Michaelwagner;219296 Wrote: > Something I don't think got mentioned in this thread ... many of us > owned a fat (or at least fatter than an SB) mp3 player - the Audiotron. > While there were many reasons why it failed, it's fatness (and the > consequent slowness by the time it got to market) was one of the > reasons. > >
Time has passed and h/w has gotten more capable. With a faster processor in the client and more non-volatile storage in the client, a modern Audiotron-like device should be much faster in operation. It is also possible to keep the music library database on a file server rather than in the fat client. The Sonos system seems to have a fat client architecture. It has a limit on the number of tracks (40-50,000 tracks) that it can index in a library but otherwise it seems to be an adequate approach. The advantage is that it can play music files from a file server box without any Sonos supplied server s/w. I don't think that the Sonos h/w has been updated lately so it might be possible to raise the limits of the Sonos units. So I think this sort of fat client architecture is viable. Bill -- Listener ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Listener's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2508 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37279 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
