upgraded from 4.06 to 4.0d

[Robster]

just upgraded today ..seems flawless at the moment ..doing long test just in case.

I have held off upgrading as 4.06 did exactly what i needed and worked spot on for me.

One thing i don't like is the search box for singers and songs is smaller in length than on my previous version.

when typing in something like "walking in Memphis" it doesnt fit in the box without losing the first part from view and there is plenty of room on the screen to have a larger search box..tiny almost petty point ,but with my spelling it can throw up 0 results if i spelled walking in correct for example.
i like to be able to see what i have typed in full.
if thats all i can find as a dislike this version will be brilliant!



Thanks guys

[JNS02]

Just a thought. I wouldn't type the whole song, if I was looking this up, I'd type 'In Memphis'. I see your point and the smaller box. I don't care for it either but its a small sacrifice to make for this great software. Like I said, this is the way I do it for two reasons. 1. in a hurry 2. walking is spelled different ways (walkin' - walking) also (leaving - leavin'). My spelling is bad too (I had to correct 4 words in this post before I could submit it) lol. Hope this helps.

[bryant]

Originally Posted by Robster

One thing i don't like is the search box for singers and songs is smaller in length than on my previous version.
Thanks guys

I sorta didn't care for that too, as some songs need to typed a bit longer than the space requires.

Anyone else agree with us here

[Robster]

That was just one example JNS02 ,I see what you are saying. There are many others.
I too would put" Memphis" in but that threw up 18 results (which is obviously OK) "Walking in Memphis" throws up 6 results because of the different versions i have.

some songs have lots of common words in them so they dont have the "memphis " key word which would make a search easy.

"man i feel like a woman" if you put just one of those words or a combination of a couple of the words in you would get loads of results and if you put the artist in you would get loads of results..again this is an example off the top of my head.

making the box longer ..is it that hard to do .for the next version?

[JNS02]

Originally Posted by Robster

That was just one example JNS02 ,I see what you are saying. There are many others.
I too would put" Memphis" in but that threw up 18 results (which is obviously OK) "Walking in Memphis" throws up 6 results because of the different versions i have.

some songs have lots of common words in them so they dont have the "memphis " key word which would make a search easy.

"man i feel like a woman" if you put just one of those words or a combination of a couple of the words in you would get loads of results and if you put the artist in you would get loads of results..again this is an example off the top of my head.

making the box longer ..is it that hard to do .for the next version?

I totally agree with what your saying. I guess I'm just lazy, type a little and pick from a list. ('like a woman' 7 results 3 diff songs)('feel like a woman' 4 results 1 song) both of which fit in the box. In your words "if thats all i can find as a dislike this version will be brilliant!" Not sure what the reason for the smaller box

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by Robster

just upgraded today ..seems flawless at the moment ..doing long test just in case.

I have held off upgrading as 4.06 did exactly what i needed and worked spot on for me.

One thing i don't like is the search box for singers and songs is smaller in length than on my previous version.

when typing in something like "walking in Memphis" it doesnt fit in the box without losing the first part from view and there is plenty of room on the screen to have a larger search box..tiny almost petty point ,but with my spelling it can throw up 0 results if i spelled walking in correct for example.
i like to be able to see what i have typed in full.
if thats all i can find as a dislike this version will be brilliant!



Thanks guys

I dont' have my machine handy at the moment to check but as I recall from another post on the subject, the portion of what you typed that scrolled out of view is still there, even if you cant see it.

Sam

[JNS02]

Sam, it is still there but like Robster stated He (and people like me) doesn't type real well and if he made a mistake in the frist part (hidden) of the title he wouldn't notice it until he get no match in his search. Just a pain having search box smaller in length.

[bryant]

Originally Posted by mindonstrike

I dont' have my machine handy at the moment to check but as I recall from another post on the subject, the portion of what you typed that scrolled out of view is still there, even if you cant see it.

Sam

I see that, but I like to see it all too. It was so much slicker the other way. Feels really odd this new way (too short).

Anyone else?

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by JNS02

Sam, it is still there but like Robster stated He (and people like me) doesn't type real well and if he made a mistake in the frist part (hidden) of the title he wouldn't notice it until he get no match in his search. Just a pain having search box smaller in length.

gotcha.

Sam

[RIKKI TIKKI]

Originally Posted by bryant

I see that, but I like to see it all too. It was so much slicker the other way. Feels really odd this new way (too short).

Anyone else?

I, for one, NEVRE misspell any Titles, Artists, Book I.D.s, Genres, etc. when I do a search!

I vote for the longer search line as well... not sure what decision was made at MTU that led to the shorter version... but they will listen to your ( our ) complaints, and justify there validity, against what has to be done, to return to the previous version of the search engine that incorporated the full line of type view!

[billyo]

i just typed in the artist name..easier for me

[JNS02]

Originally Posted by RIKKI TIKKI

I, for one, NEVRE misspell any Titles, Artists, Book I.D.s, Genres, etc. when I do a search!

Rick, I think Its NEVER I also am pretty sure (have read many of you post) you did that on purpose. LOL I thought I was going to fall off my chair when I read that one.

[RIKKI TIKKI]

Originally Posted by JNS02

Rick, I think Its NEVER I also am pretty sure (have read many of you post) you did that on purpose. LOL I thought I was going to fall off my chair when I read that one.

Caught my attempt at some dry humor...

But the Hoster search engine is as accurate, and fast as the person that is doing the searching... If you can't spell, then the computer won't find it without you having to further refine, or check for the typo, whether it be in the Title, Artist, Book I.D., etc. So the error would be easier to see if the longer view window could be easily reinstated, thus my vote for the longer view... I still use sign up slips for the newbies, and then can cross reference the slip for client error, or my typing for KJ error... My regulars come up and use the singer database ( Great Feature! ) to put in their songs, or ask me to search for some obscure song, that I may have left out of my book(s) on purpose. ( I list 4000-5000 songs with no duplicates, that I have tested, and have chosen for quality, and sing-ability ) That leaves about 6000 songs in the computer, that may be obscure, obscene, or bad quality duplicated versions.... it keeps me from having to explain the difference between Sound Choice, and Sweet Georgia Brown versions of the same song, as an example of duplication, and my reasoning for editing the other version out, but... if you have been practicing with the SGB version, you may not want to hear the difference quality makes... because it's outside of your confidence zone. Mostly newbie's that have only practiced with one manufacturer of cdg's, and visiting KJ's that know more than I...that I allow a different version to be tried... but only if I can't talk them out of the second version first...

Remember " Roadhouse ", with Patrick Swayze, ( "...but be nice... until it's time to not be nice... ) that's me and my show, in a nutshell...

[JNS02]

Actually, everyone on this post (myself included) would like to see the larger search box back. I responded to Robsters original post just as a possible work around to use for now until we see if MTU tells us if they can / cannot fix this.


So I think we are ALL in agreement.