I got it.... my noggin was just / and is still foggy....... medicine has me all messed up....
I've done the Rockit library thing about a dozen times before. :sqerr:
I've done the Rockit library thing about a dozen times before. :sqerr:
A dumb rockit ?
- Thread starter Papa Deuce
- Start date
The entire purpose of Rockit's Library (and many years of work on my part), is to use it -- and not use the Explorer like interface.
You can pound a nail in with a pair of vice grips -- but it is much easier with a hammer...
Sometimes "If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail"
No advantages -- in fact it's slower than the built in library routines.
Some people do it that way, because their tags are not setup properly, and/or they have their music grouped by genre in folders. In that case, it's simple to just right click a folder, and create a playlist out of it. The playlists will load faster than displaying the folder itself.
Displaying folders themselves, is the slowest of all options, because the tags have to be scanned as Rockit reads them. It is also very resource intensive, because of that.
I'm still a little confused. Which is the better (less memory intensive) method?
Should I continue to use the genre list as provided by tags? Or is creating play lists of the same genres the way to go?
I am very anal how I have my actual mp3's arranged. So creating play lists would be a snap.
Which method works better for searches?
Which method does the software prefer - reading the genre from the tags or from the play lists?
Which method is slower? Which one loads faster?
What do you mean by "displaying the folders themselves"? Are you referring to the "tree" method? I never plan to use that tree anyway. In fact, I'd like to have a skin where there is NO tree shown.
Should I continue to use the genre list as provided by tags? Or is creating play lists of the same genres the way to go?
I am very anal how I have my actual mp3's arranged. So creating play lists would be a snap.
Which method works better for searches?
Which method does the software prefer - reading the genre from the tags or from the play lists?
Which method is slower? Which one loads faster?
What do you mean by "displaying the folders themselves"? Are you referring to the "tree" method? I never plan to use that tree anyway. In fact, I'd like to have a skin where there is NO tree shown.
The "better" way, is to let the software do it, using the library. The lists are arranged/vectored on the fly in memory this way. When you click on a playlist, Rockit has to load the playlist file, parse and display it -- hence more overhead.
The search routines search the library -- not playlists. If a given song is in both the library and a playlist(s), the search will return the item from the library. So, having them duplicated in playlists is redundant. If the song is in a playlist, but not the library -- the search will not find it.
Having said all that, it is perfectly fine to setup playlists like that if you like, just remember that you incur more overhead by causing the program to have to open and parse a playlist file each time you display it. File I/O is costly in terms of system resources, compared to simply resorting the library already in memory...
So basically, since I have all my music arranged in the folders just the way I want them, and I have everything tagged correctly including the genre tag, I should not use play lists, but just do the genre list view as provided by my wonderfully superior tagging?
That's the view/breakout I want - by genre - anyway.
That's the view/breakout I want - by genre - anyway.
That's how I do it
I generally only create playlists for certain things, such as dinner music sets, or other sets that I use in AutoMix.
BTW, a playlist IS a library -- exact same thing, with a different file extension, so Rockit can tell the difference
I tend to use different libraries, more than I do playlists. For example, I create a library for say country bars -- and the only thing I put in there, is songs I would play at a country bar. Then, just switch to that library, and you run lean and mean, without all the other songs you don't need. Makes sorting and searching must faster. You can have as many libraries as you like , and switch them at will
Rick...ANOTHER small question...
I notice that the default for lists is to sort by title. I prefer to sort by artist and have to click on the artist tab to get that.
Will V 4.2 have that option that will allow me to have the lists sort by artist automatically instead of title?
I notice that the default for lists is to sort by title. I prefer to sort by artist and have to click on the artist tab to get that.
Will V 4.2 have that option that will allow me to have the lists sort by artist automatically instead of title?
Not in 4.2.
Reason being, is the install is built for V4.2 already, and should be releasing this weekend, barring any major unforeseen problems. Minor issues are just patched in the already built install -- but that would require some major code changes, and a major rebuild of the install.
Now, if you had asked me a month ago, I could have put the option in, prior to going into final release...
I did make note of putting in an option, for 4.3 though
good moto to live by when doing business,although Papa D didnt get his phone call answeredWe aim to please
so this weekend should be a good release weekend,we await rockit patiently.
BTW, 4.2 is not a startling release -- it is a fine tuning of 4.1.
There are quite a few enhancements, and speed changes in certain areas, as well as new skinning stuff, new menus, etc.
I'll post the relevant changes, upon release
There are quite a few enhancements, and speed changes in certain areas, as well as new skinning stuff, new menus, etc.
I'll post the relevant changes, upon release