Print

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

[phelt]

When the panes were introduced into MC I thought they were interesting but not compelling, and pretty much a waste of interface space. The most recent versions have caused me to start looking for another music program to replace MC. Having the primary navigation scheme be altered or disappear depending on a search string is wrong and annoying. This would not be so bad if I could just hide the panes and use a tree, but that doesn't appear to be possible.

Some time ago there were statements to the effect that J River were trying to maintain a balance between newbie friendliness and power-user options. I feel like the focus has shifted to the latter during the 9.1 beta. I don't find MC to be a comfortable app to explore or browse. Rather, MC now feels like a media search app that happens to play files, and can do slideshows if one follows a Byzantine procedure every time.

Frankly I just don't see MC getting better in significant ways. I've given up trying to use MC for ripping, burning, image browsing, DVD playback, or anything besides music. Sometimes user requests get addressed immediately, sometimes it takes one or two mega-threads in the forum, sometimes they appear to be ignored forever. Splitscreen is an excellent example of the lattermost behavior. I could have lived the rest of my life without panes, but I've been cursing the absence of splitscreen daily for more than a year.

Major problems with ripping, burning, drive access, and movie playback are unresolved for me. The usual responses to queries on these topics are
1)Try the next build
2)It's not us, something must be borked on your machine
But the next build never fixes these things, and my machine happens to rock with nearly ANY other software which attempts the same functions.

I know this post is a bit of a ramble, apologies for that. But I don't bear a disappointment well, and that's what MC is slowly becoming for me.

[lee269]

This would not be so bad if I could just hide the panes and use a tree, but that doesn't appear to be possible.

Unless Ive misunderstood what you want, I think you can do this. Set the properties of the view scheme to 'populate tree', and hide the panes by moving the horizontal splitter to the top. As far as I can see this pretty much leaves you with the 'classic' library view.

[MachineHead]

This would not be so bad if I could just hide the panes and use a tree

You can use Hard Disk Location (just point it at your main directory) and it will be just like the tree. This is what I do.

As for the rest...

I am kind of thinking in the same way. The panes are still not very functional for me. Though I try. Hard Disk Location has the drawback of not being able to use the back button and remember where the hell it was. So I still scroll like a madman.

Never use it for DVD. Just isn't as good as a couple of others I have.

Pictures in this are more of a novelty then anything else. Once I give someone the tour, it never really gets used again.

Haven't used MC for ripping in long time. Once some of the standout features of EAC are incorporated I might try again.

Example:

It doesn't seem (to me anyway) like creating an .m3u playlist upon extraction would be that hard to implement. Would also save an unnecessary step.

And quite possibly my greatest letdown was the placing of file properties to lower corner. One of the best things about MJ-MC is its tagging abilities. Now this placement makes for one of the most unnatural actions I can think of. It all is backwards to the very way we were taught to read (US that is).

If re-writing the GUI is possible, why couldn't File Properties be chopped out of this particular spot and placed back where it was in 9.0.***? Could still be an area for images and what not for those that like to see these sorts of things there. As it stands now, I have F.P. in windowed mode (which I hate) just so I can have a larger area to work with. Drawback: Loses focus if you click anywhere else in MC.

Could go on but I won't. MC is still my favorite music software....for now. I just hope they don't need to keep adding gizmos as a means of attracting attention to it.

[phelt]

lee269:
Any view scheme that I create appears to be dependent upon interaction with the panes to define nesting for the tree view. Since the relevant controls for defining view scheme properties are no longer in the modal window for new view schemes, I have to display panes in order to define panes in order to create a tree so that I might again hide panes. Weak. But you are perfectly correct, it is possible.

[gkerber]

lee269:
Any view scheme that I create appears to be dependent upon interaction with the panes to define nesting for the tree view. Since the relevant controls for defining view scheme properties are no longer in the modal window for new view schemes, I have to display panes in order to define panes in order to create a tree so that I might again hide panes. Weak. But you are perfectly correct, it is possible.

I have (almist) totally banned the panes from my MC use.  The only time I must see them is when defining a view scheme, but that's all.

The tree view and painless MC work pretty good.  The main difference I see between 9.0 and 9.1 now is the moved player and playing now display.  

I am not a power user, I have no use for slicing and dicing up my music as others seem to want to.

I do totally agree with you, that MC development spends way more time on power user features than on basic functionality and bug fixes.  I do wonder how far along 9.1 will get before they start on 9.2 with unfinished business in 9.1.

I'm a detail programmer myself, the details matter.

[jleerigby]

And quite possibly my greatest letdown was the placing of file properties to lower corner.

I actually love this change as it makes better use of real estate.  With 9.0 I hated the fact that each time I displayed properties it covered several columns view of the tracks I was trying to tag.

As far as panes go I really want to like them but just find them too buggy at the moment.  You get unpredictable behaviour using back, forward or search bar when navigating panes.

Could go on but I won't. MC is still my favorite music software....for now. I just hope they don't need to keep adding gizmos as a means of attracting attention to it.

Couldn't agree more.  Looking at the last few builds though it does look like they are concentrating on fixes and improving speed and stability.  I think we just need to be patient.

