Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Amarok 2.4 Beta 1 Brings A Basket Of Features

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Wait, what? Feature creep FTW!

    Yeah, and playlists suck. Just use my file structure directly, dammit!
    You do realize that you can browse by collection, or there is a way to browse directories directly from the left pane. You can add individual files, or recursively add directories.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hax0r View Post
    Amarok is the worst audio player and a worst example of software, slow, memory hog, bad UI layout. Takes ~100MB of memory just to start it up. They could learn something from foobar2000 and mimic the same design.
    What's the point of copying something that works. If you like foobar2000, then use foobar2000...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrown96 View Post
    You do realize that you can browse by collection, or there is a way to browse directories directly from the left pane. You can add individual files, or recursively add directories.
    That's the point: I don't want to "add" files or directories. I don't want it to build a 200MB database that mirrors my author/disk/song directory structure (and poorly at that) and falls out of sync whenever I update my collection. I have spent years building, sorting and categorizing my music, so just *use* this information already.

    But no, it must spend a couple of hours misparsing my tags in order to provide eloquent names such as ??????? and ...... Gee, thanks!

    Amarok aims to be a full featured media player, and iTunes/Windows Media Player both have transcoding. Its useful for moving songs to players that only support limited media formats; and probably easier for most users than 'transcode'
    Oh, yeah, the iPod generation, I forgot. Nevermind then.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    233

    Default

    Amarok has some really nice things, but (since version 2?) it still has problems and important missing features.

    *The start-up time is still slow compared to other KDE apps.
    *It still uses to much memory to only play audio, compared to other KDE (multimedia) apps. (~70-80 MB)
    *The interface loads slow when unminimizing in a not so old (worse in older) Intel gfx card. All other apps work ok.
    *The new trans-coding feature is only for audio copied to the collection, but not to a media device. Most of the time the PC can play any audio format, but not a media device.
    *A better/more complete tag editor. We are not in the ID3v1 days anymore. I have always to use Kid3 or Ex Falso. But Amarok won't realize the tag changes immediately.
    *I tabbed playlists, like in Exaile or Clementine would also be nice.
    etc..

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    That's the point: I don't want to "add" files or directories. I don't want it to build a 200MB database that mirrors my author/disk/song directory structure (and poorly at that) and falls out of sync whenever I update my collection. I have spent years building, sorting and categorizing my music, so just *use* this information already.

    But no, it must spend a couple of hours misparsing my tags in order to provide eloquent names such as ??????? and ...... Gee, thanks!



    Oh, yeah, the iPod generation, I forgot. Nevermind then.
    Have you used Amarok in the last year?
    I'm looking at it right now. Going to the top level menu on the left pane shows these categories: "Local Music", "Internet", "Playlists", "Files", and "Podcasts". Stuff in "Local Music" is in a database, but "Files" just draws some type of file browser widget in the entire left panel. It's basically a mini-Dolphin widget. You can browse all your files, without any need to have any sort of database setup.
    This isn't a great picture, but it does show the file browser on the left.
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...0&tx=115&ty=25

    You really need to try something before you start mindlessly bashing it.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrown96 View Post
    Have you used Amarok in the last year?
    I'm looking at it right now. Going to the top level menu on the left pane shows these categories: "Local Music", "Internet", "Playlists", "Files", and "Podcasts". Stuff in "Local Music" is in a database, but "Files" just draws some type of file browser widget in the entire left panel. It's basically a mini-Dolphin widget. You can browse all your files, without any need to have any sort of database setup.
    This isn't a great picture, but it does show the file browser on the left.
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...0&tx=115&ty=25

    You really need to try something before you start mindlessly bashing it.
    Here's the full quality: http://amarok.berkenpi.es/filebrowser.png.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrown96 View Post
    You should check out Evil Activities' & Endymion's remix of the Qlimax 2010 anthem.

    Amarok 2.4 looks really nice.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    Am I the only one who dislikes the whole "right-click and add/replace playlist" metaphor?
    It's the most important reason I use Juk. Awkward playlist sorting in Amarok is the other main reason.
    I'd use Songbird but it uses GStreamer which causes nothing but problems. Juk it is for me.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •