On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 18:46 -0800, ezkcdude wrote: > Now, you're just being a dork.
Name calling makes your argument stronger? > Who cares about the acronym? Microsoft > popularized DOS and made it a commercial venture. MS-DOS wasn't such a > bad thing. In fact, isn't it still being used in the space shuttle? It was never used in the space shuttle. The Space Shuttle computers were based on IBM360s. Sometimes facts are important in establishing credibility. > Anyway, my point was that as companies grow, they often start to add > useless features, so that they appear to be innovating. We all know how > bloated M$ code got over the years. How big is Office now, like 1 GB? Is > it any better? The SqueezeBox is just about perfect right now. Do we > really need "mass-market" acceptance for it to be improved? Well you point on bloat is valid. I didn't see it. The size of Office is not very important. What is important is that most users can't use more than 10% of what it does. Office was the only answer for a while. People are starting to ask "what problem does Office solve?" And as important, is what it does worth $500? It will be interesting to watch. You are welcome to think that the SqueezeBox is perfect, I think it is great but that is not perfect. And the whole experience is not great for the typical mass market person. The success of the iPod shows what can happen when you get the mass market right. On topic, for the typical techno-phobic audiophile. the whole concept of setting up a computer for the SlimServer is foreign. Yet these same folks obsess over $2000 machines to clean records using magic formulas for cleaning fluids that take Chemical Engineers to understand. A large number of them do not accept CDs and prefer vinyl. I think a SqueezeBox is worth the price, I've bought three. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
