MediaMonkey forum

Dreadlau wrote:Implying that something polished is automatically less functional?

I'm not implying that, but when having to choose where developer time is spend I would spend it on features. There are many more features/customizations missing from MediaMonkey, thus plenty of developer time required to achieve this. So you're completely missing the point. If MediaMonkey would have unlimited developer resources I would love to see the interface updated, but as it works as needed and there is limited developer time I'm perfectly fine with the current interface.

MM4 used to access 1,500 music videos in AVI, MKV, VOB & MPG format; 300 hours of recorded TV in 400 files, many in HD at over a gigabyte a file; 300 other assorted digital video files and 55,000 MP3 files. All accessed from a windows home server by four quad core desktops sometimes simultaneously.

Great Work.

Thanks for providing us all with a credible alternative to Micro$oft and Appl£

Dreadlau wrote:Implying that something polished is automatically less functional?
Why is that false argument appearing all the time in this thread.

As a developer myself, I can tell you that Form and Function sit on opposite sides of the teeter-totter. Regardless of budget. Only managers believe you can have both. Good thing is, most of the time, they don't know what they don't know, either.

KEP wrote:As a developer myself, I can tell you that Form and Function sit on opposite sides of the teeter-totter.

Amen

And as any update to the looks would either be patching (little effort, not a real solution) or changing the skinning engine (major effort, hopefully a real solution, but also the probable loss of existing skins, ie more effort from skinners too) I would need to favor a focus on features.

KEP wrote:

Dreadlau wrote:Implying that something polished is automatically less functional?
Why is that false argument appearing all the time in this thread.

As a developer myself, I can tell you that Form and Function sit on opposite sides of the teeter-totter. Regardless of budget. Only managers believe you can have both. Good thing is, most of the time, they don't know what they don't know, either.

Ah yeah?

Then how do you explain that none of my propositions have any impact on the functionality?

Lowlander wrote: And as any update to the looks would either be patching (little effort, not a real solution) or changing the skinning engine (major effort, hopefully a real solution, but also the probable loss of existing skins, ie more effort from skinners too) I would need to favor a focus on features.

I know that. And I think it's urgent that they begin working on it. I'm hoping for a new skinning engine.
And losing the old skins would not be such a problem if the new ones look significantly better.

BTW, I'm curious what brand new functionality would MM need so much that they couldn't afford to take time to work more on the interface?
Managing photos? Cross platform support?

Speaking of Cross Platform... I do believe it's been said somewhere along the line that they'll have to change the skinning engine to make that possible anyway.

I'd like more format support including conversion to and from, improved VirtualCD management (more tailored to backup/keeping second other format copy of local/networked files), improvements to the new DLNA feature including Play To devices. And although currently not of interest for me, thorough Android support. Although not essential I'd like to be able to rip DVD's and BluRay's next to ripping CD's, including options for conversion. Management of ripped DVD's could be better too (mostly treated as individual files now). Also some tagging enhancements, especially in the video area, and the ability to tag more video formats. Among a plethora of other features I'd like to see.

Mizery_Made wrote:Speaking of Cross Platform... I do believe it's been said somewhere along the line that they'll have to change the skinning engine to make that possible anyway.

Yes indeed.

Dreadlau wrote:
It takes +- 6 seconds for MM to start on my setup. ( and its not a cold start )
it takes +- 1 second for WMP12 to start on my setup. ( again not a cold start )

But look how much more control MM gives you than WMP! Pardon me if I'm wrong, but it seems you can't even edit your tags in WMP anymore. Or use artwork bigger than the 200x200px postage stamp WMP insists upon sticking in the folder. Guess it's all about personal preference, which MM gives more.

I am sticking with version 3 for now. I want an mp3 manager not video and photo+. I am tired of programs trying to encompass everything. Keep it simple manage my music and update the interface would have been an instant sale for me.

