Author Topic: 2.7 - the current state of play  (Read 53140 times)

Fraggie

  • Posts: 714
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #25 on: 15 Apr '03 - 17:25 »
Quote

>* MOD pattern display horizontal scrolling
Other info windows too, naturally?

Nope ;D

Boy, I thought the patterns would scroll horizontally... Geez...  ::)

;D
« Last Edit: 15 Apr '03 - 17:27 by Fraggie »

Pike84

  • Posts: 1398
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #26 on: 15 Apr '03 - 18:07 »
Alpha & Boggy: Whoa, I had totally missed that one :o ;D. I almost didn't find it even with your advice tho - it's title form, not format :P.

Anyway, automatic rescan could still be handy :).
« Last Edit: 15 Apr '03 - 18:09 by Pike84 »

Ian @ un4seen

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 21741
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #27 on: 16 Apr '03 - 16:46 »

Quote
Poor Ian... we've made you ill by making you do all this work for us. Hope you get better soon :)

The Flu's a nasty bugger, but almost over it now... just coughing up the remaining goo now :D

Quote

Alpha & Boggy: Whoa, I had totally missed that one :o ;D. I almost didn't find it even with your advice tho - it's title form, not format :P.

Anyway, automatic rescan could still be handy :).

It's not automatic, but I have now added a shortcut for it :)

uRRada

  • Guest
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #28 on: 16 Apr '03 - 17:10 »
I can't wait for release!!!!!!
Where can I download 2.7 beta? :evil:

Greebo

  • Posts: 59
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #29 on: 17 Apr '03 - 09:47 »
Yarr, she sounds good, I beg only one thing! Okay two.
Title form option: use filename.
(Also an option to stop it leaving the system tray and setting up house on the taskbar when restored from the tray)

« Last Edit: 17 Apr '03 - 09:48 by Greebo »

Pike84

  • Posts: 1398
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #30 on: 17 Apr '03 - 16:04 »
Hey, I noticed a bug in the way XMPlay sorts the list: When you have numbers before the filenames, XMPlay doesn't sort them by the number correctly. For example if you have a folder with files from 1.mp3 to 11.mp3, the order goes like "1.mp3, 10.mp3, 11.mp3, 2.mp3...", while it should of course  go like "1.mp3, 2.mp3, 3.mp3...". I bet this could have been explaine a bit more clearly, but I guess  I made my point :P:).
« Last Edit: 17 Apr '03 - 16:06 by Pike84 »

Zarggg

  • Posts: 1242
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #31 on: 17 Apr '03 - 17:42 »
Quote

When you have numbers before the filenames, XMPlay doesn't sort them by the number correctly. For example if you have a folder with files from 1.mp3 to 11.mp3, the order goes like "1.mp3, 10.mp3, 11.mp3, 2.mp3...", while it should of course  go like "1.mp3, 2.mp3, 3.mp3...".


Actually, it is working correctly.  The ASCII value for characters "0" through "9" are lower than the ASCII values of all alphabetic characters and ".".  Also, since the ASCII value for "2" is greater than the ASCII value for "1", there's no reason "2" should ever come before "10", at least as far as the computer is concerned.  The de facto method to work around this is to use preceeding zeros for the total number of digits.  For example, if you have 1000 number-identified entries, the first in the list would be either 000 or 0001, depending on the numbering system you use.

*waits for any of our other resident geeks to bonk him for beating them to this* :p
« Last Edit: 17 Apr '03 - 17:58 by Zarggg »

Rah'Dick

  • XMPlay Support
  • Posts: 963
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #32 on: 17 Apr '03 - 20:05 »
I think this is a pre-WinXP specific bug. I don't know whether you're using WinXP, but I only experienced that back on Win98... XP is sorting it correctly, so does XMPlay here. :)

Torkell

  • Posts: 1169
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #33 on: 18 Apr '03 - 11:06 »
It makes sense to sorrt hings that way, when you think about it (in computer terms). You wouldn't want your dictionary to go "a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z" and then do the two-letter words, then three letters. You'd want it to have all the words beginning with "a" first, then the words beginning with "b", and so on. The computer just isn't telling the difference between a number and a letter.

Pike84

  • Posts: 1398
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #34 on: 18 Apr '03 - 14:45 »
I'm using XP, I am. I don't want to put any preceeding zeros before the actual numbers :'(! You can't say that it's only logical for ie 10 come before 2.. I for one am waiting for a fix to this.
« Last Edit: 18 Apr '03 - 15:01 by Pike84 »

Rah'Dick

  • XMPlay Support
  • Posts: 963
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #35 on: 18 Apr '03 - 19:09 »

See? It sorts them correctly here...

Irrational86

  • Posts: 960
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #36 on: 19 Apr '03 - 01:49 »
Quote

See? It sorts them correctly here...
Umm...not to be judgy, but you are sorting it by type and not by name...

Rah'Dick

  • XMPlay Support
  • Posts: 963
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #37 on: 19 Apr '03 - 02:13 »
When you're sorting files by type, it first sorts them by the type string, then, inside the type-groups, by filenames, so it doesn't matter. I get the same results.

Torkell

  • Posts: 1169
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #38 on: 19 Apr '03 - 10:20 »
Quote

You can't say that it's only logical for ie 10 come before 2.. I for one am waiting for a fix to this.

It's logical if you go by the ASCII character codes, where the numbers go from 0-9 and then the capital letters from A-Z, then a-z (with punctuation randomly thrown in between blocks). Most programs perform a case-insensitive comparision. What WinXP is doing is it is doing an 'intelligent' sort to ensure that the numbers behave properly. Think of it as adding in leading zeros for you (but I think it will fall apart with "Track-1.ogg, Track-2.ogg, ..., Track-10.ogg, Track-11.ogg" as the number is not at the start of the filename).

Tsorovan

  • Posts: 1247
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #39 on: 19 Apr '03 - 13:24 »
Bah, sillies. Even 4DOS, the age-old command interpreter could be intelligent enough to sort numerics properly, as does *nix if you want it to. And Win2K and onwards. Your "logic dictates" stuff is null and void, I'm afraid :)

/resident semi-geek?

Ralesk

  • Posts: 654
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #40 on: 19 Apr '03 - 23:27 »
Ok, tell me how to do it in Win2k :P

4dos was teh king of all DOS shells :)

Pike84

  • Posts: 1398
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #41 on: 20 Apr '03 - 01:12 »
RahDick, my XP has no prob sorting the numbers properly, however XMPlay does. So, is no one else having this problem, then? Everyone but RahDick perhaps? :P
« Last Edit: 20 Apr '03 - 01:12 by Pike84 »

Retro

  • Posts: 23
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #42 on: 21 Apr '03 - 13:20 »
Got two new suggestions for you: :idea:
(might have been suggested before?)

1. Remove entry from the playlist once played.

2. Delete file according to Windows' Recycle Bin configuration. (to recycle bin or for good) I'd like to throw them to recycle bin, you see. :)


Olego

  • Posts: 557
Global Hotkeys
« Reply #43 on: 21 Apr '03 - 18:28 »
Hey Retro, I like your recycle bin idea.  But here is one of my own:

If you open 2 XMPlays, then only the first one will get the global hotkeys because they are exclusive.  However, when the first one closes, the second one will not get them...  Is there any way to fix that?

~Olego~

Pike84

  • Posts: 1398
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #44 on: 22 Apr '03 - 02:17 »
Um.. Why do you want to have two of them opened?

Irrational86

  • Posts: 960
Re: Global Hotkeys
« Reply #45 on: 22 Apr '03 - 03:06 »

Quote

If you open 2 XMPlays, then only the first one will get the global hotkeys because they are exclusive.  However, when the first one closes, the second one will not get them...  Is there any way to fix that?
To fix this manually, goto the Misc panel, and right click the HotKeys box to open the HotKeys config window and then click OK, that will turn them on in the second player..the first one must be closed, though..

Torkell

  • Posts: 1169
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #46 on: 22 Apr '03 - 09:42 »
Quote

Um.. Why do you want to have two of them opened?

Want to know what my record for that is? 1st copy playing from my master playlist, 2nd copy converting waves to oggs, 3rd copy adding tags to those oggs, and RealOne Player ripping a CD (to feed the 2nd copy of XMPlay). I may even have a fourth going to listen to a smaller playlist without affecting the main player. And I'm toying with the idea of having two more copies of XMPlay and another of RealOne Player, to do two CDs at the same time (I've got a CD-RW and a DVD-ROM drive). This is quite impressive, when you consider this is being done on a Duron 800-based PC.

Seriously, it's not unusual to have 2 copies of XMPlay for me. One will be in the system tray, with my master playlist, while another will be playing some sound files I've just got hold of, before deciding if I want them to be in the master 560+ song playlist.

Olego

  • Posts: 557
2
« Reply #47 on: 22 Apr '03 - 16:34 »
Yup yup, sounds all too familiar.  1 master playlist, and 1 recently-downloaded song...  ;)

~Olego~

Pike84

  • Posts: 1398
Re: 2.7 - the current state of play
« Reply #48 on: 22 Apr '03 - 21:04 »
What did you people vote for in my 'playlist system'-poll, then? Sounds like you guys have a need for multiple playlists, and that is also my major suggestion for 2.7. Oh, and multiple playlists did win the poll too :).
« Last Edit: 22 Apr '03 - 21:06 by Pike84 »

Olego

  • Posts: 557
Multiple
« Reply #49 on: 22 Apr '03 - 21:50 »
What are multiple playlists, then?

~Olego~