PDA

View Full Version : What's the exact size?



gorman
2009-09-10, 14:24
The website does not have it under specifications...

Mark Lanctot
2009-09-10, 15:14
I measured it and put in in the Hardware Comparison wiki page:

http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/HardwareComparison

gorman
2009-09-12, 14:18
Thank you. The display is smaller in width, if I'm not mistaken. I still fail to understand why Logitech isn't bringing to market a proper 42cm solution, aiming at regular people with regular cabinets and not enough money for the Transporter.

Surely I can't accept a smaller display from 10'... :(

iPhone
2009-09-12, 14:38
Thank you. The display is smaller in width, if I'm not mistaken. I still fail to understand why Logitech isn't bringing to market a proper 42cm solution, aiming at regular people with regular cabinets and not enough money for the Transporter.

Surely I can't accept a smaller display from 10'... :(

By smaller in width, do you mean he posted the wrong measurement? If not, I can assure you that display IS WIDER then it is tall.

Also if they were bringing out a 10 inch Touch display then the 10 inch Touch would probably be three quarters of the cost of a Transporter!

Look at the clock tread and one will see the display is wider then it is tall.

MeSue
2009-09-12, 14:44
That chart would be nicer if it was reversed so new players were listed first. Or at least have the index of rows on both the left and right so readers don't have to keep scrolling back and forth.

funkstar
2009-09-12, 14:46
Thank you. The display is smaller in width, if I'm not mistaken.
The Touch is narrower than the SB3 if thats what you mean.



I still fail to understand why Logitech isn't bringing to market a proper 42cm solution, aiming at regular people with regular cabinets and not enough money for the Transporter.
Probably because that market is tiny?

erland
2009-09-13, 01:27
Thank you. The display is smaller in width, if I'm not mistaken. I still fail to understand why Logitech isn't bringing to market a proper 42cm solution, aiming at regular people with regular cabinets and not enough money for the Transporter.

Do most regular people really have 42 cm devices today ?
Doesn't most regular people have those small "all in one" stereos with some small speakers ?

Personally, I'd prefer not to see my 42 cm devices at all while I certainly want to see the Squeezebox since it have the display. Due to this it has never been a problem for me that it has difference size then the rest of the devices.



Surely I can't accept a smaller display from 10'... :(

Which font size do you use on Classic (or whatever player you have today) ?

If you use the one with two lines with the bottom line a bit larger, the Touch font in the remote skin has similar size.

It actually works a lot better from the sofa 10 feet away than I initially thought it would. The reason is that the display can show several lines instead of everything on a single line as it does on the Classic.

gorman
2009-09-14, 09:34
Do most regular people really have 42 cm devices today ?
Doesn't most regular people have those small "all in one" stereos with some small speakers ?

Personally, I'd prefer not to see my 42 cm devices at all while I certainly want to see the Squeezebox since it have the display. Due to this it has never been a problem for me that it has difference size then the rest of the devices.To each his own, I guess. You are catered for, as for me... I make do with what I have. =)
Which font size do you use on Classic (or whatever player you have today) ?

If you use the one with two lines with the bottom line a bit larger, the Touch font in the remote skin has similar size.

It actually works a lot better from the sofa 10 feet away than I initially thought it would. The reason is that the display can show several lines instead of everything on a single line as it does on the Classic.I use the two lines display, but the reason I don't see a narrower display working is the same exact reason I don't like the single line display on the Classic, too many song titles need to scroll.

On the Classic I've always wished for a one line display option that used a taller font but not so "fat". Compressed is the word used in DTP I think.

Are there any pictures of the UI available? Now Playing screen?

iPhone
2009-09-14, 10:24
Are there any pictures of the UI available? Now Playing screen?

This might help some. Not pictures but actual Video of Touch (http://www.adamreeve.com/files/slim/Touch.wmv) in use.

Have a look at it.

gorman
2009-09-15, 03:57
:( Honestly this seems anything but a 10' interface.

ghostrider
2009-09-15, 05:39
No matter what design choices are made, someone will be unhappy. It's too big, it's too small, my wife won't let me buy it unless matches our bedroom which is pink. It is what it is, accept it or move on.

aubuti
2009-09-15, 06:01
:( Honestly this seems anything but a 10' interface.
Actually Radish (who made the video) has very long arms....

Right, quite obviously that isn't the 10' interface. It's the touch interface. The SB Touch automatically shifts to the 10' interface when it sees an IR signal. And it shifts back to the touch interface when the screen is touched, or even when someone gets really close to the screen.

erland
2009-09-15, 09:53
:( Honestly this seems anything but a 10' interface.

The video shows the touch close range skin, the remote long range skin is a bit better. If they add an option to hide the album cover it will be better then the Classic two line mode with larger lower line.

If they don't add this as an option, there will be third party applets that supports it.

gorman
2009-09-15, 17:06
No matter what design choices are made, someone will be unhappy. It's too big, it's too small, my wife won't let me buy it unless matches our bedroom which is pink. It is what it is, accept it or move on.You see, the messages after yours prove how useless and uncalled for your comment really was.

There *is* a different interface for long distance use, so guess what, my complaint after seeing the video was legitimate and yours was just wasted electrons.

And to be clearer: as long as I am not banned on these forums I'll keep on investigating on Slimdevices/Logitech products as much as I like. By all means, please, do add me to your ignore list.

Thank you.

aubuti
2009-09-15, 19:23
There *is* a different interface for long distance use, so guess what, my complaint after seeing the video was legitimate and yours was just wasted electrons.
Oh, that was a complaint? I thought it was just a demonstration of a particularly keen grasp of the obvious... ;o)

peterw
2009-09-15, 20:04
The LCD display on the Touch is about 75% as wide as the Classic's VFD, but almost 4 times as tall, and therefore it has about 2.5 times as much display surface ares. And it's higher resolution -- about 50 pixels per cm vs. about 20 pixels per cm for the Classic. Fonts on Touch look nicer due to the higher resolution and color depth of the LCD (24 bits color depth on Touch, where Classic has something like 4 shades of white/grey). Up close, Classic compared with Touch look like an old dot-matrix printer compared with a nice color laser printer. Classic is utilitarian; Touch is pretty.

The two biggest tradeoffs for the Touch display that I see are
1) the width: Touch just can't display as much on one line for "10 foot" use. This is most limiting when browsing your library with the infrared remote -- lots of titles are truncated. On Classic under Staff Picks I see "Slim Showcase: Miles Davis by Ra" before scrolling kicks in; on Touch (at 10'), it's "Slim Showcase: Mile" (on Radio, it's "Slim Showcase: Miles Davis"; on Touch in near/touchscreen mode, it's "Slim Showcase: Miles Davis by RadioIO" with a little room to spare).
2) the darkness: in a dark room, the characters on a Classic seem to come out of nowhere, but you can always see the rectangular shape of the LCD on the Touch, because its black isn't as black as Classic's display. I find the Classic (and Boom) to have a more pleasing display in the dark, especially for typical time & weather "clock" usage. To be fair, I have not used Touch much in bright, sunwashed rooms, and I have a relatively early hardware beta; it could be that later units will have darker lenses and blacker blacks.

I'm not sure how to overcome the 10' width problem. One mitigating factor is that Touch gives you 3 lines of text that are as large as Classic's larger medium font, and possibly as legible as Classic's large font. For browsing music, maybe you don't really need to see the whole title and this width discrepancy will bother old timers like me just because we compare Touch to the old gear. The display tradeoff is a simple market reality; there's no way Logitech could build this for anywhere near $300 USD if they custom spec'ed a 15 cm x 5 cm touchscreen LCD instead of using readily available 9 x 5 LCDs.

The darkness problem could be solved by a better clock display, one that deliberately puts content near the edges so the grey rectangle seems more deliberate (the normal browsing and Now Playing screens use the full screen, so those screens don't have the darkness problem). I expect Erland will have a fix for that. ;-)

pfarrell
2009-09-15, 20:25
peterw wrote:
> 1) the width: Touch just can't display as much on one line for "10
> foot" use.

> I'm not sure how to overcome the 10' width problem.

Er, Peter, do you have 10 foot (3+ meter for our metric/SI friends)
long arms? Otherwise, you'll miss a big part of what makes a Touch a Touch.

My main listening room places me about 15 feet away from my TP. But in
all the years that I've had SqueezeBoxen, I've never used the IR remote
much. Its too hard on my old eyeballs to see that far, and I've found
that the Web UI or a Controller provides much more effective control.

I have a basket full of SD remotes next to my main chair, I use them
mostly to press "brightness" when the firmware needs a reload.

Of course, the obvious solution is to put a touch screen on the Controller 2


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/