Even if you agree with the form vs function = mutually exclusive argument, I'm not sure it excuses the non-standard aspects of the UI.

lorie wrote:

Dreadlau wrote:
It takes +- 6 seconds for MM to start on my setup. ( and its not a cold start )
it takes +- 1 second for WMP12 to start on my setup. ( again not a cold start )

But look how much more control MM gives you than WMP! Pardon me if I'm wrong, but it seems you can't even edit your tags in WMP anymore. Or use artwork bigger than the 200x200px postage stamp WMP insists upon sticking in the folder. Guess it's all about personal preference, which MM gives more.

There is a counter-point to that though.

I used to use Nero for burning discs. It was light on resources, started up quickly, and did all of the disc burning tasks that I required. Then a new version came out where they'd added all of these new features and that "light on resources, but does everything I need" software was no more. I switched to something else.

I use EAC for CD ripping because it's better than MM for that task. I use MP3Tag for tagging because I find it better than MM for that task. I use dBpoweramp for converting/transcoding files, because it's better than MM for that task. I don't want to say "jack of all trades, master of none" about MM, but the only time I want software to try and do everything is if it means I can uninstall X, Y and Z, but I'm still using X, Y and Z after upgrading to MM4. Nothing has changed about the way I use MM from version 3 to 4. Even 2 of the 3 bugs that I experienced in MM3 are still present in MM4.

Lowlander wrote:If MediaMonkey would have unlimited developer resources I would love to see the interface updated, but as it works as needed and there is limited developer time I'm perfectly fine with the current interface.

But how many people are there like you, vs. people like this?: -

AbnerDoon wrote:Keep it simple manage my music and update the interface would have been an instant sale for me.

As for this: -

Lowlander wrote:There are plenty of people that do choose functionality over looks. Of course many choose looks, which is why Apple is doing so well, but many don't, which is why Android got a foothold in the market.

Android got a foothold in the market because Google gave it away for free and because it's available on dozens of different phones at a variety of price points, not because there are millions of people who thought "the iPhone doesn't do what I want, but Android phones do". From a functionality standpoint there isn't much that iOS does that Android doesn't and vice versa and the vast majority of people who buy smartphones use them for the same tasks, no matter which one they have.

Lowlander wrote:Their first handset was really ugly, but launched an OS bigger than Apple's.

This was the first Android phone: -



It's thick, but then it has a full QWERTY keyboard underneath the screen, but "really ugly"? No.

Your implication that people went with "really ugly" phones that ran Android because it offered all of these features that you couldn't get with a "pretty" iPhone just isn't true.

Anyway, back on topic.

I love MM4. I can't see what all the negativity is about.
The GUI is really not that much different, apart from tabs, which I love.
"Filters" have become "Collections".

Plus, it also has added functionality under the bonnet such as "Media Sharing".

I'm very appreciative of the effort put in by everyone involved, but I must admit to being disappointed that MM4 adds functionality I don't want and shows little improvement in the functionality I do want. I want MM to be a flexible data-driven management tool for my music. That's what sets it apart from the competition and the reason I came here in the first place. I understand that the developers can't implement everything for everyone, and that's fine, but I was really hoping for more database flexibility so we can script those tasks ourselves. Take the "Linked Tracks" concept (just one example of many), where you can link specific files to always play in sequence regardless of which one is snagged in a random playlist. This should be a native function by now, but it's not, and that's cool. You can't have everything. But the only way we can script that is some ghetto usage of the "Custom #" tags to store linking data. But what if I already use the Custom tags for other metadata or other awkward script implementations? There's just no flexibility here, and it's frustrating. We really need a more dynamic way to interface with our media than the limited predefined fields.

And now there's a "Type" field. Cool! I just need to add my own custom types and ... oh -- can't do that.

I'm not here to badmouth MM4. It's a really nice product, and I'm very thankful it exists. But if anyone is reading this from the developer team, I think your product's primary value is in data management and customization. I would like to see more focus on that aspect in coming releases. That's why I use the software, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

Thanks again for all the hard work.