Print

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

[Doof]

JimH asked for our input about what areas WMP9 outshines MJ, so that they can take a look at those areas. So I created this thread, as some of the other MJ vs. WMP threads were being "overrun" with discussion about how certain things can in fact be done with MJ. I'd like to keep this thread focused on just the parts of other media players (specifically WMP9) would be good to see in MJ. Here's the list I have so far.

Playlist Editor - In WMP9, when you create a new Playlist, you are presented with a dialog box that lets you enter a name for the playlist. The box is also divided into two sections. On the left is your media library, with various view schemes that let you easily navigate the library and add tracks to the playlist, which is then displayed in the right hand pane.

Advanced Tag Editor - WMP9's tag editor allows for all sorts of fields not found in MJ. I don't see anything in there that MJ9's new database won't be able to handle, except that WMP9's also has a built in syncronized lyrics editor.

Ratings System - Many people have been talking about WMP9's new rating system and how WMP incorporates it rather intelligently into various smartlists. I couldn't agree more. WMP9's rating system is really easy to use. All you have to do to set the rating is hover your cursor over the rating column (which is represented by 5 stars). When you do, it "grows" so you can see that it's accepting your input. You then just slide your mouse left or right to fill in the amount of stars you want and once it's where you want it, you click. The rating is now set. Very nice.

Interface - WMP9's interface is very clean. Both in the general views, and in the options screens. Everything is laid out very nicely.

Mini-Mode - WMP9 has a neat feature for when you minimize it. It can show up as a toolbar mini-player in the taskbar. From there you can do the usual playback controls, as well as access all of your playlists and such. It's very similar to MJ's QuickPlay, actually, except that the playback controls are easier to use, because it's on a miniplayer instead of in a rightclick menu.

Other than those things, I don't see much to be wary of. It's lacking a lot of the really nice features that MJ has. It is getting really nice, but it's still lacking most of what keeps me using MJ.

[dac4m]

MJ is still better for:
1)batch tag editing
2)using album art integrated with the program
3)mini views (wmp are too "cartoony" but the Taskbar view on WMP is phenomenal
4)advanced users (not to get too off topic, but again using n or t in plylists is way too complicated for MOST users... you have to consider the people onthis forum the expert users.  Most dont even know that you can use n or t)
5)ripping (many different formats, not limited to wma though wma does seem to be pretty good in compression)

WMP better for:
1)Ratings
2)Playlists  are a lot smoother and simplified
3)auto-playlists are really cool.. the fact that it can figure out what songs you havent used and put them in a plylist is pretty neat (now I have a chance to listen to all 4000 songs)
4)visualiztions are slightly better in WMP 9.

[Mirko]

I think I should say something about Windows Media Playlists.

They are totally unhandy, if you have to organize a couple of thousands songs. I used it some time ago and tried the new version.
MJ is _way_ better organizing (and, more important, _finding_) songs. And MJ is fun to play with ;-)

So... I think someone at JRiver should do a playlist-wizard, so that MJ covers that, too. If you could open the needed object to COM-automation, I would have developed a plugin already :-/

Thanks for listening,
Mirko

[Kerensky]

WMP9 has a much better skinning engine, with more skinning features.

[Vermaje]

... but WMP9 is a product of Microsoft !!!!....

[dac4m]

I disagree with you mirko

WMP playlists are a little bit harder to use, not much harder than MJ.  It isnt a picnic organizing 4000 songs no matter what program you use...

Plus, with the Auto Playlist, I know I wouldnt make my own playlist most likely, as Microsoft's seem good enough...

WMP has raised the bar with rating and playlists... I'm sure Jim et al will use this in their version 9 offering...

[Mirko]

I have to admit, that I think rating is somewhat useless. If I would rate my songs, that would be like "seems like a candidat for car-hifi" or "party mood song" and so on. The rating to qualify a song doesn't seem to be practical, because the music I have encoded is usually that what I like. If I like some songs more than other I can see this in the number played and so on...

