MM for Mac - I just switched to Apple

[lxne]

Is an actual developers opinion out there?

MM3 is cool!
BUT it should work natively in leopard!!!
My opinion

[buddhanoir]

recently installed parallels on mac...running vista.

uploaded files into music folder (mac side) from my external hard drive..... i can find them in the start up menu where the music icon is...but i can't scan my files and find them in media monkey. i can only drag and drop.

i'd like to be able to see all my music folders (and files) in a tree structure the way that i used to. when i check the address of my music folder, it is:

\\.PSF\.Home\Music

which is not a standard folder address for windows.

any help?

[oldtimer]

I am a bit surprised people that had been using PCs switch to Macs. The problem with a closed system is you need to do the their way. With a PC you have far more choices.

By the way, did you know iTunes down grades imported music? The makers of iTunes must figure you like crap! It will take your 320 BR mp3s and turn them in to 125 BR ma4s during the sync. That is why it takes so long. iPods actually generate fairly high quality music. However, you need to get good ear buds. Ones that advertise their stats. Koss and Philips have much cheaper ear buds but are much better. I can easily tell the difference between the low quality and the high quality music. I can only figure the makers figure you all would rather fit more tunes on your ipod than have less but better music. I figure, let me decide! So I use MM which does not do any hank-panky in the background.

I can just guess all the other things they are doing to you in Mac land.

[XratedFozzibaer]

I am a bit surprised people that had been using PCs switch to Macs. The problem with a closed system is you need to do the their way. With a PC you have far more choices.

By the way, did you know iTunes down grades imported music? The makers of iTunes must figure you like crap! It will take your 320 BR mp3s and turn them in to 125 BR ma4s during the sync. That is why it takes so long. iPods actually generate fairly high quality music. However, you need to get good ear buds. Ones that advertise their stats. Koss and Philips have much cheaper ear buds but are much better. I can easily tell the difference between the low quality and the high quality music. I can only figure the makers figure you all would rather fit more tunes on your ipod than have less but better music. I figure, let me decide! So I use MM which does not do any hank-panky in the background.

I can just guess all the other things they are doing to you in Mac land.

Sorry but I think your statements are not quite correct.

The software-side of a mac is as open as it is on windows and until now there are many open source and other free programms available for macs for all sorts of tasks. And the "closed system" is able to run windows!

iTunes is not downgrading your music, if you don't want it to do so. Just go to the preferenes and change the settings. Nevertheless is MediaMonkey the much better choice!!!


A dissapointed windows-user (for more than 15 years).
A very happy OS X user (for about 2 years).

[goofy]

I also was a MediaMonkey-Lover in Windows times...but no i got Linux and one of the best music management software pieces on this platform is "AmaroK"...i think it's also available for Windows and Mac, so perhaps it's an alternative

[Da Bear]

Why would anyone spend their time porting MM to Apple? Apple users most likely have iPods and therefore iTunes (crap on both accounts). iPod does not like to be controlled by anything but iTunes. I have a 1st gen Nano that craps out completely and has to be connected to iTunes for a "brain transplant" every 4-6 months of me using it with MM (both 2.5 and 3.0). What REALLY needs to happen is a Linux port! Linux is far superior to both Windblows and Mac OS in terms of openness and extendability. Plus it's free.
MediaMonkey is the only reason I will install VMWare with WinXP on my Ubuntu.

By the way I am a Lifetime License holder and would gladly pay again for a full blown Linux version

[ComPasV]

Why would anyone spend their time porting MM to Apple? Apple users most likely have iPods and therefore iTunes (crap on both accounts). iPod does not like to be controlled by anything but iTunes. I have a 1st gen Nano that craps out completely and has to be connected to iTunes for a "brain transplant" every 4-6 months of me using it with MM (both 2.5 and 3.0). What REALLY needs to happen is a Linux port! Linux is far superior to both Windblows and Mac OS in terms of openness and extendability. Plus it's free.
MediaMonkey is the only reason I will install VMWare with WinXP on my Ubuntu.

By the way I am a Lifetime License holder and would gladly pay again for a full blown Linux version

You are right! why? AND why for Linux? We all like to have a possibility to do things "our" way. Even if those things exist in the basic functionality of the system, just RTFM. or do it yourself . MAC OS has all possibilities and tools to do it. It's not open enough to keep users away from the base. And it's all right, you can hung application, but never the system.
Did you know that iTunes has several very useful freeware add-ons and many not so useful. BUT MM has all-in-one solution in very comfortable way. I'm MAC user, but running MM each time I have to deal with collection.
And yes you're right Apple for Apple: iTunes IS great to play music on MAC - it's designed to be so.
And yes I'm Lifetime holder too and I will gladly pay again for the good team for keeping excellent work. And I will find my ways to use it

Cheers
P.

["Guest" can't]

Another recent PC to Mac convert who would pay to have MM for OS instead of having to run Parallels, XP, and then MM...iTunes does what it does, but MM does it all (except stream)
Thanks!

[pvollrath]

Yet another long-time windows user going to the mac, and very much wishing I could continue to use MM on it. Not sure I have the time to organize it myself these days, but I'd love to contribute whatever I can to support such an effort. Apple is gaining ground in user base, and it seems inevitable that there will eventually be a large enough base to make it worthwhile. Besides, it is always good to have a serious alternative to a near-monopoly.

[Da Bear]

Seriously thou. If any of the developers read this topic. Realistically what are the chances of MediaMonkey being ported to Linux? I, mean, should we even waste processing cycles even talking about it.

What would it take to do it? What language is the source code written in? How can the user community help?

[nohitter151]

Seriously thou. If any of the developers read this topic. Realistically what are the chances of MediaMonkey being ported to Linux? I, mean, should we even waste processing cycles even talking about it.

What would it take to do it? What language is the source code written in? How can the user community help?

http://www.mediamonkey.com/support/inde ... ticleid=32

[PetrCBR]

If someone will port Delphi to linux and MAC then MM could be ported (Kylix isn't usable for us).

[Da Bear]

If someone will port Delphi to linux and MAC then MM could be ported (Kylix isn't usable for us).

What about Lazarus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_%28software%29
According to the above article it compiles Delfi code under Linux with little modification.

[PetrCBR]

There're many more problems related to (one example for all - scripts - it works on MS scripting engine).

[RHVC]

I also would love to have a version of MM running in OSX.
I now have my main system running XP, but spend the most time with my MBP. I hate being forced to use Itunes, It does handle my video podcasts better that MM, but that is the only reason I continue to use Itunes, that and my Hacked Apple TV. I have had mixed success running MM with VMware Fusion, I can access my main library on the server, but as I haven't had luck syncing my 5th gen Ipod... I will have to do some more work on this... But life would be so much easer if there was a port of MM for OSX.