View Single Post
Old 2nd November 2011, 17:35   #56
Forum King
MrSinatra's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,689
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
MrSinatra, sometimes you just 'slay' me. You usually do a better job defending your point of view. This is one of your weaker arguments.

First, so what, 'usually' does not mean 'always'. Second where is your survey proof that let's you speak to what 'most' users do.
you told me yourself that most users don't stray from defaults. so were you wrong then?

no need to prove the obvious imo.

and i didn't say always. had i meant always, i would have said that. i said usually, and usually is accurate and true.

Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Again, so what. WA also supports art (in some cases, not so well) provided by 3rd party sources that is larger than 200x200.
what do you mean so what? is the point not obvious? winamp and its intended usage is designed for what IT DOES, not what other 3rd party stuff does. i don't think i need to explain beyond that. obviously if it accommodates anything beyond or outside the scope of what IT does, then the farther you get from the norm[s], the less likely that support will be good.

if someone who uses videos for folder art exists, should winamp support that? what if they use tiffs? animated gifs?

Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Why is it a given that the defaults have to change? I know, bad form to answer a question with a question (sue me). WA just needs to better handle art up to some limit that is higher than the apparent limit it has now. How high? I don't know. If only 10% of what the ID3V2 spec allows for embedding, that would be 1.6 MB. The point is to provide support for a large (and growing) diverse group of users who have different desires and/or needs than the users of 10 or even 5 years ago. Yes, I do NOT have a survey to support my statement of 'large and growing'.
this is the first post i've seen where someone asked for such high res art to be accommodated. frankly, thats not compelling. there are many things winamp needs, but this isn't high up there, for reasons i already laid out.

1. most people don't use 1, 3, 5 or 16! meg files for file images, nor are they asking for it.
2. winamp doesn't, by default, display images in a "large way" anywhere (that i'm aware of)
3. winamp isn't going to change number 2 anytime soon, b/c it uses, and has for years now, 200x200 images, (so, if it were to change, it would create a problem for itself, as users would go "hey, why do my images look so funky")

so, since all that is true imo, i don't see a lot of incentive for the devs to cover the handful of niche cases, like this one here, who want bigger sized images accommodated, if winamp itself isn't going to make use of them, (or provide them), at least in a default way. they do have other priorities that imo, are more important.

and if they have to change scanning technique to do it, it def won't happen.

now, if itunes starts embedding 3meg images into every file, (when hell freezes over), then all bets are off. but right now, images are mainly an item on a computer screen or handheld, and critical mass isn't even close to be concerned about this.

Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
First, you can't use statement 3 as a 'given' to justify statement 4 (really bad form).
its my opinion, so yes i can. and i would hazard to guess that unless accommodating the request is easy and without drawbacks, it will also be the devs opinion. my guess is it isn't, or else it would prob already have been done, but i have no true programming bonafides, so i don't know.

Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Furthermore, it does not need to be an 'either or' question. WA should smoothly support art up to some higher TBD limit than it apparently does now.
the spec calls for what, 16meg images u said? so its your contention someone could have that in every file and have 100k files, and winamp should handle that np?

if so, how would you propose it do that? and if it involves caches and resizing, is that ok with you? is it ok to slowdown the scanning process?

Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
WA also needs to provide the user at least two or three sources to choose from (but that's a whole 'nuther fight).
i don't use winamp to get art typically, b/c i don't rip with winamp, so its not like i don't agree with the desire to support art beyond what winamp gets, or the desire to get art from other sources; its just a matter of to what degree is sensible?

its also worth pointing out that if the OP only had, say, 5k files, he'd probably be fine. so its also a question of raw numbers.

Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Finally, so what, again. Hard or easy should not be used an excuse or reason. Breaking ties with what were good design choices 10 years or even 5 years ago will have to happen at some point. Whatever the technique used, the point is that it is possible to do and should be done. Least of all, imo, for the sad reason of 'keeping up with the Jone's'.
so what? SO... if the demand is small, (it is), and the amount of difficulty to implement is high, then there is little point and little incentive to do it, esp when other much more pertinent things need attention.

i have listed lots of bugs and faults within winamp in the forums that affect many more people than mega sized art does. like you, i have called for a wiki documentation project. i would rather see efforts concentrated there, then on this issue.

BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote