Another one here who really doesn't get the hatred of version 2 at this point, and is kind of worried about the bile.

I held out with v2 for most of the last year. When it became the default in Ubuntu I thought it was way too soon, I found it ugly, it wouldn't scan my whole collection, the grouping of 'Various Artist' albums was messed up, I couldn't transfer tracks to my MP3 player, and a whole heap of other problems. So I looked around at the alternatives, Rhythmbox, Juk, Banshee, Songbird, Quod Libet, and probably a few others I've forgotten. And guess what? Every single one was inadequate in some way. The flaws varied from player to player, but all added up to roughly the same level of mediocrity, and at that point Amarok 2 was right there with the pack.

The key difference seemed to me that at least Amarok seemed to have some kind of momentum, the promise that better was to come. A quick glance at the forums and it was obvious these problems were being worked on, and I couldn't say the same for any of the other projects.

So I went back to 1.4, checking the alternatives every few months and coming to the same conclusions. Amarok is the only Linux jukebox that doesn't feel to me like a 'obscure personal project'. It's the only one that's been making serious progress, to the point where finally with version 2.2.2 I made the switch. Some features are lacking, others (esp the layout) are way ahead of either the competition or the old version. Overall, at very least it's equal with 1.4 now.

I can understand people being frustrated with the lack of specific features, there's still a handful of things that bug me, but it's time to get real. Like I said, the main advantage Amarok has over all the other OS jukeboxes is momentum, and I'd hate to think the bile could endanger that.

I can understand people who are frustrated with Amarok 2 and the choices we have made in the course of the development process.

What I don't understand is the criticism that Amarok 2 looks like iTunes. It's completely ridiculous! Have you actually used itunes? Have you noticed that the layout is radically different? like, say, amarok uses 3 colums with the playlist in the rightmost, itunes puts the playlist front and center and split vertically? itunes has a left column for music and playlist lists, amarok has the collection browser + saved playlists + file browser + dynamic playlists + services on the left. itunes has the drill-down artist->album column browser split above the playlist, amarok doesn't even have that widget. oh, and what about the context view? oh yeah, that doesn't exist at all in itunes.

the most resemblance that I can see (slightly) is the toolbar. but that's basically it.

iTunes and Amarok 2 both look very grey, very bland, very flat. They both look like "default" music players, crying out for something to make them stand out.

But again, this isn't the point, and it's not what people are complaining about. It has nothing to do with the fact that Amarok is a) eye-gougingly ugly and b) impossible to configure. It's the fact that Amarok 2 doesn't look like Amarok.

And it certainly doesn't function like Amarok.

It's a completely different media player!

Where's my beloved Amarok?

Seriously, guys. You change the UI, you've changed the app. Slap a different name on the front and let people appreciate it for what it is. But don't replace the Batmobile with a station wagon and then try to tell people it's a "better" Batmobile.

Or just do your own thing and don't listen to me. I'm just a luser, after all!

It's a completely different media player!

Aaaaaaaaaah, finally even you have realized that. Congrats.
But iTunes == Amarok2? Are we talking about the same player?
I've awaited these complaints about a new name since the first versions of A2.
And I also thought, that giving it a new name would avoid most yelps.
But Amarok is dead, long live Amarok!

Regards
m0nk

Dieter Schroeder wrote:Aaaaaaaaaah, finally even you have realized that. Congrats.
But iTunes == Amarok2? Are we talking about the same player?
I've awaited these complaints about a new name since the first versions of A2.
And I also thought, that giving it a new name would avoid most yelps.
But Amarok is dead, long live Amarok!

Regards
m0nk

Amarok is dead, long live A2!

Dieter Schroeder wrote:

It's a completely different media player!

Aaaaaaaaaah, finally even you have realized that. Congrats.

There's no need for sarcasm. We are all entitled to have a preference - my preference is for v1.4. I don't like the blandness and the buggyness of v2 because for me, that's not what Amarok was ever about.

Amarok was a slick and stable music player that was fun and intuitive to use. In my opinion, this is no longer the case with v2.

I guess a lot of the problems I have with Amarok 2 are rooted in the fact I run it under Gnome, and the new KDE libs don't play nicely yet. Is there any way to at least change the skin and use a different icon set?

Amarok 1.4, my PRECIOUS!

+1

Edit: it seems that somebody forked 1.4! https://launchpad.net/pana

peterhjr wrote:

Dieter Schroeder wrote:
I guess a lot of the problems I have with Amarok 2 are rooted in the fact I run it under Gnome, and the new KDE libs don't play nicely yet. Is there any way to at least change the skin and use a different icon set?

Nah, KDE 4.4 RC3 here. Opensuse 11.2, qt 4.6.1, all stuff works fabulous. My experience with Amarok 2.2.x makes me state: it is not for me. I find it not intuitive, not slick and not usable at all. Frankly speaking, to me it is a pain in the ****. 1.4.x was and is a superb player. I use it, but i often use qmmp 0.3.2 for casual daily listening. When i want to tag mp3s or listen internet radio, than i use amarok 1.4.10. ButAmarok v2 has all the negatives, where 1.4.10 has the positives. I understand some folks like it, good for you than.
Cheers

@****

Would be nice, if you could cite the right person.
You don't like A2, this copy&paste statement can be read on all walls.
Is there any chance that this useless thread will be closed?
It's boring and a waste of time.

Regards
m0nk