I am very happy to read the original post and your answers. It fully
reflects my analysis after 2 years of pain.
The server software is too complicated. I am a serious Apple user and I
do not have a single piece of software which has so many options. I want
to use a simple electronic appliance
Slimserver is a complex piece of software and it is certainly harder to
use than iTunes for a new user - for what a typical new user wants to
do.
On the other hand, I cannot think of anything else that will do as much
in a music server than Slimserver. The browser interface could be
better, but
Erland, haven't you just answered your own question, by mentioning the
straightforward and efficient iTunes? Dare I suggest that most people
get a Squeezebox (and therefore Slimserver) becasue they're into music?
And that most people into digital music these days will have iTunes?
Problem solved,
whitman;207542 Wrote:
Erland, haven't you just answered your own question, by mentioning the
straightforward and efficient iTunes? Dare I suggest that most people
get a Squeezebox (and therefore Slimserver) becasue they're into music?
And that most people into digital music these days will
seanadams;207505 Wrote:
Nic - you seem to be suggesting that the only way to make the product
easier to use is to compromise its advanced capabilities. I disagree.
Sorry Sean, but I can't see where you read into that from my post! :)
I am a firm believer that the advanced options have to
whitman;207542 Wrote:
Erland, haven't you just answered your own question, by mentioning the
straightforward and efficient iTunes? Dare I suggest that most people
get a Squeezebox (and therefore Slimserver) becasue they're into music?
And that most people into digital music these days will
My wife loves her iPod, but if she had to jump through hoops like I do
to import music, she would never do it. I think most people are this
way in regards to learning how to do a task on the computer.
Same thing with my kids. They both are able to install and use iTunes, but
they are only
There has been a lot of discussion in the past about the mass market
viability of Squeezebox/SlimServer, and the conclusion is usually that
the average user will not be able to easily get to grips with it.
It's not that it's bad, but SlimServer can be a bit overwhelming at
first. The idea of
Sure, iTunes would solve a big part of the problem. So everything would
be fine if Logitech actually recommend people that the easiest way to
use SlimServer is to use the iTunes integration and provide a default
installation of SlimServer that where setup this way. But today they
don't as far
Michael Herger;207661 Wrote:
What about a wizard style dialog on first startup, asking whether you
want to use iTunes, MusicIP or your own music path. If it's the latter,
let the user visually choose the path as it's seen by the server (no
mounted drive letters and stuff) etc.?
A wizard
Come on! Who's going to buy a SB without knowing what a music file is and
what they're used for. That's imho pretty far fetched.
Except for the online service only user.
Michael
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
Quoting erland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Michael Herger;207661 Wrote:
What about a wizard style dialog on first startup, asking whether you
want to use iTunes, MusicIP or your own music path. If it's the latter,
let the user visually choose the path as it's seen by the server (no
Michael Herger;207661 Wrote:
What about a wizard style dialog on first startup, asking whether you
want
to use iTunes, MusicIP or your own music path. If it's the latter, let
the
user visually choose the path as it's seen by the server (no mounted
drive
letters and stuff) etc.?
But lets assume that we are talking about someone who doesn't know how
SlimServer works. This user has probably not realized that he needs a
tagging/ripping program, so he has no idea what to choose in these
options.
Come on! Who's going to buy a SB without knowing what a music file is and
erland;207687 Wrote:
So maybe what's needed here is to make it clearer that using the iTunes
integration is the easiest way to get SlimServer running.
Easiest way to get a new user to throw the thing out the window, you
mean. iTunes integration has always been sketchy.
--
JJZolx
Jim
Dave Dewey;207680 Wrote:
Do we really think that a potential Squeezebox purchasers first
experience with needing to deal with digital music files is buying a
Squeezebox? I doubt it.
I'd postulate that people that are buying Squeezeboxes today have
already learned to deal with these
I agree that trying to integrate with iTunes will always be sketchy.
Apple can/will always change iTunes, which could break integration. In
general, I think even with its problems, Slimserver is a better way to
access a library. Except that drag and drop needs to be implemented for
playlists.
I disagree. I see it as very much a UI problem. I realize many of the
preferences interface issues are being addressed for SlimServer 7, so
it's obvious that SD is aware of many of them.
Hmm... I haven't seen big improvements in the settings' UI. But there are
plans.
Number one, the
Whilst I personally love tinkering with things like SlimServer, I do see
the point.
No offense to all great contributors to the project (in fact: a round
of applause!), but in these types of projects things tend to get
designed from a technical perspective. It is the nature of an open
project.
My advice to you is: install SlimServer as stock standard. works like a
charm. If you want more options, than that is going to complicate
things... your choice (I for one, am glad to have that choice).
We hope to get plugin installation much easier (automatically through
the web interface)
One day we will buy our music online in our desired format/bit rate with
album art, artist info, lyrics, etc. It will come with industry standard
tags and be stored in the music library on our home media server. We
will be able to pick up our Internet Tablet and browse through our
music to play
I'm of the opinion that the developers are too nice and too willing to
bend to every user demand. Look at the current brouhaha over
compilation albums. What was working for most suddenly is completely
unworkable for some. There are vocal demands for can't we choose to
have it this way rather
Mark Lanctot;207315 Wrote:
I'm of the opinion that the developers are too nice and too willing to
bend to every user demand. Look at the current brouhaha over
compilation albums. What was working for most suddenly is completely
unworkable for some. There are vocal demands for can't we
slimkid;207359 Wrote:
- If software development process was done the right way, there won't be
scenario where the developers would be in possition to be nice or bent
over. Try to play nice card with MS developer for example :)
Microsoft is, of course, the shining example of top-notch
- If basic features were set up right from the start, then most of
people won't be asking for tweaks because the software would be working
reasonably well for most.
Exactly. For most. But the others cry louder ;-).
Michael
___
discuss mailing list
Michael Herger;207374 Wrote:
That's beside a point. Point is that in professionaly organized
development process user can not bend the developer over.
Former SlimDevices imho wouldn't be where they are today if they had
followed pure old school professional development processes. Does
Couldn't most of this be solved by having a simple view with advanced tabs
you could delve into if desired?
I've modified several of the options that you listed as unnecessary, and I
would lament having them removed in the name of simplicity. That said, I do
acknowledge that there are many
It seems that often software has basic setup panels with advanced panels
you can view if desired.
SlimServer has a basic settings page...
We'll probably have to redefine what options should be basic. Which
settings currently _not_ on that page would you consider candidates for
the basic
I'll take a look when I get home and see what strikes me as belonging on the
basic page.
I think the other half of things would be to make simpler versions of some
of the advanced settings. The scroll speed settings are a good example.
Have a basic version with just a few options High, Medium,
exile;207245 Wrote:
I would love to recommend the slimbox/server to my friends who are
looking for a digital music solution but unfortunately I can only
recommend this spectacular product to my friends that are either
computer professionals or friends that are very computer savvy.
Man, you
I guess that since Logitech have bought the company this sort of make it
all simple for joe (below?) average is going to be the voice of the
masses on these forums soon. Shame.
I am all for creating the Basic and Advanced setup pages, then
those people who can barely open a word document without
Nic - you seem to be suggesting that the only way to make the product
easier to use is to compromise its advanced capabilities. I disagree.
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile:
DrNic;207500 Wrote:
I guess that since Logitech have bought the company this sort of make it
all simple for joe (below?) average is going to be the voice of the
masses on these forums soon. Shame.
I am all for creating the Basic and Advanced setup pages, then
those people who can barely
Hi Bjorn
I've thought about this for a while, and I have come to the conclusion
that slimserver is one of the most complicated pieces of leisure time
software on my computer. In short from a UI perspective I think it is
really bad.
While I do not agree with this global verdict, I do so with
-One can configure the Various Artists label.
(Make it a translatable string)
It imho is. What language are you using? Where do you see it? Please note
that not all languages are 100% translated. DE, FR, IT, NL, HE and ES are
almost complete. The others are partially incomplete.
--
Michael Herger;207228 Wrote:
While I do not agree with this global verdict, I do so with your main
point. In fact, your examples show one thing: there are too many
options.
That's not a UI problem ;-). (BTW: Most of the parameters you list have
been asked for by users)
I disagree. I
Maybe its because I use iTunes to rip and manage my music and I don't
mess around with a lot of the settings, but I find the UI to be
incredibly easy to use in terms of finding the music I want to play and
creating playlists, etc. I did spend some time making sure the file
types are set the way
I would love to recommend the slimbox/server to my friends who are
looking for a digital music solution but unfortunately I can only
recommend this spectacular product to my friends that are either
computer professionals or friends that are very computer savvy.
I've been working professionally
exile wrote:
I would love to recommend the slimbox/server to my friends who are
looking for a digital music solution but unfortunately I can only
recommend this spectacular product to my friends that are either
computer professionals or friends that are very computer savvy.
I have not found
exile;207245 Wrote:
maybe some of the folks on this forum have some ideas for making the
squeezebox competitive in a mass market situation.
By definition that means developing a native Windows application and/or
adapting the firmware to work with existing Windows media servers. Both
of these
40 matches
Mail list logo
