I have what seems to be an unusual number of these when importing my library for the first time. 47 of 283 in one directory failed.

Just for fun I ran the Peter Smith's MP3Utility 1.72, and although it found about 30 bad files, many of these are not the same ones emplode complains about.

I can play all of these files without error using MusicMatch 7.0.

Any utils out there that can decompress/recompress so emplode likes them?

Jeez. NONE of the files MP3Utility are the ones emplode complained about. Hmmm.

Looks like centipedex found the problem! Any mp3 with album art gets rejected in 2.0b7 (see his post)

Thanks, centipedex! (what the h*ll does that mean, anyway? Lover of centipedes? ;-)

Actually, any tag longer than 255 bytes causes (or at least used to cause) problems....

I believe I posted about this limitation a while back. Probably running 2.0b3 sometime in December. I would have mentioned an image as soon as I saw this thread, but I figured that wasn't the problem because of the way the file was described.

Bruno

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but I noticed that jemplode doesn't like any file where the name does not end in ".mp3". As a Mac user I never bothered to put that in the filename. But I guess I'm being assimilated now 8-(

Armin

As a Mac user you'd better start to use extensions. You won't like OS X without them.

I've always hated the way the Mac OS handled datatypes. Or rather, I've always had a problem with how the Mac failed to handle datatypes.

Many dedicated MP3 players will also require the file extension. Windows doesn't need the extension for anything but choosing what application to launch. It's up to individual applications to deal with the file it is passed. For instance, ACDSee image viewer properly scans headers and doesn't need extensions. Photoshop on the contrary, can't operate on a file without an extension through the regular Open dialog.

I came to the Windows platform from the Amiga (primary) and the Mac (secondary) - neither had a need for extensions for most files (though renaming things with dependancies could cause problems - esp. on the Amiga). Using extensions is simple and that's the beauty. Easy to configure and administer as well as repair.

Bruno

hybrid8,
I'm aware of OSX'es break with the Mac file typing mechanisms. It makes it a little difficult, especially since I still need to use some Classic stuff. But to be honest, I liked th Mac way better.

It just doesn't seem to make sense, that I have to tell the OS and the applications what type a file is by putting that information in the name. Shouldn't the software be smart enough to figure it out by itself?

Armin

There would be other ways to ID'ing files without having to go the route of multiple forks as with classic Mac OS. However, it gets to be a little expensive to scan headers for every file you click on, let alone for files you aren't clicking on. Just look how long it takes Mac OS just to calculate how large each file is when displaying a list view. You're safe for now with HFS+ volumes, but if you want to use UFS you'll have to lose all those ties to classic.

Extensions also help YOU to see instantly what kind of file you have. It isn't some convention that has just been perpetuated for no reason. It's simple and convenient accross multiple platforms. Mac OS has been alienated from the rest of the computing world for far too long. It's still a second-class computing platform (no offence intended), but it's making head roads. Some of the blame has to be put on applications. Even though some apps were released with counterparts for both major OSes, some vendors refused to parallel their features and conventions (hint: ADOBE)

Now if only Steve would let the talent at Apple abandon Aqua and create a real UI. Aqua, though sometimes pretty, lags Windows by at least as many years as the classic OS (in some ways moreso). At their current rate, I'd say they're at least 5 years behind Microsoft in UI and usability. Actually, at their current rate I doubt even with unlimited time that they'd "get it." We'll have to wait and see.

Bruno

Just a couple points. I tried to install my MacOSX using a UFS filesystem. It broke many things to the point that it was unusable upon install. I had to reinstall with HFS+.

Second, I disagree about Aqua. It's slow right now, but from what I understand, this has to do with poor hardware acceleration support. Or did you mean that the basic UI is poor? If so, I'd have to disagree with that, as well, but that's much more subjective.

When I evaluate an interface it is done as objectively as possible. Aqua is immature and poorly implemented. It's a mass confusion of paradigms and throws out all the basic information regarding human-computer interaction Apple researched in the 80's.

Poor hardware acceleration? Lay that down to a poor interface application to begin with. There are low-level fundamental problems with the way things are done in Aqua. I can open up a huge can of worms and put it all out there, but I won't. This isn't really the place for it. There are a number of methodologies in place that preclude acceleration. Some of these are carried over from when they were working on Copland. If Aqua is not dealt with on a low level it will not get substantially faster than it is right now - sure, since they're working with 3D textures for the desktop, faster hardware will improve the speed, but it will always feel (be) slower than necessary.

If you don't think the UI is poorly implemented, then I don't know what to say. Perhaps you haven't used it long enough. Plenty of people I talked to at Macworld were now using X exclusively or about to switch. I didn't hear one person tell me they actually liked Aqua. Most hoped it would change over time. Some people have gone back to 9 and will not run X until Aqua is gone or able to be replaced. Just look at the number of long-time Mac supporters and evangelists that have criticized Aqua for starters. I have thought about writing a paper detailing its weaknesses from a design standpoint, but I don't think I can be bothered. I'll file a few internal Apple bug reports in hopes they get to some of them soon, but writing a detailed piece just gets to be a bigger and bigger project the more I use X.

At a low level (not talking about low-level Aqua) the OS itself is pretty good. Great foundation. I'd say it was released at least 24 months too early however. And I still maintain, that aside, it's still at least 5 years behind the current Windows (XP) UI. Aqua seems like it was designed by a large number of people who were never in communication with each other. The user is treated as a third-class citizen. Everything is about the interface. You work around it, it does not work for you. And it's a very big chore to work around Aqua.

That said though, we're obviously going full-speed ahead with Mac OS X software support for all our releases. There's no future for the classic OS.

Bruno

Well, I use MacOSX with Aqua on one of my personal computers (an iBook SE), and I haven't had many usability issues with it. Now, I'm not a power Mac user, so there may well be things that I don't see, but the only serious design issue I have is that many of the widgets are too big. I've got some minor issues with window layering, but it's still about 100 times better than the Windows, UI, IMHO, at least in that respect.

I'd be interested to hear your issues (and I'm not saying they're illegitimate, just that I haven't encountered them or they don't bother me). PM me if you have the time and feel like venting. If not, that's fine, too.

Bitt,

I agree with you. I don't know what hybrid8s problem is. I use X exclusively (except for some legacy stuff I run in classic). No complaints here.

But he is right, too: this is not the place for the discussion. Let's put the thread to rest.

Armin

My problem is I do software testing for a living and have been working full-time with the MacOS for over 5 years in this field.

Bitt, your issues are the tip of the iceberg. For giggles, see how you like running an extremely high resolution some time. I was demoing at MacWorld running 3840x2400 on a 24" (or was it 22?) panel. Things get really interesting with no control over your fonts.

If I work something out while at work, I'll forward it to you. Right now I'm so busy I barely have enough time to scratch my ass.

Bruno