So I don't think I'm a qualified person to judge the rating system. But to propose this as a "killer-feature" is more or less funny.

[JimHus]

WMP9 does a good job on finding Album info. Looks like it scans AMG info and then presents you with a list of possible matches. Just click on the match and it can fill out (all or empty) tag fields. Nicely done.

WMP9's image within the MP3 does not seem to match what MJ does. Saving an image internally with MJ and then loading it in WMP9 - the image field remains blank. Not sure who is "right" here, or if it's 2 equally valid appproaches to the same idea.

I generally like the concept WMP9 has of scanning for Album/Artist/Title info in the background. But I despise the fact that it simply dumps it in the current directory with a name useless to anyone but a program.

[Eaglesfan]

I think an easy music rating system is a killer feature... here's why...

One of the beauties of Mj is the ability or organize your music collection.... once that is done, then the only way it would be better than other is
1)Sound Quality
2)Ease of USe
3)ability to make playlists
4)ease in adding new tracks
5)nice interface

COmparing MJ to WMP on these features, there isnt a huge difference.  WMP sounds nearly as good, is easier to use, is easier to make playliasts in, and has a comparable interface.

Again, I am a registered MJ user and love how it helped me organize things.  Now that this task is done and I mainly care about playback, I think it is important for MJ to contine to meet all of my media needs.  

Certainly, no 2 users are the same. We all have different needs and uses for this fine program.  For me playlists are "killer" because how much more can I organize things?

[Mirko]

@eaglesfan: I would really like to see the "killer-feature"-points. But there are no in your posting.

And I would like to add, that I think, that we all should not support WMP9, because of it's digital rights management (and restrictions). I think this will lead to an incapacitating ("entmündigen") of the listeners. And I personally don't want to push it.
So even if WMP9 has nice feature, although I think visualization and rating is not very important if you would like to organize your files, we should try not using it.

(But I don't mind either, if JRiver makes the rating-handling easier; I simply think that there are more important things to do (playlist-wizard, to get more new users *g*))

[JimHus]

Eaglesfan has a very good point assuming your library is "complete."

And that is Organization is a feature you use the hell out of until it's done. Then, unless you just re-organize on a periodic basis - it becomes almost useless to you. Certainly it drops way down on your list of priorities.

At that point - Visulaization and Playlist management become far more important than they were.

Mirko, I'm not sure why is DRM a concern? If it is flawed someway I am interested in hearing.

[hiredirects]

Hello.

I agree with Mirko in regards to the playlist.  A rating system of "stars" or "numbers" is of very little use to me.  Why would I even have any songs on my computer of a one or two star?  By definition any songs that I have ripped, copyied, bought, downloaded, etc. are ones that I like.  Sure, there are a few that I REALLY like, but NONE that I don't like.

Now, a "rating" system based on type. category, or genre makes sense.  As Mirko wrote, "tunes for car" or "workout music" or "music for the babes" etc. makes sense.  But wait, MJ already has that!  Its called playlists!!!

regards,
HD

p.s. I also agree with Mirko concerning the DRM.  I don't like anybody messin' with my stuff.  I know some people think that only criminals are pro-privacy laws, and strip-searches, and that "honest law-abiding" citizens have nothing to hide.... B.S.!  Its the principle.  Really.

If I buy music I'll do with it darn well what I please.  I'll copy it onto any one of my five computers, my nomad, my Sony Clie and I WILL make CD mixes for my friends!  (Whatever I/we use to do in the "audio cassette days", we should be able to do in the "digital" era too).  

So, if WMP "tries" to stop me, I ain't using it.  Regardless of "killer features".

[Mirko]

@JimHus:

The problem with DRM in my point of view is, that the music industry tries to force people into restrictions, that are not there by law. In germany for example it is allowed to make private copies of music you bought. That _includes_ sharing it with your brother or sister. The MI tries to force me buying a new copy for every computer I would like to use it and possibly for every device I own. I think that this shouldn't be. I already pay enough money for "possibel audio reproduction" (CD-Player, CDR-drive and so on), that I think private copies should be included already.

Organizing: I think this is _the_ feature I require the most. Playlist become unhandy, if you have to organize a couple of thousand files. Sometimes they are usefull, sometimes they are not. I don't want to have 100 listened to songs and 9900 not listened to on my harddisc. That was the main problem for me in the last couple of years, not knowing (and not able to handle) which CDs I own and to which I would _like_ to listen to. Since I have MJ installed, this all is becoming more and more irrelevant, because I do find the songs I like and the once I missed the most. Only by organizing features.
And I use them all day long. More then every other feature (ok, playing maybe *g*).

[Eaglesfan]

First off, nobody can use every feature of the program... if they add a 1-5 or 1-10 sliding scale, dont use it if you dont want.

I personally have a lot of 1 star or 2 star songs... There is no way every song on every album is 4-5 stars.  When I rate albums, I try to reserve 4-5 stars for "classics" and give most everything else 2-3

[Doof]

Yeah, I pretty much reserve a 5 rating only for those songs that I just can't imagine life being the same if I hadn't heard them. 4 is for songs that I could listen to at any time and not feel like it's getting old. 2-3 are for songs I like, but would probably only listen to once in a while, and 1 is for songs I really don't care if I ever hear again. The thing is, I don't maintain a library of music just for myself. I maintain it for my friends and girlfriend as well. They come over and want to hear a certain song. Well, I've got it. I don't particularly like it, but they're perfectly free to listen to it.

Plus I also rip entire CD's. Not just the few songs I like. So then you get even more 1's, 2's, and 3's.

[zevele1]

My post was deleted ,but i am here again

In WMP9 there is an 'eject cd' option in the window you get when clicking on cd in the tree
Not in Media Jukebox

Sounds like mister average posting,but this is a feature i really miss in MJ

[DocLotus]

I would love a killer rating system.

BC (Before Computers) I rated all my vinyl records on a scale of 1-10.  This was an overall album rating.  I found myself listening to the higher rated albums most often.  Problem was there is always at least one song on even the best recording that I would not care for as much as the others.

Today I have over 2000 tracks of CD music so doing a pre-rating before ripping for each track would be a real chore.

With MJ, I rip a whole CD as I don’t want to stop & take the time to listen to each CD in advance to find which individual selections I like & which I don’t.

After the ripping is done for a lot of CD’s, I then listen to albums I like.  At that time it would be nice to rate each song as I hear it without any pressure to ‘get it done’.

[Matt]

Media Jukebox 8 already has rating.  You can use it in smartlists or for the global filter.

I make my MJ so it doesn't play poorly rated songs, using a smartlist as a filter.  It works pretty nice...

-Matt

[Eaglesfan]

MJ alsready has rating but it is MUCH easier in WMP 9.0.  Again in the rating column, all you do is click one # stars you want, then move down to the next row below it... It involves only one click of the mouse

[Matt]

MJ alsready has rating but it is MUCH easier in WMP 9.0. Again in the rating column, all you do is click one # stars you want, then move down to the next row below it... It involves only one click of the mouse

Agreed.  Media Jukebox 9 will address this.

[Doof]

I removed a couple of posts in here in an effort to keep this thread from turning into a debate on DRM. I'd like to keep this thread focused on things from WMP9 (or other players) that we'd like to see in MJ.

I moved the other posts to another thread for those who want to continue that discussion.

This the first time I've ever used my moderator abilities in here. I promise not to abuse them.

[JimHus]

The rating is WMP is nicely done, and adding it in MJ 9 is a good idea.

But it doesn't begin to compete with the usefulness of the RClick->SendTo menu in MJ. Whoever thought this up, and in particular adding the last Playlist used as the top choice, was particularly brilliant that day.

I am not good enough at UI design to come up with these things - but "more like that" is what I'd like to see. The small UI touches in MJ set it apart.

[Eaglesfan]

Thanks Matt..

We may look at products other than MJ but you guys make MJ too good to leave for more than... 5 days or so.  Your customer relations will keep you guys on top of the rank list for a long time!