PDA

View Full Version : A better remote?



Justme
2005-06-30, 01:22
Despite loving my SB2, and enjoying the way it has changed how I listen to music (for the better of cause), I simply can't stop wondering how great it would be if Slimdevices offered a "luxury" remote.

Thinking about it, if slimdevices thought they couldn't include it as the standard remote as it may push the price of the unit too high, maybe they could offer it as an optional extra?

If Slimdevices offered a better far more functional remote, would anyone here buy it?

The things I miss on the current remote, are

*backlighting (who listens to their music in a fully bright lit room at night?) - maybe even something as smart as having a tilt sensor so as soon as you pick up the remote, the keys stay backlit.

* A jog control, afterall, we spend so much time scrolling through playlists, browsing etc, spinning a jog control would be so much faster

* Seperate keys for saving playlists (in fact for working with playlists as well), an actual stop button, clear current playlist etc

Let's be honest. The whiole point of the SB was to "ignore" your computer, and enjoy all your music from the comfort of your armchair, and this means the remote is the single most used device of the SB.

Surely some of the major remote manufactorers can redesign one of their standard highend remotes just for the squeezebox, and sell them in partnership with slimdevices. It seems to me, the sort of people who buy a SB, take their music and their hardware seriously enough that this would be a viable option.

If you were to design a better remote, what options would you include?

Bennett, Gavin (LDN Int)
2005-06-30, 01:36
Justin,

the Slim Devices remote is basic so go and buy yourself soemthing like a
Philips Pronto. I use one in my lounge and it means only 1 remote instead
of 5, has a back light and allows very sophisticated marcos.

Personaly I would rather Slim Devices concentrate on bugs & enhancements -
my pet wish is for them to make a video version. Remotes are very
subjective and personal so whatever they did would mean someone was no
happy.

Gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: Justme [mailto:Justme.1rfkfn (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com]
Sent: 30 June 2005 09:23
To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
Subject: [slim] A better remote?



Despite loving my SB2, and enjoying the way it has changed how I listen
to music (for the better of cause), I simply can't stop wondering how
great it would be if Slimdevices offered a "luxury" remote.

Thinking about it, if slimdevices thought they couldn't include it as
the standard remote as it may push the price of the unit too high,
maybe they could offer it as an optional extra?

If Slimdevices offered a better far more functional remote, would
anyone here buy it?

The things I miss on the current remote, are

*backlighting (who listens to their music in a fully bright lit room at
night?) - maybe even something as smart as having a tilt sensor so as
soon as you pick up the remote, the keys stay backlit.

* A jog control, afterall, we spend so much time scrolling through
playlists, browsing etc, spinning a jog control would be so much
faster

* Seperate keys for saving playlists (in fact for working with
playlists as well), an actual stop button, clear current playlist etc

Let's be honest. The whiole point of the SB was to "ignore" your
computer, and enjoy all your music from the comfort of your armchair,
and this means the remote is the single most used device of the SB.

Surely some of the major remote manufactorers can redesign one of their
standard highend remotes just for the squeezebox, and sell them in
partnership with slimdevices. It seems to me, the sort of people who
buy a SB, take their music and their hardware seriously enough that
this would be a viable option.

If you were to design a better remote, what options would you include?


--
Justme

kdf
2005-06-30, 01:42
Quoting Justme <Justme.1rfkfn (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

>
> Despite loving my SB2, and enjoying the way it has changed how I listen
> to music (for the better of cause), I simply can't stop wondering how
> great it would be if Slimdevices offered a "luxury" remote.
>
> Thinking about it, if slimdevices thought they couldn't include it as
> the standard remote as it may push the price of the unit too high,
> maybe they could offer it as an optional extra?
>
> If Slimdevices offered a better far more functional remote, would
> anyone here buy it?

nope. plenty of devices get far too close to being fully functional via the web
interfact. it would be a complete waste of limited resources.

-kdf

Justme
2005-06-30, 02:22
Justin,

the Slim Devices remote is basic so go and buy yourself soemthing like a
Philips Pronto. I use one in my lounge and it means only 1 remote instead
of 5, has a back light and allows very sophisticated marcos.


It's an interesting idea, but do these universal remotes allow you to do anything really more than the current one. I have looked at even the really expensive ones, and they always seem to miss out on a few functions rather than adding new.

I was already looking at the Logitech Harmony 880
[imghttp://www.remotecentral.com/wn000263.jpg

But to be hinest, I don't think this would offer any new functions on the remote to make it easier to use, just allow me to control all my devices (in a more limited way) with one remote.

Anyway, interesting that so far everyone seems happy with the current remote.

pfarrell
2005-06-30, 07:11
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 01:22 -0700, Justme wrote:
> The things I miss on the current remote, are

For me, a cool remote has to have a display screen so
I can see the current song, playlists, etc.

