View Poll Results: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

Voters
286. You may not vote on this poll
  • Amarok 1

    204 71.33%
  • Amarok 2

    82 28.67%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 100

Thread: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon
    Beans
    904

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    I like Amarok 1 better. It just worked better for me. But this same thing happened with KDE 4.0. I thought it was terrible at first, and then after I gave it time to mature and develop I fell in love with it.
    Arch x86_64 User / Windows 7 x64 Dual Boot | Nvidia Geforce GT 430 | AMD Phenom II X4 925 (2.8 Ghz, Quad Core) | 6 GB DDR2 RAM | 500 GB HD

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Beans
    228

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    By the way, you can unlock the layout, and edit the playlist columns.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Q)Why did the multithreaded chicken cross the road?
    A)to To other side. get the
    Q)Why did the multithreaded chicken cross the road?
    A)other to side. To the get

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Beans
    2,198

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    I have Amarok 1.4.10 in my system. I have never tried Amarok 2.
    Debian 8.0 "Jessie"
    HP laptop (15-ab064no-Nordic)
    Linux user since 1999.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Beginners Team IRCChannel
    Beans
    2,811
    Distro
    Kubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    I just had to add my 2 cents on this. I've been recently investigating KDE apps, I'm happy with KDE 4.2, and I'll likely switch upon 4.3 release. Anyway, I was simply expecting something along the lines of 1.4 (haven't used 2 at all before today, though saw pics). Was my mind ever BLOWN!

    To be blunt, Amarok 2 is a terrible GUI for a media player, worst I've used to date. It's like they're design philosophy was "how can we turn this into a horrible player" and then just went and did that. I know it's still in development, but these problems aren't bugs, it's their design philosophy. As I see it, if their philosophy is this broken, no GUI they produce with the mindset will be good. A few questions that came to my mind immediately:

    • Why no columns for quick sort (incidentally, renders ratings worthless)?
    • Why the giant context menu in the middle?
    • Why does the context menu need a lyrics section, when the current track one has the lyrics at the bottom?
    • Why do I have to go through playlist > Random/Repeat instead of just on the GUI (like every other player)?


    I'd also like to add, I'm NOT opposed to drastic change. As a long time MS office user, I got used to the new Office UI (Ribbon) and think it's nice (even though I griped for a long while about it) this isn't the case with Amarok.

    Also, I was also reading reddit at the time I was looking at 2 and came across this article. I think it pretty much points out all the flaws, Amarok devs need to pay attention.

    I'm still likely to switch to KDE 4.3, I won't be using Amarok 2 though. At present, I'm divided between Amarok 1.4, songbird and Exaile (though it's GTK, kinda a problem, it is however my current one).

    That's it.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Beans
    4
    Distro
    Kubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    I voted for 1.4. I upgraded recently to Jaunty, and got 2.1. The upsides in 2.1 are built-in replaygain and... er... I don't quite know what else. The general light grey appearance and the big play buttons became annoying in four days.

    So I went back to the trusty 1.4.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Beans
    2

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    I'll never use A2, for the simple reason they took off some of the features I used everyday, like smart playlists to feed (synchronize) ipods.

    I believe new versions should improve or add functionalities, no cut-off useful ones. A2 is a different program, shoud've started with a new name and keept the amarok one for the real amarok (1x).

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Beans
    254
    Distro
    Kubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    I have given in and started using A2. I am getting used to it. There are definitely features missing, and I agree that a step backwards like that is not good. It would have been better if they had permitted amarok1 and amarok2 to live next to each other until amarok2 feature parity and user-happiness had been addressed.
    P5W-DH, E6750, Patriot Viper 4x2GB 1066, Seasonic M12 500w
    Creative Audigy, EVGA GTX 460, HP 2509m
    Kubuntu 12.04 64-bit (KDE 4.8.1)

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Beans
    215
    Distro
    Kubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    I tried living with amarok 2.3.x for the past two months. I wanted to keep my kde setup pretty pure with only kde4 libs and qt4. For handling a small local collection on my laptop it is fine, as setting up dynamic playlists is all that I need--even if its controls are cumbersome and non-intuitive.

