my
heyho;259660 Wrote:
I'm using Kaspersky suite for firewall, a/v etc.
I've got the current(ish) release of the free ZoneAlarm and AVG's free
scanner. Hell, I sound really cheap, don't I?!
Mike
--
ShadowWar
ShadowWar's
Michael Herger;259661 Wrote:
takes between 1 and 2 minutes to start and then maybe 30s to 1 min to
display anything whenever I click a link.
Your machine is much stronger than what I'm using at home (server Via
C3/1GHz, client Pentium-M 1.4GHz). But I can't confirm this.
I don't think
That's no problem as long as we're not talking about _minutes_ (or 20
seconds for that matter). Any program will take all the resource it can
get to get its job done the fastest possible. The issue is the duration
of the process, not the spike. The first time loading of the page is
slow, I have
I've reported this a few times now and it's still the case.
When the Default skin is shown in Firefox, it uses 100% CPU time.
That's no problem as long as we're not talking about _minutes_ (or 20 seconds
for that matter). Any program will take all the resource it can get to get its
job done
Michael Herger;259670 Wrote:
There's even a bug open about this (6625). But I am as much surprised as
the bug reporter that this hasn't been brought up as a killer problem
before.
I think beta testers tend to lean much more to the geek side of the
spectrum, so are likely to have both a
The only addon I have installed is Adblock.
Adblock or Adblock plus?
--
Michael
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
When the Default interface is shown, Firefox uses 100% cpu time *all the
time* - not just when it's loading.
Now that's news to me. I use to have the skin open in FF, Opera and Safari|IE
(depending on what system I'm working with) at the same time. Three of them,
sometimes even more than one
40 seconds is just to load the Default web page - not to load Firefox!
The only addon I have installed is Adblock.
I only get this problem with the Default skin, nothing else.
James
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and
Ooh not sure. I'll have to check - are there any known issues with
either?
No. Just tested both. No problem :-/.
--
Michael
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Ooh not sure. I'll have to check - are there any known issues with
either?
James
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not
intend to waive confidentiality or privilege. Use of this email is prohibited
Hmmm.
Turns out my problem *was* caused by Adblock!
Disabling it removed the CPU usage. I've installed Adblock Plus, which
was the same to start with (maybe a little faster) but with an
exclusion on http://localhost:9000 the issue is gone!
To think I was starting to consider using ie again...
Turns out my problem *was* caused by Adblock!
Thanks for the feedback! Good to know we're not that awfully slow after
all...
Michael
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
With debian, yes, you should do an uninstall and then an install because
the package name changed.
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread:
snarlydwarf wrote:
With debian, yes, you should do an uninstall and then an install because
the package name changed.
Thanks for this. Of course, on Debian 'uninstall' is not so simple.
Just doing aptitude remove slimserver will leave the configuration
files; is this OK?
Or do you need to
Diana Artemis wrote:
snarlydwarf wrote:
With debian, yes, you should do an uninstall and then an install because
the package name changed.
Thanks for this. Of course, on Debian 'uninstall' is not so simple.
Just doing aptitude remove slimserver will leave the configuration
files; is
Diana Artemis;259199 Wrote:
snarlydwarf wrote:
With debian, yes, you should do an uninstall and then an install
because
the package name changed.
Thanks for this. Of course, on Debian 'uninstall' is not so simple.
Just doing aptitude remove slimserver will leave the configuration
bobharp wrote:
My upgrade was relatively smooth. I renamed the old directory
(/usr/share/slimserver/) after the update to squeezecenter.
I updated the wiki.
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?DebianPackage
Presumably you added the bits at the end about having to do more than
just the
Diana Artemis;259374 Wrote:
bobharp wrote:
My upgrade was relatively smooth. I renamed the old directory
(/usr/share/slimserver/) after the update to squeezecenter.
I updated the wiki.
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?DebianPackage
Presumably you added the bits at the end about
bobharp wrote:
I just added:
-or for the development release (currently SlimServer 7.0a1)-
apt-get remove --purge slimserver
apt-get update
apt-get install squeezecenter
I doubt that a purge is necessary. I did not have to configure perl or
install libexpat1-dev.
