Folders (Let me just say it again.)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EAC does it! For me it searches freedb automatically when inserting a new CD, but in case it doesn’t, I go to Database –> Get CD Information from –> remote freedb and done!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I was saying that in my previous post. Ripping program MUST have acess to the internet to search database for tags to write. I do it manually: first ripp, then permit Tag&Rename acess to internet to write tags and then I block his acess again. I don’t like if my programs have acess to internet.

Usually I don’t do tags. I have my music in folders - folder name is the name of Artist+Album and file names of MP3-s in that folder are the names of songs- no tags needed.

But because of Sandisk ‘‘excellent support of folders’’ :wink: I have to mess with **c**n tags. When I get tags I manually rewrite them to make myself some sort of folders, so I can search my music in Clip like I would in computer by folders (look my previous posts).

Wow, you tag-lovers are really doing your best to missunderstand, aren’t you?

The whole dos/windows concept is based on files and folders.

Draging and dropping files into folders is fast and easy - you don’t need an extra program - not even a free one!

All mp3s/flacs/whatevers are files organised in folders on your computer.

Not all the files have id-tags.

Folder browsing adds simplicity to the user interface - and that is a very important factor for a product such as the clip. The requests for folder browsing will of course not stop untill SanDisk explain why this feature is not included - and probably not even then…

@dannej wrote:

Wow, you tag-lovers are really doing your best to missunderstand, aren’t you?

I don’t think so.  I think we may have a better understanding of marketing than you do.

My guess is that the average DAP user is MUCH more inclined to use a music manager program like WMP, iTunes, Rhapsody etc. than they are to open Windows Explorer and organize their music collection into folders.  Their music collection is likely already tagged as the songs in it are likely to have been ripped from CD via one of these music manager programs, or purchased from a source like amazon.com or iTunes.

For God sakes, man.  There are novice computer users who have never even OPENED Windows Explorer, much less know what a disk directory is.

So SanDisk markets to the average user.  And as has been previously stated, they COULD add folder browsing, but then they’d have to support all the users who happen upon it in their Sansa’s menu, don’t understand it but try to use it, and can’t figure it out.

Millions of dollars spent by happy iPod users - do you think Apple made a bad decision in not adding folder support?

Message Edited by PromisedPlanet on 11-01-2008 01:29 PM

You _may_ have a better understanding of marketing than I, and then I must congratulate you to what, I am sure, is a very successful career in the field…

However, our marketing skills aren’t really the question here, are they?

I am sure a lot of people have never opened explorer, but I think that SanDisk would like to service also to those who have.

The argument that adding a feature would cause more support issues is almost to weak to comment on. Just put it in a submenu then - if people have managed to miss Windows Explorer during all those hours in front of their computer screen, I am quite sure they will pass by this feature without noticing it as well.

And btw yes I think apple made a misstake - i know they missed out on at least one customer because of this…

@dannej wrote:

 

The argument that adding a feature would cause more support issues is almost to weak to comment on. Just put it in a submenu then - if people have managed to miss Windows Explorer during all those hours in front of their computer screen, I am quite sure they will pass by this feature without noticing it as well.

 

And btw yes I think apple made a misstake - i know they missed out on at least one customer because of this…

 

Oh, man.  You compare the presence of an item on a small menu on an MP3 player to the existence of Windows Explorer on a system owned by a user who understands music in terms of Artists, Albums and Songs, and not operating system directories?  Talk about a weak argument.

 

And if you think that Apple made a mistake in their design of iPods and iTunes, I’m not sure what you judge to be “success” for a company that likes to make profits.

I thik that every planet must have one country (which country is the biggest market for Sandisk products?) of dumb folks so I guess it is beter not to have folders in MP3 players then write miles or user manuals (don’t use folders to store food, you must not use folders to wash small kids, folders are not ment to be used for drying pets) and have a few thousands of employees to answer all the calls ‘‘how to use folders’’.

PPlanet: You really are a true tag fundamentalist, aren’t you? :slight_smile:

Your sole argument seems to be that people are too stupid to use folders. I don’t agree, lets leave it at that. As for apple, I have never denied their success in selling technically below-pair products with good marketing and a design USP in the ease of use. However, when it comes to excluding folder functionality it is not adding to the ease of use in my opinion. The same of course goes for the sansa players.

