PDA

View Full Version : Some thoughts on configuring the Squeezebox.



Murphy
2006-01-25, 11:56
I will be brief.

1. USB, Firewire, or some other form of non-ethernet Computer to device connection is essential. Get with the program. Although the squeezebox's design is optimized for small hubs/routers and wireless connectivity, sometimes people are just going to want to plug it directly in, and a crossover cable is not a good solution.
2. Software configuration. Although setting up the squeezebox using a remote is an option, invariably the user will lose the remote. In an ideal situation, put some form of control method on the squeezebox itself, or allow configuration through software so you can edit it on a computer.

You need to trade aesthetics for functionality.

jonheal
2006-01-25, 12:07
I will be brief.

1. USB, Firewire, or some other form of non-ethernet Computer to device connection is essential. Get with the program. Although the squeezebox's design is optimized for small hubs/routers and wireless connectivity, sometimes people are just going to want to plug it directly in, and a crossover cable is not a good solution.
2. Software configuration. Although setting up the squeezebox using a remote is an option, invariably the user will lose the remote. In an ideal situation, put some form of control method on the squeezebox itself, or allow configuration through software so you can edit it on a computer.

You need to trade aesthetics for functionality.
1. One of the main benefits of my SqueezeBox is being able to listen to high-quality digital music, and at the same time, getting the damn computer out of the living room and away from my hifi.

2. "...or allow configuration through software so you can edit it on a computer." I think they call that SlimServer. I don't plan on losing my remote. I suggest you super-glue a hoop to it and then dangle it around you neck on a string.

Kyle
2006-01-25, 12:24
1. USB, Firewire, or some other form of non-ethernet Computer to device connection is essential.

Why? If all the functionality of the SB is enabled through the ethernet connection, why is some other form necessary? Also, someone's home is much more likely to be CAT-5 wired than USB-wired if the SB is going to be in a different room.

autopilot
2006-01-25, 12:34
Seriously, i dont know what on earth you are getting at here? What real use a USB connection be? The whole point it this is a streaming device, for streaming music around a house to HiFi equipment. Why would someone want to spend a load of cash to have a SB next to thier PC when they could just play the music off thier PC? Just buy a remote for your PC and you could even by a display for you PC if you don't want you have your monitor on when you are playing music. Maybe 2% of SB owners would find this useful (cant see how myself) but it's harld 'essential'. You have completely missed the point of what this device is for. It's you that seriously needs to get with the program.

Paul Dowdy
2006-01-25, 13:09
I disagree totally. The whole point is to use WiFi, not wired to this
device.

You should get with the program..

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murphy" <Murphy.227f5z (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
To: <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: [slim] Some thoughts on configuring the Squeezebox.


>
> I will be brief.
>
> 1. USB, Firewire, or some other form of non-ethernet Computer to device
> connection is essential. Get with the program. Although the squeezebox's
> design is optimized for small hubs/routers and wireless connectivity,
> sometimes people are just going to want to plug it directly in, and a
> crossover cable is not a good solution.
> 2. Software configuration. Although setting up the squeezebox using a
> remote is an option, invariably the user will lose the remote. In an
> ideal situation, put some form of control method on the squeezebox
> itself, or allow configuration through software so you can edit it on a
> computer.
>
> You need to trade aesthetics for functionality.
>
>
> --
> Murphy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Murphy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3570
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=20407
>
>
>

rdcole
2006-01-25, 13:16
Seems to me that I can get USB and Firewire devices that do audio for less money so who would want to use an SB for this?
The whole idea is the SB is to get away from the PC and not be tethered to it.

Ron

jonheal
2006-01-25, 13:24
I disagree totally. The whole point is to use WiFi, not wired to this
device.

You should get with the program..

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murphy" <Murphy.227f5z (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
To: <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: [slim] Some thoughts on configuring the Squeezebox.


>
> I will be brief.
>
> 1. USB, Firewire, or some other form of non-ethernet Computer to device
> connection is essential. Get with the program. Although the squeezebox's
> design is optimized for small hubs/routers and wireless connectivity,
> sometimes people are just going to want to plug it directly in, and a
> crossover cable is not a good solution.
> 2. Software configuration. Although setting up the squeezebox using a
> remote is an option, invariably the user will lose the remote. In an
> ideal situation, put some form of control method on the squeezebox
> itself, or allow configuration through software so you can edit it on a
> computer.
>
> You need to trade aesthetics for functionality.
>
>
> --
> Murphy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Murphy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3570
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=20407
>
>
>
...I still prefer wired ethernet...more reliable connection :-) YMMV

JJZolx
2006-01-25, 13:28
2. Software configuration. Although setting up the squeezebox using a remote is an option, invariably the user will lose the remote. In an ideal situation, put some form of control method on the squeezebox itself, or allow configuration through software so you can edit it on a computer.
I totally agree.

I'm surprised a better configurtion system isn't in place. I can understand the current approach for a first-generation product, but the SB has had more than enough time to get to this point. Fully capable configuration and status web interfaces are available in $30 consumer routers that make the setup procedures for the Squeezebox look like something out of a network product from 1993. Very primitive, to put it politely.

jonheal
2006-01-25, 13:35
I totally agree.

