forestcaver wrote: > powered laptop server (quiet) and a NSLU2 to store the music to drive a > slimp3. I have a large (~30-40 k tracks) music library and just cannot > tolerate the time to rescan on a NAS.
Did you ever consider not using a low power laptop and NAS, since you don't like the time to rescan? Its not clear to me that your problem is with the SlimServer, but with your selected hardware. > I would also like to see a more partitioned server, where the user can > choose to install a lower footprint functionality. Ok, you say you don't want to rant, but can you explain why you think two versions of the SlimServer would result in you getting a better product? While SD didn't say why they dropped the wired-only SqueezeBox, I bet a strong reason was that the costs for making, inventorying, handling repairs for, and selling two units with only a small difference in selling cost exceeded the actual savings to SD. I know that having two versions of any software can trivially double the cost and time for QA, testing, bugfixes, etc. powerful CPUs are nearly free, dual core Intel CPUS are under $200 and are screaming fast. Memory is almost free, you should have a gigabyte in any semi-serious computer server, and anything running SlimServer is by definition a server. I think you will be happier with the results, and I know it can happen more quickly, if you just upgrade your hardware. Get an old PC, put it in a closet and be happy. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
