Slimserver/SqueezeCenter on Windows vs Linux

[gcogger]

I currently own a QNAP TS-109 running Slimserver 6.5.4, and I find it on the slow side. I was thinking of building a Mini-ITX system that would be much more powerful. I would very much prefer to install Windows (maybe Win 2000) rather than Linux. I'd feel much more in control of the system, as I have good knowledge of Windows systems and none of Linux!

People say that Slimserver/SqueezeCenter runs better on linux, but how big a difference are we talking about? Would the Windows version have 90% of the performance or 10%?

[Ian_F]

I know this doesn't answer your question but I also have a TS-109 and have started to look into building a homegrown server for the exact same reason as you.

This evening, for fun, I followed mick_w's instructions and installed ClarkConnect and SC7 onto an old desktop I had lying around. It was a total piece of cake and I'm a total linux novice too! I still am infact but I now have a working linux box running SC7!

I now feel quite comfortable that I won't be wasting my money buying a load of kit and putting together something myself. Well, I'm still light years away from speccing the hardware but at least I know I can cope with the software side ;-)

[norman12]

I've used a via MII1000 mini ITX for a couple of years with good results. I've tried XP, Ubuntu, ClarkC and win2k on it and they all work fine when using the remote, things can slow a little with the web interface especially under XP and ubuntu (7.10). CC was by far the fastest and I'd have stuck with it were it not for problems setting up printers and samba shares for the rest of my network.
I'm now on win2k running SC7 head-less and administered via VNC and I'm pleased with the performance.

[Honva]

I currently own a QNAP TS-109 running Slimserver 6.5.4, and I find it on the slow side. I was thinking of building a Mini-ITX system that would be much more powerful. I would very much prefer to install Windows (maybe Win 2000) rather than Linux. I'd feel much more in control of the system, as I have good knowledge of Windows systems and none of Linux!

People say that Slimserver/SqueezeCenter runs better on linux, but how big a difference are we talking about? Would the Windows version have 90% of the performance or 10%?

As long as you have resonable amount of memory (>=512MB), you won't notice the difference. On my X2 3600 machine, squeezecenter is only giving a 2% CPU load while serving.

Cost is the main concern. Linux is free. Windows will cost you another hundred bucks.

[gcogger]

Thanks guys - I'll probably stick with Windows. It won't cost me anything as I have plenty of licenses available (MSDN subscription ).

I'll just be happier running Windows, since I'll feel far more comfortable if I need to 'play' with the system or set up other applications and services.

norman12 - what sort of difference did you notice with the CC version compared to the Windows one?

[norman12]

gcogger,
When running XP I was getting occasional delays via the remote causing me to press a button 2 or 3 times only to find I'd advanced further through the menu than required once the server had caught up. I didn't find this a major problem though.
I often choose music through the web interface with a laptop, while not unusable with xp it didn't feel as responsive as I'd like.
CC completely removed the double button press and the web interface felt almost like an application running on the laptop.
As I've said I'm running win2k at the moment trading ease of administration with slightly slower web, but the remote is very good.
I do like the idea of using an open source os on the server and I intend to give Xubuntu a go shortly.

[haraldo]

You may consider Windows Server 2003, rather than Xp, if you have many licenses....

I have always been running Windows Server (2000, then 2003, perhaps 2008) on my laptop because I find XP functionality to be just irritating.

There are some setup tricks, but Windows Server 2003 works beatifully as a slim server (if you got the license) and it's a much better OS than XP.

Still, I have converted to Suse Enterprise.....

Regards

Harald N

[gcogger]

Thanks for all the info guys I think I'll start out with a Windows 2000 system (hopefully it will run better with 1GB RAM than 2003 would), and keep the option open to try Linux at a later date. Maybe I'll set it up as dual boot...

[pippin]

Might be an idea for comparison ;-)
My experience is that SC is much more responsive on my Linux server than on my WinXP Systems even though the latters have much more power, my guess is that unix scheduling is still superior. I use Ubuntu server (7.1), that is quite slim on overhead yet has most of the stuff you want and the rest can be easily installed through the packet management (via apt-get).

[haraldo]

I have done some measurements on my Dell Latitude D810 running Suse Enterprise Desktop and Slimcenter 7.0

Using the linux top command....

Slimcenter never ever tops more than appr. 1% CPU time, while, for instance, the X server idles around 5%.

Regards

Harald N