From the link below
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true_pageLabel=pageVAT_ShowContentid=HMCE_PROD_009989propertyType=document
it can be seen that if you bring a squeezebox in to the UK and it is
classed as a laptop 0% duty, MP3 player 2% duty
MuckleEck;258522 Wrote:
From the link below it can be seen that if you bring a squeezebox in to
the UK and it is classed as a laptop 0% duty, MP3 player 2% duty so a)
very low and b) not much if any difference
Just my 2.5p
Alasdair
Quite right, however don't forget that you will also
rougeears;258515 Wrote:
Does anyone have a comparison in terms of audio quality between the SB3
and the Duet?
The Duet and the SB3 use different DACs. Since the Duet still isn't
available there are no comparisons yet. If you're using an outboard
DAC/receiver to do the conversion then there
MuckleEck;258522 Wrote:
From the link below
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true_pageLabel=pageVAT_ShowContentid=HMCE_PROD_009989propertyType=document
it can be seen that if you bring a squeezebox in to the UK and it is
classed as a
This is probably a stupid question but how can you listen to the
Internet radiostations if the computer holding the slimserver is shut
down? Is there a part of the server running from the receiverbox and if
so can it fetch the mediafiles from a NAS?
--
Danfan
The server is hosted in one of two places: your PC or the magical
server in the sky at Squeezenetwork.
If you're just listening to radio, you can use Squeezenetwork: it will
let you create a free account and 'attach' your squeezeboxes to that
account so that you can maintain your own unique
snarlydwarf;258558 Wrote:
The server is hosted in one of two places: your PC or the magical
server in the sky at Squeezenetwork.
If you're just listening to radio, you can use Squeezenetwork: it will
let you create a free account and 'attach' your squeezeboxes to that
account so that you
The question has come up before, and there are some NAS's that have
sufficient access and power to run Slimserver, though usually with some
performance limits.
It goes back to having a machine with enough horsepower to run a pretty
complex and large database (cross indexing albums, artists,
Wow - shiny. I love shiny. Pretty always works - and the controller
looks very pretty.
However, I have (for the most part) outgrown the phase where pretty
outweighs functional. For example, if my Treo died tomorrow (it's 3
years old) I might get an iPhone. But I won't pay for the iPhone
I'm a little old fashioned, I associate my CD's by the way they look, so
a graphical remote is the icing off the cake.
I actually bougth my cd's ;-) so i'm used to hold them in my hand, this
will be a nice substite, now I hold all off them in my hand.
I hate PDA's and won't have a lapptop on
dean blackketter wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Peter wrote:
I sincerely hope we won't be turning some virtual scroll wheel with
our
mouse pointers... :(
The scrolling already takes advantage of your mouse wheel (if you
have one), otherwise cursor keys do the scrolling...
Meatwad650 wrote:
So how does this apply to the Duet? Well, I won't be upgrading my
setup. I probably won't get the controller because it doesn't really
add any functionality.
You're completely wrong there. I just spent 5 months in a small
apartment where I used only one of my SB3's. I
Meatwad650;257902 Wrote:
I get the feeling it's not really marketed at *us*, the SlimDevices
faithful. Oh, many of us will buy it because they can think of a use
for a headless SB3 (as some are looking at the receiver), but it
doesn't have the same appear as an SB3, as I see it. The SD
Fifer;257966 Wrote:
I have to disagree. I'm not sure of your definition of 'faithful'...I've
used a laptop, a Pocket PC with a SD wireless card and a Nokia 770. None
were very satisfactory. But the Jive handset (now the controller) does
almost everything I wanted, it's responsive, intuitive
Hi,
My apologies if this has been asked before but I just wondered if the
new SqueezeBox device will have an I2S interface that is more easily
used in combination with the TDA1541A format than was the SB3? (ie
without the need for additional logic to modify the left/right
justification thing)
Mnyb;257910 Wrote:
I'm a little old fashioned, I associate my CD's by the way they look, so
a graphical remote is the icing off the cake.
I actually bougth my cd's ;-) so i'm used to hold them in my hand, this
will be a nice substite, now I hold all off them in my hand.
I hate PDA's and
Exactly mr tamanaco, I can instantly regognize a record that i already
have by seeing it ! long before i remember its name.
I have lets se 34 CD's some boxes with Miles Davis only, if you ask's
me if i have the man with the horn or miles in the sky i have to
think.
And i have compilations
On Jan 13, 2008 4:44 AM, Meatwad650
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how does this apply to the Duet? Well, I won't be upgrading my
setup. I probably won't get the controller because it doesn't really
add any functionality.
I disagree. For me, having a remote not tied to line-of-sight is a
big
Hi. Will I be able to play subscription WMA files that I have
downloaded on my harddrive from Rhapsody threw the Duets analog out?
Thanks,
Frank
--
t3sn4f2
t3sn4f2's Profile:
Any suggestions on an attractive, compact amplifier/speaker combo to go
with the new SB Receiver? Im thinking for secondary listening areas
such as a bedroom, kitchen or home office... Something really simple
in design and visually neutral.
Itd be similar in concept to some of the docking
dean blackketter;257652 Wrote:
The Controller software is called SqueezeOS (formerly known as
the Jive software) and also runs on Mac, Windows and Linux, though
there aren't any pre-compiled versions of it available.
erland;257656 Wrote:
It's available, but I think you currently have
Peter;257920 Wrote:
You're completely wrong there. I just spent 5 months in a small
apartment where I used only one of my SB3's. I received my controler
(beta) while I was living there and it was a lot better than using the
standard remote and display.
If someone wants to send me a demo
ShutterShock;258121 Wrote:
Any suggestions on an attractive, compact amplifier/speaker combo to go
with the new SB Receiver? Im thinking for secondary listening areas
such as a bedroom, kitchen or home office... Something really simple
in design and visually neutral.
Itd be similar
Mnyb;254877 Wrote:
There are stupendeus price hikes if one sees the European prices :-(
at
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/speakers_audio/wireless_music_systems/
Qucik calc for the swedish prices including 25% VAT:
399$*6.2031*1.25=3094 SEK
The suggested logitech price 3999 SEK (I
twylie;258207 Wrote:
The AudioEngine line are powered and mate very well with the SB3.
I've just about decided to put an Audioengine + Duet system in the
bedroom. It should be a great combo.
--
dem
Dave
dem's Profile:
t3sn4f2;258087 Wrote:
Hi. Will I be able to play subscription WMA files that I have
downloaded on my harddrive from Rhapsody threw the Duets analog out?
Thanks,
Frank
For rhapsody you don't play them locally, you actually play them over
the internet.
You have access to your entire
I reviewed the postings on this site as well as the press release and I
still can't seem to figure out the particulars of the Duet and how it
would work within my existing set up. Hopefully someone can answer my
questions.
Here is my current setup:
2 - Slimp3's
3 - Squeeze Box Series 3
1 -
Answers:
1. YES
2. YES on the Squeezeboxes, not sure on the Slimp3
3. The Controller must have the latest version of SqueezeCenter
installed to run.
--
EnochLight
EnochLight's Profile:
mvalera;258223 Wrote:
For rhapsody you don't play them locally, you actually play them over
the internet via SqueezeNetwork.
Right, but CAN you listen to locally-downloaded Rhapsody stuff? I
mean, let's say that I have twenty albums I really like downloaded from
Rhapsody, as well as fifty
mkozlows;258259 Wrote:
Right, but CAN you listen to locally-downloaded Rhapsody stuff?
Not unless the tracks are purchased by you and reside on the same
machine..DRM
.
--
haunyack
Transporter - Box-O-Wires (audiophile grade) - Vandersteen 3A
Signature
.
Squeezebox Receiver, topless.
+---+
|Filename: receiver-guts.jpg|
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4067|
1. YES
2. YES on the Squeezeboxes, not sure on the Slimp3
YES. The controller only talks to SqueezeCenter, which in turn controls the
players as if they were controlled using eg. the web interface.
3. The Controller must have the latest version of SqueezeCenter
installed to run.
--
Peter;257438 Wrote:
Nothing about sound quality in that quote...
Regards,
Peter
That was kind of his summation about the whole comparison. Let's go
back to the two previous paragraphs:
I know I sound like an übergeeky audiophile when I say that the
Transporter set the music against a
vandermerwe;257498 Wrote:
I have read one beta tester comment about the new SB controller user
interface being slow (like the web interface). I run sliserver on a
ReadyNAS NV+, the web interface is almost useless due to its slow
speed, but the old remote works very well.
Does anyone now if
Thanks ModelCitizen, sounds good.
Has anyone used the jive with a NAS based slimserver/squeezecentre?
--
vandermerwe
Jaboet!
vandermerwe's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9300
View this thread:
I have read one beta tester comment about the new SB controller user
interface being slow (like the web interface). I run slimserver on a
ReadyNAS NV+, the web interface is almost useless due to its slow
speed, but the old remote works very well.
Does anyone now if the new SB controller will be
vandermerwe;257505 Wrote:
Thanks ModelCitizen, sounds good.
Has anyone used the jive with a NAS based slimserver/squeezecentre?
It's certain that if your current remote works well the new jive remote
will work at least as well (and in all likelihood much better).
MC
--
ModelCitizen
It is
vandermerwe;257505 Wrote:
Thanks ModelCitizen, sounds good.
Has anyone used the jive with a NAS based slimserver/squeezecentre?
I've been using the Jive with a Buffalo LinkStation HG (128MB RAM,
266MHz PowerPC processor) on a library of ~4,000 flac tracks since
mid-October. The Jive is much
Just had to ask... Is there... or will there... be a Controller software
functional Simulator?
--
tamanaco
tamanaco's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4620
View this thread:
tamanaco;257640 Wrote:
Just had to ask... Is there... or will there... be a Controller software
functional Simulator?
There certainally will be.
Jive will take over from SoftSqueeze as the main PC and Mac based
software player.
It may be available just now, I really am not sure. Have a look
On Jan 12, 2008, at 9:21 AM, tamanaco wrote:
Just had to ask... Is there... or will there... be a Controller
software
functional Simulator?
Yes. The Controller software is called SqueezeOS (formerly known as
the Jive software) and also runs on Mac, Windows and Linux, though
there aren't
tamanaco;257640 Wrote:
Just had to ask... Is there... or will there... be a Controller software
functional Simulator?
It's available, but I think you currently have to compile it yourself.
You will find the instructions in the README files which is delivered
with the Jive source:
Linux:
Sean, it is great that you frequent the forums. It shows your
dedication to developing products that people enjoy.
Continuing the Transporter / SB3 comparison, would inserting a jitter
reduction unit (Audio Alchemy DTI for example) between my SB3 and DAC
bring the sound of the SB3 closer to the
funkstar wrote:
tamanaco;257640 Wrote:
Just had to ask... Is there... or will there... be a Controller software
functional Simulator?
There certainally will be.
Jive will take over from SoftSqueeze as the main PC and Mac based
software player.
It may be available just now, I
Peter;257680 Wrote:
I sincerely hope we won't be turning some virtual scroll wheel with our
mouse pointers... :(
Regards,
Peter
I do hope that it has a virtual wheel. Just like SoftSqueeze it could
be very useful marketing tool for the Controller You know,
try-before-you-buy kind of
dminches;257660 Wrote:
Continuing the Transporter / SB3 comparison, would inserting a jitter
reduction unit (Audio Alchemy DTI for example) between my SB3 and DAC
bring the sound of the SB3 closer to the Transporter (assuming the use
of an external DAC)? It seems like jitter is the major
On Jan 12, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Peter wrote:
I sincerely hope we won't be turning some virtual scroll wheel with
our
mouse pointers... :(
The scrolling already takes advantage of your mouse wheel (if you
have one), otherwise cursor keys do the scrolling...
Yeah, I've compiled it for Linux and the scroll wheel can be simulated
by the scroll wheel from you mouse, or in my case, with the touchpad
scroll wheel from my notepad.
--
pichonCalavera
*rip* (eac) *convert* (flac) *tag* (musicbrainz) *normalize*
(replaygain/foobar2000) *albumart*
seanadams;257436 Wrote:
I am not offended in the way you think. People complain about my
products here all the time, and receiving that kind of feedback is
largely the purpose of this forum.
Even the foul tone of your posts doesn't bother me. What I am objecting
to is the misinformation.
BetterDAC;257710 Wrote:
Foul tone? There you go again. There's not a single foul word in any
of my posts. Have you even read them all? Calling anything I wrote foul
is an obnoxious insult, and should be beneath the dignity of a senior
executive of a publicly traded company. I certainly hope
mvalera;254720 Wrote:
All Squeezboxes can be synchronized by the Controller, or SlimServer
/SqueezeCenter for that matter, to play the same song. Or they can all
play different songs at the same time.
Bridging works the same as on the SqueezeBox. You connect your
SqueezeBox wirelessly to
mvalera;254681 Wrote:
I'm happy to announce that we have launched the all new Squeezebox
Duet!
Squeezebox Duet lets you listen to the music you love in any room in
your home. Access millions of songs even when your computer is off.
The multi-room controller with 2.4-inch color display
noduplicates wrote:
Peter,
I agree with Erland about the problems of cannabalizing sales of the
current device by releasing a new one and that SlimDevices has already
made a commitment to the current device. However, history and
companies such as Apple have shown that building the right
Congrats on a great product! I own a SB3 and i think a duet would
complement it well in addition to providing music to one more room in
my house!
Any words on the release date yet? I live in Norway, when can i expect
it to reach the stores? Are we talking months or weeks?
--
inv
noduplicates;257117 Wrote:
Peter,
I agree with Erland about the problems of cannabalizing sales of the
current device by releasing a new one and that SlimDevices has already
made a commitment to the current device. However, history and
companies such as Apple have shown that building the
The Duet is an interesting next step in the audio world. It brings
convenient user interface and allows the audio equipment to be hidden
from view (a big plus for me).
As a potential first time buyer, the SBR is spot on. The SBC or the
duet combo is less appealing, as i'm not yet convinced that
My, my, you boys do get excited!
My point was merely that I can't expand my system with a new receiver
since my obsolete SB3 remote control could not be used to configure
it.
I look forward to the change in this situation; as forecast by various
contributors to this thread.
Don't get wrong -
thing-fish;257298 Wrote:
But an iPod touch that could stream from SqueezeCenter, boy that'd be
one hot ticket.
Sorry to reply to myself, but you know what? Has anyone looked at the
Sansa Connect? It is not touch screen, but it is a PMP that has Wifi
*and* internet radio. I wonder if it can
Skunk;256596 Wrote:
Real audiophiles should just get a Transporter anyway.
Is this statement still true, in your eyes, if one's use of the
SB3/Duet/Transporter ends with the digital out?
--
dminches
SB3 CI Audio VDA-2 Aragon Soundstage Aragon 8008X3 Vandersteen 3A
Sigs
erland;257110 Wrote:
Personally I'm still dreaming of a SqueezeBox Portable that will be good
enough to replace my iPod Touch as a portable device.
Serious question (because I don't have an iPod Touch)...am I right in
thinking that the iPod can't do streams right now? I wonder when they
dminches;257302 Wrote:
Is this statement still true, in your eyes, if one's use of the
SB3/Duet/Transporter ends with the digital out?
The Transporter is over priced, IMHO. A SBR or SB3 with a good external
DAC like a Benchmark DAC1 for example has better technical
specifications and thus
noduplicates wrote:
Peter;257149 Wrote:
noduplicates wrote:
It's pretty hard to distinguish between song titles that way.
---
Peter, I'm showing my age (54) but do you need reading glasses? I
hate
Not yet, but I'm getting closer.
inv;257167 Wrote:
Congrats on a great product! I own a SB3 and i think a duet would
complement it well in addition to providing music to one more room in
my house!
Any words on the release date yet? I live in Norway, when can i expect
it to reach the stores? Are we talking months or
dminches;257302 Wrote:
Is this statement still true, in your eyes, if one's use of the
SB3/Duet/Transporter ends with the digital out?
Depends on your definition of real audiophile, and possibly what
clocking features their DAC has. The topic has been discussed a lot in
the audiophile forum,
I'm generally in sympathy with you - if not actual agreement. I'm in my
mid-50s and have become increasingly presbyopic over the years. But I
can't see this happening for a couple of reasons: For one thing, it
would be lousy business practice. For another, there's a lot more to
introducing a
BetterDAC;257327 Wrote:
The Transporter is over priced, IMHO. A SBR or SB3 with a good external
DAC like a Benchmark DAC1 for example has better technical
specifications and thus will deliver better quality sound for several
$hundred less than a Transporter.
Stereophile doesn't agree with
I'm reminded for some reason of an unrelated argument in which someone
tried to persuade me that a company - with 50+% market share -
overpriced their products! Doh
This can easily be true. Not from the company's point of view, of course.
Consider that utterly broken word processor
BetterDAC;257327 Wrote:
The Transporter is over priced, IMHO.
Its only overpriced if it doesn't sell. Judging by the number of
threads started by people with Transporters, they must have sold a few
at least!
I'm reminded for some reason of an unrelated argument in which someone
tried to
Well, in the case of buying the Transporter versus the SB3 + DAC or
competing products such as Sonos, there is definitely enough
competition that one hopes no one is buying a Transporter for that
reason.
On Jan 11, 2008 5:00 PM, Michael Herger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reminded for some
From my testing the Musical Fidelity X-DACV3 is an inferior DAC compared
to the Benchmark DAC1, so not a fair comparison drawn. That being said
I'm still considering buying a transporter to replace the SB3 for the
added functionallity and display. Considering the value of the
transporter, maybe
mvalera;257336 Wrote:
Stereophile doesn't agree with you. They tested a Transporter and
compared it to the editor's own setup of a SB3 plus a Musical
Fidelity's X-DACV3. The editor preferred the Transporter over his
personal setup:
Yes, the Transporter is worth the upgrade, even from an
BetterDAC;257392 Wrote:
[...]its harder to make the leap that a Trasporter would sound better
than a system with better technical specs that was designed by an
audiophile company.
Such as which one?
The DAC1 is an excellent DAC but it does NOT beat Transporter on specs.
Also, it uses
seanadams;257401 Wrote:
Such as which one?
The DAC1 is an excellent DAC but it does NOT beat Transporter on specs.
Also, it uses ASRC, which as expected makes for OK measurements but is
not universally believed to be without disadvantages in subjective
sound quality.
Also, note that
BetterDAC;257413 Wrote:
I haven't written that many posts,[...]
... which is in large part why I am this thoroughly objecting to you.
You've come in here guns blazing, clearly having spent no time
researching the _only_ topic you've thus far raised: better dac. It's
silly.
Everybody would
seanadams;257423 Wrote:
... which is in large part why I am so thoroughly objecting to you.
You've come in here guns blazing, clearly having spent no time
researching the _only_ topic you've thus far raised: better dac. It's
silly.
Everybody would like to have a better DAC, but first
Anyway, congrats to the SD team for this new addition to the hardware
family. This platform is a logical next step to advancing the
interaction and control of SlimServer and ultimately, our music
collections.
--
Pale Blue Ego
BetterDAC;257428 Wrote:
But it seems my criticism has struck a bit of a nerve, and its not
going to be difficult for me to prove.
I am not offended in the way you think. People complain about my
products here all the time, and receiving that kind of feedback is
largely the purpose of this
mvalera wrote:
BetterDAC;257327 Wrote:
The Transporter is over priced, IMHO. A SBR or SB3 with a good external
DAC like a Benchmark DAC1 for example has better technical
specifications and thus will deliver better quality sound for several
$hundred less than a Transporter.
ceejay wrote:
BetterDAC;257327 Wrote:
The Transporter is over priced, IMHO.
Its only overpriced if it doesn't sell. Judging by the number of
threads started by people with Transporters, they must have sold a few
at least!
There are alternative explanations. Perhaps they
IRJ;256631 Wrote:
It's my understanding that a WiFi router is only as fast as the units it
speaks to. i.e. If you have a N WiFi router and you match it with one
say SBC or SBR maxing at G speeds then the whole system defaults to
max G speeds. I ask because the SBC appears to be on 100% of
aweitzner;256767 Wrote:
Not exactly, the WiFi Access Point communicates as fast as it can with
each client. You CAN mix 802.11n and 802.11g clients on the same
network. The drawback is that 11g clients need more airtime to transmit
the same amount of data. The fastest 11g clients only pass
BetterDAC;256671 Wrote:
I shouldn't say it's worse. In fact the specs from the Wolfson website
show that it has some good features, but it seems that Slim doesn't
take full advantage of them. At least not yet. But given the criticism
that the SB3 didn't have 24x96k capability, I think a lot
Ben Sandee;256673 Wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 10:50 PM, BetterDAC
BetterDAC.32yepn1199940901 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com
wrote:
I shouldn't say it's worse. In fact the specs from the Wolfson
website
show that it has some good features, but it seems that Slim doesn't
take
tamanaco;256773 Wrote:
I think the issue is when multiple a,g,n adapters are connected
continously and simultaneously to the same AP. The AP has to use the
lowest common denominator to maintain communications with all the
adapters.
Tamanaco
A WiFi 802.11n Certified AP requires backward
aweitzner;256800 Wrote:
Tamanaco
A WiFi 802.11n Certified AP requires backward compatible that allows it
to talk 11g to an 11g client while talking 11n to an 11n client on the
same active network. This is referred to as Mixed Mode by the WiFi
Alliance. I have this exact configuration up
I'm quite excited about the new controller, which is odd considering how
many times I've argued the benefit of the SB3/IR-Remote combo over the
Sonos graphical remote/dumb player configuration. I suppose most of my
argument was based on the fact that for the price of the Sonos remote
alone, I
I'm just thinking about the possibilities for the new receiver and this
issue of needing the controller to set it up came to mind. At first it
seemed obvious; how could you connect to a wireless network without a
screen/remote for settings, or even a wired network relying on DHCP if
there were a
Ben Sandee;256857 Wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 9:11 AM, BetterDAC
BetterDAC.32z7ez1199978101 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com
wrote:
Ben Sandee;256673 Wrote:
Maybe some were, but far more were asking for something cheaper.
You were hoping for cheaper than $150 for the
BetterDAC;256806 Wrote:
You were hoping for cheaper than $150 for the Receiver? I can't think of
a comparable competitor that is even close to such a low price point?
The Receiver is very competively priced.
I think the Controller is over-priced, but not the Receiver.
Well, if you
aweitzner;256800 Wrote:
Tamanaco
A WiFi 802.11n Certified AP requires backward compatible that allows it
to talk 11g to an 11g client while talking 11n to an 11n client on the
same active network. This is referred to as Mixed Mode by the WiFi
Alliance. I have this exact configuration up
IRJ;256889 Wrote:
Lastly the WiFi version not being upgraded to N standard seems a
missed opportunity, as in many households with multiple receivers etc.
it can and will have an impact on the whole network's performance.
Err, can they not at least wait until 802.11n is officially released?
IRJ wrote:
I was asking the question to find out if SD had perhaps made an
error/missed an opportunity in not moving to an N standard WiFi
receiver/contoller chipsets in their new units. SD obviously want us
to innstall muliple units, however, reading the responses this is
most likely
rickwookie;256887 Wrote:
If this is the case then why can't a laptop or other device do the
same?
It can, it's just a matter of writing the necessary software to
transfer the settings.
Logitech has already said that this is in the plan if we want it. If
they decide to not write the software
BetterDAC;256878 Wrote:
It is cheaper than the SB3!
I think that was his point. More people were asking for a cheaper
option than a 'better' option and that's what SD delivered.
--
Fifer
Fifer's Profile:
Robin Bowes;256914 Wrote:
IRJ wrote:
I was asking the question to find out if SD had perhaps made an
error/missed an opportunity in not moving to an N standard WiFi
receiver/contoller chipsets in their new units. SD obviously want us
to innstall muliple units, however, reading
This Squeezebox controller is high priced for his function. Nevertheless
It's a great tool to control your music from your bed. As I cannot read
the VFD display on the SB3 from that distance.
For $299 you have almost an Asus EEE PC with a lot more functionality
and you can browse your collection
On Jan 10, 2008 11:32 AM, BetterDAC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Sandee;256673 Wrote:
Maybe some were, but far more were asking for something cheaper.
You were hoping for cheaper than $150 for the Receiver? I can't
think
of a comparable competitor that is even close to
Mark Lanctot;256907 Wrote:
Err, can they not at least wait until 802.11n is officially released?
It's important to remember it's still a draft at this point, despite
every wireless vendor acting like it's a fait-accompli.
Also it is highly unlikely that there are draft-802.11n chipsets
jordi.c;256942 Wrote:
For $299 you have almost an Asus EEE PC with a lot more functionality
and you can browse your collection in the browser which goes very fast
with a keyboard, maybe a lot smoother than a controller.
Still, being a laptop it doesn't lend itself to passive use as well as
On Jan 10, 2008, at 12:55 PM, tamanaco wrote:
What Mark says is right on the mark... I also just found out that the
Controller might have a on/off switch. (I did not see it in any of the
pictures... Where is it?) So, if this is the case, network degradation
can be avoided by flipping the
301 - 400 of 639 matches
Mail list logo
