From: Simon Wistow Date: 12:54 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: iTunes on Windows I have no idea whether these are Windows specific iTunes hate or whether they span the platforms but I only have experience with iTunes on Windows so I'll restrict it to that. Feel free to chip in and complain about the Mac version later. I'm not entirely sure why people rave about iTunes - I suspect it'shte iPod and ITMS integration but people raved about it before then. Maybe they were blinded by the shiny metal. Either way, I have no iPod (HERECY!) nor the inclination to by DRM encrusted tat from iTMS so I miss out on those benefits. Ooh - I can organise my podCasts . Which would be great. If I listened to any. Aren't we supposed to call them soundBlogs or something now anyway? However, the single biggest hate I have so far is why the auto complete in the ID3 field editor. Here's how to replicate the hate ... 1) Obtain mp3 from somewhere 2) Realise that ID3 tag, whilst technically correct, is lowercased 3) Try and edit that 4) Have iTunes know better than you do and autocomplete the field back to the lowercase version 5) Try again 6) Have same experience 7) Scream. Curse. Rant. 8) Edit the field to say "Foo" 9) Rename it back to Properly Capsed Version of Name 10) Repeat with other MP3s 11) See 7
From: Dave Hodgkinson Date: 13:04 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On 3 Oct 2006, at 12:54, Simon Wistow wrote: > 10) Repeat with other MP3s Why repeat? I've jsut had to rename a bunch of mp3's where the band name is in some Manadrin character set. Select the files you want to change, hit Option-I, it asks are you sure you want to edit all those files at once, say yes and it'll let you set everything in bulk except the track name.
From: Smylers Date: 13:09 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows Dave Hodgkinson writes: > On 3 Oct 2006, at 12:54, Simon Wistow wrote: > > > 10) Repeat with other MP3s > > Why repeat? ... Select the files you want to change, hit Option-I, it > asks are you sure you want to edit all those files at once, say yes > and it'll let you set everything in bulk except the track name. Um, in that case I'd guess the answer to your question is "because if it's the track name that's in lower-case then bulk edit is no use"? Smylers
From: Dave Hodgkinson Date: 22:57 on 07 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On 3 Oct 2006, at 13:09, Smylers wrote: > Dave Hodgkinson writes: > >> On 3 Oct 2006, at 12:54, Simon Wistow wrote: >> >>> 10) Repeat with other MP3s >> >> Why repeat? ... Select the files you want to change, hit Option-I, it >> asks are you sure you want to edit all those files at once, say yes >> and it'll let you set everything in bulk except the track name. > > Um, in that case I'd guess the answer to your question is "because if > it's the track name that's in lower-case then bulk edit is no use"? > I didn't read the original gripe properly but he got a tip for free so we're quits. But who *really* gives a shit? Isn't life too short to fix case? If you know the track then you're not going to look it up. If you don't, then your BRANE will read it and file it away in it's own sweet system.
From: jrodman Date: 10:45 on 08 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 10:57:24PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > > On 3 Oct 2006, at 13:09, Smylers wrote: > > >Dave Hodgkinson writes: > > > >>On 3 Oct 2006, at 12:54, Simon Wistow wrote: > >> > >>>10) Repeat with other MP3s > >> > >>Why repeat? ... Select the files you want to change, hit Option-I, it > >>asks are you sure you want to edit all those files at once, say yes > >>and it'll let you set everything in bulk except the track name. > > > >Um, in that case I'd guess the answer to your question is "because if > >it's the track name that's in lower-case then bulk edit is no use"? > > > > I didn't read the original gripe properly but he got a tip for free so > we're quits. > > But who *really* gives a shit? Isn't life too short to fix case? Well, because, as previously mentioned, tag-based software (ie. itunes) is so hateful that it can't accept that music written by differently cased versions of the same name is by the same artist. I mean, should we have to care? Probably not. -josh
From: Chris Devers Date: 00:14 on 09 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > Well, because, as previously mentioned, tag-based software (ie. > itunes) is so hateful that it can't accept that music written by > differently cased versions of the same name is by the same artist. Huh? Surely this assertion is a non sequitur. * Software can be simultaneously "tag based" and case-insensitive. * iTunes *is* simultaneously "tag based" and case-insensitive. Or can you demonstrate otherwise?
From: Joe Mahoney Date: 02:09 on 09 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On 10/4/06, Smylers <Smylers@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > Why repeat? ... Select the files you want to change, hit Option-I, it > > asks are you sure you want to edit all those files at once, say yes > > and it'll let you set everything in bulk except the track name. > > Um, in that case I'd guess the answer to your question is "because if > it's the track name that's in lower-case then bulk edit is no use"? The track name field doesn't have the autocomplete problem. Joe
From: Simon Wistow Date: 13:25 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 01:04:30PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson said: > Why repeat? I've jsut had to rename a bunch of mp3's where the > band name is in some Manadrin character set. I'm estimating that 99% of my songs have different titles. Hence needing to repeat. Although I didn't know about the batch editing thing for band names to be fair.
From: Chris Devers Date: 13:31 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Simon Wistow wrote: > However, the single biggest hate I have so far is why the auto > complete in the ID3 field editor. Here's how to replicate the hate ... > > 1) Obtain mp3 from somewhere > 2) Realise that ID3 tag, whilst technically correct, is lowercased > 3) Try and edit that > 4) Have iTunes know better than you do and autocomplete the field back > to the lowercase version > 5) Try again > 6) Have same experience > 7) Scream. Curse. Rant. > 8) Edit the field to say "Foo" > 9) Rename it back to Properly Capsed Version of Name > 10) Repeat with other MP3s > 11) See 7 Yeah, I think this is a side-effect from the whole "case-insensitive, but case-preserving" filesystem thing on both Macs and Windows -- searches & matches ignore case, but files are stored with whatever case you originally created them with, and renaming to some case-variant where the spelling is otherwise the same ends up being a no-op. The Mac Finder and, as far as I can recall, Windows Explorer, both end up doing the same behavior in this situation. The way I get around this is to add gibberish to the beginning or end of the name, save, then delete that, save. 3) Rename: "inna gadda davida" -> "Inna Gadda Davida Baybee" 4) Hit save. It works. 5) Rename: "Inna Gadda Davida Baybee" -> "Inna Gadda Davida" 6) Hit save. It works. Not ideal, but slightly less typing & remembering than the other way.
From: Ricardo SIGNES Date: 14:35 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows * Simon Wistow <simon@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-03T07:54:06] > 1) Obtain mp3 from somewhere > 2) Realise that ID3 tag, whilst technically correct, is lowercased > 3) Try and edit that > 4) Have iTunes know better than you do and autocomplete the field back > to the lowercase version retro-hate: http://rjbs.hates-software.com/2005/11/06/c7b72b5b.html It does the same thing, "downgrading" accented characters to unaccented ones.
From: Stephen Deken Date: 15:35 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows > I have no iPod nor the inclination to by DRM encrusted tat from iTMS so I > miss out on those benefits. Ooh - I can organise my podCasts . Which > would be great. If I listened to any. So... you've chosen to use an application whose raison d'etre is to: * Provide an interface to the iPod * Provide an interface to the iTunes Store * Play music I can't imagine why you think it sucks. If you don't need iPod integration and you don't need iTunes, don't you have about 60 kajillion other options? --sjd;
From: Simon Wistow Date: 15:49 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:35:09AM -0500, Stephen Deken said: > So... you've chosen to use an application whose raison d'etre is to: s/use/try out to see what all the fuss is about now I'm being forced to use Windows/ but close. Bonus points for getting raison d'etre in there though ;) > * Provide an interface to the iPod > * Provide an interface to the iTunes Store > * Play music I'd put play music first - I even seem to remember it being available before the iPod but my memory could be faulty. Nope, I'm right. iTunes was announced January 9th, 2001 and the iPod was announced on October 23rd, 2001. Yes, odd that I should try and use a music player to play music. I am a little weird like that. I just wish that honking great iTMS carbuncle at the bottom would go away. Am I missing some config option? > I can't imagine why you think it sucks. If you don't need iPod > integration and you don't need iTunes, don't you have about 60 > kajillion other options? Which bit are you disagreeing with? I don't particularly like the library management. I imagine some people do and that's cool. I was vaguely surprised that it didn't have an interface like the iPods which I would have liked. But that's a preference thing. Are you disagreeing that the autocomplete sucks? In which case you might be in a minority. Curiously yours, Simon
From: Stephen Deken Date: 16:08 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows > s/use/try out to see what all the fuss is about now I'm being forced to > use Windows/ Ah, that I can understand. I'd steer clear of it on the Windows side though, unless you need the iPod+iTMS folderol. While it did start out as a music player on the Mac side, it's always been integrated with iPod+iTMS on the Windows side. (Original release date for Windows: October 16th, 2003.) > Yes, odd that I should try and use a music player to play music. > I am a little weird like that. There are better music players for Windows. (For that matter, if all you want to do is *play* music, there are better music players for the Mac as well.) There's gobs of them here and there. I'm still partial to WinAmp 2. > Which bit are you disagreeing with? I don't particularly like the > library management. I imagine some people do and that's cool. I was > vaguely surprised that it didn't have an interface like the iPods which > I would have liked. But that's a preference thing. I was really confused by this until I realized that by 'forced to use Windows' you were trying to indicate that you were coming from some Unix variant instead of coming from the Mac. What did you previously use to manage your library? I'm sure there's a Windows port out there somewhere. The big hubbub about iTunes these days is that it makes it really easy to puchase music legally and get it on to an iPod. If those don't matter to you, it's probably not worth the effort to hack at it to make it tolerable. > Are you disagreeing that the autocomplete sucks? In which case you might > be in a minority. No, that complaint is fully valid. That version of autocomplete is braindead and ought to be taken out back and shot, and then shot again for good measure. I seem to recall that Windows itself once had a similar problem when using 'short' (8.3) filenames -- if you tried to change the case of the filename, it would disappear when you confirmed it. You had to change the filename to something different or something longer, and then change it back. Hate. --sjd;
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 16:23 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows > > No, that complaint is fully valid. That version of autocomplete is > braindead and ought to be taken out back and shot, and then shot again > for good measure. > > I seem to recall that Windows itself once had a similar problem when > using 'short' (8.3) filenames -- if you tried to change the case of > the filename, it would disappear when you confirmed it. You had to > change the filename to something different or something longer, and > then change it back. perl -e 'rename($ARGV[0],$$)&&rename($$,$ARGV[1])' MaDcAsE madcase But integrating that to iTunes might be an issue. > Hate. > > --sjd; >
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 22:51 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows * Stephen Deken <stephen.deken@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-03 17:10]: > While it did start out as a music player on the Mac side, it's > always been integrated with iPod+iTMS on the Windows side. How? It's the exact same app on both platforms. If it's decent on the Mac, it will be decent on Windows (unless the suckiness is in the fact that the UI doesn't translate well from Aqua to Win, but noone's made that complaint so far). > There are better music players for Windows. (For that matter, > if all you want to do is *play* music, there are better music > players for the Mac as well.) There's gobs of them here and > there. I'm still partial to WinAmp 2. The filesystem is not a good way to organise music. For small libraries it's OK. To navigate big ones, it blows. WinAmp and its entourage of clones is only tolerable in that they don't foist a hateful solution for that problem on you, but that doesn't make them good. iTunes makes a decent stab at the problem, interface-wise. It has very peculiar ideas in various implementation aspects, though. Regards,
