Re: Songbird...

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:41:57 -0000, "Woody" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Well, they aren't lists as in Windows explorer type lists.

They aren't a lot different, or are you saying that the subtle difference
throws you?


Erm, spose. Well, it's not just that of course it's the whole way that
or any app manages your data. Any file manager for example simply
allows you to explore what you have. It doesn't bundle up all your
..exe's and .dats as to do so would be meaningless (not the same as
searching for stuff or wanting to display stuff like that I don't
mean).

It's the same thing as Picassa or iPhoto (is it). If they don't do
anything to the files collection then they are fairly pointless and if
they do I don't need / want them.

Not being funny or anything but what part of that is non obvious? I
can't actually see how it could be more obvious. Not saying this as
critisism, but my current open university course is user interfaces, and
part of it is watching people use something and see how they progress
through it.

Ok. Erm, I guess it's what I said above. Ok, I don't have much of a
music collection (in fact it's really only the Mrs's stuff I've ripped
for her for her mp3 player) but if I want to play something I want to
go and get it from my 'collection', as I would if I was going to a CD
on the shelf and choosing a track from that.

That is what I do, that is the way iTunes is laid out. You have your
'collection', your group of CDs, you have a column that lists all the
artists, a column that list all the albums a column that lists all the
genres (which is a waste of space for my point of view), and a list of all
the tracks.

So you don't know all those things or can't access those things
yourself (manually)? If I want to listen to some Quo I choose the Quo
folder then the particular Quo album then the track and play it. I'm
not sure how a package could help me play that quo track (without some
prior effort on my part anyway). Scrolling down a longer single list
isn't necessarily easier for me.

In the case you are saying, you go to the collection and select an album.
Then press play

Yes (like I do atm).


Re a file on the net, I go to the site and choose the
'Windows' file to download. More often than not it gives me the file
there and then or the option of a mirror if that first link didn't
work. If I choose a mirror it takes me to *the file* on another
server, not a directory listing that I have to read and make decisions
about as it often does with Linux (and OSX to a lesser degree). So, I
click on the Windows file, it asks me what I want to do with it (run
or save) and I choose save and where I save it to (every time). Once
it's done I double click on it and it installs and puts an entry in
the Menu for me (same with Ubuntu).

ok, but I don't really get how that relates to iTunes. If iTunes was that
complicated, noone would use it!
With iTunes, you go to the track you want and press the play button. It
plays. Then you can change the volume if you want.

Unless you mean the iTunes store (and again I wasn't refering to that, but
anyway), you go to the iTunes store, you type the name of what you want, and
select it from the list. No formats / locations / installing to worry about.

No, I didn't mea n the store particularly but I was trying to give a
comparison that we both might understand (the man - file interface) to
show how I prefer the same *direct* contact with music, photos or
videos.

<change thought> If I want to play a track I'll go to my music folder
(probably not the default 'My Music' folder), choose the file and
click on it to play in (probably) WMP (I rarely listen to the whole
track or much more than one track (before getting bored), ADD again).
The only time I generally listing to music for any time is in the car
(radio) or streaming internet radio. I like variety and a bit of
talking or adverts breaks the music up a bit.

ok, I guess we are just a bit different. I can't actually see much of a
difference between that and iTunes.

No, I agree they (from your description) both work similarly, the
difference I guess is I see they are similar (results wise) and prefer
not to complicate matters (as I see it) by letting some 3rd part app
manage my stuff. KISS etc.

I guess I don't like the concept of 'My Music' and it being some
generic melting pot ... I want a music folder and folders (albums?)
under that.

Well, yes, you have a music folder with artists and albums under that.

Yes, as you do with iTunes but you don't see them as a folder
structure do you?

pretty well, although you choose how that structure is formatted.

Ok .. Maybe because I don't have much in it the 'point' is lost on me.

Aren't they shown as the Albums with their art (or
other combinations as desired etc).

If you play a track there is an art window if you want to see it, or you can
close it if you dont.

Ok ..

If you want to view them as albums you can put it in album view mode, but it
isn't the default.

Ok .

The default is lists of albums, artists, tracks as just ordinary lists.
You see everything until you click everything, so here now on this pc, I
fire up iTunes,

(I have to mention here that iTunes takes (much) longer to start than
even WMP and I don't have any 'collections' stored in either).

and open the window (I normally actually just press play
without opening it up, I tend to listen on random all the time and skip what
I dont want), I have a list down the side, which is my play lists, which I
don't use (I could hide it, I haven't bothered). Then I have 58 genres
(which again, I don't use. Then I have artists. So there are 561 artists,
aranged as an alphabetical list, defaulting to 'All' at the top. Then next
to that are the albums. There are 567 of those, again defaulting to All at
the top.

So what is All exactly (if that isn't a silly / obvious question)? ie,
Isn't All just what's below it in the list so could be selected via
'Select all' if that was your wish?

Under that there are 3400 tracks, in alphabetical order.
If I want to play a track, I can just scroll the list or type the letter,
and go to it and double click it, it plays.

Hmm ..

If I want to play an album, I can select the album, which reduces the artist
and the track list down to the ones on the album (normally one artist and
8-12 tracks). If I want to play something by an artist or group, I click
their name, and I get just their albums in the album list, and all the
tracks they did in the list.

As I would by clicking the 'Quo' folder etc?

So yes, it is just a load of lists, which mac or windows, is pretty much the
default for viewing stuff. If you are in windows explorer and you click on a
folder, the list is just the things in that folder, it seems the same.

Ok, so, it's just you prefer the app to do what I do with a file
manager?

I guess what I'm saying is I don't
have personalised collections of stuff (be it music, photos or videos
etc) but just quantities of said that *I* access directly, rather than
via some app?

No you don't. You access them through explorer, which is some app with its
way of displaying stuff.

Yes, an access not playing tool. FM doesn't have volume or FF RW
buttons etc.

iTunes is another app with its way.

I tunes is an App, FM is a tool (and I'm not being funny, I know they
are both 'apps' in your (programmer) eyes but I'm differentiating
between the two here as I believe most half literate might).

WMV is another one with its way.

Yup, a media playing app, that's it's primary purpose.

Like I buy Fish and Chips from the Fish and Chips shop and my Kebab
from the Kebab shop. Now both shops can offer a little of the other
shops products but I choose to use each for it's primary role. That's
not to say I will never get a Kebab in the Fish shop in the same way I
might save a video from WMP but they are exceptions rather than the
rule.

Finder
is another app etc
There is no difference

There is in my view. One is a tool to navigate and maintain the file
system, the other has other abilities ... like volume controls and the
like. You could do without WMP (as in maintain / manage your system)
but not FM.

Same with the camera or scanner etc. I explore to the
camera memory card and pull what I want and put where I want, by hand,
rather than letting some app do it for me.

You are letting some app do it for you, it is trying to present the
information on that thing in a consistant way (even though it isn't on the
source in a consistant way). You are letting that explorer app dumb down
what is there to present it to you in the way you want to see it.

Hmm, access more than present in my pov. I use FM to navigate the file
system and Irfanview to present my pictures, WMP to play my music and
videos etc.

Files dont exist on a scanner, explorer just presents them that way so you
can access them,

True, I meant more that I access the output from the scanner with FM,
as I do the results of my cameras's photographic electronics.

files on cameras aren't stored the same as on your hard
disk.

They aren't? <pulls Fat32 formatted SM card from camera>

Your phone isn't using info the same way as windows.

I didn't suggest the format was the same. The means of manipulation
is.

It is just that
explorer simplifies the difference to let you access it in a way that makes
sense to you.

Correct, in my interpretation of how I use one tool for access (I'm
not interested or concerned in how it achieves this) and others to
actually open / manipulate the files once located. I could sometimes
us the app for some FM purposes but I generally don't. ie, If I want
to copy a batch of files from one drive to another I don't do it with
iTunes.

Ok, I know many computers users who, when I say "where do you keep
your documents" give the answer "In Word". Now you and I know they
aren't 'In Word' but in their view that's how they access their
documents.

They open Word then move round the file system to select their files
within Word.

In the real world the files (now) exist even if Word isn't on there.

And back to my point. FM for moving round the file system Word,
IrfanView, WMP, ZIP, Nero, Canon Printer or email attachments for
doing things *with* the files once I have selected them.

If you can't see how I can legitimately separate those two functions
then I respectfully suggest we leave that one there (or we are back to
the open / close issue). Take the spirit of what I'm saing rather than
the coding. ;-)


Oh sorry, not talking about the shop. I couldn't care less about the
shop. I am talking about the application.

Sorry as well, I sort of blurred them together as a role as they have
the same look and feel.

Do they? I would say they are vastly different. I am not a fan of the shop.
I like the application.

Ok.


But that may be part of the issue. I know another way and most noobs
don't. Maybe these apps that pi$$ me off so much are really much
better for someone with no previous computing (in the old school
sense) experience. It's also like smoking, it's ok as long as you keep
trying it (but at first it makes you sick)?

I don't mind either (not smoking, I mind that)

Well I can 'not mind either' as long as it follows the same interface.
Like if I want to burn an image file I open a program (say Nero),
choose from the menu option 'Burn an image file', then choose the file
(Explorer stylee) and hit burn. I don't *always* like the drag n drop
thing unless it's obvious and still has the browse option as well (if
the required file isn't in easy view etc). That StreamClip is a good
example of that, one big basic box saying 'Drop file here'. Not an
array of places that may or may not allow you to drop the file.

I have (on XP) and while I'm pleased to report it looks *more* like a
Windows app and even a bit 'Agenty' (as in the news reader) it's as
Andy says, very much like iTunes in some of it's look (if not feel).

I just tried it and it looks and feels exactly the same.

<opens iTunes and looks again>
Hmm, maybe you are right. Maybe it's the big Apple at the top that
puts me off then? ;-)

No, I am saying that if you want to take one bit of video and put it on
a DVD, iDVD isn't designed for that.

Well, yes, it can do it. I can write a letter in windows mail, but that
doesn't mean it is good at it!

Ok, but given I still don't know what is ideal for what and don't have
the likes of Toast it was the best I could think of. :-(

But can do it presumably? What else could I have used that was built
in to the OS that would have made a player readable DVD then?

In common with pretty well every operating system in general release today
(that I am aware of), MacOSX doesn't have anything build in to the OS to
write video DVDs.

It does, you just told me iDVD! (well, built in as in comes with,
unlike XP which has neither).

[1] In iDVD (I think it was) you click the Media tab but can't seem to
explore the filesystem (the file I wanted was on the desktop). It
wouldn't drag and drop from the desktop so I thought if I browse to it
it might give me a clue if it was willing to accept it or not.

Can you not? If you can't drag it probably isn't going to work

So I now realise. :-(

Cheers, T i m

.

Quantcast