XXHighEnd

Under Library tab, when I tick chk error says, "Not possible when chk not ticked"  I've kinda worked it out in my head that it thinks I'm ticking the Grp box ... which I haven't used/explored.  I want to tick the Chk Box to set up galleries.

Hmm ... something's :fishy: here indeed.
Will be solved in the next version.

Thanks for reporting !

:scratching: ... which I forgot ! :sorry::sorry:

I don't think I ever noticed the file playing but no sound stuff, glad you all worked that out. 

Thanks for fixing Chk boxes ... all the check boxes show up when I tick that.
Now,
could you please fix Select all chk boxes
....
:/
you're killing me and my new ultra expensive SSD, I can't make galleries


hehe
thanks peter
edit.  notice how I spell Gallery

G'day SeVeReD,

you don't necessarily need the 'chk box' active to create your entries into the Gallery.

Leave the 'chk' box unticked, and perform your search function as normal to get the list of entries you want showing up in the middle library panel.

Select the first entry with the left mouse button so that it is highlighted. Use the scroll bar to go to the end of your listing, then, while HOLDING DOWN the SHIFT key, click on the last entry with the left mouse button. ALL the entries should then be highlighted. While they are all selected, click on the right mouse button and perform the "gallery/add to gallery" function.

Give that a try.

Cheers,

Russ

Yes, this works out fine.  Thanks  Just about have all my galleries worked out and it is a good bit faster using the main SSD than always having to spin up the external drives just to do a search.

I'd be interested in knowing how fast those SSD's are currently. If you have a moment, could you grab HDTUNE (v 2.55 ) from http://www.hdtune.com/ are run a quick benchmark on it. I'm particularly interested in its Average Transfer Rate and Access Time results. My Galleries are getting a big these days and I'm looking for ways of speeding up response also.

Thanks,

Russ

Hi Dave, anything known from this ? Ah, you are waiting until I mount mine hehe (which I still did not).

Also, I think you were implying that making GaLLeries with the checkbox method doesn't work (with 0.9v-5). But I tried, and it does here ? I tried it with LL of course ...
:blink:

Says Transfer Rate Minimum is 71.6 and Transfer Rate Maximum is 115.1 MB/sec.   Average 103.6 MB/sec.
Access Time .4 ms
burst rate 122.6 MB/sec
CPU Usage 4.0%
The graphs slowly bounces up and down in a regular pattern.  Anyone know the name of the recommended program on here for taking screenshots?  This version of vista for xxhe doesn't even have word loaded on it for prtscreen.

Libray Tab
right click on an album
Select All (checkboxes)

Doesn't work for me. It only selects the one album I right click on... it doesn't select (tick checkboxes) all the albums.  I just tried it with 6 & 6a versions.

Thanks for these results. For comparison, the fastest drive in my system, a WD 1TB SATA drive starts off at 92.3MB/sec transfer rate and drops to 41MB/sec ( presumably at the inner core ) giving an average of 73.3MB/sec. Its burst speed is 149.8 MB/sec. The access time though is where the huge difference occurs; the SATA drive averages 14.7 ms. There will be some variability due to system configuration/speed, but overall you have given a very sound argument for using a SSD for the galleries.

May I ask which brand and model did you choose?

Cheers,

Russ

Edit: I just found the model you bought (mentioned in an earlier post by yourself )

You must select the range of albums you want to tick. So, first select those, then order for Select All (checkboxes).
Unselect All works the same, and *that* is not the most convenient; right now, this kind of makes you select - apply (to Gallery) - unselect all. Otherwise you won't get rid of the checkboxes anymore, or you don't know where you were, etc.

I'm working on a vast improvement in this area. Next version ...

I discovered a flaw using the 'chk' box feature to create the galleries. If you have the 'chk' box ticked, and you use the procedure I outlined earlier to select all entries ( ie. highlight the first entry , scroll down to the last entry and while holding down the SHIFT key you click on that last entry ), that all the entries seem to sequentially have their additional artwork displayed in the right hand pane when the system is going through the process of highlighting all the entries. This REALLY slowed down the selection process and makes it unworkable when you have many albums to process. I therefore chose to NOT use the 'chk' box.

Have you found this to be the case on your system also Peter ?

