Topic: Playlist System revised

[Pike84]

I thought it was necessary to make another one of these, since at least some people didn't quite know, what some of the choises (namely, multiple playlists) actually meant. I also don't now put up the "I don't care as long as it works" -option, because it doesn't help in comparison, and is pretty pointless anyway .

Before you vote, be sure that you know what the different alternatives are about (some clarification below). Also if you vote for "some other playlist system", please post a reply explaining what kind of playlist system you would like then.



*note*
By multiple playlists, I mean that many playlists could be created, opened and edited in a single instance of XMPlay, removing the need for running many XMPlays for switching easily between different lists. The lists would be handeled separately, although there could be an option to merge lists together. For an example of multiple playlists, try Winamp 3 (but don't even think about using it for any other purposes !).

I can't explain the media library option very well, because I have only tested briefly the system in WMP. Basic idea is, however, to be able to browse through your music(or videos) via the player, and play stuff directly from there. Most people should be able to easily get their hands on WMP for testing, anyway.

Note that multiple playlists and media library don't necessarily shut out each other - in WMP (at least version 9) the playlists are included in the media library. I didn't include an option to vote for both, because I want to know which one is more liked.

[DanaPaul]

I can't explain the media library option very well, because I have only tested briefly the system in WMP.

Well, I can explain media library options...

Multiple media libraries... Yes
Import Media Libraries..... Yes
Export Media Libraries..... Yes
Multiple Play lists........ Yes

Media libraries can organize media files in sub directories named by Artist / Album / Title, or none of the above, and these files may be organized by "Artist - Album - [track] - Title" for a given file name in any single or multiple folders. Any variation, or ordering of the sub folder names, and a wide variety of file name parameters are supported.  However, sticking with one library organizing scheme is optimal.

Large media libraries are given optional support utilizing a database which allows the media application to load quickly with last known media file names and locations. Media files are displayed in a window object that inherits a standard Windows tree view style so that single nodes (artist, album, genre) can be collapsed or expanded.  This tree view may be sorted in ascending or descending order by any given media attribute, such as artist, album, genre, date etc.

The greatest enjoyment that I receive from a Media Library utility is the notion that a playlist is, well... pointless.  The Media Library is my playlist and I can select (play) any number of files with a few clicks depending on my mood at any given moment. The Media Library application can also generate auto playlists based on the amount of play time desired and any number of media parameters, Genre, played most often, etc...

My playlists, (very few) consist of tracks that have been burned to compilation CD's

the playlists are included in the media library.

This is unnecessary if the files are already listed in the library as described above.  A seperate window may list custom play lists so that they can be deleted when they eventually become stale or boring

[Pike84]

Well, I can explain media library options...

Umm, I wasn't talking about media library options here; I was talking about the options/choices/alternatives in this poll .

This is unnecessary if the files are already listed in the library as described above.

Perhaps, but I was just stating, that playlists are included in the media library system of Windows Media Player 9.

For me, a complicated, even if working media library is quite futile. If I just want to easily play songs from my music archives, I can use the normal Windows directory tree, just as well as anyone would use their fancy media libraries. Yet, I support adding multiple playlists, because that would be much simpler to implement. Media library can still be very useful for those people, who don't have their music so well-organized as I do. Perhaps this poll can give us some insight on what kind of people are using XMPlay :idea:?

By the way, you didn't mention, what player has this media library system you described . WMP 9?

[DanaPaul]

For me, a complicated, even if working media library is quite futile. If I just want to easily play songs from my music archives, I can use the normal Windows directory tree, just as well as anyone would use their fancy media libraries.

Been there and done that.  The "normal" Windows directory tree is a poor example of a Media Library.  In "Icon" view with a large number of files it slows down and (appears) to forget clicks. In other words, it can't keep up even with 640 MB RAM and a 2.0 Ghz P4.

Yet, I support adding multiple playlists, because that would be much simpler to implement.

I can sum it up in 3 words, people hate files.  No matter how hard you try, people will never become satisfied managing files (play lists) to organize, coallate, or even segregate their files. MP3 has changed our lives, accept it

Media library can still be very useful for those people, who don't have their music so well-organized as I do ... By the way, you didn't mention, what player has this media library system you described. WMP 9?

No, I'm old school and I really don't like MS applications.  I use MusicMatch Jukebox.  The registered version is very useful, feature packed, and reasonably priced.

I feel that I must elaborate that in my experience no killer application exists even today.  Every application has its own misgivings. And media players are no exception.  Personally, I use a few.

[Tsorovan]

Don't use Icon View then? List View is way better.
Of course, that doesn't solve your main gripes with the whole thing, but it's unnecessary making it even worse by running Icon View which is incredibly hard to overview. :D

————————————————————————————

Why is the option called "I'm happy with just this one playlist" whilst the other are "I want...". Shouldn't it be "I don't want more than one playlist" so as not to keep it so damn neutral-sounding instead?

("Ah well I guess you can have your multiple playlists even though I'll dislike it but hey such is the world and I guess I have to comply and what no I don't have an authority problem and please hit me in the face I won't mind" etc. etc.)

OR, change the other ones to "I'm not happy with the lack of multiple playlists blablablbal".

This might sound like pointless crap, but I'm tired of polls forcing/coercing you into choosing stuff you don't want, or not having properly formulated options. Fact of the matter is that Poll Choice 4 is almost as vague or moreso than Choice 3 :)

Feel free to ignore me if you want though.

[Torkell]

I'm the one who picked option 3

What I would like is a system where you have multiple playlists, but you can add them together to form one playlist but it keeps the tracks grouped by playlist so that I can easily add/remove groups.

Oh, and Tsorovan, be glad that there isn't a "Just digging the music" option. Oterwise, you might be looking at something like this (stupid answer in bold):

Q: Are you a member of the International Game Developers Association?
12.49%: Yes, I am
07.64%: No, I don't want to be
28.22%: No, I don't have the money
10.65%: No, but I'm thinking about it
40.99%: What's the IGDA??

[DanaPaul]

Don't use Icon View then? List View is way better.

List view is a teeny weeny bit of an improvement over Icon view. The operating system (Explorer) acesses the file (any file) each time a file is clicked to check its file type, file association, context menu, etc.  Regardless of List view or Icon view thereby bringing the view to a pitiful crawl.

I mean this next statement in the sincerest way possible, ignorance regarding Media Library benefits compound with each post in this thread, and each (multiple) playlist quantity proposed for your (any) application.  Media Library applications access a media file once. Data base support adds speed and a wealth of other sorting, organizing, and categorizing possibilities

:::rant mode off:::

[Tsorovan]

Weird, in Win2K and WinXP keypresses overrides any info reading and thus I get no slowdowns at all. At least here. On a crappy Athlon XP1600+ system. But I agree, I would like to turn that status bar info stuff off totally, because it's actually useless.

BoggyB: hehe, I guess. I still think it's an unfair poll though! :)

[DanaPaul]

Weird, in Win2K and WinXP keypresses overrides any info reading and thus I get no slowdowns at all. At least here. On a crappy Athlon XP1600+ system. But I agree, I would like to turn that status bar info stuff off totally, because it's actually useless.

This observation is flawed.  You have to click (err... action) a file to play it.

Hee hee back at ya

[Tsorovan]

Same thing with clicking. Your systems are screwed up I think.

Or oh, oh, oh, are you using the Explorer "file manager"? That piece of crap thing? I'm using the "other" thing (same executable), Start -> Run -> drive/dir directly.
I started the "real" Explorer once the first time I tried Win95 back in 1996, since then it's never been run.
Yeah I know, I'm so cool and so rebel, eh?

[edit]
Reading your post again...I don't know what action you're trying to describe. first you mention selecting files and then executing them? Anyhow, this is a pretty stupid discussion...it's not like it's any relevant really :D

[update]
No slowdowns in that Explorer thing either. Either I've turned some crap off and you haven't, or you've got one of those nice Slump Errors so common nowadays. Or a P166.

[DanaPaul]

Your systems are screwed up I think.

Nope, A "B" for blaming the system...  P4 @ 2.0 Ghz, 640 MB RAM, 120 GB (multiple) fixed disks, 32 MB DDR VRAM, Hardware accelerated Video, Sound and Modem, CD-RW, DVD, LAN, and Digital Subscriber Line, as well as Win98se and WinXP Pro.

