Posted by Technobarbarian on 01/09/06 00:09

"Don M." <newsreader@nospam4fineartsnospam.com> wrote in message
news:jvydnQshOo0Y_FzeRVnyvA@giganews.com...
>
> "dadiOH" <dadiOH@wherever.com> wrote in message
> news:kpQvf.325$sa4.188@trnddc07...
>> Rob Weekhout wrote:
>>
>> > Let us know what your opinion is about M.M !!!
>>
>> Since you asked...
>>
>> When it was SongsDB it just flat out didn't work. Not reliably. Does
>> it now? It is better but I figure that if someone releases a flaky
>> program they simply don't care and I'm not interested in future
>> releases.
>>
>> It was also huge. Still is. "Huge" = five or more times the size of
>> other similar and better programs.
>>
>> It also created a huge database - the equivalent of almost eight ID3V1
>> tags for each and every song. Still does.
>>
>> It was very slow scanning for MP3s.
>>
>> My overall opinion is that there are many far better programs around.
>>
> ==========
>
> Excellent. Not to offend anybody, but I think it is plain stupid for
> people to choose
> huge programs just because they have space to waste.
> I'll take fast scans over slow ones any time, regardless of my hardware
> capabilities. My
> 2� of course.

Hopefully no one's opinion is so precious that they're going to get
offended by someone's choice of programs; but, I am curious what program you
would suggest? Fast and tight is fine, if the program does what I want. If
it doesn't do much of anything it doesn't matter how small or fast it is. If
you have a suggestion for something that's at least as useful as Media
Monkey I'd love to hear it. Twenty five cents worth of storage space is no
big deal. If it slows down my computer enough that I can't do six other
things at the same time that would bother me.

TB

[Back to original message]