PDA

View Full Version : Slim Devices SB2 disappointment & SB for sale.



Timothy Knight Nelson
2005-03-09, 16:50
I guess I should have taken all of my Squeezebox problems as a sign and
returned it right after I received it (just over a month ago after a
2-3 week backorder). Had I done this, I could now get a Squeezebox 2
that would have addressed all of my issues. Live and learn.

-Tim

> Hello Timothy,
>
> Unfortunately we do not have any trade in programs for our products.
> It is always difficult to make a smooth transition to a new product,
> and as you said, you have to draw the line somewhere. And in fairness
> to other customers, we need to be consistent with this policy. Please
> let me know if you have any other questions.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Brian Helmle
>
> --
> Brian Helmle
> Sales and Shipping
> Slim Devices
> brian (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com
> (650) 210-9400
>
> From: Timothy Knight Nelson <tknelson (AT) slac (DOT) stanford.edu>
>> Date: March 9, 2005 10:57:41 AM PST
>> To: sadams (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com
>> Subject: Trade-in of recent Squeezebox for Squeezebox2 ?
>>
>> Dear Sean,
>>
>> First off, thanks for making a great product. Despite my
>> frustrations, I think you have a winner here and I wish you all the
>> best. My story in brief...
>>
>> I received a Wireless Squeezebox in late January with the intention
>> of ripping my entire CD library to Apple Lossless (several hundred
>> CDs) on a dedicated disk and serving them across my wireless network
>> to my stereo. Along the way, I discovered that trying to stream
>> Apple Lossless across an 802.11b network (even with great reception)
>> results in a lot of dropouts, even with almost no other traffic on
>> the network. So, after much cursing at having paid for the wireless
>> version, I started drilling holes and installing network cables.
>> After placing the Squeezebox on the wired network, things are
>> smoother but I still have occasional dropouts, especially when there
>> is other activity on the network. Although there has been some
>> cursing at not having 10/100 in the Squeezebox (like pretty much
>> every other cheap networked item on the market in the past few years)
>> I decided I could live with it: I really like it on the whole, and
>> there is no other option that comes close.
>>
>> So, naturally I am dismayed to surf to your site today and discover
>> the dawn of the Squeezebox 2. If I were serving out mp3, I wouldn't
>> care less, but the faster connectivity of the new unit is exactly
>> what I need for this application. Clearly, if it were within 30 days
>> of my ship-date (Jan 20) this thing would be back in the mail to you
>> already: but I am now just beyond that horizon. I understand you
>> have to draw the line somewhere, but I'd be willing to pay some kind
>> of upgrade or trade-in fee to get a V2 unit, since this one will
>> continue to be a source of frustration here.
>>
>> So, the question: is there any chance you can offer a trade-in or
>> upgrade on recently purchased (e.g. since Jan. 1?) Squeezeboxes? I
>> believe it is in your long-term best interest to take care of
>> customers that are in my situation: a big part of choosing the
>> Squeezebox over your rivals at Roku was your respective reputations
>> for customer service.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Dr. Tim Nelson
>> Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
>

momerath
2005-03-09, 17:07
I kinda got screwed too. I checked this morning when I read about the
sb2, and I bought mine exactly one month +1 day ago:( I'm still
having odd problems connecting after power off, and, of course, pcm
streaming skips sometimes, even in situations I would have thought
would certainly work. I've been going back and forth between an "Oh
well, I should have seen it coming with the wireless model out of
stock most places", and "Goddammit! I just paid $280 for a broken
version of something that now costs $250!"

~Michael

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:50:25 -0800, Timothy Knight Nelson
<tknelson (AT) slac (DOT) stanford.edu> wrote:
> I guess I should have taken all of my Squeezebox problems as a sign and
> returned it right after I received it (just over a month ago after a
> 2-3 week backorder). Had I done this, I could now get a Squeezebox 2
> that would have addressed all of my issues. Live and learn.
>
> -Tim
>

Timothy Knight Nelson
2005-03-09, 17:20
> I've been going back and forth between an "Oh
> well, I should have seen it coming with the wireless model out of
> stock most places", and "Goddammit! I just paid $280 for a broken
> version of something that now costs $250!"

Perfectly put. I'm pretty good at dodging these changeover screw-jobs,
but I blew it this time. Given all the raves I read about Slim
Devices' treatment of their users/customers, I really had hope they
would take care of us somehow. Frankly, I can't imagine they shipped
so many units in the last 2-3 months that they would risk much by
offering something like ~$100 trade-up for people who bought one in the
last few months (perhaps covering the holidays). I have to think the
vast majority of folks who don't need the new features wouldn't bother
to upgrade (I wouldn't), and they could likely resell the units they
took back for ~$100 less than original price and lose *nothing* but the
reselling overhead. Now each of us needs to fire up eBay and deal with
it ourselves.

Thanks Slim,
Tim

Mitch Harding
2005-03-09, 17:29
<steps on my soapbox>
I don't think they are giving anyone a raw deal by sticking to their
30 day policy. If you chose to buy a Squeezebox, I assume it's
because you thought it would meet your needs. If you kept it past the
30 day period, presumably that is because you were satisfied with the
product. If there were problems with the product that prevented your
enjoyment, you should have returned it.

I've owned my SB for over a year now, and in my experience Slim
Devices have gone above and beyond the call of duty in terms of
customer service. But they are still a business, and they have to set
some time limit on their return policy. I feel like people almost
want to take advantage of Slim Devices, because they've been so good
to their customers.

I understand your frustration -- many times I have upgraded computer
or audio components, only to have a newer version come out in the
subsequent months. It's not a fun feeling, but it doesn't mean I was
swindled. If I had been truly unhappy with any of my purchases, I
could have returned them.
</soapbox>

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:20:01 -0800, Timothy Knight Nelson
<tknelson (AT) slac (DOT) stanford.edu> wrote:
> > I've been going back and forth between an "Oh
> > well, I should have seen it coming with the wireless model out of
> > stock most places", and "Goddammit! I just paid $280 for a broken
> > version of something that now costs $250!"
>
> Perfectly put. I'm pretty good at dodging these changeover screw-jobs,
> but I blew it this time. Given all the raves I read about Slim
> Devices' treatment of their users/customers, I really had hope they
> would take care of us somehow. Frankly, I can't imagine they shipped
> so many units in the last 2-3 months that they would risk much by
> offering something like ~$100 trade-up for people who bought one in the
> last few months (perhaps covering the holidays). I have to think the
> vast majority of folks who don't need the new features wouldn't bother
> to upgrade (I wouldn't), and they could likely resell the units they
> took back for ~$100 less than original price and lose *nothing* but the
> reselling overhead. Now each of us needs to fire up eBay and deal with
> it ourselves.
>
> Thanks Slim,
> Tim
>
>

Timothy Knight Nelson
2005-03-09, 17:39
Mitch,

For the most part, I'm with you. However, I don't think what I am
proposing "takes advantage" of Slim Devices. With my proposal, they
lose little or nothing by consolidating the resale of returned,
original SB. All they need to do is figure out how much they could
sell the perfect, returned units for ($199? $179? <for wireless>) and
offer that as the trade-in value against an SB2.

This would be a service to the customer to resell their unit, *NOT* a
giveaway. In addition, having units to sell at a lower price point
might put them into hands that would not otherwise pony up to buy an
SB2.

-Tim

On Mar 9, 2005, at 4:29 PM, Mitch Harding wrote:

> <steps on my soapbox>
> I don't think they are giving anyone a raw deal by sticking to their
> 30 day policy. If you chose to buy a Squeezebox, I assume it's
> because you thought it would meet your needs. If you kept it past the
> 30 day period, presumably that is because you were satisfied with the
> product. If there were problems with the product that prevented your
> enjoyment, you should have returned it.
>
> I've owned my SB for over a year now, and in my experience Slim
> Devices have gone above and beyond the call of duty in terms of
> customer service. But they are still a business, and they have to set
> some time limit on their return policy. I feel like people almost
> want to take advantage of Slim Devices, because they've been so good
> to their customers.
>
> I understand your frustration -- many times I have upgraded computer
> or audio components, only to have a newer version come out in the
> subsequent months. It's not a fun feeling, but it doesn't mean I was
> swindled. If I had been truly unhappy with any of my purchases, I
> could have returned them.
> </soapbox>
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:20:01 -0800, Timothy Knight Nelson
> <tknelson (AT) slac (DOT) stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> I've been going back and forth between an "Oh
>>> well, I should have seen it coming with the wireless model out of
>>> stock most places", and "Goddammit! I just paid $280 for a broken
>>> version of something that now costs $250!"
>>
>> Perfectly put. I'm pretty good at dodging these changeover
>> screw-jobs,
>> but I blew it this time. Given all the raves I read about Slim
>> Devices' treatment of their users/customers, I really had hope they
>> would take care of us somehow. Frankly, I can't imagine they shipped
>> so many units in the last 2-3 months that they would risk much by
>> offering something like ~$100 trade-up for people who bought one in
>> the
>> last few months (perhaps covering the holidays). I have to think the
>> vast majority of folks who don't need the new features wouldn't bother
>> to upgrade (I wouldn't), and they could likely resell the units they
>> took back for ~$100 less than original price and lose *nothing* but
>> the
>> reselling overhead. Now each of us needs to fire up eBay and deal
>> with
>> it ourselves.
>>
>> Thanks Slim,
>> Tim
>>
>>

Bill Moseley
2005-03-09, 17:44
It would be easier if Sean wasn't detailing how cool the new unit is.
;)

My (non-wireless) squeezebox is still in its box having just arrived
yesterday. Tempting to exchange, but it's nice not having to wait.
I doubt I'd ever hear the difference.

--
Bill Moseley
moseley (AT) hank (DOT) org

Timothy Knight Nelson
2005-03-09, 17:52
Bill,

You prove my point, exactly. Depending on how you plan to use your SB,
you likely won't ever know the difference. If you are in that
category, I can see why you wouldn't want to wait, let alone pay $100
or so like I am proposing for those in some time-window beyond the 30
days. However, a few of us are doing things with our Squeezeboxes for
which the higher data rate is the difference between "it works" and "it
works, most of the time". For us, ~$100 to trade in is a no-brainer.

I hardly think Slim Devices would be deluged with trade-in requests,
and would generate a lot of good will with such a policy.

But hey...it's their company...

-Tim

On Mar 9, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Bill Moseley wrote:

> It would be easier if Sean wasn't detailing how cool the new unit is.
> ;)
>
> My (non-wireless) squeezebox is still in its box having just arrived
> yesterday. Tempting to exchange, but it's nice not having to wait.
> I doubt I'd ever hear the difference.
>
> --
> Bill Moseley
> moseley (AT) hank (DOT) org
>
>

kdf
2005-03-09, 18:05
Quoting Timothy Knight Nelson <tknelson (AT) slac (DOT) stanford.edu>:

> Mitch,
>
> For the most part, I'm with you. However, I don't think what I am
> proposing "takes advantage" of Slim Devices. With my proposal, they
> lose little or nothing by consolidating the resale of returned,
> original SB. All they need to do is figure out how much they could
> sell the perfect, returned units for ($199? $179? <for wireless>) and
> offer that as the trade-in value against an SB2.
>

1) These units will be in unknown condition, and unknown life experience. If
they were to arrive back in unacceptable condition, or not last the 30-days of
the satisfaction guarantee, who bears the burden? Is it good customer service
to pass on goods of unknown condition to new customers? Its good for you, but
hopefully you would have sympathy for the user who comes back feeling they got
a lesser model than another trade-in.

2) If it really is 'little or nothing' to have to manage reciept, inventory and
resale, then ahy are you so upset about having to sell a unit yourself? (and
without burden of a 30-day satisfaction guarantee to back it up)

3) You can sell it yourself and be done with it. Slim would have to spend time
and effort refurbishing the units. What you are suggesting (demanding) seems
to imply that Slim Devices should be re-purchasing their old units at the price
they intend to re-sell. I'd welcome clarification on that.

I'm just trying to put the balanced argument out there, so please try not to
take this as confrontational. I'm not an employee of Slim Devices, no all of
the above is simply conjecture.

cheers,
-kdf

Timothy Knight Nelson
2005-03-09, 18:24
As I suggested,

1) The units would have to be in essentially perfect condition: Slim
Devices could reject as necessary. Mine is pristine, as I would guess
most are: not a high wear-and-tear item (I usually leave mine at home
when I go rock climbing). A quick wipe and this one could go back in a
box.

2) Slim Devices would have to figure in their overhead to resell (a
fact that I also noted in a previous message).

Best,
Tim

P.S. By the way, clearly this is a suggestion, not a demand. When I
buy the company, then I can demand. In the meantime, try harder not to
be confrontational.

> What you are suggesting (demanding) seems
^^^^^^^^^^^
> so please try not to
> take this as confrontational.

Pretty hard when someone puts words in your mouth.

momerath
2005-03-09, 18:43
Mitch Harding said:
> If you chose to buy a Squeezebox, I assume it's
> because you thought it would meet your needs. If you kept it past the
> 30 day period, presumably that is because you were satisfied with the
> product. If there were problems with the product that prevented your
> enjoyment, you should have returned it.
>

My particular (and admitedly odd, but lets not get into that plz) need
is for the SB to play a pcm stream without dropouts over wireless
within the SAME BACKPACK as the notebook running slimserver. It does
this most of the time; sometimes for a whole day's worth of listening
(8+ hours). If the SB2 (or some theoretical other product with the
same features) had also been available, for say $350, I would have
bought the SB, (since its cheaper and presumably does what I need)
and, having experienced dropouts (they come in waves), exchanged it
for the SB2. As it was, I kept it because it was just good enough and
I didnt see another product that would fit my needs (at any price).

My point is, its not as simple as Mitch makes it out to be.

~Michael

momerath
2005-03-09, 19:01
Thanks for the thought, but I'm running 2.6.11 with cfq. I've tried
anticipatory and even a genetic algorythm patch for anticipatory.
I've reniced, run X-less, etc to no avail.

~Michael

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:55:13 +0100, Christian Pernegger
<pernegger (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> >of course, pcm streaming skips sometimes, even in situations I would have
> >thought would
> >certainly work.
>
> On the off chance that you're running SlimServer on Linux 2.4 - the default
> disk scheduler is optimized for everything but streaming files, meaning I'd
> often get skips even while only listing a bigger directory for example. The
> 2.4 scheduler can not be tuned much to avoid this but in 2.6 there are
> different schedulers available.
> While I couldn't even serve two streams at the same time properly before the
> cfq scheduler has yet to miss a beat with 16 streams running (video files
> with nearly the same bitrate as PCM)
>
> C.
>
>

2005-03-09, 19:14
> Think of it like this. This (the SD operated mailing list) is a pretty
> good place to put up a WTS notice for an SB1. In a way, this is
> helping with the resale.

I just need to chime in an say that the resale of units is pretty steady.
After the production of SLIMP3s stopped and Slimdevices released the
Squeezebox1 I picked up 4 SLIMP3s on ebay in a matter of a few weeks. All
were purchased from happy owners looking to get new squeezboxen. It
worked out well for all involved. I got SLIMP3s for my whole house and
they got money towards their new toys.

Tom Malsbury

momerath
2005-03-09, 19:19
I said I'd rather not get into it, but the reason is that I would like
the notebook not to have any wires hanging off of it; my usb sound
card broke one of my ports in the course of a normal day of hauling it
about. Right now I'm using a crossover to avoid dropouts, and I
believe the ethernet port on my notebook is sturdier than the usb, but
it would suck even more for it to break. It has also come loose
several times, which is at least as annoying as a dropout. The reason
I mentioned it is that 802.11b should obviously work well enough to
stream pcm when the two devices are a foot apart. I dont think it was
unreasonable of me to expect that. Also, how is wireless more of a
hassle than wired? (assuming it works reliably)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 19:08:20 -0700, Jason <jason (AT) pagefamily (DOT) net> wrote:
> If the two devices are in the same backpack why on earth would you need
> wireless or want the hassle?
>

Timothy Knight Nelson
2005-03-09, 19:25
Tom,

Thanks for having something constructive to say. I'll be giving it a
shot, and will post to this list when I manage to do it. At the
moment, life is so overwhelming (with new baby, job, house as
mentioned)... I need another project (even a small one like an ebay
sale) like a proverbial hole in the head.