Start -> Run -> drive/dir directly.

Nope, A "C" for blaming the user... I'm very familiar with "running" a folder, this action is programmable as well.

Reading your post again...I don't know what action you're trying to describe. first you mention selecting files and then executing them? Anyhow, this is a pretty stupid discussion...it's not like it's any relevant really

Nope, a "C" for dismissing relevancy.  

No slowdowns in that Explorer thing either. Either I've turned some crap off and you haven't, or you've got one of those nice Slump Errors so common nowadays. Or a P166.

Nope, An "F" for repeating yourself. Obviously you forgot to open your eyes before reading a few posts back

[Tsorovan]

I give you a 'Z' for writing incoherent posts then, not accurately describing your problems.
Have a nice day.

[Pike84]

Here's something for everyone.. going to be some infernally big post, but oh well .

Been there and done that.  The "normal" Windows directory tree is a poor example of a Media Library.  In "Icon" view with a large number of files it slows down and (appears) to forget clicks. In other words, it can't keep up even with 640 MB RAM and a 2.0 Ghz P4.

As Tsorovan said, don't use the bulky icon view - list is IMO the best. I don't get any slowdowns whatsoever with that.

I can sum it up in 3 words, people hate files.  No matter how hard you try, people will never become satisfied managing files (play lists) to organize, coallate, or even segregate their files. MP3 has changed our lives, accept it

I don't quite see this as an answer to what you quoted, but nevertheless, I disagree. Managing files is kinda like gardening, or managing your postage stamps collection; it's nice little puttering .

I feel that I must elaborate that in my experience no killer application exists even today.  Every application has its own misgivings. And media players are no exception.  Personally, I use a few.

I agree, although XMPlay has been kind of a killer for me, in the music area. Sure, it'd be great if there was a all-in-one player, that was reasonably small, wasn't a resource hog, had it all and would fit for all.. that just won't happen.

Why is the option called "I'm happy with just this one playlist" whilst the other are "I want...". Shouldn't it be "I don't want more than one playlist" so as not to keep it so damn neutral-sounding instead?
This might sound like pointless crap, but I'm tired of polls forcing/coercing you into choosing stuff you don't want, or not having properly formulated options. Fact of the matter is that Poll Choice 4 is almost as vague or moreso than Choice 3

Umm.. I didn't really think about it then, but I still don't see this poll anything biased. The point in the difference of structure is, that all the "I want" choices are for something to be changed in the player while the "I'm happy with" choice retains the already existant system. I think it would sound funny if it was "I don't want more than this one playlist", or something like that - "I'm happy with" is more natural.

Also, I don't agree with you, that any of the choises would be vague or futile here. Choise 3, of course, doesn't squarely tell us anything, but that someone is not fully content with the present system, but I think it's necessary, so that we don't lose the votes of the "dissidents" .

What I would like is a system where you have multiple playlists, but you can add them together to form one playlist but it keeps the tracks grouped by playlist so that I can easily add/remove groups.

Hmm.. Perhaps this could be included in the normal multiple playlist system?

List view is a teeny weeny bit of an improvement over Icon view. The operating system (Explorer) acesses the file (any file) each time a file is clicked to check its file type, file association, context menu, etc.  Regardless of List view or Icon view thereby bringing the view to a pitiful crawl.

As stated, I don't get any slowdowns, let alone get the view brought to a pitiful crawl. Also considering usability and clarity, the list view is not just a "teeny, weeny" bit of improvement over the icon view - I think it's a huge improvement instead.

I mean this next statement in the sincerest way possible, ignorance regarding Media Library benefits compound with each post in this thread, and each (multiple) playlist quantity proposed for your (any) application.

I don't exactly know, what you mean by this.. could be my English is not good enough :-/

Weird, in Win2K and WinXP keypresses overrides any info reading and thus I get no slowdowns at all.

Yea, I'm using XP myself. Maybe the earlier systems suffer of the slowdowns this way .
But I agree, I would like to turn that status bar info stuff off totally, because it's actually useless.

I don't know if the info stuff can be turned off totally, but you can hide the status bar from the 'view' menu. I don't think it's useless tho, so I always keep it visible myself .

