study mode: what is it for? how does it work?

[surfer]

I do not find anything on study mode in the manual.

What is it for and how does it work?

[MarcGuay]

The manual doen't always get the attention it deserves... Here's the patch:

http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/task/6188

[Oppaunke]

Even searching the pdf it doesn't bring up a single hit entering keyword "study". So please don't tell a tale 

http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/task/6188 only seems to mention sth. about a track lock, not even for all players, I suppose. Is that REALLY a "major" change??? I don't think so. Instead of implementing a function to prevent track skip you really should try to make the intentional track skip work. It does that only each first time; after that one has to be very, very patient (>10secs), which is unacceptable.

[AlexP]

Even searching the pdf it doesn't bring up a single hit entering keyword "study". So please don't tell a tale 

Excuse me?  MarcGuay very clearly said that it wasn't in the manual, so of course you can't find it by searching the manual.  Before you accuse someone of lying, make sure you know what you are talking about.

http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/task/6188 only seems to mention sth. about a track lock, not even for all players, I suppose. Is that REALLY a "major" change??? I don't think so. Instead of implementing a function to prevent track skip you really should try to make the intentional track skip work. It does that only each first time; after that one has to be very, very patient (>10secs), which is unacceptable.

You don't get to decide what developers work on.  Everyone contributes in their spare time.  One particular developer wanted to implement this study mode (I agree study mode is not a very good name), and so did.  Nor do you get to define major changes - this is new functionality that to some people may be very welcome (personally I am not bothered), and so qualifies to be publicised.

For me normal track skipping works fine.  Are you using the very latest version to check?  Is the problem is still there in the very newest build?  If so, have you opened a bug report with a full a clear recipe for reproduction?  Developers cannot fix problems they don't know about.

which is unacceptable.

You are welcome to a full refund.  Seriously, people do this for FREE as VOLUNTEERS.  Please have a look at your attitude.  If it is that unacceptable, then fix it yourself (Rockbox is open source) or stop using Rockbox.  You are free to do as you wish, we are not forcing you to use it.

[Oppaunke]

MarcGuay very clearly said that it wasn't in the manual, ...

No, he didn't. He just mentioned the manual wouldn't get enough attention - and I suggested he meant the original poster. So, I didn't accuse anybody of anything, right?!

You don't get to decide what developers work on.

I never implied to want to have anything to decide here ;-) Can't you distinguish that from a SUGGESTION?

Everyone contributes in their spare time.

I'm aware of that, but am I forbidden to state any comments, because of this?

For me normal track skipping works fine.  Are you using the very latest version to check?  Is the problem is still there in the very newest build?  If so, have you opened a bug report with a full a clear recipe for reproduction?  Developers cannot fix problems they don't know about.

So you are lucky and have a more powerful CPU or more RAM in your player. I use an iPod nano and it doesn't work fine at all, and it never did. And yes, I use a recent build (17553). The problem is bad with .mpc, worse with .mp3 and worst with .ogg files. 1-3 Tracks skip fine, but skipping let's say 5 tracks forth or (worse) back is killing anyone's patience (in my opinion / in my case). Since I believe to have read about skipping issues, I assumed the problem is already known and I thought: 'how couldn't it be'? I also suppose most coders do actually USE rockbox themselves, so I can't imagine they wouldn't notice such obvious issues.

[AlexP]

MarcGuay very clearly said that it wasn't in the manual, ...

No, he didn't. He just mentioned the manual wouldn't get enough attention - and I suggested he meant the original poster. So, I didn't accuse anybody of anything, right?!

The manual doesn't get enough attention heavily implies it isn't in there.  If you don't understand what someone has said, your first recourse should not be to accuse them of lying.  You accused him of telling a tale.  To me that means you accused him of lying.

You don't get to decide what developers work on.

I never implied to want to have anything to decide here ;-) Can't you distinguish that from a SUGGESTION?

Yes I can, but you might want to work on how you make suggestions

Everyone contributes in their spare time.

I'm aware of that, but am I forbidden to state any comments, because of this?

No, but it means you have no right to demand what people do, and say things are unnaceptable if they aren't exactly as you would like.

For me normal track skipping works fine.  Are you using the very latest version to check?  Is the problem is still there in the very newest build?  If so, have you opened a bug report with a full a clear recipe for reproduction?  Developers cannot fix problems they don't know about.

So you are lucky and have a more powerful CPU or more RAM in your player. I use an iPod nano and it doesn't work fine at all, and it never did. And yes, I use a recent build (17553). The problem is bad with .mpc, worse with .mp3 and worst with .ogg files. 1-3 Tracks skip fine, but skipping let's say 5 tracks forth or (worse) back is killing anyone's patience (in my opinion / in my case). Since I believe to have read about skipping issues,

I have a few targets, two of which are almost identical in terms of CPU and RAM to the Nano, and they work fine.  You really shouldn't assume that I haven't in fact tested it before saying what I did.  Unlike you, I haven't actually assumed anything before just coming out with it.  I reiterate, skipping is fine for me on those targets.  There may well be a specific set of circumstances that cause these issues for you, hence you need to give exact details of what is on your player, how it is set up, what you do to cause the problems etc.

I assumed the problem is already known and I thought: 'how couldn't it be'? I also suppose most coders do actually USE rockbox themselves, so I can't imagine they wouldn't notice such obvious issues.

Yep, you assumed again.  The developers do use Rockbox yes, and the symptoms you describe are not well known.  Please, stop assuming, tone down the attitude (which I am glad to see you have in this post - the attitude you displayed in the first post just makes people not want to help you) and maybe we will get somewhere.

[Oppaunke]

Obviously you read a lot into it, BigBambi. If you would like to continue this conversation, I'd be happy to do so via PM. But this thread has now, thanks to you disciplining me, grown so far off topic, that I doubt anyone would approve. By the way: if "someone really should do something", this means a strong suggestion, not an order. Regarding my "accusation": If MarcGuay really meant the opposite of what I understood (which to me is still unlikely), I'm happy to apologize to him -> but it wouldn't be the first time, someone's question was turned down rather harshly by an experienced forum member pointing the finger at the manual. That's what shaprened my tone a little but by far not as much as you imply! Maybe you try to read not to much into it - my first post was not out of line; just a little mor on edge as "you all did sooo well!". Don't you insiders take the slightest amount of criticism? Sorry to bother ;-)

[JdGordon]

You used agressive language and got what was coming....
and if you followed the link Marc supplied you would have understood what he meant...
anyway, enough is enough