Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, not likely to change from a patch that is working to a serato beta that will possibly not properly work and let me down at a gig again
Lol at people wanting stable software but cant be fucked to help make it stable.
That's a pretty ignorant statement.
There is no agreement, that someone who paid top dollars for a pro product has to spend time on testing *anything*. It should work out of the box. That's what the users can expect.
While I don't disagree with the principle of your statement, it is a short-sighted view to take. First off, the patch in and of itself is not officially supported. If it goes wrong, or utterly causes all things to go to hell (unlikely, by possible), who will he blame then? It's not like he has to use it while gigging. He can install it alongside his current "stable" application, and test the other in his spare time - if that is what he chooses to do.
But at the same time, using ANY software, whether it's an alpha, beta, release candidate, or gold release without properly testing it in a production environment where money is on the line is unwise. Relying on a "patch" that modifies an application beyond the way it was intended by the original manufacturer without any extended testing or official support isn't exactly wise either.
Simply stated, a larger testing pool helps to identify bugs and resolve them before a release is finalised. This exact same mentality is that which many of the ScratchLive "purist" had when Serato DJ first incorporated DVS: they had plenty of opportunities to join the testing phase, but did not, and then they through a hissy-fit that Serato would dare to discontinue support for a 10 year old product. Had they joined the testing pool, they could've helped to identify any issues resolved rather than coming over kicking and screaming, and doing so begrudgingly.
That's just my opinion, however.
Quote:
Quote:
Lol at mr woolsey, I think a paid for piece of "pro software" should be working before it's released and not given to working djs as guinea pigs to cock up their night and cost them money.
This remark is kinda OK for many SDJ features, but NOT for the large libraries issue, which plagues only very specific people who have unreasonably huge libraries and/or use the Itunes library in Serato.
The Serato software was not meant to accomodate music hoarders, and asking for some user contribution to take the software to the point it will please these extremely demanding DJs, is not unreasonable at all.
Personally I don't even care about these DJs, I have zero problem with my database because I'm neither a compulsive hoarder nor do I demand to have a double sorting system (Itunes + Serato). I'm having a good laugh each time I read comments from these DJs talking about their databases of more than 50'000 songs. Really. This is nonsense. You can trace it down to bragging, compulsive hoarding, or mere foolishness, 99% of the time. And illegal downloading 100% of the time. I could go on for days on the total irrationality of having a library over 20-25k songs. Like if vynil DJs were not professional DJs because they can't carry more than 600-700 songs to a gig?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Want SDJ to cope with your musical clutter? Give it some help. Don't wanna help? Then just wait for the work to be done and stop whining. In the meanwhile, learn how to reduce the clutter and how to resist compulsive hoarding.
This might rank among some of the single most ignorant things I have ever seen in my time on this forum.
What gives you the right to define our libraries as unreasonably large? Virtual DJ, derided as it is by the masses, takes my library just fine. It also operates on the same flatfile database principle. Traktor doesn't mind it either (though I am not a fan of Traktor). I'll also have you know that I do
not use iTunes (and I refuse to do so). I don't like it, and I don't have a need for it.
As for your statement that "the Serato software was not meant to accomodate music hoarders," you'd be inherently incorrect. It is a flaw - a bug. Not a feature. If this wasn't the case, the support for CDs and direct browsing of directories would not be possible.
Then you go on to state that you take humor in the misfortune of others? That's rather distasteful in my opinion. I'm glad that you don't have any problems. Don't rub it in the face of others or insult them for it. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Your statement also shows your ignorance of the issue at hand. At least know the totality of the issue before you make such an asinine statement. Multiple factors contribute to this issue: Directory structure, Number of Crates and/or Sub-Crates, Crate Structure, File Length, Memory Usage, the number of files, and others.
Also, just because you don't see the need for more than an arbitrary number of songs doesn't that there is none. If the rest of us didn't see a need for large libraries, we wouldn't have them. We have, and maintain large libraries for our own reasons. We need not justify them to you.
Finally, your flat accusation that the music must have been illegally obtained is insulting and downright stupid. We're not sitting on The Pirate Bay downloading music, or grabbing barely 96-192 bit AAC VBR videos off of YouTube and transcoding them to 128kbps MP3s. We're grabbing high quality files at cost from quality sources through legal channels. Do you think these record pool subscriptions are cheap? Do you think filling a backlog or category of music for even one genre is cheap? We're not buying Hard Drives off of other DJs on Craigslist for $200. We're building a catalogue here, larger than that of even the largest catalogues of Karaoke DJs who walk around with Books upon Books of CD+G's.
Stop being the problem, and be part of the solution.