-Tim

On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:14 PM, <slim (AT) malsbury (DOT) net> wrote:

>
>> Think of it like this. This (the SD operated mailing list) is a pretty
>> good place to put up a WTS notice for an SB1. In a way, this is
>> helping with the resale.
>
> I just need to chime in an say that the resale of units is pretty
> steady.
> After the production of SLIMP3s stopped and Slimdevices released the
> Squeezebox1 I picked up 4 SLIMP3s on ebay in a matter of a few weeks.
> All
> were purchased from happy owners looking to get new squeezboxen. It
> worked out well for all involved. I got SLIMP3s for my whole house and
> they got money towards their new toys.
>
> Tom Malsbury
>
>
>

Virr
2005-03-09, 22:39
I had problems with drop outs when running a cp -al in the background.
So I reniced the server, and the cp -al. No luck. So I switched to
2.6, and the drop outs nearly disappeared. I then set
elevator=deadline in grub, no more drop outs (at least until a kernel
upgrade removed the elevator=deadline). I tried tweaking the
anticipatory scheduler, but didn't have any luck (probably because I
didn't tweak it enough). Regardless the new SB2 looks great, but I'm
happy with what I have.

-Darren

On Mar 9, 2005, at 21:01, momerath wrote:

> Thanks for the thought, but I'm running 2.6.11 with cfq. I've tried
> anticipatory and even a genetic algorythm patch for anticipatory.
> I've reniced, run X-less, etc to no avail.
>
> ~Michael
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:55:13 +0100, Christian Pernegger
> <pernegger (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
>>> of course, pcm streaming skips sometimes, even in situations I would
>>> have
>>> thought would
>>> certainly work.
>>
>> On the off chance that you're running SlimServer on Linux 2.4 - the
>> default
>> disk scheduler is optimized for everything but streaming files,
>> meaning I'd
>> often get skips even while only listing a bigger directory for
>> example. The
>> 2.4 scheduler can not be tuned much to avoid this but in 2.6 there are
>> different schedulers available.
>> While I couldn't even serve two streams at the same time properly
>> before the
>> cfq scheduler has yet to miss a beat with 16 streams running (video
>> files
>> with nearly the same bitrate as PCM)
>>
>> C.
>>
>>

Marc Sherman
2005-03-10, 06:49
Timothy Knight Nelson wrote:
> As I suggested,
>
> 1) The units would have to be in essentially perfect condition: Slim
> Devices could reject as necessary. Mine is pristine, as I would
> guess most are: not a high wear-and-tear item (I usually leave mine
> at home when I go rock climbing). A quick wipe and this one could go
> back in a box.
>
> 2) Slim Devices would have to figure in their overhead to resell (a
> fact that I also noted in a previous message).

I think you're seriously underestimating what that overhead would be.
As the original seller, Slim would have a much higher burden to meet
when reselling these returned boxes; they'd have to do some serious
testing and inspection on each returned unit before reselling it.
Setting up that kind of retail operation is expensive for a company, and
that expense would eat into the amount they'd be able to give you for
the trade in.

They'd probably have to hire someone to run this program. That person
would have to be experienced both in shipping/receiving and in
electronics testing, which means they wouldn't be cheap. That would be
a short-term contract, bumping the price up even more. I'd be surprised
if the math worked out so that you got more than $50 for your returned
unit. Would that be worth it to you? I highly doubt it.

- Marc

Phil Karn
2005-03-13, 15:14
momerath wrote:

> having odd problems connecting after power off, and, of course, pcm
> streaming skips sometimes, even in situations I would have thought
> would certainly work.

I think the PCM skipping (buffer underflow) problem could be
substantially improved if a little attention were paid to thread
priority and CPU scheduling in the server. That's something Slim Devices
could do to help keep the faith of those of us with original Squeezeboxes.

Phil

Pat Farrell
2005-03-13, 16:42
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 14:14 -0800, Phil Karn wrote:
> I think the PCM skipping (buffer underflow) problem could be
> substantially improved if a little attention were paid to thread
> priority and CPU scheduling in the server.


Of course, and using a faster CPU with more memory helps as well.
But Phil, havn't you also complained that the SlimServer is not
stable enough? The 5.* codebase was not suitable for doing a lot
of things, like improving handling of meta data (songs, composer,
orchestra, etc.) as well as not being well designed for splitting
into separate processes/threads so that "thread priority" can be
managed. There is essentially only one big thread in the 5.* code.

