Well, telt's try ...
I was never able to get it working in XP. It seemed like there was a much larger variety of crashes and failures that I haven't yet seen in Vista, and it never produced any sound. Vista was better, and I have it running there, though it's not error free. In demo mode it pops up a half dozen errors/notifications every time I start, and never saves the config file, though the last playlist is saved. I don't mind the fact that the demo mode has a time limit before the application stops playing and needs to be restarted, but it seems like a significant number of other things are handicapped/broken in demo mode, and this is making it really difficult to effectively evaluate anything but the basic music playback capability.
Demo mode doesn change anything about anything. Only playing time and Library items output is limited.
The configuration can be a nasty one, because it is just that causing the errors itself, while because of it it won't save. This is partly my problem, because I could have done it all myself, but instead I use mr B.G. features, and they can get into irritating loops/behaviour.
Additionally, for a common user this is not much of a problem, because he knows how things can / should be. A little fiddling about, and things work again. That is why I said "there should be no errors". Not in generall because that would be a good idea, but just not because for others it is not so either. Anyway, checkout
How to delete a misbehaving ConfigFile if you already hadn't, and throw out all those config files if you like. In any case never answer Yes to the question "Do you want to restore your settings", because that just creates the problem (again).
As I said elsewhere, I will rewrite this whole procedure, because it doesn't help anyone (the opposite).
That said, I've got to say I have yet to see a dotnet application that actually looks nice and is nice to use, and XX isn't any exception to that so far. I hope you don't take any offense, I blame microsoft for that.
Well, personally I don't see why dot-net should cause this, apart from the fact that everythig is arranged for, and it thus is so that everyone (like me) using it, will come to similar results for looks and useage. In this particular case there are some more parameters applicable;
As you will know XX was created for one purpose only, the best sound. As in insider (as it seems) I could refer to cics doing the same with a different approach though. Indeed as you said elsewhere, this approach doesn't even allow for, say, ITunes looks, because it just will degrade sound. He doesn't want it because it shouldn't, but funny enough, his users also do not require it one the're into it. The same it is here, though a bit different. I stumbled across some additional requirements (a first one was "allow FLAC", and a second may have been MP3, and more and more came from it) while the SQ actually already was very good (though nothing compared to how it is today). This is the reason I started to ask money, as a kind of "okay, but then for a small compensation". Still it is so that all changes to the GUI imply SQ changes, and from that Unattended playback came ... the very most difficult, but now independent from the GUI implications.
So what do we have ? an XXHighEnd program with a GIU which can't be avoided to find your albums and start playing them, but right after that the GUI is gone.
And of course that GUI part *is* important, but as it definitely appears, only for newcommers like you, and you could very well say ... only for commercial reasons. So as how it is now, I should improve the GUI and presentation of the coverart and all only to get more users. But hmm ... at first I wasn't about that at all, and maybe still I am not.
But time proceeds, and while SQ is ok, people stumble of the presentation and all, and I just "don't like that". No need to explain further I think.
And so I already planned for a long time (a year or so) to drastically change that, and it will be the very last project before this thing gets out of Beta. Btw, remote control is the one but last, and this one is going on right now (the 0.9x sequence).
So, done ? hmm ... nope. This one year ago ITunes may bot have been around (or got known a bit just then), and right now the problem has turned into something different : tagging;
Here too, no users that I know of require such a thing. Not the users from a year ago, not those from a month ago. But again, here *you* are, and coincidentally you speak up. Another 2000 do not ... But with or without, I can make it up myself, another thing is needed ...
Funny thing is, in that last post over at audiophile I ended with something like "the solution should be a plugin just for tagging and searching with that as a base" but I scratched it. It doesn't exist right now, and without extensive explanation it wouldn't do much. And ...
The other bit I'd really love to have is a front end that provides lookups and playlist generation based on tags, etc. This is where my xbmc request comes in.
... some can make it up besides me. And it is exactly this why I scratched it, because it impeeds for quite another discussion which is rather technical or ICT like if you want. In here, in this post addressed to you only, I think it is more easy to counteract it :
What you just said is exactly how I said it (but scratched it), but you proceed with the other way around : XBMC and the like would not be a front end only, it dives right into the heart of a player like XX, if it needs to work. The point is, software like XBMC does too much. Example : it supports Cue Files or not. If not, then that part doesn't work. If it does, how to communicate with XX while the individual files just are not there. This just CAN NOT work. Never.
