<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: TimeCapsule sucks as Network Attached Storage for iTunes or Sonos</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dalelarson.com/2009/09/timecapsule-sucks-as-network-attached-storage-for-itunes-or-sonos.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dalelarson.com/2009/09/timecapsule-sucks-as-network-attached-storage-for-itunes-or-sonos.html</link>
	<description>Adventures in Startups: Business, Leadership, Technology and Marketing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:49:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: @roboreese</title>
		<link>http://dalelarson.com/2009/09/timecapsule-sucks-as-network-attached-storage-for-itunes-or-sonos.html/comment-page-1#comment-21044</link>
		<dc:creator>@roboreese</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dalelarson.com/?p=314#comment-21044</guid>
		<description>Using a Time Capsule to back up multiple machines, deliver internet content, AND serve as a media storage device set up for streaming audio and video content? It&#039;s obviously clear that your expectations of a device (albeit, one that is basically a wifi hard drive) should live up to something far more exaggerated than what reality can offer.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You mentioned a Mac Mini handing the streaming of media just fine as an alternative to the Time Capsule. I am curious, was the Mini streaming video, backing up multiple computers, and serving as your point-of-access for your multiple devices&#039; internet connection? Even if it was, that COMPUTER is more capable to handle the amount of information going on with the extra power added by the processsor/memory/wireless hardware.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I understand your desire to have a device that can actually handle all of the information simultaneously being synced/streamed/stored/saved, but the hardware technology does not exist to actually manage that much data on one device&#039;s bandwidth. Even with an iMac, try backing up to a wired hard drive, downloading some music in iTunes, syncing contacts/calendars/email accounts, and streaming content from Hulu or some other video content and I&#039;m pretty sure that as that device starts to multi-task at that rate.. it will inevitably choke and buffer (no matter if it&#039;s a netbook, MacBook Pro, -or- Intel i7).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Cut Apple some slack and just spring for a dedicated media server, keep that Mac Mini, or even consider looking at the 160gb Apple TV. It&#039;s the same reason why professional music studios run dedicated towers to their craft... you have certain devices for specific purposes (not putting all your eggs in 1 basket).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And last but not least, you could always even think about getting a real computer as opposed to that lightweight MacBook Air you&#039;ve got as your wimpy iTunes machine.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;PS: Congrats on the techthehalls engagement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Using a Time Capsule to back up multiple machines, deliver internet content, AND serve as a media storage device set up for streaming audio and video content? It&#39;s obviously clear that your expectations of a device (albeit, one that is basically a wifi hard drive) should live up to something far more exaggerated than what reality can offer.</p>
<p>You mentioned a Mac Mini handing the streaming of media just fine as an alternative to the Time Capsule. I am curious, was the Mini streaming video, backing up multiple computers, and serving as your point-of-access for your multiple devices&#39; internet connection? Even if it was, that COMPUTER is more capable to handle the amount of information going on with the extra power added by the processsor/memory/wireless hardware.</p>
<p>I understand your desire to have a device that can actually handle all of the information simultaneously being synced/streamed/stored/saved, but the hardware technology does not exist to actually manage that much data on one device&#39;s bandwidth. Even with an iMac, try backing up to a wired hard drive, downloading some music in iTunes, syncing contacts/calendars/email accounts, and streaming content from Hulu or some other video content and I&#39;m pretty sure that as that device starts to multi-task at that rate.. it will inevitably choke and buffer (no matter if it&#39;s a netbook, MacBook Pro, -or- Intel i7).</p>
<p>Cut Apple some slack and just spring for a dedicated media server, keep that Mac Mini, or even consider looking at the 160gb Apple TV. It&#39;s the same reason why professional music studios run dedicated towers to their craft&#8230; you have certain devices for specific purposes (not putting all your eggs in 1 basket).</p>
<p>And last but not least, you could always even think about getting a real computer as opposed to that lightweight MacBook Air you&#39;ve got as your wimpy iTunes machine.</p>
<p>PS: Congrats on the techthehalls engagement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: @roboreese</title>
		<link>http://dalelarson.com/2009/09/timecapsule-sucks-as-network-attached-storage-for-itunes-or-sonos.html/comment-page-1#comment-20995</link>
		<dc:creator>@roboreese</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dalelarson.com/?p=314#comment-20995</guid>
		<description>Using a Time Capsule to back up multiple machines, deliver internet content, AND serve as a media storage device set up for streaming audio and video content? It&#039;s obviously clear that your expectations of a device (albeit, one that is basically a wifi hard drive) should live up to something far more exaggerated than what reality can offer.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You mentioned a Mac Mini handing the streaming of media just fine as an alternative to the Time Capsule. I am curious, was the Mini streaming video, backing up multiple computers, and serving as your point-of-access for your multiple devices&#039; internet connection? Even if it was, that COMPUTER is more capable to handle the amount of information going on with the extra power added by the processsor/memory/wireless hardware.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I understand your desire to have a device that can actually handle all of the information simultaneously being synced/streamed/stored/saved, but the hardware technology does not exist to actually manage that much data on one device&#039;s bandwidth. Even with an iMac, try backing up to a wired hard drive, downloading some music in iTunes, syncing contacts/calendars/email accounts, and streaming content from Hulu or some other video content and I&#039;m pretty sure that as that device starts to multi-task at that rate.. it will inevitably choke and buffer (no matter if it&#039;s a netbook, MacBook Pro, -or- Intel i7).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Cut Apple some slack and just spring for a dedicated media server, keep that Mac Mini, or even consider looking at the 160gb Apple TV. It&#039;s the same reason why professional music studios run dedicated towers to their craft... you have certain devices for specific purposes (not putting all your eggs in 1 basket).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And last but not least, you could always even think about getting a real computer as opposed to that lightweight MacBook Air you&#039;ve got as your wimpy iTunes machine.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;PS: Congrats on the techthehalls engagement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Using a Time Capsule to back up multiple machines, deliver internet content, AND serve as a media storage device set up for streaming audio and video content? It&#39;s obviously clear that your expectations of a device (albeit, one that is basically a wifi hard drive) should live up to something far more exaggerated than what reality can offer.</p>
<p>You mentioned a Mac Mini handing the streaming of media just fine as an alternative to the Time Capsule. I am curious, was the Mini streaming video, backing up multiple computers, and serving as your point-of-access for your multiple devices&#39; internet connection? Even if it was, that COMPUTER is more capable to handle the amount of information going on with the extra power added by the processsor/memory/wireless hardware.</p>
<p>I understand your desire to have a device that can actually handle all of the information simultaneously being synced/streamed/stored/saved, but the hardware technology does not exist to actually manage that much data on one device&#39;s bandwidth. Even with an iMac, try backing up to a wired hard drive, downloading some music in iTunes, syncing contacts/calendars/email accounts, and streaming content from Hulu or some other video content and I&#39;m pretty sure that as that device starts to multi-task at that rate.. it will inevitably choke and buffer (no matter if it&#39;s a netbook, MacBook Pro, -or- Intel i7).</p>
<p>Cut Apple some slack and just spring for a dedicated media server, keep that Mac Mini, or even consider looking at the 160gb Apple TV. It&#39;s the same reason why professional music studios run dedicated towers to their craft&#8230; you have certain devices for specific purposes (not putting all your eggs in 1 basket).</p>
<p>And last but not least, you could always even think about getting a real computer as opposed to that lightweight MacBook Air you&#39;ve got as your wimpy iTunes machine.</p>
<p>PS: Congrats on the techthehalls engagement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