Giltic: I think you’re really on to something there :slight_smile: But maybe they could include it in the european version…

Message Edited by dannej on 11-02-2008 02:55 AM

Giltic: I think you’re really on to something there :slight_smile: But maybe they could include it in the european version…

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I certainly hope they will.

We won’t call Sandisk support because of folders and lawsuit over a hot coffee.

Folders more difficult than tags?  Interesting.  Try explaining to someone how to add to or amend tags in a file …

@miikerman wrote:
Folders more difficult than tags?  Interesting.  Try explaining to someone how to add to or amend tags in a file …

Totally agreed. Anyone that uses a PC know what a folder is… but tags?? What the ef? Tags are just like a rear wing on a slow, crappy, old car. They don’t do much, you can live without’em. Ok, if the tag-loving folks want to complicate their lives so badly, that’s good for them. Go build a playlist, go rate your songs, go and just tag some mp3’s or whatever. I don’t wanna. I mean, why have to worry about something that’s so unnecessary? Why not keep things simple? The simplest solution is almost always the best one. Folders shoud be the standard used for browsing, and tag browsing just an additional option. But no, dude, folders are soo difficult. People be so retarded they need tags (hi PPlanet). Yeah, right.                                     Cheers :wink:

No reason for everyone to get so insulting about it.  Both viewpoints are valid.

I happen to favor tags as it allows far more flexible browsing options (Winamp’s Smart Views are a killer example).  A folder structure on the other hand gives only one possibility for browsing, but that one possibility can be arbitrarily tailored to be as specific and custom as the user likes.  Both are useful.

Personally, I’d rather see development effort spent on making the tag browsing better (like supporting AlbumArtist), which would probably address a few of the reasons people want folder browsing.  But even if I primarily used tags, I wouldn’t mind folder browsing for a few specific scenarios.

Unfortunately, I think the folder browsing feature is probably not as trivial to implement as people might think.  Particularly when you consider MTP vs MSC and the various playback options from the tag lists, it think it would be a pretty major effort.  So I wouldn’t hold your breath.

It would be nice if Sandisk would just come out and say one way or the other so we could stop these endless folder thread wars.

@skinjob wrote:

It would be nice if Sandisk would just come out and say one way or the other so we could stop these endless folder thread wars.

I agree . . . and call for a

CEASE - FIRE!

@skinjob wrote:

Unfortunately, I think the folder browsing feature is probably not as trivial to implement as people might think.  Particularly when you consider MTP vs MSC and the various playback options from the tag lists, it think it would be a pretty major effort.  So I wouldn’t hold your breath.

I don’t know much about embedded programming and I’m not familiar with the Clip’s hardware, but as a system/desktop developer you can take my word: good tag support (like the one implemented by SanDisk) is waaaaayyyyyy more difficult than folders. :wink: There are many tag versions, encodings and quirks to take care of. Folder handling is child’s play in comparison. After all, the files are stored in some filesystem internally, and most filesystems are (still) based on directory hierarchies. The Clip has to work hard to extract the tags; the folders are already there for free.

It would be nice if Sandisk would just come out and say one way or the other so we could stop these endless folder thread wars.

I agree. If we at least knew the reason, we could rationalize it. It could be as simple as resource priorities (implementation, testing, support). In big companies, even the smallest of decisions take a lot of work. If SanDisk think folders are not worth the trouble, they just won’t implement them.

I think SanDisk won’t do it just because we say so. If a few famous reviewers would mention that folders would be a nice touch or that the lack of folders is a big minus; that would be a different matter.

I guess they decided not to support folders. The same thing as Sony with their own silly things.

@eliasf wrote:

I don’t know much about embedded programming and I’m not familiar with the Clip’s hardware, but as a system/desktop developer you can take my word: good tag support (like the one implemented by SanDisk) is waaaaayyyyyy more difficult than folders. :wink: There are many tag versions, encodings and quirks to take care of. Folder handling is child’s play in comparison. After all, the files are stored in some filesystem internally, and most filesystems are (still) based on directory hierarchies. The Clip has to work hard to extract the tags; the folders are already there for free.