While I hope this one example is enough, what I see is this "plugin" (which it actually would not be) that can be called from XX as one means of search and which outputs in the Library Area. How that means performs its search (database, internal tagging, Bill Gates' properties) I don't care, as long as the result ends up in the Library area, I'm fine. And you would be too. Uhhmm ... for that tagging part. The GUI problem won't be solved by that.
On a sidenote, but important to know I think, I mention the sole fact that the engine (XXEngine3) creating the music (and SQ for that matter) is running 100% separate from the controlling part, XXHighEnd. Thus, what is needed in the base is just there. That this really is so, and how far it extends, is proved by the latest 0.9x versions, which allow for remore control (but stick to keyboard shortcuts for now), that allow for the most needed features like changing the volume, select the next track, stop, change some of the parameters etc., while XXHighEnd is NOT running. It does control via those shotcuts though. And thus, where XXHighEnd can do it, anything could do it ... It is just made for it. However ...
Again this doesn't work, because way too much is done by XXHighEnd for preparations. For example, when you off an AIF file, this is preconverted to WAV and this is done by XXHighEnd. Remember, this kind of stuff should not influence SQ whatsoever, and this is just one of the means to achieve that. Along with this goes some rather complicated means of caching (better call it a proxy), which is about (for example) changing the volume, without the necessity to preconvert again. Or, if you watch closely, without preconverting a complete playlist again.
1000s of hours have gone into these matters, and no external means is going to do that again, and besides I would need to do it.
So ... what I intend - or at least what I take into account explicitly, is that XXHighEnd keeps on doing these things, and again referring to the hot keys, ... it does. It does while now XXHighEnd is controlled from a distance (invisible), and it now comes down to addressing XXHighEnd instead of XXEngine3, and it is all way more close to solutions by this means. So for example, feed the PC by an Alt-P sequence, and sound starts to play. Whether the Alt-P comes there by keyboard typing, remote control, or is fed by a random other program, sound will play. It is that easy.
What might be difficult to see for you right now, is that this is quite not all what is needed in the end. I mean, with the Cue Files as the example, it still is so that they need to be exploded into the individual byte offsets in the large file, and whether it is this example, or the dozens of others, XXHighEnd has to do it. This would (or could) imply that external software should be able to stuff in tracks into the Playlist Area of XXHighEnd, and if you look at dragging at doing so, you will understand how easy that by itself could be (expecially use a Cue File to get the merits). You could well say that if
some means could be found that just does this, we're there. This doesn't need to be a literal drag operation, and any means of telling which tracks are in order to play will suffice (for me). Note that this still doesn't solve the Cue File thing, because when this is not supported in the other "player", you won't be able to shuffle it, or select track#3 only. This is similar to the other player just not supporting some of the features XX does support, with Double or Quad being an example. This is a matter of some fields on the form overthere of course, but it must be explicitly made or otherwise the functionality is just not there within XX.
In the very end you could say (or can see) that I have been thinking about these things right from the beginning, and even eplicitly support it all. Despite that, I don't think it is going to work, because other software does not anticipate on *this* kind of means, which is kind of special of course. However :
What I do see, is that *after* this is all up and running (which it should be at the last 0.9x version) software, or just "forms" (screens) may emerge just for controlling XX. In fact I am in contact with an OEM who is just going to do that. But, anyone could do it. So, done again ?
No, still not, because it still leaves the problem of tagging. If I say it would take me another year, I guess it would take that time for anyone, and with my knowledge of the problems on finding the music data in the files containing all that cr*p
tag data, it would imply the complement of that the least, plus the interpreting of the tag data itself.
I could add to that, sadly, that XX is rather self contained when it comes down to tag data including coverart etc., but it is again this other means, and when you have taken a year of time to get your precious tag data into the files, XX won't do anything with it.
On this matter being able to "import" it, and *that* via general means which can be found on the internet, will be a better solution IMO. Or at least this would be a solution which will end up working (and workable). Note though that then going back to a player which requires it as literal tag data again, is another (real) problem. This would need exporting from XX, and by the time you know the ins and outs of the Library functions, you'd see that actually nothing is there. It's just (.mta) files.
Peter
(sorry for typos, didn't check for them)
Show Posts
) is obvious, do you yourself (!) have any special reason to want this ?
