INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => Media Center 12 (Development Ended) => Topic started by: benn600 on January 05, 2008, 05:38:03 pm
-
I've followed the "Idle gossip..." thread and read a lot of interesting suggestions. Could everyone interested post candidates for potentially choosing one feature as the Interact community's top desired feature? But restrict posts to features that several other people strongly supported. The requested feature should also be a larger than average request--not some simple UI improvement.
My goal is that people will agree with my request. I know that several other people support this request. I will try to keep the list updated. Simply post an idea you support and I'll include who supports each idea.
All Program Settings & Data In Database (benn600, NoBS)
Remote Server Major Improvements / Other Device Apps, iPhone (datdude)
Relational Database, ie: field-centric, not file-centric database (darichman,221bbs,Quixote,Fred1)
Better Image Handling / Stacks (robydago)
Xbox 360 streaming support (p7389)
UPNP Receiver Mode (statious)
Ordered By Votes:
4) Relational Database, ie: field-centric, not file-centric database
2) All Program Settings & Data In Database
-
All Program Settings & Data In Database
Start storing user data and settings in the database instead of the registry. This would make it a lot easier for users when they switch computers or want to backup their MC. Skins and plugins should be stored in the database folder, too, because then it truly has everything unique to that install and using a secondary computer accessing the database over the network would yield the same experience--same skins, plugins, settings, etc.
-
Sure, the number one thing I want is for Remote Server to get an overhaul so that an iphone/touch has a nice snazzy Web interface to MC. Or just outright build an app on it for MC.
-
One change, that's a hard one :) I like the "Save all settings idea" but if I had to pick one: Relational Database (ie field-centric, not file-centric database)
A few months ago I posted a thread suggesting the possibility a relational or hierarchical database for MC (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=39943.msg273046#msg273046 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=39943.msg273046#msg273046)). This would involve changing MC from file-centric to group-centric. Users could create groups (eg artists, albums, movies etc etc as they currently do fields) and tag these as separate entities. Once a 'group' is created, users can simply add files to the 'group' and all relevant metadata will be applied to the file (because it now belongs to that group). The advantages of such a change are discussed in that thread.
-
Everybody remember to vote, too. I guess each user gets one "vote" so either add a fresh idea or simply vote on a listed idea. Hopefully we start getting some serious votes because a list of suggestions is far from narrowing it down to the most supported, single idea.
-
better image handling (mainly stacks, but there are a lot of minor improvements that could be done)
-
All the above are great suggestions that I would love to see implemented.
I will however go with Xbox 360 streaming support - I would even be willing to pay some extra for this (licensing issues and stuff). Since I have my library in FLAC now, I can no longer stream into the 360 through Windows.
I guess stacks would solve this too, but well, native Xbox 360 streaming would be swell. So in case 360 support is truly impossible, my vote is for stacks (but as far as this thread goes, my vote is for 360 support).
-
One change, that's a hard one :) I like the "Save all settings idea" but if I had to pick one: Relational Database (ie field-centric, not file-centric database)
I would love this. It would make tagging easier ;D
-
For the one feature I would have to agree with the database for the masses. However, If I had to say my needs. UPNP receiver mode (for rhapsody, I hate to switch back and forth between the programs).
-
221bbs, the quote you included specified two different requests. Which one are you interested in? Mine or the other one? (mine!)
Top Summary Updated This Far
-
I want the "Relational Database (ie field-centric, not file-centric database)"
-
I think it would be better to describe what we want at a functional level. We don't know enough about the inner working of MC to dictate the implementation of new features.
Examples for the settings enhancement suggestion:
1. I don't want to lose my settings when something goes wrong with the Windows registry.
2. I don't want to un-install and re-install MC to fix problems.
3. I'd like to backup up my settings easily with a well-documented procedure.
4. I'd like to move my settings to MC on a different PC.
Some people have stated this in terms of storing the settings in the database. MC lets you define a number of libraries in locations you define so 2 problems arise: 1. You need to store the locations of each library. 2. Do you write all the settings in every libraries files? Everybody says "store in the database but each library has its own files to store its database contents."