I've been thinking ( dangerous I know .. LOL ), that perhaps the additional coverart etc. need not necessarily be copied over to the Gallery folders, but simply have only the folders.jpg there. This should significantly speed up the loading of the galleries I would think. I noticed there is a cross-reference file in both gallery and source folder now, so perhaps that could be used to involk the displaying of data ( from the source folder ) in the right pane when an entry in the centre pane is selected.

Thanks,

Russ

Oh, I hoped you found that to be a nice slide show ? :swoon:
Yes Russ, I saw that too (only day before yesterday). That will definitely have changed in the next version.


I do this in order to keep the data disks shut down. So yes, that creates redundancy and a lot of problems for the developer, but I thought it's really  better. Of course you are right that the folder.jpg only would do a rather nice job already, but it is not that simple, because people may call that cover.jpg, front.jpg, tray.jpg and 20 more. So, it would shift the determination from real time to the moment the Gallery is created, and as you can image the software changes here and there (hence better have it real time). Besides that, you'd miss the additional coverart, unless the disks spin up again. Btw, not a real problem for me, but for the waiting for it (I think I have 8 now, and the subsequently spin up, not in parallel. That's 8 times 5-10 seconds ...


So yes, but these are for the maintenance of it all. So, when nothing comes up in between, in the next version this will be used for moving albums to other Galleries, show where an album sits, rename albums (the folder to it), changing these things outside of XX and then "repair", etc. Currently it is used to maintain the consistentlcy with the coverart as mentioned above. E.g. rename img002.jpg to folder.jpg from whichever angle (GalleryA, GalleryB, the orginal) and "redistribute" it (hence cover for the redundancy).

But Russ, please keep on coming up with your ideas in directions like these, because it is really difficult enough without using a database (which I so far tried to avoid).

Peter

Thanks for the explanation of your logic here Peter. I can understand where you are coming from now, especially the desire to keep the source folder disks from having to spin up if idle. My gallery folders are getting quite large ( approaching 9GB in total ) so I'm looking for any means to reduce load time. I am systematically going through each folder.jpg to reduce them to an average 500x500 pixels ( which I find is a good compromise ) so over time I hope to reduce the load burden. It would help if I stopped buying more music too .. LOL

Cheers,

Russ

Russ,

I actually do not want you to approach it like that;
The 9GB for disk space is obviously no problem. The "load time" as such, is unrelated either !! It just doen't work like you logically will think. You can say it's smarter than normal logic.

But there are other things which incur for a perceived slower "load time", and they are cpu bound and again unrelated to the amount. Trust me.
There are a few things that are - so far - beyond my understandings, never mind I created it myself; I have one source folder consisting of some 1000 albums only, which is hardly manageable when it comes to the response is requires. When this source is incorporated in a general Gallery, that becomes as slow, although it seems to average out with the rest of the contents of that Gallery.

So, there is just something wrong in "some" situation, and I have to find out what it is. I know this for some weeks now, but didn't spend the time on it yet.

It *is* true that a larger picture takes more time, BUT this only works out as a pain when it shows up in the CoverArt Area (rightmost pane);
It *is* true that at Selecting the lot in the middle pane (as you described earlier today) just the same phenomenon causes the lot to be superslow. But this is wrong by itself, and the selection should not show up in the right pane. That's a bug.

So only - and only then - when you click an item in the middle pane, it is "legit" that this is slower because of showing large pictures in the right pane. Do NOT shrink *those* pictures to 500x500 whatever, because logic tells that large pictures are there for readability (like the back of a cover, the inlay, etc.). Shrink those to 500x500 and you won't be able to read it anymore.
And yes, those readable pictures can 6MB or even more. But again, they only bother when you click an item in the middle pane, and when you're in a process that this slows down all the time, untick the Show Coverart box.
So, that this consumes 9GB does NOTHING. Just nothing.

Peter

ah ha .. thanks again for a broader explanation. I have likely assumed incorrectly that ALL the folder art needed to be loaded into memory at the same time, but thinking further about it, that wouldn't be the best way to do. The actual coverart data only needs loading into memory when that art needs 'displaying' in whatever manner. An index of some sort within your program would be a much faster method of keeping track of things I would think.

and yeah .. I wasn't going to reduce the additional coverart info the the point where it was unreadable. Kinda defeats the purpose then.

Cheers,

Russ