Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Downgrades MusicMatch Jukebox

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the nice-while-it-lasted dept.

Yahoo! 217

BanjoBob writes "MusicMatch Jukebox has been a bundle of great MP3 and music management applications in one package. Apparently, it is the end of life for this wonderful MP3 player, ripper, catalog, CD player, Internet radio player, purchase outlet, Auto DJ, Super Tagger, and music database. There was nothing not to like about the product. There is nothing to like about the new downgrade, Yahoo! Music Jukebox. MusicMatch users have been getting notices to 'upgrade'; those who have taken the bait are not pleased. The Yahoo! Music Jukebox feedback forum doesn't have much nice to say about the product. Lots of features have gone away and the 'free upgrade' costs about $20."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

musicmatch? (0, Offtopic)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798669)

Hm.. It really goes to show its been awhile since i used windows. i didn't even realize people were still using musicmatch! amarok does all of the above- and with kde4 coming out soon and a gpl qt license for windows i see amarok making its way to the windows desktop soon enough.

Re:musicmatch? (2, Informative)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798693)

Amarok better see some serious performance improvements before that, it's a memory hog and slow as molasses.

Re:musicmatch? (2, Informative)

djones101 (1021277) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798723)

And from the times I used MusicMatch, it was the exact same.

Re:musicmatch? (3, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799313)

Agreed. Musicmatch has always been one of those applications that is annoyingly bundled with sound cards and OEM installed widgets...I have used it, but never for very long.

Re:musicmatch? (3, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799211)

Really? I have 4,244 files consuming 41 gig of space and I find it to be neither slow nor memory intensive. Right now for me (and it's been running and constantly playing a few days now) it's using 41.8mb total (which includes the shared memory with KDE libraries so its actual footprint is smaller, though I can't tell you exactly how much smaller). It launches in about 2 seconds and all of its features respond instantly.

Compare that with iTunes on the same hardware (I have identical machines side-by-side one running Windows, and the other Ubuntu Feisty, using Synergy [] to control them). This takes around 10 seconds to launch and with exactly zero songs in its library consumes 38.6 meg.

So in comparing like for like, my 4,000+ song 41gig Amarok is faster with a similar memory footprint to the substantially less featureful iTunes with an empty library.

So I'm not really sure what your basis for comparison is. Maybe you're running AmaroK under Gnome and noticing startup sluggishness due to the KDE libraries needing to be initialized? (which you don't experience if you run AmaroK under KDE since these are initialized when you log in, and also the reported memory stays the same, but actual memory footprint is much lower since in that desktop so many of the libraries which count against AmaroK's reported memory are also shared with a variety of other apps)

The only thing I can think is that perhaps you're comparing it to XMMS or Winamp 3.x series (each eating under 10 meg of RAM and starting virtually instantly). Certainly if you want a music player that does nothing but play music you won't be satisfied with the performance loss to music juke boxes like AmaroK and iTunes. But in that case, may I suggest mpg123 [] as your primary music player since this will be even smaller and faster yet!

Re:musicmatch? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19799305)

The only thing I can think is that perhaps you're comparing it to XMMS or Winamp 3.x series

Winamp 3 was the dreaded ressource hog.

WinAmp 2.95 is the great one.

Re:musicmatch? (2, Interesting)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799449)

sorry, i have itunes running on a windows PC i RDP to for playback from my linux desktop. currently 7123 songs, 30.56 gb, open since tuesday last week. 31,192 mb of ram used. itunes helper is using an additional 200k, and i have the lastfm plugin running too for another 8-ish megs.

not sure how you got to 38mb sans database.

Re:musicmatch? (1)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 7 years ago | (#19800259)

Just started it again.

38,432k memory used.

iTunes version After clicking the About dialog to get the exact version, memory jumped to 39,508k. Database is still empty.

Re:musicmatch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19798745)

I can't wait for Amarok to come to windows. I loved using it on Linux for the few little times I did. I wish it was a bit more like iTunes, in that you could display album art, as I can usually find what I'm looking for that way easier as I don't always remember titles and names. But aside from that, it was pure win, it would recommend me music from my own library (using, stuff I'd forgotten about!

Re:musicmatch? (1, Informative)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798829)

amarok 4 supports album art as well as most ipods. they've also thrown in magnatunes-- which is like itunes music store for inde artists. lots of improvements since 4.0 came out and tons of new plugins.

Re:musicmatch? (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798759)

I was thinking the same thing about
, which is actually now available for Windows [] as well, according to Miguel de Icaza's blog. Very nice, very slick with a iTunes/Rhythmbox-style interface (without the instabilities of Rythmbox), and it's available from the Ubuntu repos.