Nope, A "B" for blaming the system...  P4 @ 2.0 Ghz, 640 MB RAM, 120 GB (multiple) fixed disks, 32 MB DDR VRAM, Hardware accelerated Video, Sound and Modem, CD-RW, DVD, LAN, and Digital Subscriber Line, as well as Win98se and WinXP Pro.

I think it's accounted for to say, something's wrong with your system, since no one else seems to have this "slowdown" problem you described.

About the other comments about these quotes, and the post as a whole, this almost looks like flaming to me. Couldn't we just discuss these matters like civilized people, without getting personal and stuff?

[DanaPaul]

I think it's accounted for to say, something's wrong with your system, since no one else seems to have this "slowdown" problem you described.

Posts in this thread have compared a noticable improvement between icon view and list view speed. The only reason why Icon view was mentioned in the first place was because "normal" Windows explorer was offered as a viable media library alternative.  Normal would suggest that out-of-the-box default configurations are the norm.  This disparity between Icon view and List view is an issue that was given birth in this thread to detract from the benefits of a real media library (aware) application.  Although Media Libraries files are within the reach of List and Icon view, neither file viewing concept can satisfy even the most primitive benefits of a media library aware application.

About the other comments about these quotes, and the post as a whole, this almost looks like flaming to me. Couldn't we just discuss these matters like civilized people, without getting personal and stuff?

A Media Library concept was offered as an option in the poll.  This thread has dismissed that polling option as nothing more than a reffereundum item to satisfy the "dissidents", or a technical problem, or a problem with the (dissidents) user(s). Always deviating from the polling issue. This has the dissidents questioning the motive(s) of the thread. Is this a (poll) discussion or a software loyalty and concept litmus test?

[Torkell]

OK, this flame war as gone a bit too far... I am left with two choices:

1: *points fire hose in general direction of posters and turns it on full*

or

2: *points flamethrower in general direction of posters and pulls trigger with evil-maniac-type laugh*

Which should I choose?

[Pike84]

Posts in this thread have compared a noticable improvement between icon view and list view speed. The only reason why Icon view was mentioned in the first place was because "normal" Windows explorer was offered as a viable media library alternative. Normal would suggest that out-of-the-box default configurations are the norm.

Eh.. would they really? Well, in the first place I didn't mention anything about the view, but since I'm using the directory tree with a list view myself, this was on my mind (I did mention the dir tree tho). I don't think many people, who have so much as noticed the 'view' setting in Explorer use the bulky icon view, anyway. Besides, I didn't notice any slowdown with that view either, when I tested it.

This disparity between Icon view and List view is an issue that was given birth in this thread to detract from the benefits of a real media library (aware) application.

I don't agree. I said that I happily use explorer instead of a media library, and you automatically thought I was using the icon view. Then Tsorovan and I wondered who was really using the icon view, because it's bulky. No one intentionally tried to detract from the benefits of a media library.

Although Media Libraries files are within the reach of List and Icon view, neither file viewing concept can satisfy even the most primitive benefits of a media library aware application.

Please provide some arguments for this, because I don't think I agree.

A Media Library concept was offered as an option in the poll.  This thread has dismissed that polling option as nothing more than a reffereundum item to satisfy the "dissidents", or a technical problem, or a problem with the (dissidents) user(s). Always deviating from the polling issue. This has the dissidents questioning the motive(s) of the thread. Is this a (poll) discussion or a software loyalty and concept litmus test?

That is not true. I stated that I don't personally need the library myself, still admitting that it can be very useful to some people. Besides, the thread doesn't dismiss any options - the people do. You should forward your posts to those people who you think have unrightfully critizised your beloved media library.

One should also think about the rightfulness of your postings. You have enthusiastically praised the media library, possibly twisting the poll results in your favor. This poll is becoming less and less neutral by the minute.. :-/

[DanaPaul]

This poll is becoming less and less neutral by the minute...

Besides, I didn't notice any slowdown with that view either, when I tested it...

I said that I happily use explorer instead of a media library, and you automatically thought I was using the icon view...

Please provide some arguments for this, because I don't think I agree...

