Print

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

[Nolonemo]

I would like to see development split, so that there is a version that is just music.  I don't want or need a program that manages all media aspects of my life.  I don't care about streaming, and I don't buy low-bitrate music on line.

All I want a full-featured, but lean and bug-free, program that will manage my music library, sync with my portable player, and play it back via my pc.

I'm afraid that adding more and more support for other media and adding more and more features is just going to make MC buggy and bloated.

I also would like to see a version for Pocket PC.

Thanks for soliciting input.

[NumberEleventeen]

Yea i actualy heard about this from call for help. Downloaded media jukebox.
I didn't even know about media center for weeks. When you release major new products, you should put more obvious ads around, at least on your old website heh.

[tcman41]

I am mostly with Nolon, all the other stuff is great but the main focus needs to be the music aspect of the program. I would perfect it first for music and then add on additional modules as you go for video, images, etc.

As good as Media Center is i would like to see it improved in the fields of lyrics, cover art and more skins for the software.

Terry

[Bendra]

200% agreement with Nolonemo.

Music.  Quality.  Music.  Quality. Repeat.  Repeat.

[davisford]

Agree on lean, quality music manager.  Although I think some of the other stuff is very cool as well...just don't personally have a need for it right now. 

A bit of this gets into software architecture and how you construct the software -- but one would think if you go for a goal of modularity/pluggability, then one could add in pieces that bring in more media types.  This essentially allows you to construct a piece of software that can be tailored to the widest audience possible.  For example, if someone wants TV/DVR control, they plug it in as a module to the core framework and they get it.  If someone doesn't want that, they can run without it and it doesn't hit their system up on RAM/CPU and filesystem space.

[GHammer]

I would like to see development split, so that there is a version that is just music.  I don't want or need a program that manages all media aspects of my life.  I don't care about streaming, and I don't buy low-bitrate music on line.

All I want a full-featured, but lean and bug-free, program that will manage my music library, sync with my portable player, and play it back via my pc.

I'm afraid that adding more and more support for other media and adding more and more features is just going to make MC buggy and bloated.

Thanks for soliciting input.

Ditto

[pthay]

I also agree with Nolonemo as do the scores of disappointed users who wrote in to complain when MJ8 was discontinued as a supported updated program.  I would still be using MJ8 if only it were updated to continue to funtion with WMA files and other OS developments.  It was a fantastic program. 

MC is also an outstanding program for what it does, but as countless others have written before,  I would like a program for music media.  I am unable to recommend MC to friends -- the everyday PC user who just wants to organize and listen to music -- because it's too complex for their needs.  Of course, there is a segment of the population whose needs it suits, but there is a large audience you are missing out on with the abandonment of Media Jukebox.

[raym]

I also agree with Nolonemo as do the scores of disappointed users who wrote in to complain when MJ8 was discontinued as a supported updated program.  I would still be using MJ8 if only it were updated to continue to funtion with WMA files and other OS developments.  It was a fantastic program. 

MC is also an outstanding program for what it does, but as countless others have written before,  I would like a program for music media.  I am unable to recommend MC to friends -- the everyday PC user who just wants to organize and listen to music -- because it's too complex for their needs.  Of course, there is a segment of the population whose needs it suits, but there is a large audience you are missing out on with the abandonment of Media Jukebox.

MCLite perhaps???

I don't know though... Why is it too complex for just music? I on the other-hand have recommended MC to many firends who simply use it as a music management tool and they find it intuitive and straight-forward. They also now wonder why more people aren't using it!

[datdude]

Complexity seems to result in too many bugs and regressions from one release to the next.

As a software professional I know that the complexity of software rises to the level of the software engineers' ability and processes to manage it.  The regressions and new bugs that I've been seeing in each MC release (and I'm not even counting MC11) are convincing me that the complexity of MC is progressing beyond JRiver's ability to manage the ever increasing complexity of the Swiss Army Knife media program.

Complexity can be understood by the Mythical Man Month and I'm sure JRiver knows what I mean.  As long as they are not adding additional programmers to each successive version, MC should be fine.  If they are then MC is doomed.  The point is that we users will never know until it's too late.  Who knows they may just start over when longhorn comes around.  What are JRiver's plans for Longhorn anyways?