It might just be simpler to say that you want all settings to be in one or more files independent of the Windows registry.
Examples for the Database enhancement suggestion:
1. I'd like access to the database so that I do other things with my files. I want JRiver to define the fields and let me muck around with them.
(I'd guess that this is what some people want when they say they want the library to be stored as a relational database. if I were JRiver, I'd be very careful about allowing this.)
2. I'd like to have some extra data for each composer (such as Major or Minor).
(This one matters a little to me.)
3. I'd like to have some entirely new kinds of data in the library. (like new tables.)
4. I'd like to have a fully-developed client/server architecture so that I can edit tags from any copy of MC.
(You don't have to have a relational database implementation for this.)
These are examples I tried to synthesize from the forum messages I've seen. I don't agree with all of them but they are examples of stating functional requirements.
Saying that you want a relational database implementation doesn't really specify the functionality you want. I doubt that benn600 and the other posters actually have the same changes to functionality in mind.
Bill
-
I think it would be better to describe what we want at a functional level. We don't know enough about the inner working of MC to dictate the implementation of new features.
Here we go :)
1. Setting Up fields to be relational
2. Databse handling of relational fields
3. Implementation into current Tag AW
4. Implementation into view schemes
5. Implementing online submission and lookup
Here are some ideas I had.
1. Setting up relational fields
We need a way to tell MC that we want one field to be subordinate or relational to another. Eg. We want [Nationality] as a field to describe [Artist]. Or we want [Association] as a field to describe [People].
Option 1: In the create new field / edit field dialogue, have a tick box for “Make Child Field of…” and then select the field you wish to link it to. Eg. Create a field called [Nationality] and make it a child field of [Artist]. Each child field should only be linked to one parent field.
Option 2: In the create new field / edit field dialogue, have a button saying “Add Child Fields”. Eg. Click on edit field for [Artist] and add a child field called [Nationality]. This is essentially the reverse of option 1. Ideally we could do it either way and the end result would be the same. We’d need the ability to add more than one child field.
2. Database handling of relational fields.
Relational fields should be available as per regular fields in view schemes, panes, columns, the tagging window etc, with a few minor differences as described below.
Editing child fields will be reflected in any files belonging to the parent field.
3. Implementation Into Tagging AW
Parent fields should display as per the current implementation, but subordinate fields need to appear under the parent field. They can be viewed or hidden with a drop down to the left of the parent field (just like tree entries). We should be able to treat child fields as regular fields in terms of selecting which ones to show in the Tag AW and in terms of editing them. The only difference is how they are viewed in the Tag AW (as subordinates of parent fields, to denote the fact they are describing another field, as opposed to the file itself.
Here is an example of what the Tag AW might look like
> Artist: AC/DC
Bio: … (extended field)
Nationality: Australian
Members (a list field): Bon Scott; Malcolm Young
Year Formed: 1973
> Album: Stiff Upper Lip
Album Genre: Pop/Rock
Album Year: 2000
Record:
> Rest of the fields etc etc
4. Implementation Into View Schemes
Child fields should be available to use as panes in view schemes, filters etc just like any other field. For example, I could create a scheme [Nationality] -> [Artist] to navigate. If we are viewing “artists” in a view scheme, it might be nice to see a summary of any child fields pop up if I hover over it. Double clicking on an artist will drill down into the next pane in the view scheme. Right clicking might bring up options like “Play all files” , “Show albums by this artist”, “Show artist info” etc etc. Tagging would bring up the Tagging AW as described above. If I try to retag a child field (eg using column view) it might be wise to bring up a popup “Are you sure you wish to change the Artist: AC/DC” or something similar, so that the user knows they are changing all references to AC/DC, and not just the file in question.
It would also be really great to right click on an artist (or whatever field we’re talking about) and say “add coverart”. This artist coverart could replace the moving slideshow of album images when in artist mode. I would personally find this really useful for tagging different [People] with portraits… these could then be used as a visual way of navigating through people by their faces, not a random slideshow of photos they appear in.
