Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Why I'll Probably Always Use amaroK

[William Jon McCann <mccann jhu edu>]

Mark Hewitt wrote:
> > > Aside from that, Rhythmbox is great. It's faster than anything and it 
> > > works really well. I think that with a bit of flashyness and without the 
> > > 14 mile track bar for where in the song you are, it would be absolutely 
> > > great. Good work, I hope that it'll keep it's good stuff while picking 
> > > up the other good stuff of other players.
> >
> > I agree that the track bar is a bit long. 
>
>
> Guys, I don't know if anyone's considering changing this, but can I put
> in my vote to keep it as it is? I know it looks a bit clumsy, but I'm
> among the number of people (I assume) who now listen to podcasts and
> some audiobooks/mp3 lectures through rhythmbox - I'm frequently faced
> with 1-2 *hour* mp3s, and the old track bar was a right pain as one
> increment on it equated to skipping anything up to 10 minutes in a long
> file! The full length one may not be slick but it's handy as hell to be
> able to select precise points within a long file!

Yup.  That's one of the use cases it was designed for.  I think people 
will increasingly use Rhythmbox for the things you mentioned - and maybe 
someday for videos.

Also consider:
http://www.apple.com/education/solutions/itunes_u/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051017-5441.html

So, I firmly believe that a long (or higher resolution) time slider is 
essential.

Jon