Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: ID3 database browsing
From: Neon John (johngd_at_bellsouth.net)
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:02:23 +0100 (BST), dave_at_beermex.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:56:01 +0200, Linus Nielsen Feltzing <linus_at_haxx.se>
>>>I really want an ID3 database in Rockbox, but we need to find a decent
>>>solution that doesn't slow down the browser too much, eat up all RAM, or
>>>drain the batteries due to extensive disk access.
>> I guess I don't understand the need for this. Assuming a well organized
>> file hierarchy, what additional info would an ID3 browser bring to the
>> With >8000 files on my 80 gig machine I've never felt the need for
>> anything more than the simple file browser. What am I missing?
>With a well-organised file hierarchy, how do you find a single song, by
>song title, if you can't remember the name of the artist, or the album, on
>which it is on?
>Or how can you browse to find a song that you know was released in 2002,
>but you can't remember the title
I've never had any problems along those lines. I know my collection quite
well so maybe that's a factor.
>> I think a line should be drawn in the sand against any dependence on a
>> host computer. The archos should be able to do any database manipulation
>> without being tethered to a computer. Requiring a desktop-based
>> application would put Rockbox down in the same class with the neuros, ipod
>> and all the other crappy tethered players. I have no problem with there
>> being a PC application that duplicates what the archos does, only faster.
>I disagree. For example, the archos player needs to be connected to a
>host PC (to get new tracks copied onto it ...).
Change that to "any host PC" and re-evaluate.
>So we're never going to
>be decoupled from all host computer interaction. If one extra step takes
>twenty seconds on the host PC (vs. an hour and 50% of the battery if the
>Rockbox was doing it itself) then I think we should recommend the former.
We're decoupled now. I can move files to/from literally any machine that
has the necessary USB drivers.
Consider my vacation last summer. I got stuck for 6 days far away from
home with a blown transmission in my motorhome. I ran out of audio books
to listen to. I went to my friend's house where I was visiting, connected
my JBR to his computer, ftp'd into my file server and got a number of
additional books. I quickly file managered them over to the Archos. Had
I been tethered to some sort of PC software I'd have been screwed since he
(correctly, I think) didn't want any foreign software loaded on his box.
As for time and battery, I can't see any problem with letting a machine
sit overnight connected to the charger indexing away. Not something you'd
do every day. With the appropriate aftermarket wall wart (I use the Rat
shack 1 amp switchmode unit), the batteries are NOT drained by continuous
drive activity. I've done this often enough to know.
I think it's a great idea to have a PC-based utility that does the job
faster. I just don't want to see RockBox lose its autonomy. To me that
is a MAJOR feature.
Realize that even with a PC-based indexing utility, one is still going to
have the JBR's hard drive running most of the time since it will have to
work against the JBR's file system. I doubt that many people keep an
exact backup of their jukeboxes on their PCs. I certainly don't. I keep
complete albums on my PC. I tend to eliminate songs I don't like and,
particularly for one-hit-wonders, and glom all the songs I do like in the
Seems to me that a simple file manager-like file name search feature would
do most of what is desired, probably more than enough. I WOULD like to be
able to search for a particular file, especially in my non-audio portion
of my drive. An index system would make it faster but I'm not sure it's
worth the overhead.
John De Armond
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew