Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[phelt]

Wobbley's CNET Review of Media Center thread got me to thinking too much... and rather than hijack their thread, I will post here.

While I think that the CNET reviewer was overly harsh and somewhat ignorant ("bloated" is ridiculous, IMO) I think that there are lessons to be taken from the review and from the comments posted to Download.com. (Sidenote: is it just me, or are there multiple copies of most negative Media Center comments on download.com?)

I like MC, but I'm biased because of my experience with MJ and with this board. So I tried to form some objective opinions by approaching MC as if I was trying it for the first time. My results are my results, I'm not claiming they're representative of anything but one person's experience, so please leave flamethrowers at the door  

I'll start with the summary:
I don't think I would buy MC if I were a new user. The price would not be an obstacle if things worked as expected. 40 bucks is not a lot of money for a unified solution that would replace at least 3 programs on my system and bring all their functionality together. But for me, it doesn't really work that way.

[phelt]

Music Functionality:
Not much criticism for the music functionality of MC. The widest format support range that I'm aware of, without hunting down a bunch of plugins. Good processes and methods for DSP, output, etc. Smartlists are cool to have though I don't use them often. Wish there were more robust implementations of ReplayGain and cue sheet support, but that wouldn't throw me off. Some wierdness that I can only describe as 'clipping' when I use ASIO, but if I switch to DirectSound it goes away. Again, nothing that would keep me from using the program. I don't do streaming, so Web Media is a non-factor in purchasing, but nice to have. Overall, MC's music functionality is a selling point.

Ripping and Burning Functionality:
I like the options for custom encoders and ripping parameters a lot. YADB is hit or miss, but I find that to be true for a lot of discs on other DB's. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's correct or consistent, and I wind up editing tags manually anyway, so this is no big deal. It doesn't run multiple encoding threads in the background like I'm used to with EAC, but it does seem to extract slightly faster in secure mode... it's a toss-up. Burning is another matter - I'm comfortable with Nero, Nero gives me a lot of control over the disc creation; I'd stick with it since there's no compelling reason to switch or use 2 apps. Comments in the forum about burning problems reinforce this decision. Overall, ripping is a selling point, burning is not.

Image  Functionality:
Sometimes your toughest software competition are free programs. I look at the number of formats supported by IrfanView and SlowView and I can't imagine using MC for photo organization or browsing - I wouldn't be able to access approximately 60% of my images. The tagging/sorting possibilities are enticing, but only that - audio tags are appropriate for audio, not for images. I don't like the idea of trying to shoehorn my image information into the existing tag scheme - this would be me working for the program and not the program working for me. So image functionality is not currently a selling point.

Video Functionality:
It's nice to have, but not really important to me. I don't keep a lot of videos on my system so I don't really need to organize them. Tagging thoughts would be the same as for images, above. Video functionality is not a selling point, but doesn't detract from my buying decision.

DVD Functionality:
DVD's do not function for me, but lead to crashes. No sale. If DVD's did work, I would be interested in what kind of info one could store. Obviously not a selling point, and detracts from potential purchase.

My Computer/File Browsing Functionality:
Irrelevent to me - doesn't affect my buying decision.

Interface Functionality:
The organization and some of the tagging features are standout - whether using the 9.0 tree structure or the 9.1 panes, I can get to what I want pretty quickly. Skins are limited, but I don't change skins often - I have 2 or 3 that I like and use regularly. PixOS is well laid out, but powder blue is a little 'cutesy' for me. The brushed metal skin is quite attractive, though I am left wondering why the text in some buttons changes when different skins are used ("Exit" instead of "Close" in some dialogs, for example.) For better or worse, I am used to videos/movies playing back with controls beneath them, so I wish there were some way for videos to always be played back in windowed mode, but this is pretty minor. Not being able to see Playing Now and the Library at the same time is a major nag for me.
Hairstyle is another feature with a lot of promise but it can be confusing to navigate. I don't like the way text for thumbnails gets cut off because the thumbnails are crammed together and most of my screen is unused. But when I switch to List, the buttons are far wider than necessary to fit the text and wind up filling the available space with nothing. It happens that I know the things in my library pretty well, but I don't get a good sense of 'You are here' - state indication might be improved. The thought of creating or editing skins/hairstyles is a little daunting after having a peek at the XML, but that's true for most skinnable apps. There are a few nits and variances from Windows standards,and it could use some improvements, but interface functionality is a selling point for my uses.

