My opinions on release 3.0

[JdGordon]

there is no version 3.0 yet.. its in planning

[wintermute23]

How do I determine if I have the latest stable release?  The version screen on my player says:
r18064-080715

Thanks for your reply.

There's really no such thing as the "latest stable build". All the builds tend to be pretty stable, but there are occasional bugs that can cause problems. Generally, you'll be good using any recent build, where the meaning of "recent" varies with your willingness to download new builds.

The numbers after the dash are the date the build was created - in this case, the 15th of July 2008. If you're not experiencing any issues with it, then keep on using it until such time as you feel like downloading a new version.

[GodEater]

Yes, but when there *is* a release 3.0, then it will be "the latest stable release".

I think you missed the point of his question.

[TAC109]

.... My guess is that part of the problem might have to do with my enormous MUSIC folder on the internal memory: the MUSIC folder has no subdirectories, just 500+ files (I looked at the list limits, just to be sure).

The FAT32 file system that Rockbox uses gets very inefficient with large numbers of files in directories. You would be best to organise your music into a directory structure with no more than 100 files per subdirectory.

[soap]

.... My guess is that part of the problem might have to do with my enormous MUSIC folder on the internal memory: the MUSIC folder has no subdirectories, just 500+ files (I looked at the list limits, just to be sure).

The FAT32 file system that Rockbox uses gets very inefficient with large numbers of files in directories. You would be best to organise your music into a directory structure with no more than 100 files per subdirectory.

I have 482 folders in my ##Music directory and have never experienced an issue.  I have had more in the past.

[bluebrother]

The FAT32 file system that Rockbox uses gets very inefficient with large numbers of files in directories.

If you know how FAT works you know that this is simply not true. FAT works as simply linked list, and this doesn't make having lots of entries unefficient, especially not lots of entries in a single folder.

[TAC109]

The FAT32 file system that Rockbox uses gets very inefficient with large numbers of files in directories.

If you know how FAT works you know that this is simply not true. FAT works as simply linked list, and this doesn't make having lots of entries unefficient, especially not lots of entries in a single folder.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. "Simple linked lists" are not efficient with "enormous folders". To find a file, on average half the list has to be searched serially. If the directory is fragmented this will require multiple random disk accesses. It is simply not efficient.

soap: The poster I was replying to has all his files in an "enormous folder", rather than subfolders in a folder.

[Strife89]

If the directory is fragmented this will require multiple random disk accesses. It is simply not efficient.

That reminds me of something I've been pondering. Short of transferring the files one by one, is it possible to force any OS (Windows or Linux) to copy files to their destination in alphabetical order, rather than in the order stored on the source disk?

The poster I was replying to has all his files in an "enormous folder", rather than subfolders in a folder.

While I have intentions of changing that, it's going to be a ridiculous task to create the folders, unless I can find a tool to help me. ALL of my .MP3 files are named "<artist name> - <song title>". My intentions are to create folders called <artist name>.

If I beat someone to finding such a tool , I'll put it on the UsefulTools Wiki page (and drop a note here).

[obo]

While I have intentions of changing that, it's going to be a ridiculous task to create the folders, unless I can find a tool to help me. ALL of my .MP3 files are named "<artist name> - <song title>". My intentions are to create folders called <artist name>.

If I beat someone to finding such a tool , I'll put it on the UsefulTools Wiki page (and drop a note here).

There are already a few programs to do that on the UsefulTools page (under MP3 Tagging & Organization) - EasyTag and Musicbrainz spring to mind.

[soap]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. "Simple linked lists" are not efficient with "enormous folders". To find a file, on average half the list has to be searched serially. If the directory is fragmented this will require multiple random disk accesses. It is simply not efficient.

And Rockbox can cache the directory listings/content.  This is not the problem the complainer appears to be having.

soap: The poster I was replying to has all his files in an "enormous folder", rather than subfolders in a folder.

I believe Items = Items unless you care to explain otherwise.

[Febs]

If I beat someone to finding such a tool , I'll put it on the UsefulTools Wiki page (and drop a note here).

There are already a few programs to do that on the UsefulTools page (under MP3 Tagging & Organization) - EasyTag and Musicbrainz spring to mind.

mp3tag, Tag and Rename, Foobar 2000, Media Monkey , etc.

[Strife89]

Thanks guys, I'll look at them. I thought that they were strictly tagging programs, so I never bothered with 'em (I already have a great tagger on my Linux machine in my opinion - Ex Falso).

[SIDE NOTE] Would it be a good idea to put "feature" columns on the UsefulTools page? This would further help people with finding exactly what they want. [/SIDE NOTE]

[Yotto]

That reminds me of something I've been pondering. Short of transferring the files one by one, is it possible to force any OS (Windows or Linux) to copy files to their destination in alphabetical order, rather than in the order stored on the source disk?

I've never paid attention. I thought both did copy in alphabetical order.  But, to force it in Linux I suppose you could do:

Code: [Select]

for i in `ls`; do cp $i DESTINATION; done;

This will only do one directory. I suppose you could do something with 'find' instead of 'ls'. Note the quotes in the above command are backticks (the ~ key without shift).

In dos, which I can't test right now as I have no windows machines handy, you could probably do:

Code: [Select]

for %i in (*) do copy %i DESTINATION

[GodEater]

Thanks guys, I'll look at them. I thought that they were strictly tagging programs, so I never bothered with 'em (I already have a great tagger on my Linux machine in my opinion - Ex Falso).

If you're using Ex Falso already, why not use that to do the renaming? It supports doing it too.

[Strife89]

If you're using Ex Falso already, why not use that to do the renaming? It supports doing it too.

I want to make a bunch of folders; I've already used it to rename a bunch of files.