On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 10:57 +0100, Artem Baguinski wrote: <columns sizing issues> > Do people really need (to see) the list of many thousands tracks? > What's the point? > > If I want to find something - I'll go to search field. If I want to > quickly find particular album - support for cover graphics could be > very handy (type in partial name of the artist and notice an album > image. > > If I want player to play the whole library in a random order - I don't > care to have all 10K tracks in a list - I will not trry to scroll it > and find something - I'll minimise RB and go on with daily routine. > > Even if iTunes does it (does it?), huge lists are useless. If we accept that we don't want huge lists, what can we do about it? Getting rid of the entry view completely wouldn't work, because then you couldn't select tracks. Do you have any suggestions of how we could keep it, but not have huge lists? Also, how do you define huge - 100? 500? 1000? I do actually scroll through a several-thousand long list occasionally. It's when I feel like listening to a certain kind of song, but I don't know which one, so I scroll though until something jumps out at me. Also the time taken to calculate column sizes doesn't only affect the entire library. Use a browser, use the search box, sort an auto playlist; some of time taken is obviously the database, but there is still a moderately large amount of time spent sizing the columns. This means that the patch still provides a noticable speedup, even if we somehow got removed huge lists. Cheers, James "Doc" Livingston -- You can lead an idiot to knowledge but you cannot make him think. You can, however, rectally insert the information, printed on stone tablets, using a sharpened poker. -- Nicolai in asr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part