I find 2.0 much more confusing than 1.4....maybe it is just me....I had no problem transferring my podcasts from my PC to my iPod under 1.4....despite numerous attempts, I cannot find out how to do it under 2.0.  2.0 does not even see my iPod...my iPod opens under VLC media player and I have no idea why this is or whether it is correct, I cannot find any useful information for my problem in the user manual....1.4 was obvious and straight forward and intuitive...2.0 is just a maze...as far as I can see.

I have one PC running Amarok2 and one running Amarok1.4.  Version 2 is actually coming along slowly but surely.  But if I only had one PC I think I would be sticking to 1.4.

An alternative is to set up another user account on your PC and run version 2 on that.  Then you can keep an eye on developments but go back to 1.4 on your main account.

Too late...am gone back to 1.4.....entirely unimpressed with the tetchy attitude of some of the 2.0 developers/defenders....far too defensive for my liking.......like everything is the consumers fault....guys, get a life...the consumer is king....get used to it ...or get out.

Well allow me to speak out as one of the "tetchy" developers.

First of all, I think that it is invalid to call anyone a "consumer" in this case. At least in the traditional sense of the word, as that would imply that we were somehow trying to sell you something and that the existence of the Amarok project was dependent on enough people buying it. Which leads me to "the consumer is king". No! I am sorry if this comes across as being arrogant, I assure you it is not intended to, but that is not how the "economics" of a project like Amarok, which is written mainly by unpaid volunteers in their free time, for their own satisfaction, works.

Amarok lives and evolves as long as there are people willing to work on it. In this sense, the most valuable commodity is contributors. Now obviously, having happy users is tremendously important both as a motivational factor for the contributors, but even more so as all contributors start out as users, so if a project has no users, the project will eventually die as the pool of contributors dries up. 

Right now though, Amarok 2 is in a phase of very rapid development and we have made it very clear that initially Amarok 2 would be lacking some features available in 1.4.x and that for some users, it would make sense to keep using the older version, at least for the time being. As we are not dependent on "consumers" paying us to keep the project alive, we also have no reason to force users to upgrade until they feel that Amarok 2 is ready. So really, no one here is going to feel the least bit bad about you choosing to stick with Amarok 1.4.x for the time being, or even forever as that is admittedly, still, a more robust and stable application and contains some features that have not yet been added to 1.4.x.

I do hope that in the long run, you will find Amarok 2.x a better application than Amarok 1.x and that the reasons we choose to take such a drastic departure from the 1.4.x will become apparent. If nothing else, doing so has given everyone working on Amarok a huge motivational boost over the last 2 years, and we have attracted many new developers, so looking at it purely from this perspective, Amarok 2 is already a huge success as the project is more active and moving forward at a faster pace than ever before. And it has a codebase that can actually support this pace of development, something that 1.4.x would never have been able to.

I've also gone 'back' to 1.4, after Fedora 10 having Amarok 2 as default.

I remember the same issues with KDE4, and how many people lacked faith in the developers, myself included, so am giving the Amarok devs the benefit of the doubt, and am convinced that Amarok 2 will be superb.

Just a quick question. In reality, KDE4.2 was KDE4.0 - is there a version number of Amarok 2 that would be considered the first real release candidate? I'll check back in later to see if its usable yet.

In the meantime, keep up the good work!

"In reality, KDE4.2 was KDE4.0 - is there a version number of Amarok 2 that would be considered the first real release candidate?"

I don't think you can quite look at it this way as the tipping point is different for different people. For me personally, KDE 4 became usable shortly after work was started on 4.1 ( I was building from trunk, so a few weeks after 4.0.0 was released ) and 4.1 has been working just fine for most of the things I need. Similarly Amarok 2 will be "ready" for different people at different times. I suspect that 2.0.1.1 will already make a big difference for many users, while some with very specific use cases might not even be happy with 2.1.0.

I too,
tried two,
now back to,
one

I'm sure the that 2.something will knock the socks off one.four, It won't be soon before long

Cheers