Re: [slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-17 Thread radish
Fleury;330085 Wrote: > Nor do I think it is somehow an inherent limitation of the web GUI, I > think Firefox is more than up to the challenge of displaying that many > thumbnails in a simple scroll. Of course it is, but you're not complaining that it can't display them, but that it can't load the

Re: [slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-17 Thread Fleury
Firefox is already turbo-charged, I made those revisions months ago - as to why 600 albums, like so many folks I often like to browse cover art for what to play next - a time-honored tradition, flipping through the stack of tunes. I don't think - "gee, what would I like to listen to that starts wi

Re: [slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-16 Thread radish
funkstar;329919 Wrote: > You can up the maximum simultaneous conenctions in FireFox quite easily. > May well help a lot. > > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854513,00.asp > > But you can't set it differently for local vs internet servers (AFAIK). Setting too high a value could caus

Re: [slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-16 Thread funkstar
radish;329895 Wrote: > Why are you loading 600 covers? That's always going to take time because > of the way HTTP works (only a few can be requested at a time) You can up the maximum simultaneous conenctions in FireFox quite easily. May well help a lot. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697

Re: [slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-16 Thread radish
Fleury;329847 Wrote: > I know Moose is a fancy slipcover for SC, but my point is that the > minute or two it takes 600 album covers to load in SC takes about 15 > seconds or less in Moose. Moose does a far superior job of handling > cover art. If it is drawing on the same db cache file as SC, the

Re: [slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-16 Thread funkstar
Fleury;329847 Wrote: > Is it a separate software app like SS or integrated into the SC GUI? SqueezePlay is a seperate app, but isn't written in Java, so doesn't have some of the inherent problems of SoftSqueeze. -- funkstar --

Re: [slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-16 Thread Fleury
I know Moose is a fancy slipcover for SC, but my point is that the minute or two it takes 600 album covers to load in SC takes about 15 seconds or less in Moose. Moose does a far superior job of handling cover art. If it is drawing on the same db cache file as SC, then something in the web interfa

Re: [slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-15 Thread radish
Oh and I forgot to mention, the album art is pretty snappy these days (thanks to the caching), loads up basically instantly for me - even over wireless. If you're seeing slowness maybe something else is up? -- radish radis

Re: [slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-15 Thread radish
For the artwork point, SC does cache the resampled images. That's what is happening during the artwork phase of the scan. It's also important to remember that Moose isn't a replacement for SC, it's a replacement GUI for SC. SC is still there under the hood. As for the embedded player, I assume yo

[slim] SC needs an embedded player, folder.jpg db

2008-08-15 Thread Fleury
Having lived with SC and SB3 for nearly a year, there are two areas where this otherwise amazing interface is sadly lacking. An embedded player, such as in Itunes (yuch) or mp3tunes.com, or Pandora etc. etc. would be a gift from the gods. Softsqueeze, while impressive in its ability to do many thi