5. Implementing online submission and lookup
This is probably something that would come much later, but wouldn’t it be great if we could submit artists, or movies, or TV shows or books etc as we currently do albums? An online MC database like this with lookup and submission would be incredibly powerful and would be a major selling point of MC (at least in my humble opinion). We’d be submitting child fields for each of the major categories described above.
I rip a dvd (which I own!!!) and convert the movie to divx or something. I enter fields like [Director], [Composer], [Studio], [Actors] etc (which I’ve set up as child fields of [Movie]) and upload them. Then if another user has the same movie… he need only match it by title and can download the above info!
A database like this could grow really quickly… and doesn’t rely on recognising the exact same DVD or audio album. We just need to compare a field like [Artist] or [Movie] and the information is accessible. A “closest match” option might be useful!
-
Okay. This is way beyond my capabilities. I was hoping for a single line request item, possibly referencing another thread and I could keep track of counts for each request. How do I condense two lengthy threads down to two lines?
-
I think it would be better to describe what we want at a functional level. We don't know enough about the inner working of MC to dictate the implementation of new features.
You are right about that. I just know that I have to backup the registry if I want to save my settings--and that still doesn't get everything. So library + registry is not everything. Again, the way I see it, Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird/etc has the most incredible system I have ever seen. Every last detail (except Java, Flash, etc) is stored in the profile--including plugins. So I can point Firefox to my profile on the server and I'm 100% back to normal. No anything else.
Currently with MC, I have to load my MC registry file (which gets my library location) and then setup my auto import folders and a few other settings that don't get kept.
Am I wrong in saying that Microsoft is trying to deprecate the registry? Weren't they hoping to do so in Vista? If they did, would they have a virtual registry for legacy applications?
Couldn't MC just create a simple XML file in the profile that contained all the registry data? I see that some registry settings created by MC are actually in an XML format so they can store more in a single field.
-
Okay. This is way beyond my capabilities. I was hoping for a single line request item, possibly referencing another thread and I could keep track of counts for each request. How do I condense two lengthy threads down to two lines?
You don't have to :) Just index the posts in your top post as you've been doing... If people want to read more about a proposal, they can scroll down the user's post...
-
Yea. My goal was to index the ideas and then count votes because then we could see exactly what is most wanted. So far every post has pretty much been a unique request.
-
Why don't you make this into a poll?
So far every post has pretty much been a unique request.
nm ;D
-
That is a good suggestion. I guess it just depends if J River is interested in actually pursuing the top wanted feature or if they go about feature requests differently--and I think they do. Sometimes it seems random which features they decide to add and what other ones they don't. Obviously they have a master plan to world domination.
-
No mention of an update of the Media server for user login and access control?
There have been alot of discussion of how and when to implement user level access to the media server.
That way you could descide, based on login, who can delete, modify database content, what they can read etc, etc.
Today, with more than me wanting to access the media server at my home, there is alot of use for this. In my upcoming IT house this will be a very important thing.
This feature have my vote.
-
Quote from: darichman on 06.01.08 08:17
One change, that's a hard one I like the "Save all settings idea" but if I had to pick one: Relational Database (ie field-centric, not file-centric database)
That's my first priority, too!
-
I'd vote for Relational Database.
-
How can I delete a post? I want to keep deleting and creating my "updated this far" post.
UPDATED THIS FAR.
-
I would like to see the ability to track multiple versions of the same file (versioning) across the board.
For example:
Have two copies of audio/video/image files - one lossless (APE/FLAC/VOB/etc.), and one lossy (MP3/ACC/MP4/etc.) - but have MC treat them as one from a tagging standpoint. Changes/updates to tags and library data (like play statistics) would be made to both items as if they were one.
This would allow having a perfect quality copy for high bandwidth/disk space use and a separate copy for use when needed due to bandwith, diskspace, codec limitations on the playback device.
-
I would like to see the ability to track multiple versions of the same file (versioning) across the board.
That would (should) fall under stack functionality. (Which is why "Better Image Handling / Stacks" is somewhat misleading. It's the functionality I'd likely use in a stack implementation...)
-
All Program Settings & Data In Database
View setting backup ease would be great.
Not to mention custom tagging to share family pic's and vid's
Right now third party SW is our only option...
Thanks
-
A simple progress bar and the new rotated cover art with reflection that can be used in a Track Info page.
Am I the only one that wants something stylish to show the info for the currently playing song that I can read from across the room on my HDTV?
The WPS (While Playing Screen) configuration for Rockbox (open source mp3 player firmware) is simpler and in some ways more powerful than MC's Track Info feature...
-John
-
Am I the only one that wants something stylish to show the info for the currently playing song that I can read from across the room on my HDTV?
Nope. The rotated cover art looks really slick.. if only (as you said) there was some more info there.
-
I would like better network handling of video files. I don't really care how it's implemented, I just want to be able to "stream" Xvids around the house.
Whether that involves a major overhaul of Remote Server, or UPnP receiver mode, I don't really know. I just want two or more instances of MC on the network to talk to each other in this way.
BSPlayer Pro has (adjustable) network file buffering capability. Maybe that could work as a compromise?
-
How can I delete a post? I want to keep deleting and creating my "updated this far" post.
UPDATED THIS FAR.
Not quite. I think you missed a vote or two!
-
No, I really think I got everyones. I'm going to essentially ignore posts over a paragraph because they don't really simply say what they want...but I still got a vote from them I think.
But this isn't going as smoothly as I had hoped. I think it would be nice to nominate the top five suggestions (taken from the Idle thread) and then have a poll on it. I'm just acting as a human poll when PHP is much better at it than I am.
-
Creating a poll might be a good idea then :)
-
#1 - All Program Settings & Data In Database
but...
#2 - Relational Database, ie: field-centric, not file-centric database
so... yes, please make it a poll if possible, it's a better idea.
-
Doesn't look like you registered my vote.
1. If it includes user logon and access improvements this is my top pick: "Remote Server Major Improvements / Other Device Apps, iPhone (datdude)"
2. If not, then my vote is: "All Program Settings & Data In Database"
-
a little off-topic.... but a working pm-system.
the board messaging system is more than buggy.
-
the board messaging system is more than buggy.
Could you be more specific?
-
Voting for...
- Better Theater View skinning abilities - and a more intuitive Theater View (I like it... the wife tho...) - I have LOTS of ideas for Theater View :)
- The non-file-centric 'relational' database system idea...
- The ability for Theater View to browse the disk drives of a machine (dont make me import a temporary file to view via Theater View)
but mainly...
- The improvement to the Server streaming as suggested. (It can provide UPnP client streaming, so why not to itself? ... grrr)
- As an aside to this... it would be nice to be able to amalgamate - or more realistically browse - different libraries stored about a network -- without having go back to std view to do it. (I can then keep my wife's ad-hoc 'library' seperate but accessible, as well as my workflow library...) The amalgamation would be good, though that would obviously cause problems with differing fields and View Schemes.
-
I'd like to add a request for the "Taskbar Mini Player" started by wuub. It currently got 10 votes at this (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=44532.0) thread.
Hi,
The taskbar mini player (like iTunes, WMP ans others) is the only feature that MC doesn't seem to want to integrate.
I know someone made a MC Tollbar but it doesn't work as smooth as it could.
Are you even considering including this feature or not at all ?
If anyone thinks that this would be a good feature please add '+1' ;)
(http://www.maximumpcguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/wmp_taskbar.PNG)
(http://info.winnefox.org/ides/2006/itunes%20taskbar.png)
Regards
-
I certainly agree on the relational database.
I would like to add a request for those of us who like to build finely tuned play lists. I would like to be able to take the last 20 to 30 seconds of a song that is the last song on the playlist and then play the first 20 to 30 seconds of a song that I think will follow nicely. Also I can look at different methods of mixing the songs. This way I can test which song I like best to follow on my play lists.
It may require the double platter DJ type appearance but I think a simple list of potential songs in a second column would work fine. Pick one and test it. If you like it add to the first column playlist and move on down the line.
Tunetyme