[dragyn]

Only thing I don't like in panes is the 'hard disk location'/'playlist' views.

I first suggested to have a 'tree' structure inside the pane before the tree view came back. This would have been the way I would like to see it. Not a lot of clicking around.

Now that the tree is back, I use that instead. There still is an issue with <this folder> where it doesn't show any files yet they show in pane view.

------------------

Another thing is 'last played'. It shows stuff like 42.9 days ago..WTH!?! How about a date? How about something like 'Tuesday', 'Yesterday', 'Today'?

When using 'Last Played' in panes, you will get multiple items because it's rounded off.

43.0
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.8

This definately is no good. I think everything should be grouped on a day basis instead of this. At least have an option for it.

------------------

One last thing...'Playing Now'..

I was gonna remove some songs using search criteria. After I found the songs, I hit delete. Well... doing this deleted everything. Not good.

------------------

I could go on and on and on.....but I have stuff to do today.

[lee269]

phelt:
Yeah I see what you mean. I guess if you really want to avoid panes then thats a problem.

I actually have some sympathy with you here, and I recognise some of the circumstances you describe. For quite some time I felt that the MJ/MC interface was the thing that needed serious work rather than the features, and I thought the treadmill should probably stop and pause whilst everyone took a breath and considered where we were. But Im a simple average user and can contribute nothing in the way of professional knowledge, just gut feeling.

I do think in the development of MC 9.1 the JRiver guys have worked on and improved the interface. Theres still a few things Id like to see changed - bottom-left properties is one thing, because for me its too small. After a bit of time, I confess Im finding the panes useful now. Lack of unskinnned mode is my biggest regret. Splitscreen almost goes without saying. But (with apologies for stating the bleeding obvious) you cant please all the people all the time.

Agreed its sometimes difficult to see how much weight the forum has in defining MC direction, but I dont think theres any doubt that there is some effect, and probably much more than usual - sure it is sometimes frustrating, but surely its clear that the developers and users have a closer relationship than most. I still have faith. Except in the case of splitscreen, where I dont think Ive ever seen a dissenting voice, or a definitive response from JRiver.

Ive not looked at alternatives, but for now Im happy to stay on the MC train.

And finally: no offence intended to anyone here - just a little navel-gazing on a rainy Saturday night.

[phelt]

After some navel-gazing of my own, I think it might be more productive to offer specific thoughts and recommendations about MC. I don't like delivering a load of complaints without some effort at suggestion or at least expectations. Obviously I know that these will be one person's opinions and not necessarily reflective of all MC users (as if that were possible). I also understand that they will be considered by the J River team and implemented or not according to their own ideas and agenda. But I hope that I can contribute some signal to the noise    It will take a bit to state things cogently - I'll post in this thread when done. I'd be happy to see other folks' ideas here if they are so inclined.

[nila]

I think some kind of configuration screen like v9 used to have to create the view schemes would give you exactly what you wanted - the ability to not use the panes at all.

It'd also really help for beginners - I know the first time I encountered the panes - I had NO idea how in the world to customise them and could not work out the panes for the life of me. Eventually I got fed up trying and came here and posted asking.

If I got confused and out of everyone I know I'm considered the computer boff, I know that all except maybe three or four of my friends will DEFINITELY get confused too.

A screen coming up after the initial view scheme definition screen to let you create the panes that are visibile and the order they are in would solve the confusion problem as well as your problem

[Matt]

Developing software is a process.  That means sometimes we make mistakes and sometimes things you think seem obvious won't happen right away.

I won't let the team get kicked around though.  They pour themselves into this program and work hard to respond to what we (as users) want.

Solutions are very welcome.  Nebulous negativity (especially about a beta) isn't.

To those of you helping to make MC better: thank you from the whole team.

[nila]

and from those of us that are better at tic tac toe than u -   - if anything ever sounds negative or personal about the team or you just ignore us - it just means it was worded badly. U all do a great job

[lee269]

Matt:

I guess I should plead guilty to being nebulous - or at least inarticulate - but I hope you didnt get the impression I was disparaging you or your work and Im sorry if you did. In fact I think its exactly JRiver responsiveness and willingness to engage with the forum that makes MC so great. A byproduct of this is that people sometimes start to think that everything they ask for will be implemented, and being customers, of course our personal suggestions are the most important and should be addressed right now. I am of course referring to myself here, during moments of weakness. Its your product and not for me to tell you what to do, and I dont expect anything else, honest.

I did think that the power of MC was being blunted by the interface and to some extent I stand by that, but recent developments have made great strides, IMO.

If MC development stopped here and now, Id still be happy with it. It does everything I want. Since view scheme panes were brought in I now use the tree very little,and I prefer the panes. As for specific improvements I have some small suggestions:

1. the column widths should be adjustable.
2. the headings should work like library field headings: left click to sort, right click to edit and add new columns.

Theres an issue with how column items display which has been discussed elsewhere - currently Im happy with how they work, but there is a fundamental diference between using the panes in a hierarchical data structure for Artist/Album etc. and non-hierarchical such as you might get in images. Im not sure how this might be resolved, but someone will come up with a way.