Re:musicmatch? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798779)

Oops. Damn bbcode extension. That'll teach me to preview. The project's name is Banshee, URL above.

Re:musicmatch? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799357)

No problem. If people can't figure that out from the URL ( then they shouldn't be on slashdot in the first place.

Re:musicmatch? (4, Informative)

gb0mb (1121499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798761)

Yahoo has succeeded in ruining a nice piece of software. I also found it interesting how they cut out people with lifetime upgrade subscriptions. I sent an email a while back and they told be what i needed to do to use my key (sorry for the bloated post but if it helps just one person...). Please be advised that Yahoo! Music Jukebox Plus does not use a key, so your Musicmatch Plus key will not work in Yahoo! Music Jukebox Plus. However, if you have a Musicmatch Jukebox Plus key, it will be converted to Yahoo! Music Jukebox Plus at no cost to you when you complete the migration from Musicmatch to Yahoo! Music. You'll be able to log in to Yahoo! Music Jukebox Plus with your Yahoo! ID anywhere, and have access to your Plus features. A tool to automatically convert your Musicmatch subscription to Yahoo! is now available. The Migration Assistant is built into the latest release of the Yahoo! Music Jukebox. Follow the directions below to download the Jukebox, and the Migration Assistant will walk you through this process step-by-step. 1. Download and install the new Yahoo! Music Jukebox here: [] 2. When you start the Jukebox, the Migration Assistant should appear. Follow the instructions on each page (a link to the FAQ is available from most pages). 3. If you have a Musicmatch On Demand subscription, you will be able to migrate it to a Yahoo! Music Unlimited subscription. If you have a Musicmatch Jukebox Plus key, you'll migrate that as well. 4. If you have unspent Musicmatch Music Store Gift Certificates or Allowances, you'll be able to convert them to Yahoo! Music Unlimited Gift Certificates 5. If you wish to transfer your music library, you will be offered this option Please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions for more information: ate/update02.html []

Re:musicmatch? (2, Informative)

dryii (1125709) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799143)

Unfortunately the latest version only seems to work for XP and Vista 32-bit. Those that installed 64-bit versions of the OS (myself included) are out of luck. Although I have previously installed, the latest installation program tells me: Incompatible Operating System Detected

Re:musicmatch? (1)

rbochan (827946) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799139)

One upside to the death of it is that there'll be one less thing to have to remove when de-crapifying a new OEM pc.

Re:musicmatch? (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799595)

You should never have to uninstall anything. Format and upgrade.

Re:musicmatch? (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799575)

MusicMatch sucked ass, too. I don't know what's wrong with the OP, but there is certainly a LOT to dislike about it. It's slow, it's ugly, and the interface is split up into a bunch of different parts in a way only a windows user could love.

Re:musicmatch? (1)

russint (793669) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799919)

i see amarok making its way to the windows desktop soon enough.
It sure will []

Re:musicmatch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19800011)

When exactly is KDE4 coming out? I was hearing about KDE4 back when I used mandrake 10.1 in my desktop. All I have seen is some fancy images on their website. With the way they are delaying KDE4, it looks like another Vista in making

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19798685)


upgrade... (-1, Flamebait)

cabinetsoft (923481) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798721)

... to iTunes and get over it.

Re:upgrade... (2, Interesting)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798907)

They shouldnt have to. There should always be a non-iTunes option otherwise they'll get like any monopoly, big, fat and complacent.

Anyways should we call 2007 'The Year of the Downgrade'. First Vista, now this... I hope this isnt the trend in the future...

Re:upgrade... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19799129)

Except that itunes sucks.

Why I am no iTunes fan (at least not on Windows) (3, Interesting)

ansak (80421) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799431)

iTunes is not a good enough option. Here are reasons I dislike running iTunes on Windows and will not go back to it there:
  • It installs a "helper" program as a service. I've got enough services running on my computer. Given how little control I have over my Windows box by default, I'd just as well not have another service running.
  • I don't like the idea of buying individual songs. I'd rather let the artist speak his/her/their whole album to me at once. It seems a little obscene, a little violating to the artistic process to cherry-pick. And if I'd done so in the past, I would have missed some real gems. Yes, I also loathe top-40 radio.
  • Garbage in my MP3s. Open the Info view of some MP3 file you've ripped from your own collection of CDs, tapes and (yes!) vinyl (like the Alt-3 view in WinAmp 2.8). Add a comment. Now manage that MP3 file in iTunes. Open the Info view again. What's all that hexadecimal goo in the Comment field!? Bad program. Bad, bad program. Leave user data as you found it!
Write me off as a curmudgeon but when I run an MP3 player, I expect something that launches, plays MP3s (and leaves their content alone) and quits nicely when it leaves. iTunes doth not answer the bell, methinks, and its music purchase model doesn't do it for me either.

cheers...ank, curmudgeon, I!