Part of the push to 6.* was to pull the parts into separate parts
so that later versions could be more rational about threads, processes
and multi-processor support.

Reminds me of how God was able to build the universe in only
six days --- no installed base.

SlimDevices is a little firm making cool hardware. I can deal with that.

Pat


--
Pat Farrell pfarrell (AT) pfarrell (DOT) com
http://www.pfarrell.com

Phil Karn
2005-03-14, 00:20
Pat Farrell wrote:

> Of course, and using a faster CPU with more memory helps as well.
> But Phil, havn't you also complained that the SlimServer is not
> stable enough?

Yes. And eliminating playback interruptions is one of those absolutely
basic functions, like not crashing, that ought to be given high priority
in at least *one* code tree. The news headline crawls, multiple browser
skins and spectral visualizers can wait.

Pat Farrell
2005-03-14, 10:03
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 23:20 -0800, Phil Karn wrote:
> Pat Farrell wrote:
> > But Phil, havn't you also complained that the SlimServer is not
> > stable enough?
>
> Yes. And eliminating playback interruptions is one of those absolutely
> basic functions, like not crashing, that ought to be given high priority
> in at least *one* code tree. The news headline crawls, multiple browser
> skins and spectral visualizers can wait.


Spoken like the Engineer that I know you are from other lives.


The problem with open source is that the contributors want to
do the cool stuff, especially when it is pretty easy.
Redesigning the basic engine is hard, slow, and has zero sizzle

So 6.* is the first major redesign, and 7.* will likely be
a lot more like you'd want.


Pat


--
Pat Farrell pfarrell (AT) pfarrell (DOT) com
http://www.pfarrell.com

Phil Karn
2005-03-16, 02:43
Pat Farrell wrote:

> The problem with open source is that the contributors want to
> do the cool stuff, especially when it is pretty easy.
> Redesigning the basic engine is hard, slow, and has zero sizzle

Well, most people would say the same thing about an operating system
kernel. Yet Linux routinely runs for months without panicking.

> So 6.* is the first major redesign, and 7.* will likely be
> a lot more like you'd want.

I'm beginning to think whether maybe it's time to think about a complete
server rewrite from scratch, probably in C rather than Perl. The menus
would be ugly and simple, but the system would actually *work* without
being restarted several times per day, without unpredictable 5 second
pauses during playback, etc, etc.

Danny Rego
2005-03-16, 06:40
>> The problem with open source is that the contributors want to do the cool
>> stuff, especially when it is pretty easy.
>> Redesigning the basic engine is hard, slow, and has zero sizzle
>
> Well, most people would say the same thing about an operating system
> kernel. Yet Linux routinely runs for months without panicking.

Ummm...as does Windows XP (although the more geek-sided may refuse to
believe that)....what's your point?

>> So 6.* is the first major redesign, and 7.* will likely be
>> a lot more like you'd want.
>
> I'm beginning to think whether maybe it's time to think about a complete
> server rewrite from scratch, probably in C rather than Perl. The menus
> would be ugly and simple, but the system would actually *work* without
> being restarted several times per day, without unpredictable 5 second
> pauses during playback, etc, etc.

Making slim server less user-friendly/ugly would be a very dumb move.
Besides, after a bit of tweaking off the bat, slimserver runs reliably,
unless you are one that enjoys downloading the latest nightlies...then
you're asking for it.

v5.4.1 runs beautifully on my Windows XP machine...so on a decent linux
machine, I would only imagine how smooth it would run.

Danny Rego

Pat Farrell
2005-03-16, 08:56
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 01:43 -0800, Phil Karn wrote:
> I'm beginning to think whether maybe it's time to think about a complete
> server rewrite from scratch, probably in C rather than Perl. The menus
> would be ugly and simple, but the system would actually *work* without
> being restarted several times per day, without unpredictable 5 second
> pauses during playback, etc, etc.

I've thought about that as well, also I can't imagine doing it in C.
Java maybe.

