Print

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

[steveklein]

I've got a dual boot system as I am converting from XP to Vista. I'm about 80% into Vista now, but still go to XP from time to time. I've got MC12 installed on both operating systems and really only have 1 playlist that I use a lot (one where I rate songs at 3+ stars). I've got the same directories imported and the number of total files in the library matches up... yet on XP the playlist is 903 songs, but on Vista it is just 882 songs. No idea which songs are "missing", or why they are missing?

I wouldn't think it would matter where I rate the songs, as that should be stored in tags and remember the rating whether I'm in Vista or XP.

Is there any easy way I can export the playlists to .txt files so I can go through and find the missing songs from the Vista so I can go through and rate them again?

[steveklein]

As a follow up to this, I edited the date fields in XP for several albums this afternoon and I am now in Vista and the date fields have reverted to the old ones in Vista.

Ugh.

This is really annoying as I feel as I have to update a lot of tag info twice in both OS's to get it to stick.

[e-head]

I don't know if this will help or not, but most of the library fields are only stored in the library, not in the files themselves. Things like ratings are probably stored only in the library, so if you have 2 different databases/libraries this stuff won't stay synced.

If you go into options -> library & folder -> standard library fields you can tell MC which fields to store in the files themselves.

[marko]

is auto import enabled?
if yes, is the option to "Update for external changes" selected?

If no, then enable them and that should be enough to keep things in sync.
You might need to force the issue the first time by selecting all files and do an "update library from tags" pass on them. You'll find that in the right click menu under library tools.

*e-head, I'm 99% certain that [date] and [rating] are saved to file by default.

-marko.

[Alex B]

... Is there any easy way I can export the playlists to .txt files so I can go through and find the missing songs from the Vista so I can go through and rate them again?

Right-click the playlist name in the tree and export the list in m3u format. MC will create a static playlist file. Import this file on XP. It will appear in the Imported Playlists playlist group. Create a new smartlist that includes this imported playlist and excludes your "rated 3+" smartlist.

I've got a dual boot system as I am converting from XP to Vista. I'm about 80% into Vista now, but still go to XP from time to time. I've got MC12 installed on both operating systems and really only have 1 playlist that I use a lot (one where I rate songs at 3+ stars). I've got the same directories imported and the number of total files in the library matches up... yet on XP the playlist is 903 songs, but on Vista it is just 882 songs. No idea which songs are "missing", or why they are missing? I wouldn't think it would matter where I rate the songs, as that should be stored in tags and remember the rating whether I'm in Vista or XP. ...

The ratings are stored in the physical file tags by default if the file format supports tagging in MC. As marko said, you need to have the "Update for external changes" Auto-Import option enabled for importing the changed tag values automatically, but maybe you have some file formats that cannot be tagged. Unlike some other programs MC stores everything in its database. File tagging is not a necessity for using and storing tag values.

In general, you could consider using a non default library location that is identical on both operating systems. This would keep the library field values, playlists and views identical. However, you would also need to change the thumbnail cache location to keep the thumbnails synchronized. A small registry tweak is needed for this.

[Mr ChriZ]

Give it another week and you'll be 100% back in to XP again, all problems solved 

[Alex B]

Give it another week and you'll be 100% back in to XP again, all problems solved 

Exactly my thinking too. However, the comparison may not be fair if the XP installation is old and has problems. For instance, the OS on my old Pentium 4 laptop had some cumulative problems that I was unable to solve. It had the original XP installation from the year 2003. Usually I am pretty good in keeping operating systems in perfect shape, but for some reason this laptop had become sluggish. Recently I bought a bigger HD for it and decided to install a fresh OS too. I was surprised to see how much faster everything runs on the newly installed XP.


steveklein,

It would be very interesting to hear what excactly is better in Vista. I have occasionally used Vista on other peoples' PCs, but I have never directly compared it with XP on the same hardware.

[Mr ChriZ]

This morning I noticed new DreamScene updates for Vista Ultimate, which is very
pretty includes some video desktops, the nicest thing I've seen in Vista yet!

[mmadd29]

I have media center running on both a Vista and XP machine.  On the XP machine everything is fine.  On Vista here are the problems:

• I can not play any divx files
  

• • • I installed many divx codec's any such still not happening.
      
  I can't play an DVD's that I burned
  
• • This is not a media center issue, as I cannot play on any software, whereas XP works just fine.
    
I have many other issue with other software on Vista.  Eventually I'm going to go back to XP

[MusicHawk]

Not to hijack the thread, but I have PAID to switch computers from Vista back to XP (paid for the XP software).

Aside from Vista's performance-robbing/silly eye-candy, the technical and usability problems are very real.

I still have one Vista PC, because there's no video driver for XP (considering buying a new video card so we can dump Vista totally). I use this computer for photos and video.

