Is it just me...

[jsbowden]

I have 310 albums, quite a few of which are multi disc, and yet, iTunes only seems to cycle through about 30 discs if I leave it on repeat all.

Really, is it so hard to ask that it never play a song again until it has gone through every other song available?

Oh, and remember where you were so you don't START OVER every time I have to restart.

I really don't think I'm asking much. The logic here isn't terribly difficult, but Apple don't seem to grasp it.

Shuffle everything, repeat all of it, nothing gets played more than once until the entire library has been cycled through, and remember where you left off between sessions.

In a program the size of iTunes, there's no reason why it can't do this.

Comments

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Apple goes out of their way to make using their software difficult. That's why you can't filter your iTunes collection on the basis of anything except genre, artist, album, or "duplicates". Letting you *filter* on other fields, instead of just *sorting* by other fields, would imply that you could do something using a built=in function in a way that Apple's own programmers never wanted to personally do themselves. And that's not just not allowed, it's actively prohibited.

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

I know, I've ranted on how Apple's 'Think Different' campaign really means 'Think Different our way'.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

You don't actually think that programmers dictate functionality, do you? hahahahahaaha

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"designers", then.

The point is, if they don't think you should want to do it, they not only don't support it but they put barriers in the way so you can't. It's the Apple way!

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm just letting The Bitter run my day, aren't I?

[dscotton.livejournal.com]

Huh. I guess it depends on the company.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Not really -- those companies that do have the programmers driving are the outliers.