Print

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

Yes, I would pay extra for a Standalone Product.

20 (37%)

Yes, but I would rather it be built into MC (even if the price were higher).

12 (22.2%)

Maybe, but only if it didn't cost more.

6 (11.1%)

Maybe, but the current Server is fine for me now.

6 (11.1%)

No, I don't need the Library Server at all

10 (18.5%)

Total Members Voted: 52

[glynor]

There has been a real glut of questions about this lately and I thought I'd just put up one of those lovely, unscientific polls.

My "vision" for a Library Server "Pro Edition" has been laid out many times in the past, but here are the basics:

• Allow multiple machines to tag files using the "shared" network library
• Configure which machines are allowed to "edit tags" on a per-machine or per-user basis (permissions support basically)
• Allow the Library Server to run as an NT Service (so it will run even at the Login prompt

Also, assuming you would like to see this done, are there any other features you'd like to see or require?  Any guesses as to what you would be willing to pay extra (if anything) for this feature?

I'm not suggesting that we pay more just to be nice, but this is addmittedly a feature that not everyone would use, yet one that would require substantial development time from JRiver.  I recognize that this development time = money, and I don't necessarily expect this substantial improvement to MC to be free.  Since it would be more of a "niche" feature than (for example) iPod support, I would expect to pay a bit of a premium.  One other option I can see would be to combine this with some of the other more advanced features requested recently (such as DVR capability) into a sort-of "MC Pro" product.  This would allow you to reach a wider variety of customers with the "extra cost" features through the joys of bundling.  I'm not a huge bundling fan, but it could help get some of these features implemented!

[glynor]

Some people are voting, but no one has anything to say.  Since this is a topic that people do talk about somewhat regularly, I hoped this could generate a discussion about the possible benefits or detriments of the idea.

Those of you who want to see it, are there features that you would need other than what I mentioned?  Would you need user management and individual granular "permissions" or just machine-granular permissions (or no user/machine management at all)?  Does it need to be scalable to 4-5 systems or 10-15 (or 300-400) before you'd see benefit?  Do you like the bundling idea, or does it have to be standalone, or included in "regular" MC?  Why?  Why not?

Those who don't want to see it (or only want to see it if it's part of the standard MC product), why wouldn't it be useful?  Do you only have one PC?  Or does the "edit tags only from one PC" current situation work well for you now?  If so, why?

Anyone?

[jgreen]

Glynor--
I think your suggestion has a lot going for it, although I wouldn't necessarily limit it the "Pro" version to advanced networking.  I'd love to see a full-scale image editor (gimp) and a full scale audio editor (audacity) folded into the product, among other potential features.

But for this kind of capability I would expect to pay more.  $100?  $200?  I'd pay, say as an upgrade to the "standard version".  And I think a lot of others would, too, although there certainly would be some vocalizing on the forum.

[Eccles]

I'd like to see permissions at a user level - my wife and I share our library with friends and workmates, and I neither want nor need to keep track of their IP addresses.

For now, I work around the single-update restriction by running a remote desktop session back to the server if I need to do any library maintenance or restart the Media Server.

I think I would probably pay up to double the MC fee for a MC/MSPro bundle.

[scthom]

I voted no because I don't use the library server.  I have one computer, used as the respository and tag editor, and I play there and over the network to a squeezebox in the entertainment center.

If there were a "basic" version and a "pro" version, I would probably only need the basic version.

That said, it's like having extra horsepower in your car...glad to know it's there if I ever need it.

[666damo]

Hay all,

I would definitely pay for an 'enhanced' server, just how much would depend on what it offers.

I agree with Glynor - the suggestions are a nice solid basic to a powerful server system. A strong permission based access system is key. It would be possible to configure the server to stream to 'basic' users, and give more control to admins to maintain the library.

With multiple users ability to modify certain aspects of the library, it would be encouraged that backups are made when a change to the library occurs. These backups can also be earmarked with the user who actuated them for tracking purposes.

Configurability would be another issue to tackle. Sidetracking for a moment, I love passwords and security when it is guarding valuable data, but I hate typing passwords and users out millions of times. I would like to see the option to enable basic users to access the music anonymously (read-only of course), while admins must enter a password. Of course this setting should be configurable on or off.

Having read over Glynor's post - I realize that I have simply paraphrased his post - I guess I just needed to understand it a bit better.

Last, but not least, I would like to see the ability of users to create playlists that remain when MC is restarted. eg. user FJ logs on, adds his songs to a playlist then logs off. Later he starts MC and when loading the library file his playlists are also retrieved.
(I believe this feature is lacking in MC11, user playlists are not even stored locally (or within win profile) although library settings, skins etc are)

That's my 4 cents for now. I have more ideas, but I should really be studying for uni - I'll get back at this thread soon.

damo.

[zxsix]

I'd be happy if it would just run as a service with no user logged in.
Being able to update ratings from client at work would be sweet too, as that's when I listen to my newly imported songs.
Full editing of fields would require security so my kids couldn't inadvertently mess things up.

[rhom]

i think it's a good idea, and i'd probably pay for it depending on how it ended up working, but for the moment i don't need it.  not sure how much i'd pay but i don't think i'd have any problems paying up to double whatever the current mc price is.

i do think it should be kept seperate (installer and license) from normal mc though.

[glynor]

One interesting thing about the poll results thus far is that, of the people that have a use for the Library Server (23 of 26 - 88%), all but 3 of them (87%) don't currently seem to consider it "sufficient" (and would ike to see some improvement).

Of course, 4 of them wouldn't be willing to pay more (not to mention how absurdly unscientific these polls are).

[Fex]

- ...and forget about the rest (at least 23.3%)
- fine are another 10%
- "if it didn't cost more" are 13.3% more.

In total 46.6%.
The "Pro" could become a difficult thing...

[AustinBike]

OK, so this is what I would like to see:

http://www.digitaldroplet.net/

I use MC exclusively with Tivo, so I am probably in the minority, but this is the interface to beat.  Album art, ratings, lyrics, images, all of that over the Tivo.

I listen to all of my music in the living room/family room/kitchen and my server with my MP3 files is in the basement.  I don't want a PC in the living area and enjoy the simplistic interface of Tivo for music, but would like a much better looking interface.

Audio Faucet is great, but it is significantly slower than MC and it can't group, so to get to "the Replacements" you have to scroll through all artists from "A" through "T" in order to get there.

[runemail]

I think improving the server-client and database abilities is something J.river have on their todo-list for MC12 or later. ?


If i could set my multiple clients to only write ratings and playcounts to the db and read-only everything else i would be happy.
I could maintain the db locally.

I also would like MC clients to just download new or changed data from the db on every session. And even let the client choose what fields in the db is needed.
(A basic java client for mobile phones etc. would be cool!)

Maybe we will see a Library Server Pro Edition someday, but right now a better client and db is also needed for this to work.

[lpr]

Hello,

Right now I have MC running on a HTPC that I control via remote desktop. So, I only have 1 library for 2 remote clients. What I would like to be able to do is to run MC from a client machine and "control" the library and sound outpout (the ASIO setup is on the HTPC) from those clients. So no more user logged in

Thanks.

[shAf]

I was just re-visiting this forum to see if there was anything new regarding running the Library Server as a service.  In any case, a "better" version of the LS gets my vote too.

TIA 

[wombat66]

Hello,

Right now I have MC running on a HTPC that I control via remote desktop. So, I only have 1 library for 2 remote clients. What I would like to be able to do is to run MC from a client machine and "control" the library and sound outpout (the ASIO setup is on the HTPC) from those clients. So no more user logged in

Thanks.

Exactly what I want.