Vista is notorious for slow file operations, such as I ran into yesterday on the Vista PC. I started a folder move -- using Windows Explorer to drag it to another top folder on the same drive. The folder had a few thousand files, but even so, since it's just a folder change on the same drive it would take less than 5 minutes in XP (which I proved to myself by doing the same thing on an XP computer). But in Vista, it was "preparing" for 10 minutes before I realized I didn't name the new folder correctly. So I clicked Cancel, which in XP would stop the process immediately. In Vista, it took well over a half-hour to cancel the operation it was "preparing" -- not one file had yet been moved. I'm not kidding -- more than 30 MINUTES TO STOP DOING NOTHING! Not believing my eyes, I did the same thing again -- started a folder move, then clicked Cancel. It again took a half-hour or so to "stop". When I eventually got the folder name I wanted and did the move for real, it took more than one hour, not XP's 5 minutes. BTW, this is a Core 2 Duo system with 3GB RAM and nothing else notable running on it (UAC long-ago shut down), and a MOVE on the same drive involves changing Windows internal file table, it doesn't require moving the actual files' bytes anywhere -- so why is Vista so slow? Some reports say the brain-dead security system is the problem.

No Vista for me. I'm one of the early signers of the InfoWorld.com "Save XP" petition, which now has hundreds of thousands of signatures.

[hit_ny]

In Vista, it took well over a half-hour to cancel the operation it was "preparing" -- not one file had yet been moved. I'm not kidding -- more than 30 MINUTES TO STOP DOING NOTHING! Not believing my eyes, I did the same thing again -- started a folder move, then clicked Cancel. It again took a half-hour or so to "stop". When I eventually got the folder name I wanted and did the move for real, it took more than one hour, not XP's 5 minutes. BTW, this is a Core 2 Duo system with 3GB RAM and nothing else notable running on it (UAC long-ago shut down), and a MOVE on the same drive involves changing Windows internal file table, it doesn't require moving the actual files' bytes anywhere -- so why is Vista so slow? Some reports say the brain-dead security system is the problem.

Aggressive virus checker ?

[MusicHawk]

>> Aggressive virus checker

Nope.

Slow file copying/moving is a documented Vista behavior.

[hit_ny]

a MOVE on the same drive involves changing Windows internal file table, it doesn't require moving the actual files' bytes anywhere -- so why is Vista so slow?

hmm, if its on the same partition isn't this the same way of doing things in XP or anywhere else for that matter. Just updating the file table.

[MusicHawk]

>> hmm, if its on the same partition isn't this the same way of doing things in XP or anywhere else for that matter. Just updating the file table.

Yes... which is why the very slow performance in Vista compared to XP is a huge problem. Microsoft has acknowledge the problem, and says file operations are somewhat faster in Vista SP1. But various pubs that have tested this say the improvement is modest, and Vista is still very slow. (I haven't installed Vista SP1, would rather ditch Vista.)

[DarkPenguin]

>> hmm, if its on the same partition isn't this the same way of doing things in XP or anywhere else for that matter. Just updating the file table.

Yes... which is why the very slow performance in Vista compared to XP is a huge problem. Microsoft has acknowledge the problem, and says file operations are somewhat faster in Vista SP1. But various pubs that have tested this say the improvement is modest, and Vista is still very slow. (I haven't installed Vista SP1, would rather ditch Vista.)

Copying files under vista was like being kicked once a minute.  Copying files under Vista with SP1 is like being kicked once every ten minutes.  It's better but.....

BTW, if you haven't done so get a 4GB usb drive and dedicate it to Vista.  It really does speed things up.  (Not file copy but things like firefox load instantly now.)

[hit_ny]

I'm supposing esata would just be an extension of the same ?

[Mr ChriZ]

BTW, if you haven't done so get a 4GB usb drive and dedicate it to Vista.  It really does speed things up.  (Not file copy but things like firefox load instantly now.)

You've found one that's fast enough for ReadyBoost?! Every stick I've come across and stuck in it so far has said no can do!

[steveklein]

for what it's worth, i switched back to XP 

i got service pack 3, and a way to make xp look like vista (got the sidebar, vista menus, windows aero, etc) so i basically get the looks of vista with the functionality of XP. very nice!

the reason i switched back was because of just really strange behavior in windows vista like windows explorer randomly closing when i right click (this was by far the most annoying).

the question is... will i give vista another shot later this year or early next year, or will i stick with XP until windows 7 rolls out?

[DarkPenguin]

You've found one that's fast enough for ReadyBoost?! Every stick I've come across and stuck in it so far has said no can do!

I'm using a really cheap PQI.

[Griff]

I'm using a really cheap PQI.

Cool isnt it.