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 22:59 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 23:51 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > The filesystem is not a good way to organise music. For small > libraries it's OK. To navigate big ones, it blows. The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music. So long as it's all laid out consistently, which is the software's job. (sound-juicer works well for me, sorry that was rather off topic). Cheers, Martin.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 23:05 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows * Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> [2006-10-04 00:00]: > The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music. > So long as it's all laid out consistently, which is the > software's job. Until that one time when you want to look for files based on a different primary criterion from the primary one used for grouping the files into the directory tree, and end up walking it in entirety. Regards,
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 23:48 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 00:05 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> [2006-10-04 00:00]: > > The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music. > > So long as it's all laid out consistently, which is the > > software's job. > > Until that one time when you want to look for files based on > a different primary criterion from the primary one used for > grouping the files into the directory tree, and end up walking it > in entirety. I organise my emails in folders, but the email program still has a search function. Any usable music player will index the id3 tags and let you search at the minimum. Any usable music player will also let you navigate your music as you have organised it in the filesystem. Either/or just does not cut it, to be usable both options are necessary. Cheers, Martin.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:14 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows * Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> [2006-10-04 00:50]: > I organise my emails in folders, but the email program still > has a search function. And when I'm not looking at new mail, I'm using search to find an old one. I used folders as a *very* broad categorisation only, because if I file too fastidiously, I invariably end up lost in a maze of folders, unable to remember which one I should search. > Any usable music player will index the id3 tags and let you > search at the minimum. Any usable music player will also let > you navigate your music as you have organised it in the > filesystem. Either/or just does not cut it, to be usable both > options are necessary. I suppose we actually agree then. The peculiarities I really hate about iTunes all have to do with the fact that it wants to manage the files under its auspices on its own. It can be taught to be mostly good, but that bias always shows through in various aspects of its interface. (There is more hate than that there, but it is benign.) I just find file navigation a pretty crappy primary interface when I want to listen to my music (just like when I'm looking for that old email), and with WinAmp2, that's all I get. Mind you I use a WinAmp-ish player (Audacious), but that's because the various indexing players all disqualify themselves one way or another. I look at the player landscape periodically because I hate this filesystem business, but no luck so far, and I find it more tolerable to live with something that does too little than something that does too much. Sigh. Regards,
From: Ricardo SIGNES Date: 23:10 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows * Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> [2006-10-03T17:59:20] > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 23:51 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > The filesystem is not a good way to organise music. For small > > libraries it's OK. To navigate big ones, it blows. > The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music. So long > as it's all laid out consistently, which is the software's job. > (sound-juicer works well for me, sorry that was rather off topic). I think that Aristotle was talking about more than just ./music/Some\ Band/Some\ Album/01\ Track.mpg ...or the equivalent. With iTunes, I can easily say "every song from an album with 'Greatest Hits' in the title" or "every song that I rated 3+ stars and is not in the genre 'chick music'" and so on. It stores quite a lot of data about your music that can be used to build fairly diverse collections, quickly. Smart playlists, and the way that iTunes' data collection interacts with my iPods' data collection is what I really love about iTunes. (I have my own hates about it, too, though... mostly about the features it lacks. Those hardly count.)