I stated that I don't personally need the library myself, still admitting that it can be very useful to some people...

You should forward your posts to those people who you think have unrightfully critizised your beloved media library...

You have enthusiastically praised the media library, possibly twisting the poll results in your favor...

If I thought I had been unfairly treated on this board, or I wished to respond directly to those who may have "unrightfully critizised (my) beloved media library", have no published e-mail address in their member profile.

This thread, or this topic, played out recently in another thread and the outcome remains consistent. It's a shame that a concept, an idea, a poll referendum item, can raise such a fuss with those whom have chosen to discard it.

[Tsorovan]

Let me be succinct:
I never "blamed the user". I did however, offer a (rather vague) explanation for your vaguely defined problems by saying your "system" could've been "screwed up". With "system" I generally meant Windows, not your hardware per se.

I never "dismissed" the Media Library thing, I just sincerely wanted to help as you seemed to have quite an oddity going on. (by my interpretation of your again, vaguely defined posts (still don't know what you're talking about when you're mentioning "actions")).

I'll try to refrain from helping people resolve their problems when they're not asking for it in the future.

With this I conclude my "contribution" to this thread.

[Torkell]

I decided that neither option would work here (it's gone too far). Anyway...

If I thought I had been unfairly treated on this board, or I wished to respond directly to those who may have "unrightfully critizised (my) beloved media library", have no published e-mail address in their member profile.

People do leave their e-mail addresses out for good reasons. Here's an example (the e-mail addresses in quesiton were harvested from the forums at the site):

From the SpywareInfo weekly (September 26, 2002)

<spam message removed>

P.S. I'm sending you this invitation because your e-mail address is listed for contact at http://www.spywareinfo.com/. Please click on the link below to remove yourself from any further invitations:
Remove Me

That's why most forums have an private message feature, so you can still send messages privately to people without any problems of spam. If you want to send a private message to Tsorovan, then use the icon at the side or click here (aren't I such a nice person

This thread, or this topic, played out recently in another thread and the outcome remains consistent. It's a shame that a concept, an idea, a poll referendum item, can raise such a fuss with those whom have chosen to discard it.

Um, the original thread was abandoned because it was a) confusing, and b) the two people who wanted "something else" didn't say what they wanted. If you're thinking of something else then please enlighten me.

[DanaPaul]

Um, the original thread was abandoned because it was a) confusing, and b) the two people who wanted "something else" didn't say what they wanted. If you're thinking of something else then please enlighten me.

Actually, I was referring to the plain vanilla concept, Explorer as a viable alternative to a media library aware application.  This point of view has been played out, and I think that the posters in this thread understood.

If you want to send a private message to Tsorovan, then use the icon at the side or click here (aren't I such a nice person

I have no reason to confuse folks in this thread any more than they may be presently.  My e-mail address is published and my mail box is open.

Tsorovan wrote:
I'll try to refrain from helping people resolve their problems...

My point exactly.  No problems here

[Pike84]

If I thought I had been unfairly treated on this board, or I wished to respond directly to those who may have "unrightfully critizised (my) beloved media library", have no published e-mail address in their member profile.

Well, I have my e-mail published, ok. But I didn't mean, that you should privately contact me, or anyone. Just that you would more clearly state, who you think have mistreated you or degraded the media library system, or whatever - not to just say, that this thread has dismissed a polling option, or so.

This thread, or this topic, played out recently in another thread and the outcome remains consistent. It's a shame that a concept, an idea, a poll referendum item, can raise such a fuss with those whom have chosen to discard it.

Yeah, a shame indeed. Unfortunately I can't help but name the culprit behind the fuss your way. Besides, you must admit, that in the end, it wasn't just the idea/consept/poll referendum item. A good example of this, is your post at  07.06.03 at 22:54:23.

Also, I suggest you reply to those quoted statements separately. Overall, it seems that you don't very much like to answer straightly to statements directed at you.

My point exactly.  No problems here

A pretty naive view, I would say - the problem Tsorovan was referring to, was obviously the explorer slowdown.

[DanaPaul]

Also, I suggest you reply to those quoted statements separately. Overall, it seems that you don't very much like to answer straightly to statements directed at you.

My appologies, I didn't understand that membership requires repeated responses to address closed minded points of view.

The Explorer "slowdown" statement was in regard to very large folders, folders that contain many files.  As well as the fact that two applications (or more) must interact to (action) accomplish (primitive) media tasks.

I feel that I have offered sufficient reasoning behind the media library concept for Ian, the developers of XMPLay, and anyone with an open mind.  However, at the risk of repeating myself...

Volumn leveling (complete library), Automatic disk sub folder and file naming organization, display sorting and media property viewing, database speed and statistcal support (played most often, etc), auto play list generation (genre, artist, played most often, etc), and random play (complete library) to name a few off the top of my head.

Are we ready to move on yet?

[Pike84]

My appologies, I didn't understand that membership requires repeated responses to address closed minded points of view.

It was only a suggestion.. and what do you mean by repeated responses? You have made a fine overall view of your ideas and so on, but you have scarcely responded to single statements.

As for the rest of your post: I have well understood your point in supporting the media library, and also learned something new about it. This debate (if you can call it that), however, has had fairly little content about that - we're actually quite a long way on the side-track .

[Torkell]

Actually, I was referring to the plain vanilla concept, Explorer as a viable alternative to a media library aware application.  This point of view has been played out, and I think that the posters in this thread understood.

I think we understood that Explorer is a viable alternative to a media library, given certain conditions (e.g. suitable plugin).

I'll try to refrain from helping people resolve their problems when they're not asking for it in the future.

My point exactly.  No problems here

Tsorovan was actually attempting to help you with your problem with Explorer (i.e. it slowing down all the time). It's taken for granted that when someone is trying to be helpful and gets a bloody nose in return, they will not be happy.

A couple of Kynes' statements that you quoted were actually questions that have gone unanswered. It was a perfectly resonable thing to ask for, and did not deserve your response.

The Explorer "slowdown" statement was in regard to very large folders, folders that contain many files.  As well as the fact that two applications (or more) must interact to (action) accomplish (primitive) media tasks.

Explorer is a file manager first and media player through extensions and JavaScript. It's perfectly reasonable (and the core principle behind COM) for multiple applications to interact.

I feel that I have offered sufficient reasoning behind the media library concept for Ian, the developers of XMPLay, and anyone with an open mind.  However, at the risk of repeating myself...

Volumn leveling (complete library), Automatic disk sub folder and file naming organization, display sorting and media property viewing, database speed and statistcal support (played most often, etc), auto play list generation (genre, artist, played most often, etc), and random play (complete library) to name a few off the top of my head.

In order: Nice idea but not really needed - anyway per track settings come close, already partially implemented and it would be nice to expand it, already there, should be added if media library is chosen, again major part of media library, already part of XMPlay.

I'll give you a bit of information: my playlist system is actually based around a 560+ master playlist, and seperate playlists for every 'album' which are added to the master playlist. Two features I use a lot are track queueing (sp?) and random play order.

As it is there is only one vote for the media library, compared to 2 for multiple playlists and about 8 who want to stick with the current system.

[DanaPaul]

It's taken for granted that when someone is trying to be helpful and gets a bloody nose in return, they will not be happy.

I'm sad that anyone may be unhappy.  But I venture to predict in hindsight that a nose or two might have been bloodied in the last thread that played out this hissy fit.

Explorer is a file manager first and media player through extensions and JavaScript.

Explorer is a shell that launches (seperate) applications.  To encompass all applications as one under the shell is a stretch.

It's perfectly reasonable (and the core principle behind COM) for multiple applications to interact.

The Common Object Model (COM) principle defines common objects that are embedded into a single application. Not seperate processes that must work within limited cooperative functionality.

In order: Nice idea but not really needed - anyway per track settings come close, already partially implemented and it would be nice to expand it, already there, should be added if media library is chosen, again major part of media library, already part of XMPlay.

Per track volumn leveling is appreciated.  But again I remind you that a media library aware application doesn't require per file actions.

As it is there is only one vote for the media library, compared to 2 for multiple playlists and about 8 who want to stick with the current system.

I never expected this poll to affect immediate results  even if the outcome was in favor of a media library.  This is a major decision for the developers and one that probably would not be decided, in whole, based on a snapshot poll.