Is it just me or does anyone else prefer MM 4 over MM5

[Jrmach]

If you prefer 4 over 5 please list your reasons.

[ByTor 03]

So far, after jumping into MM5, prefer MM5.

However, the wait time MM5 takes for reading files has got to improve.

15 folders containing 474 flac files in a music series I own, sorted by artist in List View, started over 10 minutes ago and still not done. Has only indexed 265 files.

I really want to love MM5 but this is beyond aggravating.

[Lowlander]

What node in the Media Tree are you in?

[ByTor 03]

Good morning Lowlander.

Folders.
Views > List
Sort > Artist

The folder used for this comparison is 70.7GB in size. Contains 174 subfolders with 1,300 files. The ARTIST is the same for 99% of the files.

MM5 took 7m 15s to complete reading all files.
MM4 took 18s to complete reading all files.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Lowlander]

Folders like My Computer in MM4 are slow as they read the files from the drive and scan their tags. If you use the MediaMonkey Library (ie. Music) instead the data is read from the MediaMonkey database which is much faster.

[ByTor 03]

Did you mean -

"Folders like My Computer in MM5"?

[Lowlander]

No, Folders is used in MM5, in MM4 it was called My Computer.

[Peke]

Hi,
Just tested.
MM4 Entire library node all tracks (140k) + list view -> 19s
MM5 Entire library node all tracks (140k) + list view -> 8s

MM4 My computer node -> NAS -> 25k -> 3:21 minutes
MM5 My computer node -> NAS -> 25k -> 1:52 minutes

As caching of album art takes time and resources.
MM4 -> 75% of album arts not shown
MM5 -> 100% Album arts shown

EDIT: this is average on 5 concurrent retests using Clean portable MM installs.

[ByTor 03]

Thank you both for explaining.

Will use the MM Entire Library node going forward.