Hope this clarifies a few things and Ill try and refrain from gin-fuelled introspection in the future

[nila]

Amen on the panes width being variable - ESPECIALLY seeing as I'm now stuck on a 19" monitor at 1280x1024 instead of my normal 1600x1200 - the fixed with panes mean nearly every single one of my album names is chopped with it ending in ... while all my grouped album names:  A-C, D-F etc. are all sitting there with way too much space.

I have literally an inch to spare on both my artist grouped pane and my album grouped pane and this extra inch added to the actual album name would totally give it space to fit. I REALLY hope you implement this.



And as for the point about :

Theres an issue with how column items display which has been discussed elsewhere - currently Im happy with how they work, but there is a fundamental diference between using the panes in a hierarchical data structure for Artist/Album etc. and non-hierarchical such as you might get in images. Im not sure how this might be resolved, but someone will come up with a way.

Couldn't this just be resolved with a simple check box when we create the view scheme - like there is now for populating the scheme (making it a tree) - also give a checkbox for: Left to right navigation vs arbitrary navigation or something?

If it's unchecked we get it how it is now, if it's checked we get it so we can search from right to left, left to right, middle to left to right, etc.?


That'd give ultimate power and extend the already great fact that each view scheme can be customised to work independantly of the others - a VERY powerful fact.

It means not only can we chose how the data in sorted in each pane along with what data it sorts but we can also chose how we browse it - YES!!

p.s. - I like panes

[JimH]

I have to agree that there has been too much general whining lately, and not enough specifics on why.

Remarks like "I'm a detail programmer myself, the details matter" do nothing other than irritate.

"This condition creates this bug" works a lot better than "this is stupid, why isn't somebody working on it."

We have a great team working on MC.  We try to listen and respond, but we have to believe that the idea has merit and we have to find time to implement it.  More often than not now, we reject some pretty good ideas because they add to the complexity of the program.

So take your design hats off long enough to help document how to reproduce the bugs that are bothering you.

[zevele10]

Matt and Jimh

As you can see ,i'am not part of the debat.
MC9 or 9,1 are not for me.
Much much to difficult to learn and use for someone who just want to have his music , who never built a playlist ,do not use part of the tags , have only full albums and listen only to full albums.
I'am much to much a computer idiot to be able to use it , most of the time i do not understand the answers i got when i post for help ...you can imagine..

Now ,it is not a raison for not understanding what you have in mind ,where you want to go. This i am aware of.
In another end ,i as well understand the general moody feeling of many posts.

But ,as far as i can see ,this was allways done without flame or irrespect to any member  of the team.

This is due to the nature of the relation team/users.
You cannot tell a total stranger you never saw in your life that he left his dirty shoocks outside of the bin...

What happens now is kind of home family problems.

Wish you that all of this just a thing to speak about next year when having a drink in JRiver office :
"Matt do you remember last year how Interact was kind of a messy 'crying wall'.."

" YES! but it did last to long  ."

So ,keep the road and just do a 'no tears and mourn day' next friday:
NO ONE open Interact this day and all the team have a drink together to close the week .

All the best and Mazal Tov

[gkerber]

I have to agree that there has been too much general whining lately, and not enough specifics on why.

Remarks like "I'm a detail programmer myself, the details matter" do nothing other than irritate.

That was my quote, and I thank you for pointing out that it irritates.  I was unaware this was irritating, nor was it my intention to irritate anyone.  So please accept my apology, but also please accept it was not my intention to irritate.  Okay?  

I meant that getting all the little parts of a program working in full before moving on to other versions is important to me and hopefully others and most likely reviewers.

I was thinking in my mind about things like:

1.  in 9.0, can't rearrange tracks in cd burn view.
2.  scroll bars are not windows standard in 9.0
3.  selecting properties with highlighted item in tree got a "no files selected" message"

I was trying to point out that I woud like a version to be finished before going on to the next version.

Please feel free to point out anything I ever say that is irritating,  since that is never my intent, but sometimes maybe an unintended result.

[JimH]

gkerber,
Thanks.  "Finished" is a relative term, and especially since the market we're in is moving so fast.  We've got to stay with it or ahead of it, so sometimes the implementation of new features overpowers adding polish.

Jim

[jleerigby]

I think we should all pay more - then you could afford one team to keep ahead of the competition and another to add the polish.  I know it's a silly suggestion but there you are.  I can't believe what good value for money this software is.  It cost me $40 (£28 in my money), that's less than a full tank of petrol (gas to you lot)!  I just purchased an IRMAN and remote for £46 - £16 more than the cost of MC and it'll be about 1 tenth as useful.

[nila]

I think we should all pay more

Ssshhhh - Maybe for those of u with tons of extra cash who are in good jobs this is fine - for those of us with no cash trying to clear tons of Uni debt MC is more than expensive enough.

I doubt I'm going to be using v10 as it is as I cant really justify such a high price tag without a very good reason and if it became even more expensive then there is no way at all I could for sure - and none of the people I recommend it to would pay more either.


If you want to give more - I'm sure they wont object AT ALL if u just donate it to them without the general price going up - Make cheque's payable to:  JRiver Beer fund and post them to Jim - They'll love you forever