That's good! And
Diana Artemis;259451 Wrote:
That's good! And really simple. Thanks for the confirmation.
[If the process is now that simple, I do hope there's some way of
tidying up the wiki so that it's less confusing. I guess many of us
have had the experience of being led astray by HowTos and
funkstar wrote:
If someone makes a bad change to the Wiki, can it not be rolled back to
the previous change? I amways thought this was one of the features of
Wikis, they have a bhuilt in versiion management system. Or does that
depend on the Wiki backend software?
The problem is not so much
juniper;259529 Wrote:
The more I follow the thread and also read comments in the Beta forum,
the less I feel inclined to make the jump to Release 7.0 until it
becomes official. There still seem to be too many unresolved BETA
issues, that may be fun for techies to comment on and try to
The more I follow the thread and also read comments in the Beta forum,
the less I feel inclined to make the jump to Release 7.0 until it
becomes official. There still seem to be too many unresolved BETA
issues, that may be fun for techies to comment on and try to resolve
but could be a nightmare
Jim - I would like to take it asap. I then looked at the Beta forum and
there seem to be problems with the most recent builds. I am happy to
experiment and am not nervous of a certain degree of risk, but the
comments seem to indicate more fundamental problems.
--
juniper
SlimServer Version:
I thought I would try SC7 after reading it was quite stable, but didn't
have success. It installed fine, but ran very, very slowly. For
example, it took a long time to load the album screen(with art) and
then would take 10-12 seconds to select an individual album. It would
max out the CPU as
juniper;259529 Wrote:
The more I follow the thread and also read comments in the Beta forum,
the less I feel inclined to make the jump to Release 7.0 until it
becomes official. There still seem to be too many unresolved BETA
issues, that may be fun for techies to comment on and try to
I thought I would try SC7 after reading it was quite stable, but didn't
have success. It installed fine, but ran very, very slowly. For
example, it took a long time to load the album screen(with art) and
then would take 10-12 seconds to select an individual album. It would
What do you mean
I read in this forum at the start of Dec that. the target date for an
official 7.0 release was to be 5th Jan. That has come and gone.
a)Is anybody able to explain in a nutshell the selling points of 7.0
over 6.5.4 please?
b) When is the formal release now likely to be available to ordinary
juniper;258901 Wrote:
a)Is anybody able to explain in a nutshell the selling points of 7.0
over 6.5.4 please?
The official change log is here:
http://svn.slimdevices.com/*checkout*/trunk/server/Changelog7.html?content-type=text/html
One thing that currently isn't mentioned in the change
Erland -many thanks -that was a pretty good nutshell - I will give 7 a
bash. Cheers
--
juniper
SlimServer Version: 6.5.5 - 12638 - Windows XP - EN - cp1252
Perl Version: 5.8.8 MSWin32-x86-multi-thread
MySQL Version: 5.0.22-community-nt
Is there a migration wizard, to report what plugins etc. you have with
6.5 and the 7.x equivalents?
I'm reluctant to upgrade and go back to the standard set-up.
--
amcluesent
amcluesent's Profile:
No migration wizard as yet... I doubt very much if there will be one as
the plugin/preferences architecture is so different. As far as I know
it's not been mentioned anyway. The hard working Michael Herger is the
chap who'll know for sure. At the moment you need to *completely*
uninstall 6.*.*
The hard working Michael Herger is the
Oops... you've mentioned my name. Will have to answer.
chap who'll know for sure. At the moment you need to *completely*
uninstall 6.*.* and all plugins/preferences etc and then install 7 and
all the upgraded plugins.
It should not be necessary to
Michael Herger wrote:
It should not be necessary to uninstall _completely_. If you don't
uninstall, the Windows installer will do it for you. But don't throw away
your settings: they will be migrated.
What's the right procedure for debian-type distros? Do you need to
uninstall before
Diana Artemis;259087 Wrote:
What's the right procedure for debian-type distros? Do you need to
uninstall before upgrade?
And specifically, the Ubuntu flavor of debian-type?
Thanks!
--
Balthazar_B
Balthazar_B's
41 matches
Mail list logo
