Sure, I appreciate your help but always forget your not one of the devs, meaning I should not argue about this with you. From your support point of view it's no longer there, that's it. I fully agree with that.
I can only hope the devs also follow this forum and take into consideration the user-remarks.
MM is a great tool, mainly not intended for the mainstream user. Simplifying things is always a good thing, but it shouldn't impact functionality. If going mainstream is the goal, something like a MMlight, having an opening screen with large flashy buttons (very important) and some automation scripts, would be the way to go. I don't think the "real" MM-users are looking for that, IMHO they like MM for it's capabilities, even if this takes some configuration.
Thanks again, and have a nice day
Weird Synchronisation issue
Moderator: Gurus
Re: Weird Synchronisation issue
Hi,
I'm sorry that this feature is missed by some of our users. When planning interface changes for MM 4.0, we decided that that its usage would be pretty limited due to the new per-Type Destination configuration. However, it seems that there are some users who are used to the way it was implemented in MM 3.x. We are looking into the issue and will try to come with a solution for MM 4.1.
Note that there was an enormous effort put into MM4 development and so we definitely don't want our users not to be satisfied with the release.
Thanks,
Jiri
I'm sorry that this feature is missed by some of our users. When planning interface changes for MM 4.0, we decided that that its usage would be pretty limited due to the new per-Type Destination configuration. However, it seems that there are some users who are used to the way it was implemented in MM 3.x. We are looking into the issue and will try to come with a solution for MM 4.1.
Note that there was an enormous effort put into MM4 development and so we definitely don't want our users not to be satisfied with the release.
Thanks,
Jiri
Re: Weird Synchronisation issue
Hi Jiri, thanks for the input.
For me the whole point of MM is that it is programmable to the n-th degree, and can synch all sorts of weird devices. if I want to synch an iPod, or use MTP mode, I have plenty of options already.
Different synch formats by 'type' would have been OK, if the =types= were user programmable .. but they are not. We're in danger of heading back to the Mp3 genre definitions .. i.e. if it isn't pre-specified, you can't have it. 8<. (I LIKE "symphonic Celtic rock"). Yes, it is simpler, but afaik MM isn't for simple people. 8>.
The 'by playlist' option already had a few snags (e.g. songs can be in more than one playlist, in which case how/where they get synched onto the device is a bit of a crapshoot .. if they're already synched as part of the 'favourites' playlist, they don't get synched again as part of the 'beatles' playlist, or vice versa) but it was still more flexible that what we have now.
Also, as mentioned, it (the 'by playlist' facility) has not been cleanly removed from MM4 .. it is still pretending to be there (but broken), and the documentation didn't mention it at all, as far as I can see.
For me the whole point of MM is that it is programmable to the n-th degree, and can synch all sorts of weird devices. if I want to synch an iPod, or use MTP mode, I have plenty of options already.
Different synch formats by 'type' would have been OK, if the =types= were user programmable .. but they are not. We're in danger of heading back to the Mp3 genre definitions .. i.e. if it isn't pre-specified, you can't have it. 8<. (I LIKE "symphonic Celtic rock"). Yes, it is simpler, but afaik MM isn't for simple people. 8>.
The 'by playlist' option already had a few snags (e.g. songs can be in more than one playlist, in which case how/where they get synched onto the device is a bit of a crapshoot .. if they're already synched as part of the 'favourites' playlist, they don't get synched again as part of the 'beatles' playlist, or vice versa) but it was still more flexible that what we have now.
Also, as mentioned, it (the 'by playlist' facility) has not been cleanly removed from MM4 .. it is still pretending to be there (but broken), and the documentation didn't mention it at all, as far as I can see.
Re: Weird Synchronisation issue
Hi Jiri,
Thanks for the reply. I'm convinced a lot of work has been done for MM4, one can see that. It's a nice and good working program.
I'm glad to hear the problem is going to be looked into, and really hope we'll get the functionality of MM3 back (the more some of the coding still seems to be there --> the edit-button and default-location per playlist which shows up when an upgrade from MM3 is done). In fact, both could co-exist, if nothing is specified for the playlist, the default specified in the "by type" is used, otherwise it overrules (as it was in MM3)
As I and also GSV3MiaC wrote : being able to define how playlist-synchronisation should be done (towards weird devices) was a strength of MM3.
Thanks
Thanks for the reply. I'm convinced a lot of work has been done for MM4, one can see that. It's a nice and good working program.
I'm glad to hear the problem is going to be looked into, and really hope we'll get the functionality of MM3 back (the more some of the coding still seems to be there --> the edit-button and default-location per playlist which shows up when an upgrade from MM3 is done). In fact, both could co-exist, if nothing is specified for the playlist, the default specified in the "by type" is used, otherwise it overrules (as it was in MM3)
As I and also GSV3MiaC wrote : being able to define how playlist-synchronisation should be done (towards weird devices) was a strength of MM3.
Thanks
Re: Weird Synchronisation issue
Hi,
Any news about this feature that disappeared in MM4 ?
Thx
Any news about this feature that disappeared in MM4 ?
Thx
Re: Weird Synchronisation issue
This issue is still on our radar, but is only going to be looked at after we complete bi directional synchronization planned for 4.1. Bi-di sync is complex enough on its own, and adding this to the mix is one more item that we felt should be done subsequent to the initial implementation.
Tracked at: http://www.ventismedia.com/mantis/view.php?id=9444
I'm sorry that MM 4 disappointed you with respect to this functionality, but it's sometimes tough to balance all competing requirements without some items falling by the wayside
-Rusty
Tracked at: http://www.ventismedia.com/mantis/view.php?id=9444
I'm sorry that MM 4 disappointed you with respect to this functionality, but it's sometimes tough to balance all competing requirements without some items falling by the wayside

-Rusty