Sorry if inadvertently offend anyone by not knowing shit, but... is sorting music for iTunes a feature of this? Or just, you know, sorting in general. I heard somewhere that it was; I might have got completely the wrong end of the stick.
it's called the moodbar. you should follow the instructions on amarok wiki moodbar page, I tried to give the direct link, but youtube did not allow me to.
I also discovered that, while it's not demonstrated in this video, the, "full-fat" toolbar's volume control allows you to change the volume with a click as well: you can drag the volume controls round to increase/decrease the volume, or click somewhere on the blue ring to set the volume at that point. It's quite usable.
It seems to me that if Amarok isn't perfect there is a hardcore group of tards (the same crowd that does nothing but bag KDE4) who do nothing but bag the crap out of it. While the same level of harsh criticism isn't applied to other music applications even though it is easy to be just as critical of those.
A new Linux user I installed Ubuntu for recently tried Rhythm Box, Songbird and Amarok. It was Amarok that she took to like a duck to water and liked far more than the others.
How exactly does it look bad? And don't you know that you can easily change from the default layout by grabbing the different parts of it and dragging them where you like?
I look forward to 2.3. I'm currently using 2.2.2 and its simply the only player that works the way I want it to. From being able to customize the interface the way I like to powerful playlist features I love it.
Can people stop complaining about Amarok 1.4 was good, this is crap? If you like amarok 1.4, use amarok 1.4. It's still available to download and is still in many repos :-P
who would think I would agree! I am a fan but it is a really pain in the ass when it comes to making playlists due to hierarchical structure of local music category. first, you'll find the artist by scrolling, then the album, then pick up the songs... rhythmbox style managing is much better, i believe.
You can change that with the spanner icon. You can switch between Artist/Album, Genre/Artist, Genre/Artist/Album or customize each of the three levels to show whatever you want.
I'm tired of it also, its pathetic. Furthermore, many such comments reveal the person making the comment hasn't actually used Amarok 2.2.x... So they're basically talking out of their proverbial.
man people are just retarded... AMAROK 2 IS BETTER ... i bet it's the same crowd of moron geeks that prefer that dreadful UI that KDE 3.5 had... i hated both the old kde, and the old amarok.... i used to be a gnome/audacious user but kde4/amarok 2 made me switch ! they're so much better!
As long as not all the functionality of 1.4 is available, I'l stick to that. Couple of months ago I had a very unpleasant experience with 2.x, when I migrated to Suse 11.2... After 5 minutes I went back to 1.4. Horor. I understand the new platform is needed for future growth, but keep 1.4 available and supported as long as 2.x is crap.
Guys, there is a nasty bug here, that affected me since 2.2.2 (2.3 beta 1, KDE 4.4). When I try to install scripts, or when I try to enable webservices, if the list is smaller than the screen and a scrollbar appears, then Amarok renders itself unusable, and eats all CPU available. I can workaround the issue limiting myself to as many scripts as fit in my screen.
Seriously, most useless content still takes most of the space. Toolbar layout makes no sense at all (BIG spaces between Play/Pause, Prev and Next). Please, developers, just ask what users liked in 1.4 because this is getting pretty sad :(
You know that you can change the toolbar layout to another one with the buttons closer, right? And resize/move/hide any of these panels, right? Its getting sad that the users only whine about features that are already there (and yes, you can make the UI look like amarok 1.4 if you want)
It's broken by default, it shouldn't be. It also seems that there's a lot of time wasted on pointless features. Even after customizing it to resemble old layout Amarok 2.x still fills pretty clumsy.
Better but still too much wasted space in the current track plasmoid.
This info should go in in the same toolbar as track position, moodbar etc, as it refers to the same information (the current track), having two places to look for info on the current track is bad..
Also, the menu bar should be optional (I know why you keep it, but still) as it doesn't make any sense in a non-document oriented application.
Sorry if inadvertently offend anyone by not knowing shit, but... is sorting music for iTunes a feature of this? Or just, you know, sorting in general. I heard somewhere that it was; I might have got completely the wrong end of the stick.
PrawnSticks 1 year ago
it's called the moodbar. you should follow the instructions on amarok wiki moodbar page, I tried to give the direct link, but youtube did not allow me to.
sonay1986 1 year ago
kool :-) Amarok ROCKS !!
vampspell 2 years ago 2
I also discovered that, while it's not demonstrated in this video, the, "full-fat" toolbar's volume control allows you to change the volume with a click as well: you can drag the volume controls round to increase/decrease the volume, or click somewhere on the blue ring to set the volume at that point. It's quite usable.
Thesupermadman 2 years ago
It seems to me that if Amarok isn't perfect there is a hardcore group of tards (the same crowd that does nothing but bag KDE4) who do nothing but bag the crap out of it. While the same level of harsh criticism isn't applied to other music applications even though it is easy to be just as critical of those.
A new Linux user I installed Ubuntu for recently tried Rhythm Box, Songbird and Amarok. It was Amarok that she took to like a duck to water and liked far more than the others.
Pudding.
Keruaran 2 years ago 3
How exactly does it look bad? And don't you know that you can easily change from the default layout by grabbing the different parts of it and dragging them where you like?
Keruaran 2 years ago 2
I look forward to 2.3. I'm currently using 2.2.2 and its simply the only player that works the way I want it to. From being able to customize the interface the way I like to powerful playlist features I love it.
Keruaran 2 years ago
seems like amarok 2 is never gonna be as good as 1.4
ferolvera 2 years ago
You obviously haven't used the current version.
