On 05/11/05, James Livingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If I want player to play the whole library in a random order - I don't > > care to have all 10K tracks in a list - I will not trry to scroll it > > and find something - I'll minimise RB and go on with daily routine. > > > > Even if iTunes does it (does it?), huge lists are useless. > > If we accept that we don't want huge lists, what can we do about it? > Getting rid of the entry view completely wouldn't work, because then you > couldn't select tracks. Do you have any suggestions of how we could keep > it, but not have huge lists?
Well, I have some ideas, but maybe I have to sit on them for some time first and then start a separate thread :-) > Also, how do you define huge - 100? 500? > 1000? Of course I don't define "huge" as an exact number :-) > I do actually scroll through a several-thousand long list occasionally. > It's when I feel like listening to a certain kind of song, but I don't > know which one, so I scroll though until something jumps out at me. right... you just use what you've got, I mean - you do it because you HAVE huge list. I could imagine something along the lines of ... http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/index.cfm ... one of those more inspiring and all :-) (just got that link from my boss) > Also the time taken to calculate column sizes doesn't only affect the > entire library. Use a browser, use the search box, sort an auto > playlist; some of time taken is obviously the database, but there is > still a moderately large amount of time spent sizing the columns. This > means that the patch still provides a noticable speedup, even if we > somehow got removed huge lists. right! If it give noticable gain on moderate size lists - I have nothing against! i love software to deliver results before I actually need it lol _______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