I’m not saying it’s harder to implement than tags, just that it’s not trivial.  And actually, the browsing UI is pretty simple with tags as the browse lists are just queries executed against the internal database.  The MTP upload or MSC “Refreshing Database” process takes care of the hard work of reading all the tag info and building the DB.

So to add folder browsing, they would either have to somehow add the folder information to the internal database so the UI model won’t require a major rewrite or scrap the DB for folder mode and come up with an entirely new UI model.  So while reading and navigating folders programmatically is quite simple, I’m sure full implementation is not.

And don’t forget the differences between MTP and MSC.  Yes, with MSC there’s a file system.  But with MTP there isn’t, it’s all virtual.

I’m sure MTP mode is the main reason there’s no folder browsing.  With MTP the “file system” is entirely virtual and you have no control over it, so there’s no reason to have a folder browsing mode.  I’m sure the vast majority of users just stick with the default MTP mode and WMP and never think about the folder structure.  I’m definitely not one of those users, but I’m sure us MSC users are a small minority compared to the MTP users.

Again, I’m not arguing against folder browsing.  I’m just saying that I think many people are underestimating the effort it would take to implement and are maybe giving Sandisk a little more grief than they deserve.

Obviously right now Sandisk is having good business…

but when the profit drops, companies would do anything to keep the customers. AND WE ARE THE CUSTOMERS.

Skinjob wrote: 

I’m not saying it’s harder to implement than tags, just that it’s not trivial.  And actually, the browsing UI is pretty simple with tags as the browse lists are just queries executed against the internal database.  The MTP upload or MSC “Refreshing Database” process takes care of the hard work of reading all the tag info and building the DB.

 

So to add folder browsing, they would either have to somehow add the folder information to the internal database so the UI model won’t require a major rewrite or scrap the DB for folder mode and come up with an entirely new UI model.  So while reading and navigating folders programmatically is quite simple, I’m sure full implementation is not.

 

And don’t forget the differences between MTP and MSC.  Yes, with MSC there’s a file system.  But with MTP there isn’t, it’s all virtual.

 

I’m sure MTP mode is the main reason there’s no folder browsing.  With MTP the “file system” is entirely virtual and you have no control over it, so there’s no reason to have a folder browsing mode.  I’m sure the vast majority of users just stick with the default MTP mode and WMP and never think about the folder structure.  I’m definitely not one of those users, but I’m sure us MSC users are a small minority compared to the MTP users.

 

Again, I’m not arguing against folder browsing.  I’m just saying that I think many people are underestimating the effort it would take to implement and are maybe giving Sandisk a little more grief than they deserve.

The database (MTABLE.SYS) already contains the full path names, for both MSC and MTP mode items. MTP mode has a directory structure and the database stores its items using a “##MUSIC#” prefix. Here’s a dump from the database, showing how the pre-installed songs are stored (the lines starting with mmc: are the paths):

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\Heavyweight Dub Champion\13000000_Survival Guide For The End O\Return Of The Champion.mp3

02 01 14 “Return Of The Champion” “Heavyweight Dub Champion” “Survival Guide For The End Of Time” “Hip-Hop” “00000002”

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\Jones Gang\Any Day Now\Angel.mp3

02 01 19 “Angel” “The Jones Gang” “Any Day Now” “Classic Rock” “00000003”

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\Red Thread\Ship in the Attic\Wax Museum.mp3

02 01 1b “Wax Museum” “The Red Thread” “Ship in the Attic, Birds in the Subway” “Indie” “00000002”

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\1D000000_The Shanghai Restoration Pro\1E000000_The Shanghai Restoration Pro\Babylon of the Orient.mp3

02 01 1f “Babylon of the Orient” “The Shanghai Restoration Projec” “The Shanghai Restoration Project” “Electronic” “0”

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\Alias & Ehren\Lillian\Cobbelstoned Waltz.mp3

02 01 23 “Cobbelstoned Waltz” “Alias & Ehren” “Lillian” “Electronic” “00000012”

I don’t think there is any difference internally between the two modes. They’re just two different interfaces. Even if I’m wrong, I believe that at least the MSC mode files should be easy to list - forget about MTP. It’s obvious that the people asking for folder support are using MSC exclusively.  :wink:

@eliasf wrote:


Skinjob wrote: 

I’m not saying it’s harder to implement than tags, just that it’s not trivial.  And actually, the browsing UI is pretty simple with tags as the browse lists are just queries executed against the internal database.  The MTP upload or MSC “Refreshing Database” process takes care of the hard work of reading all the tag info and building the DB.

 

So to add folder browsing, they would either have to somehow add the folder information to the internal database so the UI model won’t require a major rewrite or scrap the DB for folder mode and come up with an entirely new UI model.  So while reading and navigating folders programmatically is quite simple, I’m sure full implementation is not.

 

And don’t forget the differences between MTP and MSC.  Yes, with MSC there’s a file system.  But with MTP there isn’t, it’s all virtual.

 

I’m sure MTP mode is the main reason there’s no folder browsing.  With MTP the “file system” is entirely virtual and you have no control over it, so there’s no reason to have a folder browsing mode.  I’m sure the vast majority of users just stick with the default MTP mode and WMP and never think about the folder structure.  I’m definitely not one of those users, but I’m sure us MSC users are a small minority compared to the MTP users.

 

Again, I’m not arguing against folder browsing.  I’m just saying that I think many people are underestimating the effort it would take to implement and are maybe giving Sandisk a little more grief than they deserve.


The database (MTABLE.SYS) already contains the full path names, for both MSC and MTP mode items. MTP mode has a directory structure and the database stores its items using a “##MUSIC#” prefix. Here’s a dump from the database, showing how the pre-installed songs are stored (the lines starting with mmc: are the paths):

 

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\Heavyweight Dub Champion\13000000_Survival Guide For The End O\Return Of The Champion.mp3

02 01 14 “Return Of The Champion” “Heavyweight Dub Champion” “Survival Guide For The End Of Time” “Hip-Hop” “00000002”

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\Jones Gang\Any Day Now\Angel.mp3

02 01 19 “Angel” “The Jones Gang” “Any Day Now” “Classic Rock” “00000003”

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\Red Thread\Ship in the Attic\Wax Museum.mp3

02 01 1b “Wax Museum” “The Red Thread” “Ship in the Attic, Birds in the Subway” “Indie” “00000002”

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\1D000000_The Shanghai Restoration Pro\1E000000_The Shanghai Restoration Pro\Babylon of the Orient.mp3

02 01 1f “Babylon of the Orient” “The Shanghai Restoration Projec” “The Shanghai Restoration Project” “Electronic” “0”

mmc:0:##MUSIC#\Music\Alias & Ehren\Lillian\Cobbelstoned Waltz.mp3

02 01 23 “Cobbelstoned Waltz” “Alias & Ehren” “Lillian” “Electronic” “00000012”

 

 

I don’t think there is any difference internally between the two modes. They’re just two different interfaces. Even if I’m wrong, I believe that at least the MSC mode files should be easy to list - forget about MTP. It’s obvious that the people asking for folder support are using MSC exclusively.  :wink:

 

I realize the MSC paths are in the DB, but I don’t think they are organized in a way that would be usable by the current UI without significant work.  And aren’t all the songs stored in a single file in MTP mode?  I could be wrong, but I thought that was one of the arguments for device vendors to adopt MTP.  The device could use whatever file system it wanted internally to store the MTP data file, and the MTP protocol took care of presenting a virtual filesystem to the host device.  And of course I realize that folder browsers are MSC users, but currently all UI/playback features of the player work the same in both modes, so they either need to figure out a way to make folder browing work for both or start creating mode specific features, which I’m sure they are reluctant to do.

Anyway, it’s all speculation, so probably not too much point in going any further with it.  My point was just that I don’t think laziness is the reason for the lack of folder browsing, I think it’s more work than many would expect.

NO, No, no… Tags Are SIMPLE to implement. Especially the version that Sansa uses. They are just the ID3v1’s (as far as I can tell). If Sansa tried to use the ID3v2.4’s they couldn’t mate with Window$ Media. But that’s not even the problem (unless you play foreign stuff (like me (no UTF-8 support))), anyway, the trouble is that Sansa uses the simplest of playlist formats _ ontop _ of the crappy tag support! PLA is so USELESS! I can’t believe that so many people think this is right?

Why is there such a big deal about folder view support?? I find my Clip really easy to navigate and I have over 250 songs…