[Michael Horton]

I would like to see development split, so that there is a version that is just music.  I don't want or need a program that manages all media aspects of my life.  I don't care about streaming, and I don't buy low-bitrate music on line.

I agree. Perhaps an option upon installation that asks: do you plan to use MC to organize your Pictures? Do you plan to use MC to watch TV? etc. Then it could skip the installation of these components, and comment on how to add them later if needed.

I'm not after a price difference between a "lite" version and standard version, it's just that the whole interface is becoming cluttered with components that I do not use.

[hit_ny]

Agreed on the Audio side of things, its what MC started from. But has it been polished yet ?

Cpl of issues that come to mind are YADB & webstreaming.

All i'm hoping for is that cue gets finished

After that, sky's the limit 

[dcwebman]

I am in total agreement with the first post, everything about it in fact. I have other programs that manage my images and I'm sure MC can't get all that functionality in their program and shouldn't have to.  I have to be honest and haven't tried the documents part. But the Video playing I can easily again do with other programs.

A fantastic tagging audio file, manage my CD's, sync with my Pocket PC, program is all I need. Yup, guess that means just handle music.

As an example, I tried to get a friend to start using MC because I discovered it was much better than MusicMatch that we used to all use. He didn't want all that other non-audio stuff so he stuck with MM. Poor guy. 

[bbrip]

I hear you all but actually believe that you are perfectly served with Media Jukebox or the many other available products if you're just managing your audio files.

However, for those of us trying to look fro a full fledged solution, I'd still like to encourage the team to boost their video capabilities.  Just adding support for all the latest codeces would be a tremendous help.

Equally, while I am not using this (or in fact any) software to organise my pictures, I am sure this again is a feature many will use and here MC11 is doing a perfect job as well.

Just my 2 cts

[helpme]

For me MC was originaly just a music jukebox

And yes I have seen other products expand, bloat and move in other directions that didn't interest me over time.

And at this stage I don't use MC for pictures.

But the 'killer app' moving forward for me is the server side. I'm currently using MP101's to listen to my MP3 collection in several different locations through the house. I want to add internet radio in whatever format to the list of things I can access with the MP101's and I can certainly see a time when the functionality all comes together and I want to distribute video from many sources and in many formats to all displays in the house.

To that end the number of different audio and video formats and sources that can be viewed, catalogued, searched and served. (with a stable, well performed server) is the key to getting it all to work. (and avoiding an all Microsoft solution)

Stephen

[datdude]

I think you missed my point completely.   What I said has nothing to do with the Mythical Man Month or adding additional programmers.

I also disagree that we users will never know until it is too late.   

Well it seemed like you were talking about whether JRiver can continue to develope MC with its growing complexity.  Yes MC on the outside is very diverse and complex but its how they are developing it inside that matters.  So if they are finding that they need more man power to handle bugs and processes then MC's development is becmoing too complex and more 'bugs and regressions' will continue to occur. 

So do you think MC has gone overboard and needs to be overhauled by eliminating all but the most importnat pieces or do you think they should continue to tinker with it? 

I really have know idea as of right now.  It seems pretty good right now but if there development behind the scenes is not going well then it may allready be too late and need to start over!

[glynor]

I just wanted to post my two cents, which it seems that most people frequenting this thread will disagree with, but ...

I don't agree.  I greatly value the flexibility that MC now offers, and would not use it at all if it didn't offer both the video and image organization and playback features it now has (in addition to music of course).

Also, because of the programming paradigm that JRiver is using in the development of MC (meaning that the aspects of the program pertaining to organization of Music and Images re-uses the same codebase), I don't know that what is commonly called bloat (or "feeping creatures") is really as much of an issue here.  It is, of course, always a possibility, but I just haven't seen it in this case.  MC 10 (and especially MC 11 when a stable build swings around) feels just as responsive and "zippy" on my machine as older versions of MJ ever did.

I can also see serious problems with the management cost associated with JRiver simultaneously supporting and maintaining two separate and distinct products.  Especially when one of these would be an old-code subset of the newer, more integrated product.  I worry that it could lead to more serious bug problems, and slower response times from JRiver on requests from the community.  Supporting two projects (and splitting the programmer's time or hiring new programmers) could do as much damage as it would solve, I feel.

Again, just my two cents.

[GHammer]

I like the idea of a modular approach to the subsystems/functions.

If I wanted to use the image capability, charge me the fee for that module and I can plug it in and do images.

If I do not want to manage Office docs, I would not have the interface, etc.

The development could be simpler, and easier to participate in.
I have the video module and they are working on it, cool. I download and play along. I can follow the video module forum/threads.

If I do not use a module I would not bother.

It just seems like an easier way to own/use it and easier to develop since you would not be affecting any other menus/functions when you were working on one area.

It also means that I would not be using 'old' code as some have suggested. I'd have my audio module and it would be updated when there were new formats, when this or that bug was quashed, etc.

If/when image handling pulled even with this or that app, I could try the module and buy it if I liked it. If not, no harm no foul.

There has to be a cost to someone, either J River or me, for items I simply will never use. That cost to me would be money, to J River money and time. Sales of a module would sure show if the time invested was worthwhile. Polls won't, it costs nothing to click "Yes" after all.

[tlongacre]

I like the modular approach myself. However, I would say that the music module DOES need to include streaming and the ability to handle podcasts. I want one program to manage and listen to music and don't want to have to use different programs depending on the format of the music.

[Sniffy]

Very interesting thread.
Only music, music and video and images and documents.
For me music for sure. Why, because music files can be tagged easily and the tag is "in" the file. So the database is filled by the file.
With video, images or documents, it's not the same way. You have to do it manually. No Yadb to help you. If your database is corrupt you have to do it again. Not with audio files.
I told you that because I use MC especially for music because it has the best way to "ping pong" between its database and the tag. "fill properties...." etc...
I do not want to spend time to filled a databased we never really used. I prefer the "explorer". Easier to explain to my wife and child.
I use Acdsee to look at my images, Paint Shop pro to edit them. I try to use the Acdsee database filling "family, sport, holidays" and so on. It never really help me (if only one day your camera reset it's date and your out of date, it's a pity to "tag" your images). I know how I arrange my explorer.
To be clear,
Music, great,
Video, yes I use it because you do it (100 files).
Images, if you want but it can't be used as music (no artist, no track, no bitrate). Watching images is not only slideshows.
Documents, it has not to be in your future develoment. It is not multimedia. It's not your way.
Media server, agree with "Helpme". You have to go there. You have to be connected with the maximum of "media streamer". It's a real future.
Plus, reading all the codec known (audio or video) the better possible.
Thanks for your great software.
Pascal

[rbilsbor]

For awhile I used Media Center for pictures, but ever since XP came out I switched back to music-only.  In fact, due to MC seeming to move away from simply a music jukebox, I have tried Mediamonkey a number of times, and am currently weighing each against the other.  I'm not trying to criticize, I'm just evaluating the two (still on MC 9.1), but if J River came out with a Audio-only or modular version, that would definitely make it easier for me to stick with it.  I'd like to.

[Wile E. One]

For awhile I used Media Center for pictures, but ever since XP came out I switched back to music-only.  In fact, due to MC seeming to move away from simply a music jukebox, I have tried Mediamonkey a number of times, and am currently weighing each against the other.  I'm not trying to criticize, I'm just evaluating the two (still on MC 9.1), but if J River came out with a Audio-only or modular version, that would definitely make it easier for me to stick with it.  I'd like to.

Doesn't seem like a fair comparison... unless you are comparing MC to a 2 version old Mediamonkey build.

[benrad]

I agree with Nolon. I've been using MC for over a year now after ditching MM, Winamp, and then Foobar. I never use the other features of MC (I use Picasa2 and good old file manager for that), and sometimes I find it pretty bloated when it comes to listening to music, but I just can't leave it behind. I've recently become disenchanted with it due to my own personal leanings (problems with TiVo HMO & iPod synching), and I find myself hovering over the iTunes icon fairly regularly. I'm not sure if JRiver is making a mistake by attempting to spread itself a little too thin. But then, I know nothing about business, so I can't make that call. I would go for a modular version of MC, in a second.

[avenger107]

I also support the modular approach.  I would prefer media center to be focused on audio, with other media types developed as add on modules. I would likely pay extra for the video add on, but images and other file types are already adequately handled by products that focus on those types of files exclusively. To try and focus on everything is to try and become the OS.

[iCamp]

I'd like to see a stronger focus on music too.  I've used MC since its debut and have always used it only as a manager/player of music.  I can't imagine using it to organize my documents (does anyone use that?) and I have better tools for managing images.  I guess I could see using it to manage video files but since I'm not in to collecting video files that feature isn't for me.

I leave MC set in 'audio mode' 100% of the time.  I suspect, based on this thread, that a lot of users do the same.

[Alex B]

Come on guys, most of the MC is AUDIO. I don't think separating the image, video and document modules would make MC any better in audio.

Images and videos were added ages ago and the functions have not changed. The few buttons for them are almost hidden. Database is similar for all formats. MC must have a graphical display for covert art and visualizations. The same display is used for images and video. MC uses external codecs for video. It does not include video ripping and editing parts or a full-blown image editor. No developing resources were spent for those areas recently.

Document support is limited to database listing and tagging. There are no extra functions for documents.

Only TV card support seems to be evolving, but that part behaves well as a separate entity and does not disturb other areas of MC.

In my opinion the only valid reason for splitting MC (in its current form) would be a new marketing strategy. Also, the aging MJ8 should be replaced with a limited MC light.

Personally I use MC mostly for audio, but my "audio" database includes over 4000 cover/CD/booklet/artist images and several hundred artist/album bios text files. I have imported and tagged them. I have also imported a few hundred video files and tagged the database entries. Sometimes I use other programs for watching, but MC's database is excellent help in organizing the video files.

[DWAnderson]

I just wanted to post my two cents, which it seems that most people frequenting this thread will disagree with, but ...

I don't agree.  I greatly value the flexibility that MC now offers, and would not use it at all if it didn't offer both the video and image organization and playback features it now has (in addition to music of course).

Also, because of the programming paradigm that JRiver is using in the development of MC (meaning that the aspects of the program pertaining to organization of Music and Images re-uses the same codebase), I don't know that what is commonly called bloat (or "feeping creatures") is really as much of an issue here.  It is, of course, always a possibility, but I just haven't seen it in this case.  MC 10 (and especially MC 11 when a stable build swings around) feels just as responsive and "zippy" on my machine as older versions of MJ ever did.

I can also see serious problems with the management cost associated with JRiver simultaneously supporting and maintaining two separate and distinct products.  Especially when one of these would be an old-code subset of the newer, more integrated product.  I worry that it could lead to more serious bug problems, and slower response times from JRiver on requests from the community.  Supporting two projects (and splitting the programmer's time or hiring new programmers) could do as much damage as it would solve, I feel.

Again, just my two cents.

Agreed.

[glynor]

MC must have a graphical display for covert art and visualizations. The same display is used for images and video. MC uses external codecs for video. It does not include video ripping and editing parts or a full-blown image editor. No developing resources were spent for those areas recently.

That's exactly what I meant.  Almost every piece of MC that is used for the Image and Video functions are used and REQUIRED by the Audio functions as well...

I just don't see how a light version would really be that much "lighter" to make it worthwhile to support two separate products.

[Alex B]

A free limited (not separately programmed) MC light could replace the free version of MJ8. MJ8 users seem to have constant problems because so many things have changed: OS, hardware and file formats.

MC light would be always up-to-date if it was a subset of the full version. It would be easy to upgrade from MC light to the full version without a learning curve or possible database problems (no differences in basic functionality). It should have about similar function set with other freeware players.

The users of it would be potential customers for JRiver. They would participate this forum and be aware of the possibilities of the full version. If they use other freeware players they are not.

[RobotX]

I remember a while back when an administrator asked us if there would be interest in an updated jukebox that was a music only version of MC. I would drop MC in a heartbeat for this. I also don't use it for anything but music.  The reason itunes is so popular is because it is really simple to use. A monkey could use it. If jukebox did something similar but also had power user abilities under the hood that itunes lacks I imagine it would do pretty well.

[hit_ny]

Would an MC Lite be any different than iTUnes as it is currently ?

How would an MC-Lite version convince a potential customer to upgrade to the full-version ?

[Alex B]

For example,

I would take off the servers, multiple libraries, zones, user defined fields, video, TV, handheld support, camera connection, some of the tools, some of the DSP studio and simplify the search, playlists, tree and view options.

I would leave the powerfull database, secure ripping engine, display for cover art/track info/visualizations and support for various audio formats and converters. It must have something better than the other programs have.

[Krazykanuck]

I think you would also want to leave the handheld support and the media server.

[Alex B]

In my opinion MC light doesn't have to be an exact clone of e.g. iTunes. It would have better database and support for many audio formats and converters.

MC11 has many types of servers and support for various handhelds. Those things could be key selling points for the full version.

[hit_ny]

In my opinion MC light doesn't have to be an exact clone of e.g. iTunes. It would have better database and support for many audio formats and converters.

MC11 has many types of servers and support for various handhelds. Those things could be key selling points for the full version.

That's my point, it must not be a clone of iTunes at all, the lite version has to be demonstrably better. Otherwise why bother, just use iTunes.. right.

Also to convince the user why they need to pay for it. I think it would need a fair bit of thought to entice someone over iTunes. Isn't that quite apparent the way it is now, try the whole shebang for a month you would get a far better idea of what MC is capable than readinga blurb and having a lite version.

I'm getting the impression the way it is now is about right

[datdude]

I have no problem with the music or media.  I like both so just do it! 

However MC seems to be good for the user who is building up their library by tagging, ripping, analysing, and organising.  What about the user who has their library now the exact way they want it in terms content.  I think with all of MC's features it becomes a little cumbersome for myself who used MC to build up my library with proper metadata and cover art but now I don't need all of those tagging, ripping, and organising features in the foreground.  It would be great if there was a way to switch from an 'advanced edit format' to a pure "browsing/playing format".  Does this seem logical?

[glynor]

I would take off the servers, multiple libraries, zones, user defined fields, video, TV, handheld support, camera connection, some of the tools, some of the DSP studio and simplify the search, playlists, tree and view options.

Okay, now this I could see...  When this thread started, I though the complaint was about bloat and feeping creatures.  Meaning, broken stuff.  Usability is a different beast entirely.

I wouldn't personally be interested in using it, but I can at least understand where you are headed with this idea.  A player for Mom with the capabilties of MC.  While I now can see that the idea has definate merit, I can still see three major problems with it:

1) How would you actually go about designing the UI so that it would be FAR simpler to use (ala iTunes), yet retain some of the power and customizationability (is that a word?) that makes MC so valuable?

2) If you are proposing (and this was unclear above) that JRiver give this MC Lite away for free, how would you propose that they justify the massive expenditure it would require to maintain two separate products?

3) Competition.  Currently MC has the benefit of being FAR more advanced than the other "free" players out there, which keeps them from being in direct competition with the heavyweights (Microsoft and Real for example).  It looks to me like Microsoft, Real, and Apple are going to go head to head Netscape-style (or Quattro Pro or Wordperfect or whatever) in a Media Player war.  I hate it, but I wouldn't bet on a little guy escaping unscathed (especially giving products away for free).

Relating to point 1... Many of the things you mentioned you would remove are definately "advanced" features (and wouldn't be needed by the user you are targeting with this MC Lite). However for the most part they also are more "behind the scenes" type of features and are things that you need to go looking for (for the most part - excepting video support).  Removing those features wouldn't go very far towards making the UI cleaner.  Now, you mentioned "simplify the search, playlists, tree and view options" but didn't really say how you would go about this.  Since you convinced me, I'm now trying to envision what this MC Lite would look like (and whether my mom could really use it).

Relating to point 2... I know the plan would be to use the codebase from MC "Pro" to develop this potential MC Lite which should (if it works) relieve a bit of the additional cost of launching a new product.  However, raw back-end coding is only a small portion of the cost of launching and maintaining a product.  Especially if you gave it away for free (or vastly reduced cost), you are going to get far more of the "AOL Effect" (meaning mindless support inquiries from people who need to RTFM, weird system configurations, spyware/virus problems blamed on JRiver, etc, etc).  Plus, there's servers (for the download locations), bandwidth, marketing, and administration (of all the new people you'd need to hire to do the above stuff - they'd need bosses).  This leaves two options that I see... 1) charge more for MC Pro - or - 2) charge a similar amount for MC Lite to what you charge for MC Pro (since it already isn't very expensive).  Neither option is particularly palatable.

[Alex B]

That's my point, it must not be a clone of iTunes at all, the lite version has to be demonstrably better. Otherwise why bother, just use iTunes.. right.

iTunes is limited to MP3 and Apple's own formats. That could be enough reasons for many to use MC light instead. Of course there are many other freeware players, but none has as powerful database as MC11.

Also to convince the user why they need to pay for it. I think it would need a fair bit of thought to entice someone over iTunes. Isn't that quite apparent the way it is now, try the whole shebang for a month you would get a far better idea of what MC is capable than readinga blurb and having a lite version.

I'm getting the impression the way it is now is about right

The current system is good. MC light users should have the normal try out period for MC11. The programs could have separate installers. The light installer could be truly lighter.

I think the light version would be very inexpensive to program and distribute (practically free).

It might introduce MC to new users. If somebody likes the light version he/she could happily use it instead of e.g. iTunes. After several months the user may have new needs and he/she might try MC11. In any case I don't think a light version would reduce MC11 sales if the feature set was cleverly selected.

Also, I am afraid that 3 years old MJ8 does more bad than good for the reputation of Media Center. I loved the program, but time goes by.


(EDIT. Glynor, I haven't properly read your post yet. I really have to go right now...)

[hit_ny]

Come on guys, most of the MC is AUDIO. I don't think separating the image, video and document modules would make MC any better in audio.

I agree with this. The so called bloat, that people are referring to is MC 11 not optimised yet. Which i don't blame JRiver for, you can't optimise until you are nearing the end of the devlopment cycle, it's a waste to do this earlier. Once MC 11 nears completion they will turn on the optimisations and expect/(hope) MC 11 to be just as snappy as MC 10.

The other reason i think people are asking for this is they see bugs creeping in, they have a common codebase, so this happens now & then. But that comon codebase keeps things snappy. It gets harder to maintain as you add features, this i leave to the professionals at JRiver to manage. They seem to have done fine so far, a few bumps nothing major.

My support on this thread is that they polish the audio support either in this version or the next before getting into other areas. There are still a few rough edges left.

[GHammer]

MC is an excellent audio tool.
It is an ok video player.
It is a fair to middling image and document handler.

I have several free tools for images that are done by people who live and breathe twiddling pixels the same as the J River crew lives and breathes audio. Once you get into paid tools, well we all know what is there.

The same goes for documents. If you use Office docs, it's pretty hard to beat Office itself and the capabilities of XP. There is always OpenOffice and a host of free and paid tools for organizing/editing documents.

What's my point?

I am not sure that someone with an extensive image library is going to want "Home User" level abilities. I'm not sure that someone heavily into images is going to be that into Audio. My family has lots of children and grandchildren. Lots of digital and scanned pictures. Few have more than a CD player attached to the stereo. I have yet to see a "I converted from ThumbsPlus to MC" post. And I suspect without massive work, I never will.

To get to be a best of breed tool, as MC is to audio, you gotta have the Matt of the imaging world. You have to spend the time on that portion of the app.

So, to me and my 2 cents, I'd rather see new formats built into the audio side, new capabilities added, existing capabilities honed. It's what built MC as far as I can see, and it's why I use it.

I am pretty much a believer in "Jack of all trades" thinking. MC is a master of audio. And I really think that is where development efforts should be.

[RobOK]

What's my point?

I am not sure that someone with an extensive image library is going to want "Home User" level abilities. I'm not sure that someone heavily into images is going to be that into Audio.
[snip]
To get to be a best of breed tool, as MC is to audio, you gotta have the Matt of the imaging world. You have to spend the time on that portion of the app.

I agree with some of what you wrote, but not all.

I am mostly into music but want a competent image handler at the "classic ACDsee" or Picassa 2 level and if MC could be at that level, not at the best of breed Photoshop or newer ACDsee versions (bloated), I would be really happy.    I will always have MC be aware of my photos to do things like Tivo streaming, slideshows, visualizations -- mind you, those are distractions, not my main use of MC, but I like them nonetheless -- so the question is do I need an *additional* piece of software to manage my photo library.  If MC can meet my needs in a user friendly way, which it almost but not quite does today, then I wont need anything else and that would be good.  As it is today, I use Picassa in the mix.

So I would like them to spend some more time on Image management to get it up to the likes of Picassa, which MC is not really that far away from if they did a side by side comparison.

[JimH]

So I would like them to spend some more time on Image management to get it up to the likes of Picassa, which MC is not really that far away from if they did a side by side comparison.

What's missing?

[RobOK]

One seemingly small thing is a slider bar that controls the size of thumbnails.  This lets you zoom in and out between seeing a huge number of pics and getting a fuller view of the ones you want without changing views.  This feature I would like (without having to go into Customize View to change thumbnail pixel size).

Other features -- the timeline view, posting to a weblog, building a photo CD (maybe MC can do this, i have never tried).   There are a few newer things -- creating a collage out of pictures for one.  But to be honest that is a "bell and whistle"

I don't have a lot of time to spend right now, but in some ways I think it is just polish. Maybe the fact that it is a single purpose program makes things easier to find.  I am looking at Picasa now and as I look at the features I stop and think, yup, MC can probably do that, but I think I have to dig a lot further.  Like creating a web page out of a set of photos.  I think MC can do that but I dont know where it is.

Jim, I will spend more time with MC and my photo library, if i can give you more concrete feedback, I will post it here and/or PM you.

[glynor]

One seemingly small thing is a slider bar that controls the size of thumbnails.

• I've got to agree on this one.  I don't even think it would be that hard to fix...  I would be perfectly happy with a toolbar button that cycles large-medium-small (if a slider would be too hard to implement).
• I mentioned my image rotation irritation in another thread and Matt said he would work on it, so I'm happy there.
• I think the Camera import system definately needs some polishing.  I really like the system Adobe's Photoshop Elements 3 uses.
• Another tiny thing that would really help would be a toolbar button that performs the Send To External function (I'm thinking a Drop-Down button similar to the Navigation button).  This would greatly help in that it would make it easy to Send to --> Photoshop which is what I often want to do with my pictures.
• Lastly, one major thing I think would be a major step in the right direction overall would be a complete overhaul of the toolbar system to make it work more like Freehand (or Office or Photoshop).  Basically, I'd like to see you be able to define your own custom toolbars (both docked and floating) and have FAR more options as far as the commands available.

Basically, I often feel MC's image capabilities are ALMOST there.  Just a few tweaks in the right places and it would be devine.  One thing I definately don't need is for MC to try to incorporate a half-competant image editor (ala iPhoto) -- rotation, cropping, and maybe a brightness control are all fine, but more than that I think would just add bloat.  I actually feel that this is iPhoto's weakness.  MC's strength is its organizational prowess.  I would concentrate on that and leave the editing to Photoshop.

[JimH]

There's been an image editor in MC11 for about 6 months.

Right click on image, and choose Image/Edit Image.

[tlongacre]

Picasa comes up very quickly. It auto watches directories for new additions, if you ask it to. One of the most useful things it does it e-mails photos to friends and family.

I find tagging photos in Picasa (and Adobe Photo Manager, I find the two programs quite similar) very easy and quick. They both move much, much faster than MC. (Adobe is hella slow to load, like all Adobe products, but once it's up, it's quick).

With Photo Manager at least (and I think you can set this in Picasa, too), I can have it move to Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements or whatever external program I want) when I double click to edit a photo.

What happens when you double-click a photo in MC? I think it goes to "Playing Now". I'm not even sure what it means that a picture is "playing now".

At any rate, there is a lot missing for MC to be a good image management and editing program. The whole paradigm of MC is audio oriented, not image oriented. But personally, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[JimH]

Picasa comes up very quickly. It auto watches directories for new additions, if you ask it to. One of the most useful things it does it e-mails photos to friends and family.

Right click on image or images, and do Send To/Email../Email Recipient.

[lee269]

I gotta agree with robOKs last 2 and glynors last post - they sum it up for me. Ive got a digital camera now and MC isnt coping like it did when I was importing copies of scanned CD files I got when I got my 35mm prints from the developer.

• Ive got no control over where my camera files get copied to - as above the Photoshop Elements 3 system seems to work so much easier
• Timeline\calendar view in conjunction with timed digital camera files is a necessity not an option IMO.
• A 'zoom slider' would be so much better than thumbnail sizes
• I want to upload my photos to an ftp site - why cant I create the site on a local drive and edit before uploading? And please more website creation templates/options.

Im an MC audio user mostly and it cant be beat for that, but since I got my digital camera with Photoshop Elements 3 Im really wavering on images now - and Im a total novice with this stuff. And to be honest I think the bar isnt high with PSE3 - for editing obviously it is great but it seems slow and bloated for organising. Once its up though, it works slick - its clearly focused. There must be something better out there and I realy believe MC could be it with a few changes.

[JimH]

Ive got no control over where my camera files get copied to

Location is one of the options for camera acquisition.  However, I usually copy to the same temp folder, delete the ones I don't want, tag the rest, then right click on the images, and choose LibraryTools/Rename Files from Properties.  This can move them into individual folders.  Example settings:
Base Path: e:\images
Rule: [Date (year)]\[genre]\[comment]

A 'zoom slider' would be so much better than thumbnail sizes

I want to upload my photos to an ftp site - why cant I create the site on a local drive and edit before uploading?

We should add these.  I agree.

[Alex B]

With Photo Manager at least (and I think you can set this in Picasa, too), I can have it move to Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements or whatever external program I want) when I double click to edit a photo.

In MC it is Right-click > Send To > External. I have configured Photoshop, ImageReady and ACDSee there.

[Alex B]

Okay, now this I could see... When this thread started, I though the complaint was about bloat and feeping creatures. Meaning, broken stuff. Usability is a different beast entirely.

I wouldn't personally be interested in using it, but I can at least understand where you are headed with this idea. A player for Mom with the capabilties of MC. While I now can see that the idea has definate merit, I can still see three major problems with it:

2) If you are proposing (and this was unclear above) that JRiver give this MC Lite away for free, how would you propose that they justify the massive expenditure it would require to maintain two separate products?

3) Competition. Currently MC has the benefit of being FAR more advanced than the other "free" players out there, which keeps them from being in direct competition with the heavyweights (Microsoft and Real for example). It looks to me like Microsoft, Real, and Apple are going to go head to head Netscape-style (or Quattro Pro or Wordperfect or whatever) in a Media Player war. I hate it, but I wouldn't bet on a little guy escaping unscathed (especially giving products away for free).

Relating to point 1... Many of the things you mentioned you would remove are definately "advanced" features (and wouldn't be needed by the user you are targeting with this MC Lite). However for the most part they also are more "behind the scenes" type of features and are things that you need to go looking for (for the most part - excepting video support). Removing those features wouldn't go very far towards making the UI cleaner. Now, you mentioned "simplify the search, playlists, tree and view options" but didn't really say how you would go about this. Since you convinced me, I'm now trying to envision what this MC Lite would look like (and whether my mom could really use it).

Relating to point 2... I know the plan would be to use the codebase from MC "Pro" to develop this potential MC Lite which should (if it works) relieve a bit of the additional cost of launching a new product. However, raw back-end coding is only a small portion of the cost of launching and maintaining a product. Especially if you gave it away for free (or vastly reduced cost), you are going to get far more of the "AOL Effect" (meaning mindless support inquiries from people who need to RTFM, weird system configurations, spyware/virus problems blamed on JRiver, etc, etc). Plus, there's servers (for the download locations), bandwidth, marketing, and administration (of all the new people you'd need to hire to do the above stuff - they'd need bosses). This leaves two options that I see... 1) charge more for MC Pro - or - 2) charge a similar amount for MC Lite to what you charge for MC Pro (since it already isn't very expensive). Neither option is particularly palatable.

Actually, I didn't mean the light version should look or feel different. In my opinion its GUI could be identical with MC11. Only some buttons fewer etc. That's why I said it would easy and inexpensive to program. It doesn't have to be a player for grannies. That kind of player should be totally redesigned. I would like to see MC light as a starter edition of MC for already quite skilled users.

About MC light I don't think I have much to add. The idea has been around some time. This is not the first time it was mentioned. Perhaps JRiver has some plans or perhaps not, we'll see...