12-06-2008 02:15 AM - edited 12-06-2008 02:19 AM
Maybe I'm just being dense, and don't really know how miserable and unhappy and deluded I am (etc.), but My Sansa players HAVE folders on them.
When I convert one of my CDs to .MP3, the conversion software looks up the album, and creates tags with the album name, artist name, track names, and track numbers. I then create a folder hierarchy on my player -- \music\artist\album\songs (the actual .MP3 files).
I then scroll through the list of albums, and play the album I want -- either the whole album, or, I scroll to the song I want to hear, and play it.
There's a lot more disturbing things in this world, I can't get bent out of shape over this, which causes me no grief anyhow. (The only thing I really *don't* like is the dark filter placed over the OLED on my Silver Clip and my Expresses. It serves NO purpose other than "to look cool" and it obscures the display -- PURE "form over function" with NO esthetic benefit (hell, the stinkin' thing sits in my POCKET when I'm not using it -- it's a *machine*, not an *amulet* after all -- the ONLY purpose *of* the display is to show me information -- but, the "looks cool" filter -- never seen *unless* I am trying to look at the display -- DETRACTS from the usabilty *of* the display).
Even so, the player's plusses outweigh even *that* minus -- since I spend my time *listening* to it rather than *looking* at it.
You can easily put your stuff onto the machine in whatever folder structure you like, and then either use the tags to navigate the albums, or, if for whatever reason your system does not *give* you the tags, you can run a simple utility to recurse your tree, and create playlists for you.
Or, you can pout.
Message Edited by PickMorel on 12-06-2008 05:19 AM
12-06-2008 02:36 PM
You said it yourself, "It is OLD technology!" Which is most likely why SanDisk has decided against incorporating it into their firmware. A lot of other manufacturer's have adopted this view as well.
But . . . glad you found some old technology that you like better. Everybody should be happy.
12-06-2008 04:11 PM
With all due respect, folks, just because a technology like folders is "old" doesn't make it bad, or out-dated, so as to be abandoned. To the contrary, much "old" technology has stood the test of time. Like, oh, I don't know, the wheel, and the alphabet. And even folders, in both paper and electronic form ...
12-06-2008 04:49 PM
I'm really hesitant to get into this yet again, and hopefully what I said is not going to start a war because that wasn't my intention.
I merely stated that folders were 'old' technology, not that there was anything wrong with it, but many players (not only SanDisk) use tag-based systems instead. I have no idea why SanDisk doesn't offer Folder views; I was just suggesting one possible reason.
As you say, many 'old' technologies are not bad, but unfortunately in some cases they are out-dated, and abandoned as 'newer' advancements replace them, for whatever reason (usually $$).
I drive a 17 year-old car with over 200,000 miles on it. It still works and works well. But the technology in it has been surpassed long ago. I still prefer Windows 3.1. I had a LOT less problems with it than XP and I could do more with the programs available for it than I can now with what's available in XP. But yes, technology has passed it by and it is (and has been for a long time) obsolete.
So, the world of technology certainly isn't fair, but it is always in a state of perpetual motion going forward.
OK, I'm done. If someone wants to read something more into this than what there is and start another back & forth about the virtues of this or that, you can do it w/o me.
12-09-2008 04:30 PM
Most of the things I'd want to do with a folder view I can do using playlists or album tags. Usually playlists, as they mimic folders well enough for what we'd normally use folders for -- to make a grouping of songs and play them. Drag and drop songs into a folder, make a playlist from them. Doesn't take significantly longer than just dropping the files into the folder.
I suspect that a folder view would cost resources -- both in programming time and in firmware & memory use -- which isn't justified for an option many people won't choose. I'm a fan of folders as an idea, and wouldn't mind having the option, but not at the cost of reducing other features.
12-09-2008 05:15 PM
I'll chime in on the issue--not to fan the flames--but as a new member, to offer a perspective that may (or may not) have been offered already:
The idea of folder-based organization is appealing. I do a considerable amount of high-level (e.g., Visual Basic, Matlab, etc.) programming, which includes built-in functions that easily allow the programmer to build multiple data structures and interfaces for accessing the data. I could build a clone of the Clip interface in Visual Basic (using ActiveX controls for audio playback) in under an hour, and include FOLDERS!!! However, coding the same thing at the machine level (embedded-system programming) is way beyond my skill-level. I have no sense for how hard it would be, and for the record, have a hard time believing anyone who chimes in here as an authority, and ISN'T working with Rockbox!
Now the pragmatic question. Why folders? Because you to want to create groupings for mood, occasion, whatever. But really that idea doesn't make sense...or rather, that idea ONLY makes sense with playlists. Why? Because you'd probably never duplicate a song in multiple folders (that's inefficient), but with playlists it costs almost nothing to put a song on two or more playlists. So I'd argue, at the functional level, that playlists trump folders.
12-10-2008 01:15 AM - edited 12-10-2008 01:23 AM
Message Edited by Sinocelt on 12-10-2008 01:23 AM
12-10-2008 04:55 AM
I agree that setting up and maintaining playlists is more work. No argument there.
But something you said threw me:
Let's say you're working in a standard media player program...you should have one window pane that lists all your songs (in folders, or not), and another pane that lists your playlists. Wouldn't dropping a new song into a folder be the exact same process of adding that song to a playlist? Click, drag, drop? I'm not sure why you'd "add the song to an existing folder" but have to "set up a new playlist for the same new song"...?
If I follow you, what you're saying is you ALREADY keep things organized in folders. What a pain to have to mirror that with playlists...? But remember we have a quick little program (one click) that will read your folder structure and create the playlists for you!!!
BTW, I said I didn't want to stir the pot...and I think that's exactly what I've done! I offered my two cents, but NEVER meant to suggest that everybody should do things the same way. IF (big if) there were folders on Sansa devices, we'd all have the choice of doing it the way we wanted...
12-10-2008 05:58 AM - edited 12-10-2008 06:06 AM
Let's say you're working in a standard media player program...
I don't. I didn't need it with my previous player (that finally broke, after several years); I could just use the basic file manager that comes with any OS.
If I follow you, what you're saying is you ALREADY keep things organized in folders.
No. I'm speaking of making and naming my own folders (for instance Gym, Class, Books) on the MP3 player and just adding to or removing files from those, without the need of changing the playlist each time.
As for those of my songs already organized in folders, they're all burnt on DVDs, so adding playlists or changing the ID tags isn't an option.
But remember we have a quick little program (one click) that will read your folder structure and create the playlists for you!!!
If you refer to mp3tag, which I use, it doesn't work that fast. I've got to start it, and type the name of the playlist. Each time I want to add a song.
Moreover, I still have problems with playlists playing my songs out of order. I've renamed the files. I've renamed the tags. I've use mp3tag's autonumbering wizard. The files still play out of order, and two of them don't even show up. I've spent a good half hour trying to solve that problem, which wouldn't even exist with a folder view. And I'm a geek. I worked as a computer expert. Most people (the overwhelming majority) buying the Clip don't know about mp3tags; they don't even know about this forum, so that when their songs play out of order or don't appear, they have no recourse. Many will never update the firmware, so will also have problems with songs whose ID3 version is more recent than their firmware.
ID3 tags can be useful. I've renamed all the files I've recorded for my students, with a lot more information than what a file name could bear. But they're not practical in all, and even most situations. There's a reason, as someone pointed out, that folders have stood the test of time, and it is not simply because dinosaurs like me refuse to change. WinFS was the one aspect of Longhorn that I was really pining for (though I should have guessed that Microsoft would cancel the project yet again) and I also think that virtual folders are a great idea. But ID3 tags have limitations and inconsistencies that make them less-than-ideal as the only means of browsing through your mp3 player.
Message Edited by Sinocelt on 12-10-2008 06:06 AM
12-10-2008 07:03 AM
Sinocelt, I think sansamatt was referring to my program, AutoM3U. There's a link to it in my sig. I think it would be ideal for your case, which is more or less the same way I use my Clip: different folders based on mood and location rather than albums and genres.
All you have to do is run my program just before you disconnect the Clip from the computer. It will create/update playlists based on the Clip's folders, naming them after the folders themselves and arranging the songs based on file attributes or tags. Make sure you select the M3U8 format to properly store Unicode names, which might be the reason some songs don't show up in playlists. You can even tweak the playlists in Notepad if you'd like to rearrange the files in some way.
< rant >
I agree with you about the usefulness of folder support. I used to hate the notion of tags in general, but lately I've started to appreciate them. They are times where tagging seems more appropriate than hierarchical storage. That doesn't mean however that folders are broken, old-fashioned and abominable. I've said it before and I'll say it again: folders and tags are two different tools, each one satisfying a different need; just like hammers and screwdrivers. Keeping only one of them (the trendy one) will simply limit our possibilities.
< /rant >
Now, excuse me, but I'll have to run. I think Tapeworm is coming to get me.
Auto-generate folder playlists for the Clip: AutoM3U v1.1