Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amarok 2.4 Beta 1 Brings A Basket Of Features

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Amarok 2.4 Beta 1 Brings A Basket Of Features

    Phoronix: Amarok 2.4 Beta 1 Brings A Basket Of Features

    KDE Software Compilation 4.6 is set to be released in January and coming alongside that will be the Amarok 2.4 music player release. KDE SC 4.6 Beta 1 came late last month, but now Amarok is joining the Christmas party with its first 2.4 beta release. It brings a basket of new features, thanks in part to the contributions made this year with the Google Summer of Code project...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODg4Mg

  • #2
    Hmm, no sign of a MTP device synchronisation function yet? Ah well, guess I'll have to wait some more. Really looking forward to it. It's pretty odd how Amarok can see the MTP devices and read them, but not write to them, even if in Amarok 1 and other apps that utilise libMTP it works just fine.

    Comment


    • #3
      nice.
      Most interesting for me is: "brand-new (completely rewritten) music collection scanner"
      The old one still kinda sucks. (even though it's kinda usable right now, it still has some hicups)

      I'm looking forward to the stable version .... maybe I should also try the beta ... if it isn't too broken ...

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Highlights of Amarok 2.4 include trans-coding support
            Wait, what? Feature creep FTW!

            Yeah, and playlists suck. Just use my file structure directly, dammit!

            Comment


            • #7
              I third that. I never understood how someone can think that this is useful.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                Wait, what? Feature creep FTW!

                Yeah, and playlists suck. Just use my file structure directly, dammit!
                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'

                Comment


                • #9
                  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 quite like how amarok works playlist wise (though I left click and drag to middle section where the lyrics are, as that location changes to add/replace. Still each to their own there's plenty of other players out there. The biggest issue I have with amarok is how long it takes to boot up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I can appreciate that it wants to be the GNU/Linux iTunes/WMP.
                    Sadly, that means it won't be for me, though.
                    Amarok has come a long way, but it seems as part of that, it has found a new userbase (for the most part).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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..

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X