I know I can do it with a PDA with WiFi, but
they are a bit pricey

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

Damon Riley
2005-06-30, 07:22
I'd like it if the Slim remote could power cycle my receiver and adjust
the volume.

My $0.02.

-- Damon

jania
2005-06-30, 08:06
The enhancement to the remote i would find most useful is a qwerty keypad to make entering text easier. Obviuosly this would make the remote rather bulky. Just an idea.

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-30, 08:08
> But to be hinest, I don't think this would offer any new functions on
> the remote to make it easier to use, just allow me to control all my
> devices (in a more limited way) with one remote.


You actually could (quite easily) add functionality--take a look at the .map
and .ir files...by modifying them you can make a remote do plenty of things
that the original remote didn't come configured to do. And then with
plugins you could accomplish even more...

Philip Meyer
2005-06-30, 12:02
>Despite loving my SB2, and enjoying the way it has changed how I listen
>to music (for the better of cause), I simply can't stop wondering how
>great it would be if Slimdevices offered a "luxury" remote.
>
Buy yourself a cheap PDA with WiFi. You don't have to point the device at the SB, or even have to look at the SB display, and you'll have more features at your disposal. It's the most useful way of creating and controlling a playlist.

I think almost all SB facilities are controllable through the PDA via the handheld skin (there used to be problems selecting radio stations, but there's web UI browse components now). There are a few things that you can't do, like interract with plugins such as Random. Also, you can't connect to the SB network via the web interface.

Phil

Todd Fields
2005-06-30, 12:36
--- Damon Riley <damonriley (AT) alumni (DOT) umass.edu> wrote:

> I'd like it if the Slim remote could power cycle my receiver
> and adjust
> the volume.

Most remotes that come with the majority of audio devices won't
do this. That's why there is demand for after market universal
remotes.

The feature I would like to see the most would be a scroll wheel
of some kind. The menu and selection structure that the
Squeezebox uses really lends itself to this kind of control.

zuvembi
2005-06-30, 15:03
I'd kill to add a single button, the minus key.

I've lost count of the number of times I wanted to remove a single song from the list of playing songs. No I don't want to add it to the zapped playlist, I just don't want to listen to it *right now*.

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-30, 15:30
"zuvembi" wrote in message
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
> results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=14863
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Question: Would you be interested in a better remote?
>
> - No, I'm happy with the current design
> - Yes, it should be included with the SB
> - Yes, but I'm willing to buy a "designer" remote as an optional
> extra.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'd kill to add a single button, the minus key.
>
> I've lost count of the number of times I wanted to remove a single song
> from the list of playing songs. No I don't want to add it to the zapped
> playlist, I just don't want to listen to it *right now*.
>


You can do this: while holding down the "add" button zaps a song, pressing
it only momentarily while in the "Now Playing" list will simply delete it
from the current playlist.

zuvembi
2005-06-30, 15:54
"zuvembi" wrote in message[color=blue]


You can do this: while holding down the "add" button zaps a song, pressing
it only momentarily while in the "Now Playing" list will simply delete it
from the current playlist.

Excellent. Well, I changed my mind. No need for a new remote.

;)

The sad thing is I actually did the unthinkable and went to the trouble to read the manual.

mherger
2005-06-30, 22:55
> I'd like it if the Slim remote could power cycle my receiver and adjust
> the volume.

That's why I'm pretty happy with the NAD SR-5: it can control my SB2, too.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

Justme
2005-07-01, 00:32
>Despite loving my SB2, and enjoying the way it has changed how I listen
>to music (for the better of cause), I simply can't stop wondering how
>great it would be if Slimdevices offered a "luxury" remote.
>
Buy yourself a cheap PDA with WiFi. You don't have to point the device at the SB, or even have to look at the SB display, and you'll have more features at your disposal. It's the most useful way of creating and controlling a playlist.

I think almost all SB facilities are controllable through the PDA via the handheld skin (there used to be problems selecting radio stations, but there's web UI browse components now). There are a few things that you can't do, like interract with plugins such as Random. Also, you can't connect to the SB network via the web interface.

Phil

It is a thought. How responsive would this be? I mean, the standard remote is almost instant (well, sometimes it lags when browsing etc), but I find the web interface on the computer to be terrible.

I am used to using Jriver's media jukebox, and it is instant in respons, with the web interface, it takes ages for pages to refresh and to create a play list. For this reason, I create a playlist in media jukebox and then export it to slimserver.

Would a PDA have as slow an interface as the web slimserver, or be as fast as the remote?

Justme
2005-07-01, 00:34
"zuvembi" wrote in message
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
> results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=14863
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Question: Would you be interested in a better remote?
>
> - No, I'm happy with the current design
> - Yes, it should be included with the SB
> - Yes, but I'm willing to buy a "designer" remote as an optional
> extra.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'd kill to add a single button, the minus key.
>
> I've lost count of the number of times I wanted to remove a single song
> from the list of playing songs. No I don't want to add it to the zapped
> playlist, I just don't want to listen to it *right now*.
>


You can do this: while holding down the "add" button zaps a song, pressing
it only momentarily while in the "Now Playing" list will simply delete it
from the current playlist.

Year, but this is the problem with the remote, you have to remember so many "walk arounds" to perform functions (press "add" to "subtract" just isn't logical).

It's hard enough to remember this when sober, but if I am having a few beers with me mates, then the current slim device becomes far too complicated!

mherger
2005-07-01, 00:43
> Would a PDA have as slow an interface as the web slimserver, or be as
> fast as the remote?

Most use the web interface on their PDA - which is obviously as fast as
slimserver's web interface is for you. There's a commercial product called
telcanto which is said to be _very_ responsive on Pocket Windows PDAs. I
have never used it, though.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

mikeb
2005-07-01, 01:01
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:32:43AM -0700, Justme wrote:
:
: It is a thought. How responsive would this be? I mean, the standard
: remote is almost instant (well, sometimes it lags when browsing etc),
: but I find the web interface on the computer to be terrible.
:
: I am used to using Jriver's media jukebox, and it is instant in
: respons, with the web interface, it takes ages for pages to refresh and
: to create a play list. For this reason, I create a playlist in media
: jukebox and then export it to slimserver.
:
: Would a PDA have as slow an interface as the web slimserver, or be as
: fast as the remote?

The PDA solution mentioned would use the web interface.

However, it is within a second as fast as the infrared remote in my
experience. You may want to check out your setup if it's as slow as
you describe.

For what it's worth, I just purchased an iPAQ rx3115, and am using it
as both the infrared remote and web controller. It is working
beautifully, and replaced 3 remotes in all. I purchased the rx3715
cradle to use with it on the end table, and a AC->USB power charger
so only one cable was coming out the back. I then synchronize it to
the PC via bluetooth. I am very pleased with it.. although it is
more expensive than other solutions.

--mikeb

:
:
: --
: Justme

Mike Hanson
2005-07-01, 03:56
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:32:43AM -0700, Justme wrote:
The PDA solution mentioned would use the web interface.

However, it is within a second as fast as the infrared remote in my experience. You may want to check out your setup if it's as slow as you describe.
How much music have you got loaded, and what's your server hardware? My server is a P4 with 640MB, with a 40GB OS drive and two 200GB music drives. The web interface was snappy when I had only a few dozen albums, but with 330, it's downright sluggish. For example, displaying the artists list generally takes 5-10 seconds. I'm not looking forward to when I have all 1300 albums ripped to the system!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

mherger
2005-07-01, 04:09
> How much music have you got loaded, and what's your server hardware?
> My server is a P4 with 640MB, with a 40GB OS drive and two 200GB music
> drives. The web interface was snappy when I had only a few dozen
> albums, but with 330, it's downright sluggish. For example, displaying
> the artists list generally takes 5-10 seconds. I'm not looking forward
> to when I have all 1300 albums ripped to the system!

I can't confirm this. While my server is much less powerful (VIA C3/1GHz,
512MB) I have >500 albums. The artist list takes less than 1 second to
display. The album list is a little slower (1-2 seconds).

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

ModelCitizen
2005-07-01, 05:24
> My server is a P4 with 640MB, with a 40GB OS drive and two
> 200GB music drives. The web interface was snappy when I had
> only a few dozen albums, but with 330, it's downright
> sluggish. For example, displaying the artists list generally
> takes 5-10 seconds. I'm not looking forward to when I have
> all 1300 albums ripped to the system!

My main server is a 1.5ghz P4 with 1mb or RAM, and I have another another on a 2.3ghz, 0.5mbRAM laptop, both running XP Pro SP2. I have about 650 albums held in flac format on a 300gb Maxtor One Touch (USB 2). I stream PCM to a Squeezebox 1 wirelessly.
I find the web interface exasperatingly slow (not infrequently I get quite annoyed waiting for it to list items and find myself cursing the thing).
About two weeks ago I upgraded from SlimServer 5.4.1 to the 6*** release listed on the SlimDevices home page but found that there was no performance improvement and that whenever I used the remote (my favoured method for controlling my Squeezebox) to list the music the audio would stall for seconds at a time (sometimes over 10!)and the bottons became unresponsive. I reverted back to 5.4.1 as the behaviour of the Remote is better (but certainly not perfect... it is still nowhere near as responsive to button presses as I would like and listing music still takes far too long).

I'd hate to think what it would be like if I had 1300 albums (i.e. twice as many as current)!

As I've stated before, I'd be very happy to pay for software that worked much better in Windows (perhaps written in C++, but definitely not Java, Perl or VB), with perhaps less functionality, as long as it was fast, responsive, stable and immediate to use. I tend to use Foobar2000 as my benchmark for this (someone is now going to tell me this is designed in VB!). For me this is much more of a priority than a better remote. I use my Squeezebox much less than I would otherwise because of the frustrating performance of SlimServer on my machines.

Sorry to subvert the thread.

Simon Turner
Barcombe UK

mikeb
2005-07-01, 05:27
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:09:05PM +0200, Michael Herger wrote:
: >How much music have you got loaded, and what's your server hardware?
: >My server is a P4 with 640MB, with a 40GB OS drive and two 200GB music
: >drives. The web interface was snappy when I had only a few dozen
: >albums, but with 330, it's downright sluggish. For example, displaying
: >the artists list generally takes 5-10 seconds. I'm not looking forward
: >to when I have all 1300 albums ripped to the system!
:
: I can't confirm this. While my server is much less powerful (VIA C3/1GHz,
: 512MB) I have >500 albums. The artist list takes less than 1 second to
: display. The album list is a little slower (1-2 seconds).

The difference may be OS. I run slimserver on FreeBSD, and I believe
Michael runs it on Linux. Mike, if you're using Windows, it may
explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if Unix performed better than
Windows here.. it does with every thing else ;-).

--mikeb

:
: --
:
: Michael
:
: -----------------------------------------------------------
: Help translate SlimServer by using the
: StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

mherger
2005-07-01, 05:37
> The difference may be OS. I run slimserver on FreeBSD, and I believe
> Michael runs it on Linux.

Yes, I do.

> Mike, if you're using Windows, it may
> explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if Unix performed better than
> Windows here..

Mike - would you mind giving this a try? Download SlimCD from my site and
run slimserver from this livecd (it won't touch nor hurt your existing
installation). If you can access your music files from this system we
could easily compare the performance of the two operating systems.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

ModelCitizen
2005-07-01, 05:54
> The difference may be OS. I run slimserver on FreeBSD, and I
> believe Michael runs it on Linux. Mike, if you're using
> Windows, it may explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if Unix
> performed better than Windows here.. it does with every
> thing else ;-).

This is my suspicion too. Perhaps SlimServer ought to be listed as cross
platform if using less than 300 albums (or 200?) in flac format. Above 300
flac albums and you need Linux to run it acceptably. As I do not want to run
Linux (which would also mean having one PC dedicated solely to Slimserver,
and a learning curve I do not have the time for) I think Windows optimised
software for the Squeezebox is crucial for owners of large libraries. I just
wish I was capable of writing such a thing.

Simon Turner
Barcombe UK

radish
2005-07-01, 06:28
I run on a mid range Windows server and the artists list takes about 2 seconds to come up, which is fine for me. I have over 3000 artists in my collection. The album list (700 items) is a little quicker.

ModelCitizen
2005-07-01, 08:46
I run on a mid range Windows server and the artists list takes about 2 seconds to come up, which is fine for me. I have over 3000 artists in my collection. The album list (700 items) is a little quicker.

Which version of Slimserver do you use? Do you use wireless with flacs streamed as PCM (all 700 albums?). Is your Windows server dedicated solely to Slimserver? Is there anything you can possibly think of that might make the perfomance of your Slimserver so much better than any installation I have ever had (on three separate machines, and a wide array of Slimserver versions)? Any info would be very appreciated indeed.

Simon Turner
Barcombe UK

Richie
2005-07-01, 09:41
> Which version of Slimserver do you use? Do you use wireless with flacs
> streamed as PCM (all 700 albums?). Is your Windows server decicated
> solely to Slimserver? Is there anything you can possibly think of that
> might make the perfomance of your Slimserver so much better than any
> installation I have ever had (on three separate machines, and a wide
> array of Slimserver versions)? Any info would be very appreciated
> indeed.
>
> Simon Turner
> Barcombe UK

Only good news here too, I'm afraid. Browse Artists takes < 1s, Browse
Albums <2s. 940 albums by 490 artists. XP SP2, SlimServer 6.1
nightlies (but I only update at weekends just in case something goes
wrong). All connections are wired. Server is an Athlon 1.4 GHz with
768 MB RAM pretty much dedicated to SlimServer. I did also try it on
SUSE 9.2 a few months ago as a dual boot system and didn't really
notice any difference performance wise.

Richard

radish
2005-07-01, 11:02
Which version of Slimserver do you use? Do you use wireless with flacs streamed as PCM (all 700 albums?). Is your Windows server dedicated solely to Slimserver? Is there anything you can possibly think of that might make the perfomance of your Slimserver so much better than any installation I have ever had (on three separate machines, and a wide array of Slimserver versions)? Any info would be very appreciated indeed.

Simon Turner
Barcombe UK

SlimServer version is (IIRC) 6.0.1, from maybe a month ago. If you want the specific version I'll dig it up when I get home tonight. It's running on a box with XP/SP2, Athlon 2000+ (ish, I forget exactly), half gig ram. It's not a dedicated SlimServer box, but it's usually idle. Disk is a regular 7200rpm desktop drive (250gb).

There are two clients, one SBG and one SB2, both wireless. Music library is about 50/50 FLAC/Vorbis, streaming as PCM in all cases. Connection from browser (Firefox on XP) to SlimServer is also wireless, but on a different segment (SlimServer box has two lan connections). Note that the measurements I took were (a) non scientific and (b) when the server was idle (i.e. no music playing). I'll try some more thorough tests tonight, but the web interface has never "felt" slow to me. The interface on the SB itself does get a little slow at times, but it's still usable.

ModelCitizen
2005-07-02, 00:25
> Mike - would you mind giving this a try? Download SlimCD from
> my site and run slimserver from this livecd (it won't touch
> nor hurt your existing installation).

I got quite excited by this. However, Slimserver does not seem able to read
my Maxtor One Touch drive even though it is recognised as sda1 and I appear
to be able to mount it.

Simon Turner
Barcombe UK

ModelCitizen
2005-07-02, 02:35
>
Mike - would you mind giving this a try? Download SlimCD from my site and
run slimserver from this livecd (it won't touch nor hurt your existing
installation). If you can access your music files from this system we
could easily compare the performance of the two operating systems.


Can anyone suggest what I might be doing wrong?
I can boot successfully form the SlimCD. I can browse all my drives using the supplied Midnight Commander, but when I attempt to get Slimserver to use any drive or folder (at all) on my PC as it's music folder it just reports it as an invalid directory.
I have been mounting the drives (why do I have to do this?) using the little button to the left of the arrow buttons on the drive status indicator panel.

On thing, I'm not too sure of the syntax to reference drives using Unix. I have tried many variations to get Slimserver to index my files... should sda1:\LosslessMusic likely to work?

Odd things with this SlimCD installation include:
I get a funny keyboard layout which does not seem to change after I have selected the UK layout
I've no idea what the big button below the little left and right arrows on the drive status indicator panel is for.
My mouse-pad does not work

Any help or pointers would be appreciated

Simon Turner
Barcombe UK

Patrick Dixon
2005-07-02, 03:25
With Unix you always have to mount a device before you can access it. It's a hang over from the days when tapes and disks had to be loaded (in the computer room) - well before PnP!

When you mount a device, you mount it 'on' something. So (eg) /dev/sda1 might be mounted on /mnt/sda1 (the mountpoint), in which case the path syntax to access the music directory would then be something like /mnt/sda1/LosslessMusic

(Note the '/' used in Unix rather than '\' in Windows.)

Easiest way to check whether unix 'sees' the drive is to use the 'ls' command to list the contents of the directory

ls -l /mnt/sda1/LosslessMusic

mherger
2005-07-02, 11:57
> I got quite excited by this. However, Slimserver does not seem able to
> read my Maxtor One Touch drive even though it is recognised as sda1 and
> I appear to be able to mount it.

And you have to mount it manually, this is not done automatically.

mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1

should do the job.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

mherger
2005-07-02, 14:12
> Can anyone suggest what I might be doing wrong?

Hey, you're giving the answer yourself:

> On thing, I'm not too sure of the syntax to reference drives using
> Unix. I have tried many variations to get Slimserver to index my
> files... should sda1:\LosslessMusic likely to work?

Nope, this is where you're wrong :-). Use /mnt/sda1/LosslessMusic instead
(as you'd see it in mc's upper left corner). And be sure to match
upper-/lowercase.

> Odd things with this SlimCD installation include:
> I get a funny keyboard layout which does not seem to change after I
> have selected the UK layout

Interesting that's even funny for you. I always thought this was UK - is
it US?

> I've no idea what the big button below the little left and right arrows
> on the drive status indicator panel is for.

This is the button to mount/unmount. For mounted drives it's green,
unmounted black.

> My mouse-pad does not work

On a laptop? Ist it USB (or don't you know)?

You could try to shut down the window manager and go back to the shell
(text mode): right mouseclick on the desktop, "Windowmanager->Exit". Then
run xsetup.sh from the shell. And when you're asked for USB mouse or
IMPS/2 (whatever this is...), try to play with the different options. Then
type "exit" to get back to the graphical environment.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

Mike Hanson
2005-07-04, 05:29
> The difference may be OS. I run slimserver on FreeBSD, and I believe
> Michael runs it on Linux.

Yes, I do.

> Mike, if you're using Windows, it may
> explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if Unix performed better than
> Windows here..

Mike - would you mind giving this a try? Download SlimCD from my site and
run slimserver from this livecd (it won't touch nor hurt your existing
installation). If you can access your music files from this system we
could easily compare the performance of the two operating systems.
Yes, I'm running W2K-SP4. In addition to doing SlimServer duties, it's also an MS SQL Server and POP3+SMTP server, so I'm not willing to run it as a dedicated Linux box. (I've already got seven PCs in my house, and I don't need another!)

I'm downloading your SlimCD. I'll try to find a moment to test it in the next day or so.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

danny6869
2005-07-04, 06:16
I'd like to see a new remote with more buttons, just for the simple reason
that I'd like to easily program my universal remote with all of the
new/extra buttons.

(I have done so using an old ZENITH DVD remote, but it's not the same....and
far more work than it's worth)

The standard remote that comes with the SB is TERRIBLE, and a definite
turn-off.

Danny Rego

danny6869
2005-07-04, 06:18
I notice the web server chugging if I have any of my devices using HUGE
playlists (like all songs / random for example). If I have all devices
using small playlists (like ONE album for example), the web server is
super-fast in all cases.

Danny Rego


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Benjamin" <mikeb (AT) mikeb (DOT) org>
To: "Slim Devices Discussion" <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [slim] Re: A better remote?


> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:09:05PM +0200, Michael Herger wrote:
> : >How much music have you got loaded, and what's your server hardware?
> : >My server is a P4 with 640MB, with a 40GB OS drive and two 200GB music
> : >drives. The web interface was snappy when I had only a few dozen
> : >albums, but with 330, it's downright sluggish. For example, displaying
> : >the artists list generally takes 5-10 seconds. I'm not looking forward
> : >to when I have all 1300 albums ripped to the system!
> :
> : I can't confirm this. While my server is much less powerful (VIA
> C3/1GHz,
> : 512MB) I have >500 albums. The artist list takes less than 1 second to
> : display. The album list is a little slower (1-2 seconds).
>
> The difference may be OS. I run slimserver on FreeBSD, and I believe
> Michael runs it on Linux. Mike, if you're using Windows, it may
> explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if Unix performed better than
> Windows here.. it does with every thing else ;-).
>
> --mikeb
>
> :
> : --
> :
> : Michael
> :
> : -----------------------------------------------------------
> : Help translate SlimServer by using the
> : StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)
>

Mike Hanson
2005-07-04, 06:42
In addition to doing SlimServer duties, it's also an MS SQL Server and POP3+SMTP server
I should add that these other two duties are VERY light, so the system is essentially dedicated to SlimServer.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

PAUL WILLIAMSON
2005-07-05, 06:49
>>> danny (AT) rego (DOT) com 07/04/05 9:16 AM >>>
> I'd like to see a new remote with more buttons, just for the simple
> reason that I'd like to easily program my universal remote with all
of
> the new/extra buttons.

So you want a new remote so you can use another remote? Odd.

> (I have done so using an old ZENITH DVD remote, but it's not the
> same....and far more work than it's worth)
>
> The standard remote that comes with the SB is TERRIBLE, and a
> definite turn-off.

A Turn-off to you. One of the reasons I love the squeezebox is the
simplicity of the remote. I use my universal remote, but my wife
and kids use the squeezebox remote. It's simple and gets the job
done. If I wanted something more spectacular, I'd use my WiFi pda.

Nothing would be able to match its utility or functionality, no matter

how much time and effort was spent developing a new remote.

Paul

danny6869
2005-07-05, 07:24
>>>> danny (AT) rego (DOT) com 07/04/05 9:16 AM >>>
>> I'd like to see a new remote with more buttons, just for the simple
>> reason that I'd like to easily program my universal remote with all
> of
>> the new/extra buttons.
>
> So you want a new remote so you can use another remote? Odd.

It's not odd...it's the reason some use the JVC DVD remote
codes.....dedicated FF/REW/PAUSE buttons for starters. It's a pain for the
average joe to dick around at this level. Especially when you are talking
universal learning remote, and you don't have a JVC DVD remote to start
with, and the default button layout is non-intuitive.

>> (I have done so using an old ZENITH DVD remote, but it's not the
>> same....and far more work than it's worth)
>>
>> The standard remote that comes with the SB is TERRIBLE, and a
>> definite turn-off.
>
> A Turn-off to you. One of the reasons I love the squeezebox is the
> simplicity of the remote. I use my universal remote, but my wife
> and kids use the squeezebox remote. It's simple and gets the job
> done. If I wanted something more spectacular, I'd use my WiFi pda.

"Simple and gets the job done" is fine and dandy, but how about
intuitive...I doubt that dedicated FF/REW/PAUSE buttons would make the
remote intimidating.

Just hand the remote to someone, and see how long it is before you get the
"how do I do this or that" questions!

Danny Rego

dean
2005-07-05, 07:27
Danny,

Can you be more specific about what's "terrible" about the remote?


I'd like to see a new remote with more buttons, just for the simple reason
that I'd like to easily program my universal remote with all of the
new/extra buttons.

(I have done so using an old ZENITH DVD remote, but it's not the same....and
far more work than it's worth)

The standard remote that comes with the SB is TERRIBLE, and a definite
turn-off.

Danny Rego

PAUL WILLIAMSON
2005-07-05, 07:47
>>> danny (AT) rego (DOT) com 07/05/05 10:24 AM >>>
> > So you want a new remote so you can use another remote? Odd.
>
> It's not odd...it's the reason some use the JVC DVD remote
> codes.....dedicated FF/REW/PAUSE buttons for starters. It's a pain
> for the average joe to dick around at this level. Especially when
you
> are talking universal learning remote, and you don't have a JVC DVD
> remote to start with, and the default button layout is
non-intuitive.

For one, this whole setup is NOT for the average joe (six-pack, to use

your examples). But like I've said, everyone has their opinions.
I've not had a problem with "intuitiveness."

> > A Turn-off to you. One of the reasons I love the squeezebox is
> > the simplicity of the remote. I use my universal remote, but my
> > wife and kids use the squeezebox remote. It's simple and gets
> > the job done. If I wanted something more spectacular, I'd use
> > my WiFi pda.
>
> "Simple and gets the job done" is fine and dandy, but how about
> intuitive...I doubt that dedicated FF/REW/PAUSE buttons would
> make the remote intimidating.
>
> Just hand the remote to someone, and see how long it is before
> you get the "how do I do this or that" questions!

I did that. It's been almost 2 years and have had one question -
and it was related to making up a playlist of shoutcase urls.
Certainly
not something any remote would be able to handle short of my
pda.

My 5 year old uses the remote with no issues. She doesn't even ask
how to find Cheeseburger in Paradise or Fins anymore.

I'm not saying a better, more featureful remote wouldn't be a nice
option. I'm just saying if all your going to do is use it to program
another remote and put it away, it would seem there should be a
better way to accomplish the programming of the universal remote.

Paul

danny6869
2005-07-05, 08:30
> Can you be more specific about what's "terrible" about the remote?

This is just my opinion...take from it what you will...

I don't like the multifunction buttons. I would rather see dedicated
FF/REW/PAUSE buttons. A few other quick access buttons would be nice as
well, such as "ALBUMS", "ARTISTS", "PLAYLISTS", "GENRES" that would just
take you directly to the appropriate browse locations.

I know that you wouldn't want to overwhelm people with an overly complicated
remote, but I think those few extra buttons would make the SB much easier
(more intuitive) to use.

Those are the basic shortcomings of the current remote as I see them. There
are some other aesthetic things I don't like as well, such as the remote
feeling, and looking cheap, as well as that it's a little too small for my
liking (one man's gold = one man's junk...I know).

Danny Rego

danny6869
2005-07-05, 08:41
> For one, this whole setup is NOT for the average joe (six-pack, to use
> your examples). But like I've said, everyone has their opinions.
> I've not had a problem with "intuitiveness."

Striving to make something average-joe friendly should ALWAYS be the goal,
but I understand what you're saying.

>> Just hand the remote to someone, and see how long it is before
>> you get the "how do I do this or that" questions!
>
> I did that. It's been almost 2 years and have had one question -
> and it was related to making up a playlist of shoutcase urls.
> Certainly
> not something any remote would be able to handle short of my
> pda.

Well...what can I say to that...people have accidentally held down the skip
track button to have it fast forward, and they would wonnder why the song
sounds funny as it clicks, and pops forward through the song. I've had
questions about how to get back to the main menu to browse again...etc.
It's easy stuff to learn/remember, but questions, and honest mistakes that
can be avoided with a few more buttons.

> My 5 year old uses the remote with no issues. She doesn't even ask
> how to find Cheeseburger in Paradise or Fins anymore.

A kid with a fresh mind is one thing, but a technology-fearing wife is a
whole other ball game.

> I'm not saying a better, more featureful remote wouldn't be a nice
> option. I'm just saying if all your going to do is use it to program
> another remote and put it away, it would seem there should be a
> better way to accomplish the programming of the universal remote.

To setup a universal remote properly, more often than not, you need to move
the default buttons around, by learning/relearning buttons from the original
remote. If that's required...there's no way to LEARN the "FAST FORWARD"
command from the current SB remote....and if you don't have an original JVC
DVD remote, you can't learn it from that either (and use the jvc codes
instead). It's kinda hard to explain, but there is method to my madness on
this one.

Danny Rego

stinkingpig
2005-07-05, 09:08
Danny Rego wrote:
>> For one, this whole setup is NOT for the average joe (six-pack, to use
>> your examples). But like I've said, everyone has their opinions.
>> I've not had a problem with "intuitiveness."
>
>
> Striving to make something average-joe friendly should ALWAYS be the
> goal, but I understand what you're saying.

....

>
> A kid with a fresh mind is one thing, but a technology-fearing wife is a
> whole other ball game.

Here's the dichotomy that you need to understand before calling for
change to make average joe happy: Desire to learn. People, whether
average or not, will only learn as much as they need to get what they want.

If your target user is someone who doesn't want to learn how to make the
system work, you're going to make changes in pursuit of an impossible
goal. Those changes will make things harder for the core audience.

Better to take a page from IT Marketing's playbook: Declare
pre-emptively that your system is more friendly, easier-to-use, faster,
better for the corporate market, whatever. Suppress any evidence to the
contrary, trumpet any evidence supporting your claim, and keep at it
until it becomes common knowledge. Never mind tautologies, no one with
the power to influence common knowledge will notice them.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

danny6869
2005-07-05, 10:43
> If your target user is someone who doesn't want to learn how to make the
> system work, you're going to make changes in pursuit of an impossible
> goal. Those changes will make things harder for the core audience.

Ummmm....dedicated pause, fast forward, and rewind buttons will make things
harder for the core audience?!? Anything that faces end-users should be as
intuitive as possible...unless of course, you risk losing
functionality/power etc...

> Better to take a page from IT Marketing's playbook: Declare pre-emptively
> that your system is more friendly, easier-to-use, faster, better for the
> corporate market, whatever. Suppress any evidence to the contrary, trumpet
> any evidence supporting your claim, and keep at it until it becomes common
> knowledge. Never mind tautologies, no one with the power to influence
> common knowledge will notice them.

....anyways...I could go off on a rant here, but really, I just thought it
would be nice to have a few more buttons on the remote...I didn't come here
to argue.

Danny Rego

PAUL WILLIAMSON
2005-07-05, 10:59
>>> danny (AT) rego (DOT) com 07/05/05 11:41 AM >>>

<snip on the average thing - seems we understand each other>

> Well...what can I say to that...people have accidentally held
> down the skip track button to have it fast forward, and they
> would wonnder why the song sounds funny as it clicks, and
> pops forward through the song. I've had questions about how
> to get back to the main menu to browse again...etc. It's easy
> stuff to learn/remember, but questions, and honest mistakes that
> can be avoided with a few more buttons.

Ok, I see what you are saying...not that I agree, but I understand.
If anyone has listened to a digital track (or watched one for that
matter), they will know what that clicking and popping is immediately,

although there doesn't appear to be an easy way to stop it with the
SD remote. Once you get to know the remote (mostly trial and
error), it is quite easy to stop (and resume normal playing).

> > My 5 year old uses the remote with no issues. She doesn't even
> > ask how to find Cheeseburger in Paradise or Fins anymore.
>
> A kid with a fresh mind is one thing, but a technology-fearing wife
> is a whole other ball game.

Then get her to not fear technology. It only took me about 3 months.
Now she can surf through listening to any Paris radio station through
shoutcast, or with a few clicks, over to listening to some classic
Polka
from our wedding cassettes (converted to mp3).

> > I'm not saying a better, more featureful remote wouldn't be a nice
> > option. I'm just saying if all your going to do is use it to
program
> > another remote and put it away, it would seem there should be a
> > better way to accomplish the programming of the universal remote.
>
> To setup a universal remote properly, more often than not, you need
> to move the default buttons around, by learning/relearning buttons
> from the original remote. If that's required...there's no way to
LEARN
> the "FAST FORWARD" command from the current SB remote....and if
> you don't have an original JVC DVD remote, you can't learn it from
> that either (and use the jvc codes instead). It's kinda hard to
explain,
> but there is method to my madness on this one.

<tongue firmly planted in cheek>
If you have an inferior remote that you can't program with JP-1, then
yep, you are up the proverbial creek sans paddle.
</tongue>

Although the FF/RW is an almost commonplace modification. It's like
that on a lot of mp3 portables to save space.

danny6869
2005-07-05, 11:22
>> A kid with a fresh mind is one thing, but a technology-fearing wife
>> is a whole other ball game.
>
> Then get her to not fear technology. It only took me about 3 months.
> Now she can surf through listening to any Paris radio station through
> shoutcast, or with a few clicks, over to listening to some classic
> Polka
> from our wedding cassettes (converted to mp3).

Since when does a wife choose ANYTHING over bitching about something the
husband loves? (heehee)

> <tongue firmly planted in cheek>
> If you have an inferior remote that you can't program with JP-1, then
> yep, you are up the proverbial creek sans paddle.
> </tongue>

I've got a Logitech Harmony 880 remote which is quite nice/flexible, but I
still had to go with the NON-SB...NON-JVCDVD settings for it (for various
reasons)...anyways...if anyone's interested in my .IR file, let me know. It
uses Zenith DVD codes...I'll probably post it on my blog as soon as I'm done
with it.

Danny Rego

PAUL WILLIAMSON
2005-07-05, 11:35
>>> danny (AT) rego (DOT) com 07/05/05 2:22 PM >>>

> Since when does a wife choose ANYTHING over bitching about
> something the husband loves? (heehee)

So true! But, when she gets her picture in a magazine 8-)

> I've got a Logitech Harmony 880 remote which is quite nice/flexible,


That IS a nice remote. Been thinking about one myself for another
project I dabble in (mythtv).

Paul