------------------------------------------------------------------------ A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43198 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Question: Do you agree with this posting? - Yes - No - In the middle ------------------------------------------------------------------------
snarlydwarf;267475 Wrote: > the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of > their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded? > > I am not sure how Dostoevsky fits into this.... ha, funny. i was actually thinking "of a scoundral" by lisa simpson. snarlydwarf;267475 Wrote: > Because last I checked, the database needs for even 100 TV shows saved > on your TIVO is a lot less than the database needs for 20000 or more > songs. good point. but the issue really is scanning, right? meaning creating the index? b/c it seems to me that a search for the name of a band say, in a created DB, doesn't require too much processing power. and that would also depend on how fast u had to have it. in my case, i almost never use the search function. i could see where scanning is a procession issue, but if allowed to run during "down times" again not that big a deal, let it take time. snarlydwarf;267475 Wrote: > Because people who have actually priced the components needed know the > real costs. > > A NAS box is going to run to $400 or more if you give it anywhere near > the CPU needed to run a stripped down slimserver.... i realize you probably haven't read the whole thread, but i am NOT advocating music storage on the device. in my proposed device, which is despised apparently, i would like the SB and SS combined, so it was truly independent of other computers and so it was portable, and so i could recommend it to technophobes. music storage would be mapped or on flash / usb or on the net. snarlydwarf;267475 Wrote: > Add in the cost of the actual player portion, and you are talking > pie-in-the-sky pricing. > > Sure, CPUs keep getting cheaper, but the demands placed on them get to > be more, as well, and at the present, the typical NAS box does not have > the performance most people would want. Why do you think Logitech could > make a NAS box with sufficient power cheaper than everyone else, in > fact, for an incremental price change of $100 on the player... > > Not likely at all. well i didn't suggest that. so, i don't. all i'm suggesting is a fat device. maybe the constraints of hardware are such that it would impact performance, or cut out certain features all together, but impossible? super expensive? i don't think so. i think if slim/logitech wanted to, this is something they could do, and all i'm doing is SUGGESTING it, and trying to identify the benefits and situations or market where it might be appealing. -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 w/SS 6.5.5 (beta!?) - Win XP Pro SP2 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43198 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