    However, all was not well when trying to use amarok 2.3.1 as a music manager for my collection housed in an external drive. The return of smartplaylists convinced me to try using the new version to control my collection on an external drive, something version 1.4.10 handled flawlessly. Problems abounded. For thing, the collection is deleted when accidently starting amarok without the external drive mounted. This is stupid, as I have to rescan the entire collection; amarok 1.4.10, on the other hand, waited patiently until I mounted the drive and it continued functioning without any fuss.

    Secondly, the smartplaylist feature is a failure on two counts: 1) the blank slate presented to the user in 2.3.1 versus the simple but informative layout seen in 1.4.10; 2) 30 track limit (wtf?). I can easily load 10 to 4,000 tracks using the smartplaylist feature in 1.4.10. I wouldn't be so harsh on the devs if this was their first stab at the feature, but they had a beautiful framework previous and simply, or not so simply, port those features to qt4. Instead, they went ahead and reinvented the wheel.

    Third, for some strange reason the startup times for amarok 2.3.1 are noticeably longer than in 2.3.0, even after deleting ~/.kde4/share/apps/amarok.

    Sorry, but I broke down and re-installed amarok 1.4.10 and wondered what the hell was I thinking by staying with amarok 2.3.x for that long. After recompiling xine's libraries, I can play most of what I throw at it (mp4, tracker modules, etc). Maybe when it is at 2.4.10, I'll consider trying it again.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Beans
    264

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    @ssri
    How did you install 1.4.10 on your computer?

    Anyway, I feel your pain in another way, but the end result is the same, amarok 2.3.1 still sucks big time.


    But what I wanted to tell everyone is that there finally seems to exist a faithful replacement to amarok 1.4 for KDE4.
    It seems good so far, but I just installed it 1 hour ago.

    http://pana.bunnies.net/
    http://pana.bunnies.net/
    http://pana.bunnies.net/

    I think this needs all the support (users, advertisement, coders) that it can get in order to live and prosper (including encouragement to the developer).
    I've heard of other "clones" as well, like cuberok or clementine... but Pana seems to be the real thing


    If you like Pana, I would suggest to add it to your signature:
    http://pana.bunnies.net/ An Amarok 1.4 clone for KDE4.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Beans
    215
    Distro
    Kubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope

    Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2

    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu buntu View Post
    @ssri
    How did you install 1.4.10 on your computer?
    I actually used Arch's User Repository (aur) to get the build script on my Arch machine (sorry), which automagically compiled amarok 1.4.10 on my system. Doing it this way allowed me to enable some of the features (ie mp4 support) that was missing (to my knowledge) in ubuntu's version. One can look at the build script and see what patches were used and which options were set for it to compile on newer userspaces and kernels.

    As for *ubuntu, there's a ppa for it: https://launchpad.net/~bogdanb/+archive/amarok14

    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu buntu View Post
    If you like Pana, I would suggest to add it to your signature:
    http://pana.bunnies.net/ An Amarok 1.4 clone for KDE4.
    I did install Pana and was quite impressed with it. However, some of the amarok scripts that I use wouldn't initialize unless I replaced every mention of amarokapp with pana (I think). I felt lazy at the time and just compiled amarok1.4.10 instead. Pana still uses kde3.5.10 libs, so to call it an amarok1.4 clone for kde4 is somewhat inaccurate, as I would rather call it a fork. Clementine is an amarok1.4 clone for kde4, but it is still in its infancy and has yet to implement many of the features found in amarok1.4 and pana. Still, I'm glad to see amarok1.4's progenies being actively developed after amarok2's continued disappointment.
    Last edited by ssri; June 25th, 2010 at 04:47 AM.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •