INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => JRiver Media Center 20 for Mac => Topic started by: tseipel on November 12, 2014, 12:12:04 pm
-
Hello,
I have been happily using MC on my Windows 7-based machines for quite some time. I recently purchased a 13" MacBook Pro and have two questions:
1. Does my current license allow me to download MC on my Mac, or do I have to buy a separate license for the Mac software?
2. I use MC to edit metadata in my lossless FLAC library. I bought the MacBook because we are expecting our first child and my in-laws will be moving into my office, thereby making it difficult to use my workstation. Can I edit metadata (Alt+Enter) in the same fashion on the Mac? Will my Windows 7-based music server have a problem with files that have been edited on the Mac?
I'm trying to avoid installing Boot Camp on the Mac in an attempt to make an earnest effort to try/accept Yosemite. That said, I intend to continue using Windows 7-based machines for playback. Any input into which option (MC for Mac versus Boot Camp/MC for Windows 7) that addresses my metadata editing/compatibility question would be sincerely appreciated.
Best regards,
Tim
-
1. Mac is a separate license.
2. Editing tags works and is compatible.
-
Thanks for the reply Jim.
Tim
-
Also, FYI, the Mac version can connect to and use a Library served by a Windows machine and is fully functional (including tagging).
The MC trial is full featured. Use it.
Lastly, I LOVE Yosemite. Really. Been rock solid, and very fast.
-
Also, FYI, the Mac version can connect to and use a Library served by a Windows machine and is fully functional (including tagging).
The MC trial is full featured. Use it.
Lastly, I LOVE Yosemite. Really. Been rock solid, and very fast.
Glynor, I also like Yosemite except for networking with Windows.
I host my media on a MacPro and share to Win7. Under Yosemite, JRiver will play audio but will stop audio whenever I try to record TV at the same time and will give tag writing errors for theTV recording. No such problems under Mavericks but even there I have had to disable smb2/3 on Win7. If you have a solution to this I'd like to hear it.
-
Glynor, I also like Yosemite except for networking with Windows.
I host my media on a MacPro and share to Win7.
Yeah. Don't do that. Do it the other way around and it works fine.
OSX's SMB sharing has actually improved a bit since the bad-old-SAMBA-days in my testing, but it is still pretty brain dead. As a SMB client, though, it is finally decent in Yosemite. I no longer have any issues accessing my Windows-hosted shares.
-
Yeah. Don't do that. Do it the other way around and it works fine.
OSX's SMB sharing has actually improved a bit since the bad-old-SAMBA-days in my testing, but it is still pretty brain dead. As a SMB client, though, it is finally decent in Yosemite. I no longer have any issues accessing my Windows-hosted shares.
Yes, agree, the client works fine. I can fire up the Mac version of MC and stream video from the MC server on Win7 without a problem. But not the other way around. The only reason I host media on Mac is because I use ZFS pools which you can't do on Windows. I am tired of waiting for Apple to fix SMB so I am planning on moving to a ZFS based FreeNAS server.
Appreciate all your help - you are one knowledgeable dude!
-
FreeNAS uses SAMBA and is basically just as brain dead, in many of the same ways. ::)
Assuming you can't afford an Isilon (http://www.emc.com/storage/isilon/isilon.htm) (which is where we store our VMs and whatnot at the office, and works perfectly between OSX and Windows) I'd really recommend trying to serve shares from a "real" Windows box.
-
I was wondering about SAMBA on FreeNAS but didn't know it was that bad. There is an option to run NFS shares - Mac OS Handles that well but does Windows?
Yes, that Isilion looks like an expensive enterprise solution so not likely. I like the data protection from ZFS in conjunction with ECC ram on the MacPro. However I could do a Windows box for a data server and archive/backup data to ZFS. Of course if JRiver does a full up version of MC for Mac then I am good to go with current config.
-
Well, at least FreeNAS is free so... :-\
They might have some secret sauce now. Last I looked at it was years ago. We still answer support threads here about it though.
Windows really prefers SMB/CIFS shares. I think you can make some things work with NFS shares, but it is probably clunky.
-
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with samba (I'm asking that sincerely as I didn't know there were issues with it)?
I've been running some samba 4.x shares hosted on a linux box in a mixed linux and windows environment for about 8 months and haven't any issues to speak of. What should I be on the lookout for in terms of filesystem mischief? So far, the samba shares work for me just like any other windows network share. I'm not running FreeNAS, so I don't know if they're using an older version of Samba, but the current mainstream linux samba packages have been smooth as silk for me so far.
The only thing I can say that's suboptimal is that JRiver's auto-import misses filesystem events on the shares once in a while, but that happens to me with windows shares too (and local NTFS drives ::) ), so I can't really fault samba for that.
Am I sitting on a timebomb? What sort of trouble should I be expecting?
Also, forgive me if this a dumb question, but I thought samba was just a specific opensource implementation of SMB/CIFS, but the discussion above seems to suggest they're meaningfully different? Is it just that samba is a poor SMB/CIFS implementation? Is there a better FOSS implementation out there?
Sorry for all the questions, I just hadn't ever heard anything bad about samba's performance before, other than configuration challenges. It did take me about 6-8 hours of fiddling to get everything working correctly, but I assumed that was attributable to me being a linux noob; after that it hasn't given me any trouble... yet ;D
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with SAMBA. I think it's only the Mac implementation that may be a problem.