Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Single play mode and feature bloat
RE: Single play mode and feature bloat
From: Josh Nisly <joshn_at_invtools.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:14:01 -0500
I agree. This discussion (and the "Unlocking the full features of the MAS
chip" one) reminded me of the infamous Microsoft Office/Windows bloat. If we
can do something, we do.
I wonder if some of the more "specialized" stuff could be #ifdef'ed out in
the UI code by default, and each user could #define them in if needed. This
wouldn't do anything for the binary size, though, and would clutter up the
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se
> [mailto:owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se] On Behalf Of ajf
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:51 PM
> To: rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se
> Subject: Single play mode and feature bloat
> I don't mean to criticize this particular suggestion. In
> fact, I would have
> some use for a few of its features.
> I'm beginning to worry about whether Rockbox developers
> should continue to
> add things just because they can, without overloading the
> product with
> features that will make it intimidating to new users.
> I see at least four different Rockbox audiences and I'm a
> member of three of
> them. Each has different needs re playlists, bookmarks,
> cueing, level
> setting, etc etc.
> A Jukebox music player
> An audiobook player
> A DJ/party music and sound effects mixer
> A field recorder
> Can one 200K piece of software do all these things? Should it?
> Leif Sawyer writes:
> > Jean Boullier writes:
> >> To summarise, for DJ-like operations we need three new
> settings : 1.
> >> "Play single mode", or "Pause after track" : "Yes", "No" 2. "Skip
> >> silence" : "No", "Leading", "Trailing", "Both" 3. "Silence
> >> : "-xxx dB"
> >> Would that cover it all ?
> > I think that at a minimum we need 1, and I'm preferential to the
> > 'pause after track (with queue set to next track)' than
> > just a 'play single mode (and stop)'. the auto-off timer
> > works great while the jb is in pause mode..
> > 2 and 3 are somewhat nice, but less important than 1.
> > Of 2, trailing silence is more benificial
> > for 3, not only a minimum dB, but also a time threshold,
> > so that if the sound is below the mimimum for X time, then
> the action
> > is taken.. (think songs with fake endings, or multiple
> > f/x with pauses in between..)
Received on 2003-05-01