Thanks for the detailed response Matt.
For performance, thumbnails are cached locally. However, the system won't stay in-step with complicated changes on the server.
Erase the thumbnails on the client and let them rebuild.
This doesn't address two of the three issues I listed. It addresses #3, but not #1 or #2:
"1) mp4 files do not show any thumbnail art over Media Server (you just see a gray square for these files in the TW.)"
In other words, I see NO thumbnails for these files on the client -- it just doesn't build them at all.
"2) Some mp4 files do not display thumbnails on the server. I can see no pattern to why some do and some don't, and this was not a problem a little while back."
This is referring to the SERVER, not the client. Some of the mp4 files on the server did not receive thumbnails, while others did. In earlier versions of MC, they ALL recieved thumbnails on the server. I'll try deleting ALL thumbnails and rebuilding them on the server to see if it works.
Filename(name) and Filename(path) issue:
These are both as designed. Filenames are changed when connecting to the server, so you'll have to account for this in advanced view schemes.
But is it by design that clicking on these fields makes MC stop seeing the files at all and list them as "missing" until re-loading the library? This seems like a bug. Also, the "Filename" field doens't have any problems -- this field correctly shows the network path and filename. It's just the "Filename(name)" and "Filename(path)" fields that misbehave. Aren't they all based on the same informaiton?
I could understand the "Filename(path)" field getting confused over Media Server, but it seems really odd that the Filename(name) field wouldn't be correct. The "name" doesn't change over MS, just the path does, and the "Filename" field gets the name right as well. Are you sure this isn't a bug?
Playing Now icon issue:
Correct. The text will be bold in either case.
This was actually rectified with the recent "icon column" changes in build 95.
Search field issue:
By design, only fields that can be edited by the user are shown in that list.
But there are other non-editable fields in the list, such as "Bitrate" and "Duration." That aside, why not be able to search based on criteria that's not editable? "Imagefile=[]", for example, can be a useful search tool to find files with missing cover art.
Thanks again,
Larry