Mark Lanctot Wrote:
> Now it looks like I was trying to beat you over the head with it.
Dont worry about it - best way to learn!!
--
Browny
Browny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2295
View this
Browny Wrote:
> aaI'll shut up now!
Sorry, I responded before I saw shvejk's and your responses.
Now it looks like I was trying to beat you over the head with it. :-)
The key point is, computer audio doesn't have to sound like a computer
sound card if it's done right. Low electrical
aaI'll shut up now!
--
Browny
Browny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2295
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19987
_
There already is a processor inside the Squeezebox
- a 250 MHz Ubicom IP3000:
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?HardwareComparison
http://www.ubicom.com/processors/ip3000/ip3000_family.html
(according to the Ubicom page, a 250 MHz clock
would make it an IP3023).
These devices are gettin
I can't help thinking that adding a processor is going to introduce alot of noise inside the case
SB3 already has a processor inside.
When Sean wrote:
>You're right that the current Squeezenetwork feature set could>conceivably fit in firmware.
he was referring to firmware upgrade with no
Interesting one this.
Personally I think one of the great things about the Squeezebox is that
it is essentially a dumb device. For me the obvious benefit of this is
the sound quality.
I can't help thinking that adding a processor is going to introduce a
lot of noise inside the case (try listenin
Mark Lanctot Wrote:
>
> The issues with SqueezeNetwork are another story.
> Only Slim knows how scalable it is. Obviously
> it's costing money - servers aren't free, nor is
> bandwidth! The breaking point will come when they
> are forced to start charging for the service. Now
> I like Sq
shvejk Wrote:
> The latest load/performance issues with SqueezeNetwork got me
> thinking...
>
> Is slim architecture still a good idea in 2006, when cheap embedded
> devices are getting more and more powerful?
>
> SqueezeNetwork provides ( so far ) little functionality. If the same
> functional
Yes, I should have mentioned this. SqueezeNetwork
does cost Slim money. It's really fantastic that
they don't charge for it. It shows care for
Slim's customers and shows that we aren't viewed
as just a cash cow!
Josef Shvejk wrote:
>
> Most companies would just charge a monthly fee for
Sq
Thank you for your reply, Sean. I am looking forward for the new Squeezenetwork services.
Most companies would just charge a monthly fee for Squeezenetwork, getting more and more money as the user base grows. It is really cool that you do not charge anything. My existing SB2s are getting new fea
shvejk Wrote:
> The latest load/performance issues with SqueezeNetwork got me
> thinking...
>
> Is slim architecture still a good idea in 2006, when cheap embedded
> devices are getting more and more powerful?
>
> SqueezeNetwork provides ( so far ) little functionality. If the same
> functional
11 matches
Mail list logo