PDA

View Full Version : Native decoding / on-device controls



Michael A. Schwegel
2004-06-14, 17:12
In reading through the list archives, it seems that many users and
potential users of the SqueezeBox use FLAC and/or OGG is their primary
music compression formats. As do others, I think that it would be great
if the SB could decode these two natively, so that server-side
decompression were unnecessary.

I have scoured the list and bug reports regarding this possibility. The
most recent and relevant items from each that I found are:

http://lists.slimdevices.com/archives/discuss/2004-March/026276.html
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230

They are dated 2004/03/03 and 2004/03/31, respectively. Basically, I'm
interested in an update to this issue. I'm less interested in the
"when" than I am in the "if", as I am strongly considering purchasing a
SqueezeBox. *If it seems that it is going to be possible to support
these other formats with a firmware update on the currently selling
hardware, I'll probably go ahead and purchase now. However, if it seems
that this is something that will only be possible on a future generation
of the SB, I'll hold out until that comes out.

Also, a nit-pick I have with the SB that I have not seen discussed
elsewhere is the lack of controls on the device itself. Dwindling
on-device controls (I once had a VCR where the "TV/VCR" button, an often
used function, was *only on the remote) has been a continuing trend in
consumer electronics for some time, but the SB takes it to extremes.
While I am extremely careful with my remotes (I've never lost or broken
one), I am wary of my currently eleven month old son, who seems to love
them. If not broken, I can imagine in the coming years one ending up
lost under a piece of furniture for weeks or months before I manage to
find it. I would really hate for it to be the remote to the one device
I own that can *only be controlled via remote.

I'm curious to know the reasons for remote-control only access to the
SB. If it is now considered an oversight, I'm curious if on-device
controls are being considered for a future hardware revision.

-- Michael

Daniel Cohen
2004-06-14, 23:42
On 14/6/04 at 5:12 pm -0700, Michael A. Schwegel wrote
>Also, a nit-pick I have with the SB that I have not seen discussed
>elsewhere is the lack of controls on the device itself. Dwindling
>on-device controls (I once had a VCR where the "TV/VCR" button, an often
>used function, was *only on the remote) has been a continuing trend in
>consumer electronics for some time, but the SB takes it to extremes.
>While I am extremely careful with my remotes (I've never lost or broken
>one), I am wary of my currently eleven month old son, who seems to love
>them. If not broken, I can imagine in the coming years one ending up
>lost under a piece of furniture for weeks or months before I manage to
>find it. I would really hate for it to be the remote to the one device
>I own that can *only be controlled via remote.

You can always control via the Web interface (from the computer
itself or from another computer). Not as convenient, of course, but a
backup.
--
Daniel Cohen

Jordy Kaufman
2004-06-15, 02:22
You could do I have have done: by a learning remote and teach it the
squeezebox commands. then, hide the squeezebox remote away someplace
safe.


On 15 Jun 2004, at 07:42, Daniel Cohen wrote:

> On 14/6/04 at 5:12 pm -0700, Michael A. Schwegel wrote
>> Also, a nit-pick I have with the SB that I have not seen discussed
>> elsewhere is the lack of controls on the device itself. Dwindling
>> on-device controls (I once had a VCR where the "TV/VCR" button, an
>> often
>> used function, was *only on the remote) has been a continuing trend in
>> consumer electronics for some time, but the SB takes it to extremes.
>> While I am extremely careful with my remotes (I've never lost or
>> broken
>> one), I am wary of my currently eleven month old son, who seems to
>> love
>> them. If not broken, I can imagine in the coming years one ending up
>> lost under a piece of furniture for weeks or months before I manage to
>> find it. I would really hate for it to be the remote to the one
>> device
>> I own that can *only be controlled via remote.
>
> You can always control via the Web interface (from the computer itself
> or from another computer). Not as convenient, of course, but a backup.
> --
> Daniel Cohen
>

Jeffrey Gordon
2004-06-15, 07:10
Well I personnally would not want on-device controls. It would make the
device larger and clutter it up, and also make it cost much more. This
for something I would probably never use since a remote makes more since.

Now that said the great thing about slimdevices is the guys are hackers
at heart and have including on the device a "geek connector" that some
people have used to make on-device controls.

As for losing a remote, the device really can work with any remote since
the codes are all handled in software. Also if you have a halfway
complex AV system you would do yourself a great service by investing in
a nice programmable remote like the harmonyremote or pronto. They bring
your whole system together and make it simpler for guests/wife to use.


Michael A. Schwegel wrote:

> Also, a nit-pick I have with the SB that I have not seen discussed
> elsewhere is the lack of controls on the device itself. Dwindling
> on-device controls (I once had a VCR where the "TV/VCR" button, an often
> used function, was *only on the remote) has been a continuing trend in
> consumer electronics for some time, but the SB takes it to extremes.
> While I am extremely careful with my remotes (I've never lost or broken
> one), I am wary of my currently eleven month old son, who seems to love
> them. If not broken, I can imagine in the coming years one ending up
> lost under a piece of furniture for weeks or months before I manage to
> find it. I would really hate for it to be the remote to the one device
> I own that can *only be controlled via remote.
>
> I'm curious to know the reasons for remote-control only access to the
> SB. If it is now considered an oversight, I'm curious if on-device
> controls are being considered for a future hardware revision.
>
> -- Michael
>
>
>
>