TV Tuner/Tivo Functionalty:
Another feature set that seems interesting but I would not currently use. I do wonder why I would want to connect to a Tivo if MC has recording and organization capabilities. I don't especially like Tivo (neither the company nor the machine) and wonder why MC couldn't serve as a replacement. Not a selling point.

Media Server/Scheduler Functionality:
Don't need them, but thought they might be fun to play with... until I read through the forum some and got the impression that dealing with them would involve a bunch of command-line interaction. Not a selling point; command-line anything detracts from my buying decision.

Installation:
Pretty straightforward - anyone who actually pays attention during installs should not get unpleasant surprises later, though the custom folder icon should have been optional. Leads me to believe the programmers might actually be paying attention to users (shock! horror!) - a selling point for a geek.

Support and Documentation:
I have mixed feelings about MC's forum-only support. In one way it's nice because you can add your voice and experience, but it's definitely not the standard. I'm used to email support for trivial $15 apps so forum-only makes me suspicious. In browsing through the forum I am struck by  contrasts: sometimes folks receive great feedback and interaction from other users and/or the J River developers, sometimes their questions or requests receive little response and quickly fall away. The signal-to-noise ratio seems to be much better than most forums, but receiving help still seems to be a dice-roll when compared to dedicated email support. To their credit, the MC development team seems to release new builds to address issues far more frequently than most others, but stable releases seem to cease being updated if a new feature or implementation is being pursued. The documentation for the program is helpful in explaining the basics of MC, but falls short of detailed explanations of more sophisticated features and options. There is a great deal of depth to MC that does not appear to be addressed by the documentation or the website FAQ. Since I was drawn to MC because of the limitations of other programs, this is not a selling point.

[phelt]

Again, I must stress this: I know that I have not covered all the functions of MC, and that each of us have different experiences and expectations from MC or any software. But I think it's important to stay objective and empathetic with new users and with the dissatisfied, as long as their requests and complaints are reasonable. I'm also aware that some of the above impressions may be partially or completely wrong - my purpose was to try to replicate the reaction of someone completely new to MC, including perception.

[Polonio]

What jukebox do you use?

I kind agree with some of your comments. Specifically:

-I dont know why, but I burn using other software
-Audio/Image tag (and schemes) should be more independent
-Last time I played DVD with MC, i get into trouble. I dont play too many DVD, but WM works great and looks better. Samething with radio stations. So, I go to radio.yahoo.com for that.
-Not being able to see Playing Now and the Library at the same time is a major nag for me too.
-Often updates (and beta updates) can be risky, and released versions always seems old. But this is something I decide to do (play with betas...)
-Hairstyle look need to change
-Default skins are poor (not talking about the new mega-me look, which I like).

In the other hand, MC organizational capatibilities are far way better any thing else I know, and I am glad thay finally decided to update the interface (please, do not stop). But again:

What jukebox do you use?

[Matt]

The CNET reviewer (and you) make a lot of valid points.

Just a few comments:

I wouldn't be able to access approximately 60% of my images

What format do you have that the latest 9.1 doesn't load?

I don't like the idea of trying to shoehorn my image information into the existing tag scheme

I don't either.  Does 9.1 feel like that?  The People/Places/Events and Calendar stuff with "Quick Tag" works well for my purposes.  What can we do so it works well for your purposes?

Thanks.

[221bBS]

I'm fairly new to MC and I'm in love with this program...My 1st impressions - IMPRESSED -...and I went through alot of trial software before settling with MC. Not saying that MC is a perfect software...it has problems, bugs, etc...But for the 3 months (I think) that I have own MC my level of satisfaction is HIGH.

Just want to comment about tagging image and vedeos file...I might be missing something here but couldn't you create custom tags ?

[221bBS]

One more comment

I just recently found out that MC didn't have a dedicated e-mail support...and to be honest I don't care for it to much. The forum has a sense of community that I love.

[nila]

I agree,
this is pretty much the point I was trying to make with the post: MC : Features needed to complete it.

Right now MC's organisational features are outstanding. They win hands down and we all know it. For the price though which is very high it cant be looked at as just a music jukebox - it has to be looked at in terms of what features it will be presenting to the user that they are going to want to be buying.



The ripping - it just has basic options and that feature seems more of just a feature to use to get a rip done, not an advanced ripper - I've already posted the list of features needed to make this more complete. I wouldn't buy MC for a ripping tool, I'd just see it as an extra feature for a jukebox. EAC is free and does the job better.


Encoding - again, has encoding options but defiinitely isn't an encoding suite. Again these just seem like extra's - not a tool I'd buy for encoding. Razorlame is free and does the job better.
(loads of formats doesn't mean we all use them all, it means we choose the one we like and use that and just want a good tool for that format).


Burning - again purely just as an extra and a way of quickly getting my songs onto the CD - I'd have no problems dragging them to Nero to burn though and thats what I usually do in all fairness. Wouldn't be buying it for this. It'd just be a feature I looked at as: Oh, I can burn my music in it too, thats nice.


Image is definitely getting improved alot, the new tagging system works well and with a few tweaks is going to work well.

MC REALLY needs to display ALL values for a field though and not just the values for the songs selected - anyone else ever found Adobe Photo Album, or Jasc Album hiding tagging values of people depending on which files were selected - I dont think so! And it just confuses people - they're like: I swear I had added such and such, why aren't they there now. I had this feeling a bit myself.

We also need some way of being able to create groups - dont ask me how cause I have no idea - maybe indent the values in the panes slightly so we can open and close groups?

Another put off is that double clicking an image and going to full screen mode is slow and 'clunky' for lack of a proper word. It's not a smooth instantaneous thing but more like the program is coughing and jumping there slowly. Seems to kind of lock my system as it does it and comes out of it. ACDSee on the other hand does it quickly and fast and is EXTREMELY easy to then navigate with after that. I could go in and out of literally 5 or so pictures with ACDSee in the time it would take me to go in and out of one in MC.

One idea might be to consider instead of jumping MC into full screen visualisation mode when we double click an image - just instead open a lightweight small viewer up to show me the image full screen. Tools/features could then be built into this viewer that were specific to images and it could be set up to directly talk with MC. It would then not suffer any of the slowlness problems MC has due to it being such a large program.

I might consider buying MC as a photo management program but I definitely wouldn't consider it as an image browser. I dont particularly want to either as the image browsers all have a bunch of image specific tools that i want for them. I'd hate to see all these put into MC - it would just make it tooo complex.

I've started using it more to do my image management since v9.1. Not going to do it seriously though until v9.1 is solid so that I dont find myself loosing loads of work due to changes during development. This is one feature I'd consider an addition when buying it.

I'm still looking for an image management tool that gives me some powerful options when using it to setup a website though. I put all my images online for my friends to see and few programs give me the options I'd like.
Whichever one gives me these options first is probably going to be the one that wins and that I choose. I'd even be willing to write the UML code that I want to see and the feature set as well as how to implement them with UML. All the programs are lacking though in this VERY OBVIOUS area - some of the others are giving some more options and a few of them are starting to give better templates etc.
MC has the management features built into it but no way to include any of this information on the website we create - a big failing of this feature. I'd be more than happy to write down all the features I'd like to see included and I'm sure the other users would too. Just need to know u have some plans of putting work into this area.


So far that gives me it for its Music management and as a smaller extra for its image management (although that ONLY started in v9.1 properly).

[nila]

DVD playback - well I dont have a lot of DVD's, even if I did, I dont particularly like the look of the full screen video playback mode - the controls have no real dimension or shape - if the new player buttons and styling from v9.1 was put into full screen playback mode as well then it would definitely seem more apealing.  I want a big clear play button, I want the volume and the position cursor to not look identical, I also think the playback controls should be at the bottom not the top with that bar at the bottom now moved to the top instead.
Small little GUI features I know but they're what matter to me for something as simple as playing a video.
It also lacks any controls for adjusting contrast/lightness/saturation - it needs these. As well as this - I'd like the spacebar or enter button or something that was big and easy to get to with a single button click - to pause and start the film.
There also needs to be some very obvious controls for playback size & ratio - a button just for this (I think the tools should depend on whats being played back - when I'm playing a video I just want some basic video tools).

I use WMP mainly for my video playback and like it's GUI for it as well as it's features and setup.
I dont think I'd buy MC for a DVD player and would instead rather buy a dedicated DVD player - it's an ok feature that I might think would be worth a few extra $$ on the price but I wouldn't consider it as a true DVD solution - more a feature that would save me a few dollars having to buy some seperate software.


TV/Tuner - haven't used this, but if I was I have no idea what its controls etc are like but I might consider MC a solution for this if its controls are good and it might be a main feature I'd buy it for.


Web media - Dont like the way this is cookie style based. No Real solid feel to it or proper organisational style - wouldn't be buying it for this and wouldn't pay extra for this feature.


Media Server - tried this a few times and it wasn't working. Haven't tried it since, might consider it an advanced feature of a jukebox that I'd give a few extra $$ for but wouldn't want it if I was going to have to really pay much for it - I'd rather not have it and have a cheaper price.


My Computer - I just use this as an extra method for tagging - just look at it as a tagging feature and so as part of the jukebox - it's a feature I like in a jukebox that I'd be looking for in one, not one I pay more for.


Playlists - dont really use these much, kind of expected though for a jukebox and definitely a necessity to have.



Basically the only real features I would consider to be features I was paying for and looking for when I bought MC would be my music/media management - mainly for my music and images. The fact it can do video's is again a nice feature but not something I'd pay much $$ for. Just something I'd gracefully say thank for u for and appreciate as a feature. As such it's over priced.


People dont go out looking to replace all the software on their computer with one tool, they go out to find some software to do this/or that - in the case of MC to manage their music. As such, when they find MC they think it's great that it does all this extra stuff but they're looking at it for job A (probably music management) - not as a solution to replace all their software and as such the price tag is HEAVY for that. The added features are nice but not things they're looking for or want to pay for when they just want a music manager.

[phelt]

Polonio: I use J River Media Center, of course! I have yet to find an app that comes close to its sophistication. Please understand that I was not trying to degrade Media Center in any fashion, or suggest that other programs are superior. If I did not think that MC was the shiznit, I would not waste the time creating such a monster post

What format do you have that the latest 9.1 doesn't load?

PSD - Photoshop files. A great number of my personal and business projects are in PSD. TGA - Targa - would be another.  Independence from Real would be nice as well, especially considering that SWF is a semi-open format. I understand that Real files would be subject to mandatory retardation, but Shockwave has nothing to do with Real so I hoped for independence from at least one Evil Empire  
BTW, hooray for you and the J River team for supporting PNG! This is huge for me - this is the default format for Macromedia Fireworks and everything looks good so far, even multi-layer PNG's render properly in MC.
More vector formats would be nice - WMF, EPS, etc.

[kiwi]

I don't either.  Does 9.1 feel like that?  The People/Places/Events and Calendar stuff with "Quick Tag" works well for my purposes.  What can we do so it works well for your purposes?

For me, the fact that the Display Tag collection on the right side is way down at the bottom when looking at Images.  This is a problem because you have to go close the general tags, etc toget to it.  It makes images seem a bit like an after thought.  Well, maybe not after tought, but if the tags window could be configured to have image specific tags on the top by default, that would be awesome.

(I might also just not know how to do this.)
kiwi

[phelt]

I don't either.  Does 9.1 feel like that?  The People/Places/Events and Calendar stuff with "Quick Tag" works well for my purposes.  What can we do so it works well for your purposes?

Upon reflection, I think that my needs for tagging/sorting images are specialized enough not to warrant any structural changes to MC. My best bet is to use custom tags and refine things myself.

[DocLotus]

TV...

>>>TV/Tuner - haven't used this, but if I was I have no idea what its controls etc are like but I might consider MC a solution for this if its controls are good and it might be a main feature I'd buy it for. <<<

A very long-standing gripe of mine about the TV is the Basic TV controls (Crtl+Shift+Tab) loosing focus in full-screen mode.  This has been known for the last 20 - 25 builds or so but has NEVER been fixed.

It totally amazes me how JRiver will will go out on a tangent (like MC 9.1) with a totally new interface but sometimes won't fix known issues like this.  Fixing known issues would make life much more enjoyable for the user then a fancy new look


DVD Playback...

MC9 seems to provide only very basic DVD playback :-/

There are much better DVD players out there & some like ZOOM Player are free.

[JiiPee]

Hi,
Zoom Player for DVD is nowdays shareware and costs $19.95

[zevele10]

WOw Matt and others ,look like it is hot on this side of Interact!

It can be really upsetting to read such posts when you give the best of yourself to a project.