I'm surprised a better configurtion system isn't in place. I can understand the current approach for a first-generation product, but the SB has had more than enough time to get to this point. Fully capable configuration and status web interfaces are available in $30 consumer routers that make the setup procedures for the Squeezebox look like something out of a network product from 1993. Very primitive, to put it politely.
Have you seen the configuration screens for Linksys or D-Link routers??

They SUCK!!!

snarlydwarf
2006-01-25, 13:41
I'm surprised a better configurtion system isn't in place. I can understand the current approach for a first-generation product, but the SB has had more than enough time to get to this point. Fully capable configuration and status web interfaces are available in $30 consumer routers that make the setup procedures for the Squeezebox look like something out of a network product from 1993. Very primitive, to put it politely.

Hrrm.. other than the network configuration (which, obviously, is tricky to do from a network: routers have an advantage here, but they're designed to packet-munge), what's the problem with the slimserver configuration of the squeezeboxes?

There really isn't anything -on- the squeezebox to configure other than network settings.... Everything else is server controlled.

jimdibb
2006-01-25, 13:50
The home routers and such need snazzy (?) web interfaces to configure
because they don't have screens. Configuring the network interface on a
squeezebox by using the screen and remote is what fits the device.

The squeezebox doesn't run a web server, so why add one just to configure a
few network parameters?

On 1/25/06, snarlydwarf <snarlydwarf.227k0z (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> JJZolx Wrote:
> >
> > I'm surprised a better configurtion system isn't in place. I can
> > understand the current approach for a first-generation product, but the
> > SB has had more than enough time to get to this point. Fully capable
> > configuration and status web interfaces are available in $30 consumer
> > routers that make the setup procedures for the Squeezebox look like
> > something out of a network product from 1993. Very primitive, to put
> > it politely.
>
> Hrrm.. other than the network configuration (which, obviously, is
> tricky to do from a network: routers have an advantage here, but
> they're designed to packet-munge), what's the problem with the
> slimserver configuration of the squeezeboxes?
>
> There really isn't anything -on- the squeezebox to configure other than
> network settings.... Everything else is server controlled.
>
>
> --
> snarlydwarf
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> snarlydwarf's Profile:
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=20407
>
>

EnochLight
2006-01-25, 14:25
I totally agree.

I'm surprised a better configurtion system isn't in place. I can understand the current approach for a first-generation product, but the SB has had more than enough time to get to this point. Fully capable configuration and status web interfaces are available in $30 consumer routers that make the setup procedures for the Squeezebox look like something out of a network product from 1993. Very primitive, to put it politely.

I wouldn't say primitive, but it is a bit simplistic. I wonder though, is this configuration stored in the SB's firmware or is is sent from SlimServer? If the latter, then it should be an easy change. If the former, well the firmware would require a new design entirely (larger flash memory hosting a small OS, etc).

EnochLight
2006-01-25, 14:33
I will be brief....You need to trade aesthetics for functionality.

The Squeezebox is one of the most functional hi-fi devices ever created, IMHO. USB/firewire has a fixed length to be functional (compared to a wired CAT5 of several hundred feet). And frankly, Wi-Fi is the new target demographic - get it as far away from your computer as possible.

Wireless routers are commonplace so it's redundant to put something like USB/firewire ports on it for those who wish to use it next to the computer (plus it would drive the cost up needlessly of an already expensive device).

If Slim Devices forges ahead with new releases we're bound to see improvements in the evolution of the Squeezeboxs, but USB/firewire is at the bottom of the request list I believe.

snarlydwarf
2006-01-25, 14:33
I wonder though, is this configuration stored in the SB's firmware or is is sent from SlimServer? If the latter, then it should be an easy change. If the former, well the firmware would require a new design entirely (larger flash memory hosting a small OS, etc).

I think the only configuration stored in the flash of the SB is things set in the initial configuration or by 'secret' options:
MAC ID, DHCP or static? last IP, last gateway, last netmask, last DNS server, last slimserver, wireless encryption key.

It may save 'brightness' and 'size', but doesn't really need to...

I think everything else is actually on the server, so don't see the point in a web interface to configure the network.

EnochLight
2006-01-25, 14:37
I think the only configuration stored in the flash of the SB is things set in the initial configuration or by 'secret' options:
MAC ID, DHCP or static? last IP, last gateway, last netmask, last DNS server, last slimserver, wireless encryption key.

It may save 'brightness' and 'size', but doesn't really need to...

I think everything else is actually on the server, so don't see the point in a web interface to configure the network.

I honestly think that the SB is incredibly easy to set up; there's no need to weight it down with a web interface. Most people are in another room setting it up away from their computer - and the web - anyway.

Keep it simple. Maybe it is primitive, but it needs to be super simple. Primitive works in this case, IMHO.

snarlydwarf
2006-01-25, 14:48
I honestly think that the SB is incredibly easy to set up; there's no need to weight it down with a web interface. Most people are in another room setting it up away from their computer - and the web - anyway.

Keep it simple. Maybe it is primitive, but it needs to be super simple. Primitive works in this case, IMHO.

Just to make it clear: I do agree. I set up the networking with the remote. The 'real' configuration (adding plugins, passwords for last.fm, maybe arranging menus a bit) I do from a web browser... far too many options for a 1 or 2 line UI.

I don't see an easy way around the initial setup (which is -very- easy if you have DHCP and a wired connection...). For the rest, there already is a web interface, and it's where all the control is done. (What point would there be in running an HTTP server on the SB when the SB would just have to tell the server what was changed?)