welldone. JuK is great.

[Caoilte O'Connor]

On Sunday 14 March 2004 18:58, you wrote:
> On Thursday 11 March 2004 15:26, Caoilte O'Connor wrote:
> > I just tried out JuK and was very impressed. It's come
> > a long way since I tried it under 3.1. It now scans my
> > mp3 collection without crashing for instance (though
> > still not as fast as rhythmbox).
>
> Actually I assume this is just a perception thing -- that
> or you tried RhythmBox right after JuK when the data was
> already in disk buffers.

actually I tried JuK a couple of days after Rhythmbox, but 
this was for kde 3.1 and it's possible it only _seemed_ 
like longer. JuK was a lot less responsive than Rhythmbox 
while it was scanning basically - it even crashed on a 
badly formed wav i think. 

Regardless, I was much encouraged by the visual indicators 
JuK was giving me this time round and it's very much more 
stable.

I still think the UI in Rhythmbox is nicer, but frankly, the 
tag editor on JuK is so sweet you'll have to drag it away 
from me. :-D.

caoilte

ps I apologise if I emailed the list twice last time. The 
new kmail composer seems to crash occasionally and I wasn't 
sure it had gone...