PDA

View Full Version : Slimp3Slave for Windows



Oliver Cookson
2004-03-17, 02:08
Yeah this is something that keeps on getting requested at a high rate.
Slim said they might look into an offical release of something simliar
to slimmp3slave (for win & nix)? I really hope they do as this is high
on my wanted list and lots of others it seems!

Any latest word from a offical or unoffical response?

Thanks


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:40:30 -0500, you wrote:
>I noticed references to a slimp3slave someone is working on for linux.

>is there such a product for the Windows and understands the slimp3 api?

Not yet; there are a few issues that make it difficult to port
slimp3slave to Windows. I think someone's working on it, though.

- Jacob

Peter Bowyer
2004-03-17, 03:50
I think you'd be better off appealing to the wider community. You're asking
Slimdevices to commit time & resources (= money) in order to produce some
software which will, to a greater or lesser extent, decrease the market for
their hardware. Hardly fair to ask them to prioritise it.

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oliver Cookson" <OCookson (AT) 3t (DOT) co.uk>
To: "Slim Devices Discussion" <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:08 AM
Subject: [slim] Slimp3Slave for Windows


> Yeah this is something that keeps on getting requested at a high rate.
> Slim said they might look into an offical release of something simliar
> to slimmp3slave (for win & nix)? I really hope they do as this is high
> on my wanted list and lots of others it seems!
>
> Any latest word from a offical or unoffical response?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:40:30 -0500, you wrote:
> >I noticed references to a slimp3slave someone is working on for linux.
>
> >is there such a product for the Windows and understands the slimp3 api?
>
> Not yet; there are a few issues that make it difficult to port
> slimp3slave to Windows. I think someone's working on it, though.
>
> - Jacob
>
>
>

Peter van der Landen
2004-03-17, 07:20
> I think you'd be better off appealing to the wider community. You're
> asking Slimdevices to commit time & resources (= money) in order to
> produce some software which will, to a greater or lesser extent,
> decrease the market for their hardware. Hardly fair to ask them to
> prioritise it.

I don't think a software Squeezebox would hurt sales. I think one of the
problems in selling a product like this is in getting people to understand
the benefits and how things work in practice. If I try to explain to
people what a great system my SB is I find that very difficult to do
without showing them.

If people could download the server as well as a good (Win32) client they
would be able to get a good idea of what the SB could do for them.
Existing users could use the software client to experiment with multiple
clients. In both cases I think that a lot of them would end up deciding to
by the (extra) hardware.

Anyway, I think a Software Squeezebox would be great. I made a start
writing one (well just the user interface actually) in wxPerl. If anyone
could use this as a base or inspiration to create a 'real' client, be my
guest:

http://xenna.no-ip.com/softsqueeze/

Regards,
Peter

Ron Thigpen
2004-03-17, 08:57
Peter van der Landen wrote:

> Anyway, I think a Software Squeezebox would be great.


I agree. A Software SB adds value. And I don't think it cannabalizes
sales, as it doesn't really replace the SB hardware. S/W SB requires a
general purpose PC at every node. All it really does is add capability
to a SlimServer based home music network.

Some users may have nodes that already have a PC, but is it always-on,
noiseless and troublefree? The SB device clearly wins on all of the
"appliance" issues. And for those that would still like to use a PC,
they would have used something like WinAmp anyway. The software SB
would just make that experience better by providing additional features.

And those of us who host the SlimServer on a workstation definitely have
one PC that we would like to sync.

I don't know whether it makes sense for SlimDevices to commit resources
to S/W SB development, but I do think they should welcome and support a
community effort.

--rt

Ben Sandee
2004-03-17, 09:13
Ron Thigpen wrote:

> Peter van der Landen wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I think a Software Squeezebox would be great.
>
> I agree. A Software SB adds value. And I don't think it cannabalizes
> sales, as it doesn't really replace the SB hardware. S/W SB requires
> a general purpose PC at every node. All it really does is add
> capability to a SlimServer based home music network.
>
I would *not* have purchased the hardware if a good software client was
available. That said, I'm extremely happy with my purchase and would do
it again in a heartbeat.

Ben

kdf
2004-03-17, 11:37
Quoting Ron Thigpen <rthigpen (AT) nc (DOT) rr.com>:


>
> I don't know whether it makes sense for SlimDevices to commit resources
> to S/W SB development, but I do think they should welcome and support a
> community effort.
>
and they do. But this doesn't mean they should be held accountable for
answering demands to know when it will be ready. The server is open source,
leaving all the information for setting up a software OR hardware player
available to anyone who wishes to do so. I think this counts as a great deal of
support to the community.

-kdf

Ron Thigpen
2004-03-17, 12:07
kdf wrote:

> and they do.


i never meant to imply otherwise.

--rt