Archimago wrote:
> Okay. Fine. I have seen the light!
>
> $12,500.01 it is.
>
> Not a penny less! And to optimize the performance of this server
> machine, it'll have a 8GB vintage 10-year-old flash drive (because those
> were the quietest drives of course!). 2X DVD burner circa 2001 approved
>
Archimago wrote:
> Clearly: The. Ultimate. Serving. Machine.
And this is the name of your business: T.U.S.M.
(I agree to receive $1,000 per sold unit from you.)
reinholdk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.p
Wombat wrote:
> Reminds me on some garbage i once wrote.
> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based/202369-hand-made-sata-cable-cat-5.html#post2824871
> NO joke, i got PMs for that asking for more details because others hear
> the same!
Lol! That's funny.
--
Reminds me on some garbage i once wrote.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based/202369-hand-made-sata-cable-cat-5.html#post2824871
NO joke, i got PMs for that asking for more details because others hear
the same!
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> So
Mnyb wrote:
> Yes that's the weird economy for luxury items for the rich .
>
> You sell more if you hike the price ! Porsche did that mistakes in the
> 80's and early 90's was it not some model that was relatively "
> affordable" so that just maybe a working class hero could get one if he
> work
poing wrote:
> Or a file sharer who doesn't pay for his music ;)
... thats the OCD people here with >45 tracks , you cant possible
listen to that even if you did not have a day job and did it for 10
hours a day . and then only listen once :D
65k is quite possible given that your now in you
utgg wrote:
> I did say well organised. And I still maintain 100 is reasonable as an
> average - for all those long titles there will plenty of short ones as
> well.
100 bytes is ridiculously small. For search, you need to store artist,
album artist, composer, track name, album name, genre, relea
garym wrote:
> Unfortunately, these turn in to mud slinging contests (and be prepared
> to be told that if you say you need more than 65,000 tracks you're
> either lying or crazy).
Or a file sharer who doesn't pay for his music ;)
reinholdk wrote:
> Archimago, you should know better that you will not succeed with your
> business if you try to undercut the competition. You have to sell with a
> higher price!
Yes that's the weird economy for luxury items for the rich .
You sell more if you hike the price ! Porsche did that
Archimago, you should know better that you will not succeed with your
business if you try to undercut the competition. You have to sell with a
higher price!
reinholdk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?user
probedb wrote:
> 100 bytes is nothing though and if the tags are unicode then you just
> halved that. 50 characters wouldn't cover the song title + artist for
> many of the bands I listen to.
I did say well organised. And I still maintain 100 is reasonable as an
average - for all those long titl
utgg wrote:
> Agree it is almost certainly a player memory size limitation - the
> database is probably held in ram. Plus the use of 16-bit track
> references.
>
> It's instructive to have a feel for how much memory you actually need. I
> would have thought 100 bytes average for per-track tag in
12 matches
Mail list logo