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:34 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows * Ricardo SIGNES <rjbs-hates@xxxxx.xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-04 01:00]: > With iTunes, I can easily say "every song from an album with > 'Greatest Hits' in the title" or "every song that I rated 3+ > stars and is not in the genre 'chick music'" and so on. It > stores quite a lot of data about your music that can be used to > build fairly diverse collections, quickly. Yeah, that is a good example. You don't even need to make the query so complex. Just getting a sensible filing scheme for genres is impossible with just the filesystem. I used to try back when I had a few hundred MP3s. But there was no payoff, in fact I often couldn't find files. So some point I gave up and made 4 broad categories and just stuck everything in a typical "$artist/$album/$tracknum-$title" tree below each of them and called it a day. (I'm starting to think the only reason that computers have always operated with strictly hierarchical filesystems is that it works well for storing a programmer's data... everyone else got by on the fact that media capacity used to limit the number of files on a disk to a hierarchically tractable amount until less than 10 years ago. BeOS, peace to its soul, made a good step in the right direction. Now? WinFS: dead and buried. Spotlight: a dirty hack. Pah.) Regards,
From: David Cantrell Date: 17:21 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:10:58PM -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > With iTunes, I can easily say "every song from an album > with 'Greatest Hits' in the title" or "every song that I rated 3+ stars and is > not in the genre 'chick music'" and so on. It stores quite a lot of data about > your music that can be used to build fairly diverse collections, quickly. > > Smart playlists, and the way that iTunes' data collection interacts with my > iPods' data collection is what I really love about iTunes... The big failing of iTunes - and of mp3 software in general, and I think the same applies to ogg as well, although not being a hippy freeloader I don't use that - is that each file can have no more than one genre. That sucks particularly hard when you're trying to organise classical music (and oh what a nasty overloaded term that is). Handel's "Zadok the Priest", for example, is choral music, liturgical/sacred music, and baroque music. And don't even think about trying to organise stuff by composer*, conductor*, orchestra*, venue, chorus* and soloist*. Clearly, no-one thought that I might be specifically interested in the Du Pre rendition of Elgar's cello concerto, or the von Karajan and Berlin Phil's version of the Eroica symphony, amongst all the other recordings of those works that I have. * for certain works all these might be plural. Britten's War Requiem, for example, is scored for two orchestras, two choirs, several soloists and a small organ, and sometimes performed with two conductors.
From: demerphq Date: 17:43 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On 10/4/06, David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote: > That sucks particularly hard when you're trying to organise classical > music (and oh what a nasty overloaded term that is). Heh, I bet most of the people coding such tools consider classical to be anything from before the 1980's.
From: Nicholas Clark Date: 17:48 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 06:43:40PM +0200, demerphq wrote: > On 10/4/06, David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote: > >That sucks particularly hard when you're trying to organise classical > >music (and oh what a nasty overloaded term that is). > > Heh, I bet most of the people coding such tools consider classical to > be anything from before the 1980's. Indeed not. See the third message on http://acme.hates-software.com/2004/07/30/9b443792.html where I also proposed a solution. Nicholas Clark
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 11:50 on 06 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows [Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > On 10/4/06, David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote: > > That sucks particularly hard when you're trying to organise classical > > music (and oh what a nasty overloaded term that is). > Heh, I bet most of the people coding such tools consider classical to > be anything from before the 1980's. "Beethoven, Beatles, something classical." -- Louis Wu, Ringworld.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 14:33 on 05 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-10-04 18:25]: > And don't even think about trying to organise stuff by > composer*, conductor*, orchestra*, venue, chorus* and soloist*. Actually, ID3v2 attempts to map out that space, AFAIK. Except that it seems overengineered in the extreme and that no tool supports doing more with ID3v2 than the use cases covered by ID3v1, besides the fact that the field length limits in v2 aren't as retardedly restrictive. (30 characters?!) Regards,
From: Joe Mahoney Date: 23:11 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On 10/4/06, Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote: > The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music. So long > as it's all laid out consistently, which is the software's job. > (sound-juicer works well for me, sorry that was rather off topic). If by "excellent" you mean "fundamentally crippled" I'd agree. I personally like to be able to organise music by stuff like BPM, genre, length (which isn't the same as file size) as well as artist/album/song. I'm not sure how you'd structure a filesystem to make that easy. Joe
From: Cory Myers Date: 00:19 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Joe Mahoney wrote: > I personally like to be able to organise music by stuff like BPM, > genre, length (which isn't the same as file size) as well as > artist/album/song. I'm not sure how you'd structure a filesystem to > make that easy. WinFS, anyone? I wouldn't mind a selectively database-like filesystem, actually...that, combined with ZFS and some sort of integrated Subversion function (not just ZFS's snapshots) would be nice. Cory
From: Chris Devers Date: 00:32 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Joe Mahoney wrote: > I personally like to be able to organise music by stuff like BPM, > genre, length (which isn't the same as file size) as well as > artist/album/song. I'm not sure how you'd structure a filesystem to > make that easy. Provide hierarchy, metadata, and efficient search. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_File_System BeOS didn't have a mail program as such, it had special hooks to the Tracker (Finder / Explorer / etc shell workalike) that allowed a folder full of rfc822 mail files to act like a mail client. BeOS didn't have a music player as such, but special hooks that let Tracker do useful things when looking at MP3 files. Etc. It got a surprising amount of mileage out of that idea, including, among other things, easy ways to search for things by arbitrary criteria, because it new, for example, that an email file had attributes like sender, date, and subject, while a song file had attributes like artist, album, and genre. And, of course, you could organize or search by any of these attributes, all right in the file browser. Granted, modern OSes completely fail to be able to do this. Oh well.
From: Joe Mahoney Date: 00:46 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On 10/4/06, Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Provide hierarchy, metadata, and efficient search. For example: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_File_System Can't argue with that. But until then, iTunes still wins. Joe
From: demerphq Date: 09:40 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On 10/4/06, Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Joe Mahoney wrote: > It got a surprising amount of mileage out of that idea, including, among > other things, easy ways to search for things by arbitrary criteria, > because it new, for example, that an email file had attributes like > sender, date, and subject, while a song file had attributes like artist, > album, and genre. And, of course, you could organize or search by any of > these attributes, all right in the file browser. > > Granted, modern OSes completely fail to be able to do this. Oh well. Not true actually. XP does this, as does I think Win2003. Of course in XP MS managed to screw the whole thing up (which is not to say that they didnt scew up 2003, just that I havent checked) so that its worse than useless, but.... On XP all searches done by the built in search tool use "search handlers" to inspect a file. So if you have emails in a particular format, and a handler is installed to search that format then XP can do more intelligent searches. *Supposedly* The problem is that if a given filetype doesn't have a search handler then the stupid search mechansim doesnt default to a text search, it defaults to skipping the file. And since there is hardly a plethora of search handler implementation out there the end result is that the fucking XP search function is totally fucking broken. If you have XP and you a directory full of c code do a search for files ending with .c/.h containing some string you know is there. Then laugh your ass off when you realize that the fucking search program doesnt find them. Then download something like agent-ransack (http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/) and be happy that there is a replacement (and one that works pretty nicely.) Only Microsoft could fuck up a file search function this badly. Hate. Yves ps: Of course it will search your Excel files and your Word documents, and probably even your powerpoint presentations, but a plain old fucking text c header file? Fuckers.
From: Jeremy Weathers
Date: 15:26 on 04 Oct 2006
Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows
> Only Microsoft could fuck up a file search function this badly.
That sucks. I guess I should be thankful for the few minor reasons I
hate Apple's latest search.
No thanks, I don't want your stupid search widget taking up that
much space in my menu bar. Especially since you've locked it to the
far right where I've had a clock for years. I guess I'll keep
disabling that bundle every time you release a system update, since
you couldn't conceive of users wanting to configure that part of the
menu bar.
That's funny, Spotlight, I distinctly told you not to index my
external (i.e. backup) harddrive - in the rare case that I need to
find something on the backup I'll use EasyFind. Why are you indexing
it right now?
--=20
Jeremy Weathers
=46aith is taking the first step even=20
when you don't see the whole staircase.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
From: jrodman Date: 02:50 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:59:20PM +0100, Martin Ebourne wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 23:51 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > The filesystem is not a good way to organise music. For small > > libraries it's OK. To navigate big ones, it blows. > > The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music. So long > as it's all laid out consistently, which is the software's job. > (sound-juicer works well for me, sorry that was rather off topic). File me under: HOLY CRAP YES. I might want to use MORE THAN ONE music program, so storing the organization in some private place is stupid. I might happen to have music tagged as written by "Massive Attack" and "Massive", both in the "Massive Attack" folder. Godddamn music apps could please take note of this! (The artist actually _changed their name_ over time, so there's just no good way to address this with tags.) The filesystem is not a good music _navigation_ system, but it should be a common criteria for file association used across _all_ music library things. If the file layout is 'all my music files get dumped in one directory because I'm a hyperactive teenager on sugar', then the user can ignore this criteria. But if I've spent the time to _organize_ my music already, what is the music library's problem to make up a whole new layer of disorganization and ignore that which already exists? Wow, Various Artists sure is a popular group. To add to this idiocy, many types of music files _do not have tags_. So these libraries essentially pretend that every single fiple of all these tagless categories are written by a single artist and are on a single album. Great. here's a puzzle for you! mods/artists/Hacker/Sad_Daze.xm What could the artist name be? Most Libraries will answer "". It's NOT HARD to give me a couple variables so that I can educate you as to the _consistent_ and _well organized_ layout of all my files, so that you, the Library software can find out some _reliable_ associativity information across all my music. But you're too hateful for that. -josh
From: Roger Burton West Date: 09:25 on 04 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows On or about Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:50:09PM -0700, jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx typed: >here's a puzzle for you! > > mods/artists/Hacker/Sad_Daze.xm > >What could the artist name be? Most Libraries will answer "". What you want is clearly Rockbox. Well, all right, it isn't because it doesn't have a MOD player, but it does have the option to say "display the artist tag, or if there isn't one display the parent directory". R
From: Bill Page Date: 16:14 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Re: iTunes on Windows > I just wish that honking great iTMS carbuncle at the bottom would go > away. Am I missing some config option? View -> show ministore > I was > vaguely surprised that it didn't have an interface like the iPods which > I would have liked. But that's a preference thing. click the eye down the bottom in the corner and you'll get what everyone else uses and the autocomplete is a bit of a bitch, but it will let you do what you want if you batch edit On 10/4/06, Simon Wistow <simon@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:35:09AM -0500, Stephen Deken said: > > So... you've chosen to use an application whose raison d'etre is to: > > s/use/try out to see what all the fuss is about now I'm being forced to > use Windows/ > > but close. Bonus points for getting raison d'etre in there though ;) > > > * Provide an interface to the iPod > > * Provide an interface to the iTunes Store > > * Play music > > I'd put play music first - I even seem to remember it being available > before the iPod but my memory could be faulty. Nope, I'm right. iTunes > was announced January 9th, 2001 and the iPod was announced on October > 23rd, 2001. > > Yes, odd that I should try and use a music player to play music. > I am a little weird like that. > > I just wish that honking great iTMS carbuncle at the bottom would go > away. Am I missing some config option? > > > I can't imagine why you think it sucks. If you don't need iPod > > integration and you don't need iTunes, don't you have about 60 > > kajillion other options? > > Which bit are you disagreeing with? I don't particularly like the > library management. I imagine some people do and that's cool. I was > vaguely surprised that it didn't have an interface like the iPods which > I would have liked. But that's a preference thing. > > Are you disagreeing that the autocomplete sucks? In which case you might > be in a minority. > > Curiously yours, > > Simon > >
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 17:42 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows > I can't imagine why you think it sucks. If you don't need iPod > integration and you don't need iTunes, don't you have about 60 > kajillion other options? All music playing software on all platforms that I have ever used, including every application that anyone has ever raved at me about when I have griped about the one I'm currently using, suck. Some suck so badly that we need to invent new terms to describe the size of the holes in the filters they are able to suck asteroids though. iTunes is, overall, relatively UNsucky.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 17:32 on 03 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes on Windows > 2) Realise that ID3 tag, whilst technically correct, is lowercased > 3) Try and edit that > 4) Have iTunes know better than you do and autocomplete the field back > to the lowercase version I get that. I stick a "zzz" at the front, so it doesn't match, edit it, then remove the zzz. On the Mac if I'm doing a bunch of renames I use Applescript. It's a bastard of a language, kind of like what Grace Hooper might have thought a good idea if she was doing COBOL over a few decades later, but it *does* give you a working script and you can use "osascript" to run it from the shell.
Generated at 10:27 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi