Pat Farrell;157881 Wrote:
> I can see a niche product about the size of a transporter with some sort
> of built in server. But I can't see who would buy it in volume.
Same people who buy these:
http://www.olive.us/
and these:
http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=39
and other similar
I think I was not clear enough, the goal is to fit the NAS Board inside
Transporter's body not to build a 2nd full box.
HDD must not be located close to Transporter it can be a network drive
hooked behind several meter of LAN cable...
About customer unfilled attempt, Slim's claim on Transporter:
your momo;157902 Wrote:
> I think I was not clear enough, the goal is to fit the NAS Board inside
> Transporter's body not to build a 2nd full box..
Your goal may be to do that, but with all due respect I do not share
it. I would find that to be an inferior solution to what SD already
offers, I
The market for a server + client solution is obviously greater than that
of a client-only solution. Slim devices already has the software and
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Logitech puts together the
box to run it.
Note, I think the idea propsed in the first message is way off base.
MelonMonkey;157933 Wrote:
> People who want a two-box pre-amp aren't audiophiles, they're just folks
> with too much money and very little sense.
Plonk. Nutball alert.
--
JJZolx
Jim
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slim
The home network is becoming ubiquitous and slim is playing on this,
marketing to a growing market of dual personality nerdy computer geeks
/ ultracool music loving dudes. This demographic is becoming 'normal'
in younger age groups and is growing very fast! So, they do not need to
market to other
I suppose all the other audiophiles I know are also engineers. So while
a $5-10K prepro is not out of the question, no one I know spends hours
tracing their CDs with green markers nor worrying too much about the
power cable they're using (as long as it's adequate for the current).
While my comme
MelonMonkey;157951 Wrote:
> Anyway, adding HD to Transporter = bad.
> Creating and marketing Slim-branded server = good.
The original poster wasn't recommending adding a HD to the Transporter.
He was simply suggesting *another* way of accessing his music by
providing extra "logic" in the device i
Ah yes... Turtle Beach did something like this a few years ago with the
Audiotron. Plug it in, power it up and off it goes searching any
publically available shares on your network for any compatible music
files (MP3, WAV, WMA).
Problem is that Turtle Beach didn't realise they were onto a winner
kyleki;157983 Wrote:
> The original poster wasn't recommending adding a HD to the Transporter.
> He was simply suggesting *another* way of accessing his music by
> providing extra "logic" in the device itself so it can browse network
> accessible storage - independent of a server.
>
> It would
kyleki;157983 Wrote:
> The original poster wasn't recommending adding a HD to the Transporter.
> He was simply suggesting *another* way of accessing his music by
> providing extra "logic" in the device itself so it can browse network
> accessible storage - independent of a server.
>
> It would
The audiotron was not great - I had one. Firstly, to clarify, it did
require server software (it needed an SMB server), it's just that said
software is included in many OSs these days. Setting it up correctly,
however, was no easier than setting up slimserver. Creating the correct
shares & setting
your momo;158024 Wrote:
> Now moving back on Transporter, please react to insure it will not
> follow the same path, the future is not yet written...
I don't follow your logic here: you want Slim Devices to react to avoid
extinction...by changing the design of a successful product
(Transporter/S
>>I could see how this would be attractive for the new user that
suddenly realizes they need a 24/7 server. However it does nothing for
exising users that already met and accepted this requirement - it only
increases the cost of a new unit for them.<<
- I agree my initial proposal basically doesn
your momo;158136 Wrote:
>
> - I appreciate your metaphorical approach and better understand why it
> can be so hard...
> Main reason I'm here is that I still have hope to convince the
> community on the benefit of having a stand alone mode implemented in
> Transporter ...otherwise you can convi
Logitech WILL release more products and some of them will spin some of
the existing community on its head because they don't understand it.
That's what makes the difference between an enthusiast and someone who
markets this stuff for a living. Logitech might not always be on the
cusp of evolutio
I'm back, I follow your hints and install SlimServer 6.5 on a 4 years
old Laptop (PIII,1GHz, 512MB, XPproSP2) it went nice
ok it tooks me
slightly more than 10min, but after one hour I was able to play music
(MP3 192kB files) from the server Laptop on a 2nd Laptop using
SoftSqueeze. I was proud o
your momo;160865 Wrote:
> This motivate me for more, so I install and configure EAC + AccurateRip
> + FLAC.exe following the installation guide in the Wiki. I also manage
> this to work even it tooks me about 5 hours effort until I got my first
> ever .FLAC file.
But now that the first one is do
your momo;160865 Wrote:
> Now you maybe better understand why having a stand alone mode would have
> allow me to listen SB3 streamed music (direct out from my backup HDD)
> while I reinstall a new HDD + all the apps in my Laptop
instead of
> that, my CD player will do the job.
>
> This first e
Mark Lanctot;160927 Wrote:
> But now that the first one is done, the rest require no extra setup.
>
Unfortunatelly not, this all need to be redone as this setup was also
on the HDD who die
This laptop is now waiting for HDD change and whole system
re-installation.
Mark Lanctot;160927 Wrote:
>
JJZolx wrote:
> Pat Farrell;157881 Wrote:
>> I can see a niche product about the size of a transporter with some sort
>> of built in server. But I can't see who would buy it in volume.
> Same people who buy these:
>
> http://www.olive.us/
yeah, right
Olive|OPUS 400GB ($2,999)
Not a lot of mass
The market for a server + client solution is obviously greater than that
of a client-only solution.
I doubt it: I'm running five clients but only need one server.
--
Michael
-
http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a C
...
- I appreciate your metaphorical approach and better understand why it
can be so hard...
Main reason I'm here is that I still have hope to convince the
community on the benefit of having a stand alone mode implemented in
Transporter ...otherwise you can convince me that current product is
us
23 matches
Mail list logo
