>I still don't understand why. It feels like you guys are assuming that
>removals and updates don't work correctly in auto rescan. 
>
Manual scans for new/changed files don't work correctly; making lots of small 
scans is more likely to be even less reliable.

>Assuming this scenario just works and assuming it won't use up too much
>resources, I can't see why it needs to be possible to turn off. 
>
It will use more resources, and perhaps use them when you don't want it to.

>We need to start think about normal users and not just us geeks
I don't think there's anything at all geeky about having a manual library 
update.

e.g. the biggest media app in the world, iTunes, doesn't have any auto detect 
at all, let alone optional.
I suppose Apple want to encourage purchases via iTunes music store, or expect 
all ripping through their app.  But it still provides a manual way for add new 
music into the iTunes library.

More appropriate may be an indicator to remind that the music library may be 
out of date and requires a rescan when convenient.

A real-world comparison:
If there were a future car that could drive me to work automatically, I 
wouldn't like it to frequently divert every 5 miles to refuel automatically, 
because I'd prefer it to stop when I think it's the best time to (when I'm not 
running late, when the fuel guage is getting low, dependent on traffic/weather 
conditions, many reasons).  But it is appropriate for a car to indicate when a 
fuel stop will be needed.
_______________________________________________
beta mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta

Reply via email to