Re:Why I am no iTunes fan (at least not on Windows (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799729)

You can call me curmudgeon #2 :o) I was about to whack out a comment that said nearly the exact thing! Thanks. Mod to +6...oh, wait...

Re:Why I am no iTunes fan (at least not on Windows (0, Troll)

thedbp (443047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799833)

First of all, there's nothing inherently wrong with a process running in the background. Its the purpose of the process and its security, performance, and other factors that determine whether it is good or evil. In the case of the iTunes process, it listens for the connection of devices that communicate with iTunes and uses about 0% CPU time. Sounds fairly harmless to me. Do you also hate puppies and rainbows?

  Well, maybe YOU don't like the idea of picking songs, so please, by all means feel free to continue listening to late 70s and early 80s prog rock epics in their entirety. However, the record companies are having a hard time SELLING full albums, hence the return to a singles model that was popular back in (yes!) the 50s. So in this case the market has spoken - mindless automatons who can't bend over to tie their own shoes without drooling all over themselves and listen to garbage top 40 radio don't buy full albums because even they are smart enough to realize that most of the album is crap and only has 1 or 2 good songs. So you listen to bands that have artistic merit. Good for you. Most people don't.

  Garbage in your MP3s? Let's consider that iTunes adds functionality to your MP3s by letting you tack on much more information than WinAMP, including album artwork, playback position, expanded tags for TV show organization, different fields for display info and sort info, etc. WinAMP can't TOUCH the massive organizational capabilities of iTunes, which, when combined with Smart Playlists allows you to autogenerate complex playlists based on criteria in your tags, which, if you are as much of a music geek as you think you are, your tags are incredibly intricate and detailed, allowing for more flexibility in autogeneration.

Basically, no one is writing you off as a curmudgeon. We're writing you off as a pathetic, elitist snob who, just because you don't know anyone around your immediate vicinity that meets your standards of musical appreciation, thinks that you are the grand poobah of how music should be consumed and organized.

For the record, by the way, I'm willing to bet that my music library whips the shit out of yours. A lot of my tracks are tagged with information like what studio they were recorded at and on what day. I can autobuild a playlist based on WHAT STUDIO THE TRACK WAS RECORDED IN. Can WinAMP do that? Didn't think so.

No one cares, your arguments are shallow and not applicable on a large scale, and you aren't as cool as you think you are. Which is odd, because you shouldn't really consider yourself cool at all if you're posting on slashdot. and I do include myself in that.

Re:Why I am no iTunes fan (at least not on Windows (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799877)

It installs a "helper" program as a service
That just exists for notifications of iPod plug and unplug events. If you don't have an iPod, you can disable it.

I don't like the idea of buying individual songs
Just because you run iTunes, doesn't mean that you have to buy music from the iTunes store. I also prefer to buy albums, and I've bought a few from the iTunes store where, by the way, they are cheaper per-track than if you buy individual songs.

Garbage in my MP3s
I've not come across this, since all of my music is in AAC format (and has been since before iTunes supported it, when I used WinAMP with FAAD to play it), and iTunes just stores data in standard MPEG-4 atoms.

There are lots of legitimate reasons to dislike iTunes. There have been a number of feature regressions since version 4 (e.g. placing of UI components giving more space to the store at the expense of my own music, broken album detection code, etc), and some serious miss-features (e.g. party shuffle doesn't work with shared playlists, and doesn't let you shuffle albums), but it sounds a bit like you are clutching at straws.

Re:Why I am no iTunes fan (at least not on Windows (2, Informative)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799935)

I believe that "hexadecimal goo" in the comment field is where iTunes stores information about volume normalization. Unfortunately, they fail to give any warning that the program will destroy your comments. Really, that is pretty poor programming. Why couldn't they just stick that information in the iTunes database instead of in the file?

legal affairs (1)

cr0m0 (952302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798725)

Probably Yahoo doesn't want to go into legals affairs with the ripping stuff in MusicMatch, turning this app into a kind of iTunes clone.

Re:legal affairs (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798813)

Who says ripping is illegal? Courts ruled that copying a legally-purchased CD to cassette tape for personal use was legal and I hold that ripping a song from CD to my PC is no different -- like copying for the purposes of using a different player, it's protected under fair use. At least that is until you have to put some green marker on it to defeat the 'copy protection' anyway...

Re:legal affairs (1)

spicyjeff (6305) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798967)

iTunes always has and still does let you rip and/or import any of your own music.

That's a shame (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19798729)

Maybe we should petition Apple to create some kind of easy-to-use jukebox software to replace it since they have a lot of experience with GUI design issues because of MacOS. Still, it's unlikely they'd be willing to port such a piece of software to Windows unless they had some incredible financial incentive to do so... perhaps create some type of device that can be used on both Windows PCs and Macs so it would give them an incentive to write this cool jukebox software to run on Windows too?

Yahoo is killing itself (4, Informative)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798731)

They ruined their TV listings this year too: ashed-by-users/ []

They did the same thing to All-Seeing Eye (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19798995)

Yahoo! == the Shit Midases.

Re:Yahoo is killing itself (1)

eht (8912) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799679)

Yah, when I figured out I couldn't turn off the "beta" features I moved over to which had almost the same format that the Yahoo TV listing used to have(when it was useful).

Oh dear. (5, Interesting)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798749)

The missus has been using Musicmatch Jukebox for ages now - ever since it came bundled with her MP3/CD walkman. She's always ranting about how every upgrade to every application she uses seems to work worse and more slowly than the last (Adobe Reader is her latest pet-hate, and understandably so).

Fortunately she's had enough and decided to spend some time over the summer installing and learning to use Linux. At least she hasn't been ripping all her CDs into WMA...

Re:Oh dear. (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798905)

Actually Adobe Reader has gotten pretty fast with the latest version, whereas you had to book appointments if you wanted to open the earlier ones.

Musicmatch Jukebox I never cared for, after the last time I tried it 4 years ago. I imagine it's worse than even iTunes now...

Re:Oh dear. (2, Informative)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799031)

"...Adobe Reader has gotten pretty fast with the latest version ..."

You must be one of the lucky ones. I uninstalled it as unusable after enless lock-ups due to the updater portion of the program.

Re:Oh dear. (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799083)

Hmm, odd, it never gave me a problem... Of course, I just dismiss the updater. Nowadays I use foxit because it's marginally faster, but I might go back for the better rendering.

Re:Oh dear. (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19800237)

I prefer Foxit too but twice recently it's blue-screened when printing out a particular PDF, for once I'm not blaming Windows. OK, so there's something malformed in the PDF which causes it to barf (Adobe renders it perfectly, of course), but blue-screening is a bit much. A pity as otherwise it's a great replacement. Now returning you to our scheduled topic...

Re:Oh dear. (2, Informative)

anethema (99553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799441)

(Adobe Reader is her latest pet-hate, and understandably so)
Actually, adobe reader comes with a lot of cruft you can do without. Just hold shift while starting it and it will start MUCH faster and take less resources.

Alternately there are a few programs out there you can google for that will remove the cruft permanently :)

Music Match (1)

Mike_Shane (10477) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798753)

Seriously they should stop with the term upgrade. I never really used the service here in Canada but the mp3 conversion program worked just too well to trust it to survive an "upgrade" so I didn't bite. This becomes another example of how we are slowly losing, know what I mean?

Yahoo! sucks (4, Interesting)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798765)

Every time I hear about Yahoo! buying up some part of the internet, a little part of me dies inside. Every single thing they acquire gets made worse as a result. Flickr, OneList/eGroups, etc. It's sad, back when Yahoo! was a search engine + portal, they were probably the most useful web site on the internet, but after google eclipsed their search capability, they quickly became useless to me, despite every attempt they've made at staying relevant by offering email and IM services, etc. They're almost as bad as AOL these days.

Useful Yahoo bits (4, Informative)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799577)

Yahoo shopping: Good comparison site with lots of smaller stores. Use in conjunction with Amazon.
My.Yahoo: As far as bandwidth-sucking front pages go, this one is pretty configurable. A pretty good online calendaring app with outlook and palm sync, but a huge bonus is the phone-screen support.
Yahoo Games: A solid little group of online games, better because yahoo provides non-english versions for your friends overseas.

Re:Yahoo! sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19800005)

They're almost as bad as AOL these days.
Worse actually. AOL's TV listings are much more usable than Yahoo's. I never get why they even offer that current piece of crap.

Use Winamp... It's better. (3, Insightful)

sjs132 (631745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798771)

I've had problems with MusicMatch bloat for about 2 years now... EVERY TIME I would launch it, it would take so long to go out and "update" streams, etc.. So I finally gave up. I HAD bought the LIFETIME upgrade YEARS ago on it.. so if someone wants to buy my key...

On the other side, WINAMP is awsome... Supports MORE formats than MusicMatch, and has shoutcast, etc.. Again, software worth supporting.

Plus cool skins in Winamp... DUMP Musicmatch and pick up Winamp, you'll be happy when you need to access you music on the windows platform with it.


These days, Winamp also suffers from bloat (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798845)

Get the latest 2.x version you can find. Really lightweight and supports a lot of audio formats.

Later versions suck by comparison.

Re:These days, Winamp also suffers from bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19799113)

Winamp's later versions aren't all bad. 2.x doesn't have the Media Library, which is a vital component of ANY media player. You have to have an easy way of accessing your music and videos, don't you? It also doesn't support freeform skins, which is another vital component of Winamp 5. There are a lot of freeform skins out there for Winamp that also keep it low on PC resources: Any skin by [] on Deviantart, for instance, only makes use of the main window and nothing more, making it resource-friendly.

Re:These days, Winamp also suffers from bloat (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799237)

I'm pretty sure that the last 2.x has the Media Library. And you don't need freeform skins. Personally, I think just conforming to the platform's UI guidelines is much better.

Re:These days, Winamp also suffers from bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19799631)


Re:These days, Winamp also suffers from bloat (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799807)

what's wrong with a file system? it is pretty much the easiest way to access my music and video.

Re:These days, Winamp also suffers from bloat (1)

DohnJoe (900898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799393)

no need, just take the latest version, but during installation don't select the new skin support. It runs just as snappy as always, plus, it has better codecs support (vorbis).

Re:Use Winamp... It's better. (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798919)

I used to use Winamp as my media player (also used MMJB around the 1990s I think) and, after trying several Media players to replace Winamp (I dont like Winamp media library management) I kept returning to Winamp + folders. That is until I read here on slashdot about MediaMonkey [] , I *really* really recommend it, I have been using it for about 1 year and I do not regret it. I still have Winamp installed but never really use it. I use MediaMonkey for my music library and VLC for video.

Of course if you are on linux amarok might work for you... I have always felt it is very unstable and "fragile" as it keeps crashing on me whenever I use it.

Re:Use Winamp... It's better. (1)

spamking (967666) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799509)

I'll second this recommendation for MediaMonkey. It's a great program.

I used MusicMatch quite some time ago and can't really complain about how it performed back then, but over the last few years it definitely started sucking resources.

I switched to iTunes (2, Interesting)

Goldenhawk (242867) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799207)

I also purchased the full version of MMJB a few versions ago - I think it was version 8 - because I really liked it, much better than WinAmp or other (at the time) available alternatives. I even recommended it to family, and on my music-related website.

Version 9 had some nice new features, together with some added annoyances and nags. I was still sort of happy.

But then version 10 came out... and within weeks I'd uninstalled it and gone back to version 9 (I'm glad I keep copies of my downloaded install programs). Way too many bugs, much slower, many new added nags even in a paid version. And many of the real obvious bugs in version 9 were still present in version 10. Geez, guys, fix the product FIRST, and THEN add features!

But even dealing with version 9 was no longer quite so painless - I now knew that the problems in version 9 would never be fixed. And when we bought an iPod, and had to install iTunes, we never looked back... pretty soon both of our PCs were running iTunes, sharing music with our Roku SoundBridge and syncing our three iPods...

It was a real shame to watch such a decent product decay into such a sorry state.

Re:I switched to iTunes (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19799611)

> But then version 10 came out... and within weeks I'd uninstalled it and gone back to version 9 (I'm glad I keep copies of my downloaded install programs). Way too many bugs, much slower, many new added nags even in a paid version.

...and that is why I will never pay for anything delivered as "software as a service", "web apps", and/or DRM schemes like Valve's Steam, for anything I plan to rely on.

Too many upgrades these days are downgrades. Fuck the marketing shits. Gimme bits on my hard drive that I can use to re-create whatever version of an app that I think was best, even in the absence of an internet connection.

Re:I switched to iTunes (1)

denverradiosucks (653647) | more than 7 years ago | (#19800027)

Geez, guys, fix the product FIRST, and THEN add features!

I ran MMJB back from 2000-2002. I liked it but I had the exact same complaint. When the new version came out, it got bigger and slower. When you're a big company, and you are aiming at end users, the assumption is people want more and more features to compete with the other guys. The problem is this is a product run by marketing, not a department of programmers.

Re:Use Winamp... It's better. (1)

Nerftoe (74385) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799743)

Win-amp? Sounds fancy. I am still using Winplay3 [] on my Packard Bell 90 Mhz Pentium.

Can't...parse... (5, Funny)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#19800097)

I HAD bought the LIFETIME upgrade YEARS ago on it..

Dude, you type like Shatner talks.

Re:Use Winamp... It's better. (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 7 years ago | (#19800115)

On the other side, WINAMP is awsome... Supports MORE formats than MusicMatch, and has shoutcast, etc.
I can see from your POST that you're a BIG FAN of SHOUTCAST.

Not to mention (4, Interesting)

mpickut (721322) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798777)

Not to mention that it forces you to see their ads every time you start up. Music Match let you start in your music library, but now you see Yahoo's shilling for their products. Their radio stations put ads after every 3 or 4 songs unless you upgrade to their service too. Can anyone suggest another product for me on xp that has comparable features?

Re:Not to mention (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799085)

Not sure what features you use, but have you tried winamp [] . With the various add-ins winamp can duplicate almost everything listed in the original post.

Snicker (1)

B1ackDragon (543470) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798793)

Ok, ok, so it's probably because I haven't used it for about 7 years, but I hated that program with a passion. In fact, I still blame that program for every shitty, joint stereo, artifact laden mp3 on the internet.

Please ignore the irrationality of any opinions stated or implied herein.

Re:Snicker (2, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798861)

What's wrong with joint stereo?!? I know that using a crappy encoder it can make things worse, but that's no reason to blame the feature. In fact using a good encoder like LAME or Fraunhoffer it makes things significantly better because it only goes to joint stereo when the channels are truly the same leaving more bits in the bucket to encode the detail in the music.

Re:Snicker (1)

B1ackDragon (543470) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799333)

Heh, parent correct.

For those interested, see the wiki [] , or this page. [] "Joint Stereo" can refer to a number of techniques, some of which work better than others, and some implimentations are better than others. I had incorrectly assumed it to be a compression feature not worth the bit savings ~ and it's MusicMatch's fault ;-)

not exactly new news (2, Interesting)

eck011219 (851729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798825)

I "upgraded" to Yahoo Music Jukebox about five to six months ago when I reinstalled Windows. I just went to what I thought would be MusicMatch and found this Yahoo thing -- I thought it would be roughly the same, but it stinks. The constant badgering to upgrade to the premium service is hard to take. Sadly, iTunes stinks just as much in different ways.

Link, Please (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798863)

Anyone out there have a link to the last known "good" version? I haven't used it in a while and would like to get the penultimate uncrippled version. For the archives, yeah, that's it, the archives...

Re:Link, Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19798889) []

Re:Link, Please (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798953)

OK, good resource. Now, WHICH version is the last known good one? There is a list of about 15 different ones. I'm guessing it's the 2nd to last one - the final version listed got cut down to 10M from 24M. Anyone know for sure?

Re:Link, Please (1)

minvaren (854254) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799045)

Version 8.2 or so - it's the last one that will allow unlimited auto-tagging, to the best of my knowledge.

Re:Link, Please (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799545)

Apparently, they promptly went and passworded all the OLD archived versions! Dicks!!

Re:Link, Please (2, Informative)

Fulg (138866) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798943)

Anyone out there have a link to the last known "good" version?
Have a look at [] ...

Re:Link, Please (2, Informative)

pclark999 (603133) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798949)

Re:Link, Please (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799655)

BZZZZT. The download link refers to an "external site" which refers back to the page you gave, in an endless stupid loop. Any other ideas - the links have been passworded so you can't get the archived versions anymore.

Stopped long ago (5, Insightful)

Ollabelle (980205) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798887)

I stopped upgrading Musicmatch years ago by permanently blocking it from accessing the internet, back when I discovered the 'old' version ripped iTunes CD's and the 'new' didn't; it was a free no-choice-in-the-matter 'upgrade.' At that moment I learned my lesson and got off the upgrade train for all my applications unless and until I understood what was changing and why ahead of time.

Re:Stopped long ago (2, Informative)

pclark999 (603133) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798921)

It is possible to rip CD's created by iTunes. You have to turn off iTunes before running Musicmatch.

Re:Stopped long ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19798977)

At that moment I learned my lesson and got off the upgrade train for all my applications unless and until I understood what was changing and why ahead of time.
You're one step closer to the FOSS road. In our world the applications serve us, not some big company's interests, and obey only our commands.

"nothing not to like" -- horses$%^ (2, Insightful)

gonar (78767) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798899)

"nothing not to like" ?!?!?! BULS&*@!

musicmatch was a big hairy craptacular piece of garbage.

Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19798929)

Huh? This is a product made by for-profit entity. The sole purpose of it is to generate revenue. If the user is screwed in the process, well, no big deal.

Re:Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19800213)

Sure, but if you downgrade your product to the point that there are much better alternatives out there, many of your users will switch to the alternatives and they will no longer be providing you with revenue.

