MM4 review: "From great to terrible?"

[Sebastian78]

I'm not a hater, I swear....but honestly, I haven't used MediaMonkey for a long long time. I've been using Spotify more and more even if I have 200GB++ of 320 mp3's and/or FLAC files.

I just want to play music in a player that a) works, b) looks great/visually pleasing and c) doesn't feel/look outdated or cramped. Oh and I don't really like iTunes,too many restrictions and dead ends. I really felt as thought MM was "it" for me, but I'm not so sure anymore.

Basically here's my view:

- MM has a terrible slow update frequency
- It doesn't look or feel like it's been updated since 2.5 at least, even though I know a lot of behind the scenes updating has been done. As a user, I don't care about that, what I care about is what I see (as long as the bugs are fixed)
- It's got outdated ergonomics
- It feels like it belongs on a Windows XP machine
- It's become a piece of niche software for the few
- MM is not forward thinking when it comes to useability and aestetics

I don't want my movies in MediaMonkey, I have VLC for that. I don't want my pictures in there. I want to play music, I want it to look great while playing my music.

I can't see any reason to use or recommend MM anymore. I'm willing to sacrefice functionality over looks.

Now, bash me if you will, that's ok. I have no feelings in this, MM is just a piece of software that doesn't fit my use anymore. I've tried putting foreward my views here and some fanb....users didn't like that. I have paid for MM Gold Licence and I wish them the best......but there are better players out there now.

S








I'm sorry, perhaps I've fallen out of the MM demographics?

[nohitter151]

I'm sorry, perhaps I've fallen out of the MM demographics?

I think this is the case. You're pleading for more eye candy and less actual substance. In my opinion, that is not what MM is about.

[Dreadlau]

I'm sorry, perhaps I've fallen out of the MM demographics?

I think this is the case. You're pleading for more eye candy and less actual substance. In my opinion, that is not what MM is about.

or you can also change the words "eye candy" for "modern interface that doesn't look and feel 5 years behind."

[nohitter151]

or you can also change the words "eye candy" for "modern interface that doesn't look and feel 5 years behind."

I really wish I knew what you meant by this. When I look at MediaMonkey 4.0 vs other applications like Firefox 8, notepad++, Pidgin, Paint.net, I don't feel that at all.

[Dreadlau]

or you can also change the words "eye candy" for "modern interface that doesn't look and feel 5 years behind."

I really wish I knew what you meant by this. When I look at MediaMonkey 4.0 vs other applications like Firefox 8, notepad++, Pidgin, Paint.net, I don't feel that at all.

a quick example: We're in 2011 and Mediamonkey menus still don't have the native os look for win7.

I don't want mm to have mirror effects, crazy animations, and other useless eye candy.
I want it to look modern!

[Sebastian78]

I don't want mm to have mirror effects, crazy animations, and other useless eye candy.
I want it to look modern!

I want Mediamonkey to look modern, nothing more. How much "extra" could you actually make a MP3/music player software do anyways? MM works as a MP3 player, but it sucks in the looks department. Keep the player functionality, make it look more modern!

If MP3's pushed the compact disc out of the way in a relatively short time, streaming/cloud with local storage will push mp3 player software out of the way even faster. I have several iPods, I hardly use them anymore. I use my Android phone, I use Spotify. It works, it looks great and it works as a portable player quality wise. I hope the MM crew isn't putting a lot of effort into something that will become marginalized very fast...

S

[DJSigma]

I do tend to agree about the look of MM. I would like it if it looked more modern/polished, although it doesn't look terrible by any means. At the end of the day though, functionality and performance are the main reasons I choose one piece of software over another. A better looking UI would just be icing on a cake that I've already chosen over the other cakes that are out there.

[r0k]

a quick example: We're in 2011 and Mediamonkey menus still don't have the native os look for win7.

Really, is this vertical bar in the menu that important to you

If MP3's pushed the compact disc out of the way in a relatively short time, streaming/cloud with local storage will push mp3 player software out of the way even faster...

MP3s hardly puched CD's out of the way. Just because Steve Jobs (let him rest in peace) convinced a lot of people that buying lower quality tracks online for approximately the same price as a CD doesn't mean it's smart to do it. Only the recent, but still limited, increase of online lossless marketplaces (HDtracks, Quobuz ...) can puch the CD's out of the way.
As for streaming, i don't know for spotify but most streaming are even lower quality than a standard bought MP3. If this quality is good for you, well, sure you don't need Media Monkey.
Media Monkey is for people who want features over shiny interface. As for myself i hope the team will continue to improve features first and than only when all features are stable, will they think about interface. The look is completely customisable anyway

Mind you, the other music player i use besides Media Monkey is Foobar2000 so yes, i stand right at the opposite pole from you, i don't care the interface if the features are great. That doesn't mean my point of view is better than yours, it's just different. That being said, if you want a nice interface and basic features, Media Monkey certainly is not the application you should buy.

[Dreadlau]

a quick example: We're in 2011 and Mediamonkey menus still don't have the native os look for win7.

Really, is this vertical bar in the menu that important to you

Yes modern separators and the segoe UI @ 9 point are that important to me!
( none of these can be obtained using the skinning engine! )

I don't get why there is no effort done and time invested in just making sure MM4 is up to the UI standards of his time.

I was given hope there would be more efforts put to fix the rustiness of the interface.
But it hasn't changed that much since mm3.

It's also sluggish.
Try to play with re-sizing windows explorer with your mouse from a corner. => the window resize and update perfectly and instantly.
Now try to do that with MM. => I think you get my point.

And an UI is not only a question of looks. It's also about lisibility. about presenting the important informations the right way.
For example look at Mediamonkey's tree and compare with the one from windows explorer:


It looks crowded,
Not enough space between the different elements,
No grouping, ...

[Dreadlau]

Mind you, the other music player i use besides Media Monkey is Foobar2000 so yes, i stand right at the opposite pole from you, i don't care the interface if the features are great. That doesn't mean my point of view is better than yours, it's just different. That being said, if you want a nice interface and basic features, Media Monkey certainly is not the application you should buy.

Sorry but that is so wrong! You really took the worst example you could get to make your point.

Foobar2000 is by far the program that got the best designs and skins with lots of possible customizations.

Just look at this beauty. Light years from Mediamonkey in terms of UI.

[nohitter151]

Foobar2000 is by far the program that got the best designs and skins with lots of possible customizations.

This is foobar:

[Dreadlau]

Foobar2000 is by far the program that got the best designs and skins with lots of possible customizations.

This is foobar:

Nice. But I can do that too!

This is Mediamonkey:

[nohitter151]

Nice. But I can do that too!

Only that is not the default setting. By default when installing MM skinning is enabled. The default install of foobar looks as above.

[r0k]

I'm certainly not telling Media Monkey's interface is great or there is nothing to do to improve it (but it's not "terrible" either). I'm just telling i consider interface secondary and features primary while i got the impression some posters here consider interface primary. I may be wrong, and even if i'm right, there is nothing wrong with this. It's just that the MediaMonkey team considers features firts and thus someone who prefers nice looking interface over feature filled (because they don't use all those complicated features anyway) would better use another player than try to make Media Monkey change.
Now, if you want features AND interface you're in troubles

Oh, BTW Dreadlau, thanks for the Foobar example, i'll have a better look at the alternative skins. I'm not against a nice interface if i can have good features first

[Dreadlau]

Oh, BTW Dreadlau, thanks for the Foobar example, i'll have a better look at the alternative skins. I'm not against a nice interface if i can have good features first

And here we go. And I think this will get the point across. Foobar can be both full of functionality and have a pleasing interface at the same time.

I believe Mediamonkey could too.

But that won't happen if the UI don't get the attention it deserve in the future MM builds!

Now, if you want features AND interface you're in troubles

I take the bet that Mediamonkey could achieve both.