Keruaran 2 years ago 2
I just downloaded it... and I love it, maybe it's not that intuitive, but you can see all the effort and times developers invested here :)
btw, this comment comes from a GNOME user that used the ugly but clear and usable Rhythmbox.
tarkonizer 2 years ago
Can people stop complaining about Amarok 1.4 was good, this is crap? If you like amarok 1.4, use amarok 1.4. It's still available to download and is still in many repos :-P
j666616 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry guys, but I would rather stab myself to death instead of using this to manage a music library.
Joghurtfreund 2 years ago
who would think I would agree! I am a fan but it is a really pain in the ass when it comes to making playlists due to hierarchical structure of local music category. first, you'll find the artist by scrolling, then the album, then pick up the songs... rhythmbox style managing is much better, i believe.
sonay1986 2 years ago
You can change that with the spanner icon. You can switch between Artist/Album, Genre/Artist, Genre/Artist/Album or customize each of the three levels to show whatever you want.
Thesupermadman 2 years ago
Knock yourself out.
Keruaran 2 years ago
Getting tired of the whiny crappy comment "Amarok 1.4 was good..."
They did a fantastic job with Amarok, this new UI change looks great. Awesome usability updates.
zer0pixel 2 years ago 8
I'm tired of it also, its pathetic. Furthermore, many such comments reveal the person making the comment hasn't actually used Amarok 2.2.x... So they're basically talking out of their proverbial.
Keruaran 2 years ago
Great work, very impressive
ScoobySnaks 2 years ago 3
Roll mousewheel over a little icon? really?... The wheel is the most insensitive and imprecise part of the mouse, I don't think that is good idea.
Amarok was my favorite player for a long time, but since Amarok 2 was out, I had to move to the "ugly", but very clear and usable Rythembox.
@frustphil is right. You need som UI/Intarface experts. Too many "fancy transparencies", but horrible usability.
Linnk 2 years ago
@Linnk you can switch between "Main Toolbar" and "Slim Toolbar", in the second one the volume control is as usual.
I'm using Amarok 2.2.2.90
ivanalejandro0 2 years ago
I really like it. Amarok 2 is MUCH better than than the 1.x's.
Keep up the good work :)
The same for kde (4.4) and KDE 3.x...
Sverro2 2 years ago 4
what's the song btw?
sauron1grenoble 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
quaff 2 years ago
Comment removed
abhishektux 2 years ago
Artist: Musicshake
Song: Ocean
Part of the youtube's audioswap program
abhishektux 2 years ago
man people are just retarded... AMAROK 2 IS BETTER ... i bet it's the same crowd of moron geeks that prefer that dreadful UI that KDE 3.5 had... i hated both the old kde, and the old amarok.... i used to be a gnome/audacious user but kde4/amarok 2 made me switch ! they're so much better!
sauron1grenoble 2 years ago 5
:'(
Quantincodontirontu 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As long as not all the functionality of 1.4 is available, I'l stick to that. Couple of months ago I had a very unpleasant experience with 2.x, when I migrated to Suse 11.2... After 5 minutes I went back to 1.4. Horor. I understand the new platform is needed for future growth, but keep 1.4 available and supported as long as 2.x is crap.
baadd 2 years ago
Comment removed
baadd 2 years ago
Unless the new amarok comes with the music files organizer function that amarok 1.4 had, I'll stick with with the old good 1.4 version.
aweiberjager 2 years ago
I don't like it.
Amarok 1.4 was great. :/
SJMK89 2 years ago
Guys, there is a nasty bug here, that affected me since 2.2.2 (2.3 beta 1, KDE 4.4). When I try to install scripts, or when I try to enable webservices, if the list is smaller than the screen and a scrollbar appears, then Amarok renders itself unusable, and eats all CPU available. I can workaround the issue limiting myself to as many scripts as fit in my screen.
alejandronova 2 years ago
I'd say I really love KDE for its features. BUT it's pretty da*n cluttered. You seriously need some UI/ interface experts or whatever you call them.
frustphil 2 years ago
Seriously, most useless content still takes most of the space. Toolbar layout makes no sense at all (BIG spaces between Play/Pause, Prev and Next). Please, developers, just ask what users liked in 1.4 because this is getting pretty sad :(
miscz 2 years ago 3
You know that you can change the toolbar layout to another one with the buttons closer, right? And resize/move/hide any of these panels, right? Its getting sad that the users only whine about features that are already there (and yes, you can make the UI look like amarok 1.4 if you want)
codestation 2 years ago 2
It's broken by default, it shouldn't be. It also seems that there's a lot of time wasted on pointless features. Even after customizing it to resemble old layout Amarok 2.x still fills pretty clumsy.
miscz 2 years ago
There are people without scrollbars, though they're rare.
I'm still not sure I get having info on a track that huge.
Then again, I'm a cmus user.
I'd probably recommend this to friends who moved to Linux, though.
TheGzeus 2 years ago 3
Better but still too much wasted space in the current track plasmoid.
This info should go in in the same toolbar as track position, moodbar etc, as it refers to the same information (the current track), having two places to look for info on the current track is bad..
Also, the menu bar should be optional (I know why you keep it, but still) as it doesn't make any sense in a non-document oriented application.
Regards.
luisromangz 2 years ago 2
@luisromangz How is a song different from a pdf?
Both are documents that, for the most part, have read-only usage in today's world.
Most people will use the toolbar, some will want to hide it.
I'm just saying, song files are documents, you just use your ears, not your eyes.
Well, some people use their ears to read pdfs(screen readers, etc)
TheGzeus 2 years ago
@Haisen100 how exactly ?
pvandewyngaerde 2 years ago 2
Nice! What's the music used for the video?
sfacets 2 years ago 6
Artist: Musicshake
Song: Ocean
Click on Statistics & Data below the Video to see all the information about the song.
AmarokStudios 2 years ago