But the fact that the ones posting are the ones loving MC the most  may just be the way to see it as a constructive experience
-==-=-==
NOW ,my time to grump....

-=-=-=-It totally amazes me how JRiver will will go out on a tangent (like MC 9.1) with a totally new interface but sometimes won't fix known issues like this.  Fixing known issues would make life much more enjoyable for the user then a fancy new look  -=-=-=-=-

Doclotus , i'am with you on it.
It is not new ,since MJ7 ,it is the case , i ,yes ,it is REALLY upsetting.

This is one danger to people creating outstanding objects- softwares ,food, decoration ect -
They are better at creating  than finishing ,polishing.
They may need to recrut a average microsoft programmeur to fix the small problems......

Or sometimes ,a new feature who was really helping you is not here anymore after the last update.
Right click menu is a jungle -- no way not to be with so many features , or use MM..-
We had the THREE LAST actions at the top of the menu ...update to built number ?? and now you have only THE LAST action on the top ...WHY ?

I see myself as a 'mister average ' user ,and to me MC is difficult to use , to the point of not understanding the answers i got when i ask for help.
This is much more a problem on my side than on MC side.
But ,yes many may find MC difficult to use.

I have only few live shows DVD and i play them with MC.
I may stop to use MC for it ,but just because look like that the SoundBlaster Extigy remote control is working with Windvd and not MC according to some posts.

The thing i really do not like with MC or MJ is all this 'updating ..'  'volume not found ' ect ect when i put a cd in MC.
With other players ,i just put the cd and get the music ,and not after a long time.

Because of it ,i never  even try rip ,burn and so on.

But many use MC for it and are happy.
I'am sure quality is excellent ,but some small things as rip in the back , and some dsp effects when riping are missing .

I'am not unhappy with my MC , and i do not expect it to replace  all my music related softwares .

What i would like very much is MC to be 100% compatible with MusicMatch SuperTags : bio ,notes ,liryycs ,artist link ect ect.

Because of a fact s: MM SuperTags is excellent . MC would never had such a fonction . Many of us use MM ST ,and more and more would- $20 for such a tags/sleeves finder is a bargain-

But we use MM ONLY for taging , and MC for ALL other things.


A JOKE : few years to get a 'play a sound when rip finish'........We may get a 'eject cd ' buton before 2010...who knows?

Kind of buying a Rolls and to have to open/close windows by hand......

Anyway ,thanks to all the MJ staff for such outstanding job and for to be SO nice people.

[juggler]

I might consider buying MC as a photo management program but I definitely wouldn't consider it as an image browser. I don't particularly want to either as the image browsers all have a bunch of image specific tools that i want for them. I'd hate to see all these put into MC - it would just make it tooo complex.

Firstly, I've been using MJ/MC for a while now and think it's a fantastic, incredible value product. Agree with other comments that the interface isn't for the absolute novice but it makes up for it in power.

Have just downloaded 9.1 and the image handling is much better. I agree that flipping to full screen mode isn't perfect although it's quick on my system. Also had to go to the help to find how to switch images (PageUp/PageDown) while also playing music. I'm not convinced the Playing Now mechanism works too well for photo browsing at all. A filmstrip view like in Explorer would be nice...

Finally I think J River are going to have to run very fast to keep up with Windows Media Player and XP Media Center Edition, not to mention iTunes for Windows which I hear talk about. Stability is important but I imagine you don't have the resources of M$ or Apple so you're forgiven -- good luck!

[nila]

WMP are gonna try to compete sure and in some ways they will win.
Especially with them being free and MC being expensive.

The area I cant ever really see them competing in though is customisability.

They'll make it, u'll have to live with how they make it and what they add and set up.

You wont have any of the 'we'll add the features you want' flexibility that MC has'. Having said that, they are of course so rich that they can pretty much hands down beat any company they want to beat if they decide to.

They can hire 100 developers to work on it with another 100 to test it, each with seperate machine set up's and then another 100 people to do reviews and usability tests.

iTunes for windows will probably just be a mimic of the one for the Mac and that has extremely good ease of use for beginners (which is something I feel MC should work on to try to make the learning curve less steep) but they just dont have the raw power.

They're making it for windows I think mainly just to go with the iPod's.
Dont think they're trying to make a mainstream jukebox really - I could be wrong though.
And anyways - MC9 + JC's skin = iTunes look with more power