However, that would be a huge effort, would start religious wars
about what language is best, and in the end, would make a product
that is "good" be a little better. I don't think it would make it
"perfect" and so I decided not to suggest it over on the developers list

Pat

--
Pat pfarrell (AT) pfarrell (DOT) com
HTTP://www.pfarrell.com

Phil Karn
2005-03-16, 09:37
Danny Rego wrote:

> Ummm...as does Windows XP (although the more geek-sided may refuse to
> believe that)....what's your point?

Slimserver is open source, so Linux is the closer analogue. Windows XP
is 1) proprietary and 2) owned by Microsoft, so it has its excuses for
being so unreliable.

> Making slim server less user-friendly/ugly would be a very dumb move.
> Besides, after a bit of tweaking off the bat, slimserver runs reliably,
> unless you are one that enjoys downloading the latest nightlies...then
> you're asking for it.

Little is less user friendly than a massive package of Perl code that
crashes frequently in a mass of cryptic Perl error messages. Or just
grinds slowly to a halt for no apparent reason, gobbling all CPU time
until it has to be restarted manually.

This is on a Linux machine with ECC memory and RAID disks that otherwise
runs flawlessly for months. So it's not hardware.

> v5.4.1 runs beautifully on my Windows XP machine...so on a decent linux
> machine, I would only imagine how smooth it would run.

I see various nightly versions of 5.4.x, but nothing officially labeled
5.4.1. If this is supposed to be the most stable release, recommended
for those that want reliability over features, it should be labeled and
distributed as such.

Steve Bernard, Jr
2005-03-16, 09:42
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:37:29 -0800, Phil Karn wrote:

> > v5.4.1 runs beautifully on my Windows XP machine...so on a decent linux
> > machine, I would only imagine how smooth it would run.
>
> I see various nightly versions of 5.4.x, but nothing officially labeled
> 5.4.1.

http://www.slimdevices.com/su_downloads-5.4.1.html

Danny Rego
2005-03-16, 09:52
>> Ummm...as does Windows XP (although the more geek-sided may refuse to
>> believe that)....what's your point?
>
> Slimserver is open source, so Linux is the closer analogue. Windows XP is
> 1) proprietary and 2) owned by Microsoft, so it has its excuses for being
> so unreliable.

The phrase unreliable is subjective in this case, so whatever. Windows XP
has been rock-solid for me in my many installations/uses. (work....3 home
machines, etc) No religious argument here...just stating my case.

>> Making slim server less user-friendly/ugly would be a very dumb move.
>> Besides, after a bit of tweaking off the bat, slimserver runs reliably,
>> unless you are one that enjoys downloading the latest nightlies...then
>> you're asking for it.
>
> Little is less user friendly than a massive package of Perl code that
> crashes frequently in a mass of cryptic Perl error messages. Or just
> grinds slowly to a halt for no apparent reason, gobbling all CPU time
> until it has to be restarted manually.
>
> This is on a Linux machine with ECC memory and RAID disks that otherwise
> runs flawlessly for months. So it's not hardware.
>
>> v5.4.1 runs beautifully on my Windows XP machine...so on a decent linux
>> machine, I would only imagine how smooth it would run.
>
> I see various nightly versions of 5.4.x, but nothing officially labeled
> 5.4.1. If this is supposed to be the most stable release, recommended for
> those that want reliability over features, it should be labeled and
> distributed as such.

I may have screwed up on the version #....the version I was running was a
v5.4.x that was the "official release" from the slimserver site.

My whole point here is, slim server is stable, and runs fine on my WAY
over-worked (supposedly inferior) Windows XP MCE machine. The hardware I'm
using is nothing spectacular, although, it may be slightly more powerful
than the average used for slim server (2GHz celeron with 384mb ram). If
slim server is not running right for you, I would suggest it's something
with YOUR particular setup, as I have found it to be stable, and the only
thing that causes a nasty pause is generating a playlist on-the-fly of my
whole, fairly large library.

Danny Rego

Dan Sully
2005-03-16, 11:35
* Phil Karn shaped the electrons to say...

>Little is less user friendly than a massive package of Perl code that
>crashes frequently in a mass of cryptic Perl error messages. Or just
>grinds slowly to a halt for no apparent reason, gobbling all CPU time
>until it has to be restarted manually.

Phil - it's always useful to us if you can send along the mass of error messages.

-D
--
This knob controls the thing that changes when you turn it. - noah