Who cares. (3, Interesting)

jgijanto (1125695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798931)

Music match was a bloated piece of shit 4 years ago - I'd hate to see what new "features" were added in that time period!

MMJB has many faults (5, Informative)

phayes (202222) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798933)

There was nothing not to like about the product.
There are many things not to like about MMJB:
Tags that are changed when MMJB is playing a song are not updated in the MP3 files themselves. The Library is updated, but not the files.
Versions before 9.0 had multiple libraries which I used extensively. MMJB 10.0 only has 1 library.
MMJB used to have skins that were well documented & easily changeable. No longer.
MMJB used to be a fairly lightweight audio player. MMJB has multiple background processes that must run on system startup.
These daemon processes are the cause on 90% of MMJB's crashes.
These daemon processes do not die easily causing slow reboots (you usually have to kill the processes off when after 30 seconds of inactivity windows notes that they didn't die when asked "nicely").
These daemon processes prevent external volumes like USB disks & keys from unmounting cleanly, so you have to kill them off by hand.
The one task that the deamon processes are supposed to be useful for from a users point of view (noticing that I renamed/moved files in my MP3 collection using the windows explorer so that MMJB will update the library) does not work reliably. I still have to go in & fix the library by hand.
The Jukebox + features like super tagging that I bought so that I could easily relabel my collection have stopped working because yahoo has turned off the web servers that they rely on.

I have a "lifetime" MMJB+ license without any of the DRM'ed "On Demand" features. I tried the Yahoo client and agree with BanjoBob that for me at least, is worse than MMJB.

Maybe not an upgrade but a new app (2, Insightful)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799369)

From the parent post of changed features I would suspect they either re-wrote the app, or replaced it and attempted to make it somewhat similar. Probably because they don't have the original crew to maintain the original code anymore. Happens too often.

Re:Maybe not an upgrade but a new app (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799597)

According to what Yahoo reps have been saying in the ~ 2 years since they bought MM, they were taking all the best features of MMJB & integrating them into Yahoo's existing client. I'm not impressed with their "integration" of MMJB's "best features". I'm subscribed to a Musicmatch mailing list @home with the detailed info, but from what everyone has been saying there, The only significant advantage in the new Yahoo client is Yahoo's DRM'ed OnDemand music subscription which has a better collection than MMJB's.

Don't forget (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#19800195)

It comes bundled on some PCs--my church PC had it--which automatically degrades it down to the level of slime in my eyes, regardless of whether or not it is a good product. It was quickly uninstalled.

Songbird (2, Interesting)

DomesticatedOnion (794185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19798979)

Yeah! MusicMatch does everything, but everything badly. Try Mozilla based, cross-platform Songbird []

Re:Songbird (1)

cooley (261024) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799855)

Hey thanks buddy, I had not heard of Songbird and it looks pretty neat. I'd be pleased to have a player that would have a similar interface no matter which OS I'm using.

Free Upgrade? (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799041)

I don't get it. How can a "free" upgrade cost money? Is there some loophole in trade law that allows this?

Comparison of Windows Media Players (5, Informative)

pclark999 (603133) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799115)

I recently experienced the Musicmatch downgrade. As a result, I went out and collected Windows-based MP3 players. Here are my conclusions: 1. Musicmatch v10. - didn't work well with large MP3 libraries. The librarian program (MIM.EXE) had a nasty habit of hanging the whole system. Has my personal favorite music browsing interface, a tree with Artist/Album/Songs 2. iTunes v7.2 - only interface to the iTunes store, which is the best MP3 storefront I have found. Has a nasty habit of using 100% of system resources whenever it wants to. I dislike the browser interface. DRM'd to the max. I only use this to manage my iPod and buy music. 3. WinAmp v5.35 - heavily customizable, but I could never figure out how to implement my favored music browsing interface. Too damn many Windows. 4. MediaMonkey v2.5.5 - my new favorite player. Gives me the Music Explorer Tree. Fast. Let's me play music and playlists from my iPod, which even iTunes won't let me do. Reasonable ripping. 5. Windows Media Player v11 - Slick looking user interface. Lousy music browser. Also DRM'd to the max. A Microsoft product - need I say more? 6. Yahoo MusicMatch - Don't know the version because it pissed me off so much I deleted it from my computer. This player has the music player trifecta - DRM'd, slow, lousy interface. Oh yes, and it deluges you with annoying adds. Avoid this player like the plague. Bottomline - if they had just FIXED MusicMatch v10, I think it would have been the best of the lot. Instead, Yahoo replaced it with some crap they scraped off the sidewalk. I'm trapped with iTunes to manage my iPod, although I suspect that if I screw around with MediaMonkey it will do that, too. Use WinAmp if you like blinking lights and pretty pictures. Otherwise, MediaMonkey is the best of the lot.

At one time, even Apple used Musicmatch Jukebox! (2, Informative)

bomanbot (980297) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799123)

Remember when a specially modified version of Musicmatch was the official software for the Windows version of the iPod?

Apple did that because the had no port of iTunes for Windows yet and so they bundled a special version of the Musicmatch software with their Windows iPods. I remember reviews of that time comparing Musicmatch with iTunes and at that point Musicmatch was actually halfway decent (still couldnt hold a candle to iTunes though).

Sadly, it all got downhill after that...

Re:At one time, even Apple used Musicmatch Jukebox (1)

Prophet of Nixon (842081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799691)

MMJB got bad around the same time its original programmer 'accidentally' drowned in a lake. Look it up sometime. It was already bad at the time it came with the iPod (of course, that generation of iPod was also a POS and iTunes was and is no better).

Media Monkey (2, Informative)

KenAndCorey (581410) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799505)

I was frustrated by MMJB for quite a while, but I couldn't find another product that tagged my files as well. I finally gave up when the application would just crash on me at start-up. I have finally found my nirvana: MediaMonkey [] . I only use the free version and it does everything I want, including helping with renaming, creating folders based on ID3 info, searching for duplicates, adding album artwork, conversion from flac and other formats to MP3. I highly recommend it.

Not a new thing for Yahoo (1)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799639)

Gamers remember The All-Seeing Eye [] , which for a time was the single best server browser on the market. It started out life as a shareware product and the owner eventually sold it to Yahoo, staying on for a time as the developer. Yahoo's support for the product waned, the developer moved on, and the product hasn't seen an update in years. Yahoo is good at buying out products and letting them die, it seems.

The Death of MusicMatch.... (4, Insightful)

Bunderfeld (1113805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799683)

I have used MusicMatch since it's inception, and loved it. My friends all sword by WINAMP and others, but there was something about MusicMatch that was more appealing.

You COULD RIP CD's, download network stream music and save it to your Music Library so it will always be there, Play Radio of your Favorite Music Genre, and loads of other things.

Now, after "upgrading" here's what I get. Constant stream interruption from Yahoo, as they must check my "license". LESS music from the UNLIMITED listen area. Before you could find just about ANYONE, now, IF you find your favorite 60's band (shut up, it's already established that I'm old), you are lucky if there are more then 8 tracks for you to choose. Just this past evening (I'm suffering thru some insomnia) I was listening to the "Classic Rock" channel and no less then 4 times did the Stream stop because Yahoo was trying to check for a license. Apparently they were having trouble checking, because I was told the music stopped because they couldn't find a license for it. The instructions on the screen said I should DOWNGRADE my MusicMatch to 8.1 and use it instead.

I really was hopeful that since Yahoo took things over, they might actually improve the service; although it didn't need MUCH improvement. As it stands right now though, when September 1 comes (my due date for renewal) if things haven't changed, I'll be looking for a new music streaming source, suggestions friends?

Music Match? . . . Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19799781)

Music Match is a terrible piece of software. It has always been a terrible piece of software. The only reason I used it was the transfer of MP3s to some MP3 players that required it.

I would rather decode MP3s by hand than use Music Match.

WinAmp, even with its current bloat, is superior.

Windows Media Player, which I loathe, is superior.

I have seen nothing inferior to Music Match.

Heck, I would rather NOT listen to music than use Music Match.

If the choice is listening to music on Music Match or silence, I choose silence.

musicmatch hasn't been good (1)

teflaime (738532) | more than 7 years ago | (#19799999)

since the mid about 95 or so, it was a fairly light weight, well put together little audio program/ripper. That's at about version 3 or 4. After that the code bloat set in and it was inundated with unnecessary, system slowing features that ruined it for its original purpose (probably at the behest of big media, I'm sure). Winamp was arguably better all along, but I thought Musicmatch was easier to use until about 96 or so. C'est la vie.

People like musicmatch? (1)

Taxis (1096523) | more than 7 years ago | (#19800089)

Seven years ago, I remember using musicmatch and having serious issues with it. I guess it was ok, but I can't see someone saying 'whats not to like' about it, much in the same way there was nothing to like about quicktime or realplayer.

Forget Musicmatch, use Musikcube! (2, Informative)

Lxy (80823) | more than 7 years ago | (#19800101)

Musicmatch 6.0 or so was an awesome player. It tied media into a nice clean interface, gave options to rip CDs, managed your library, etc. Fantastic piece of software.

When Musicmatch 7 rolled around, it was obvious that it was turning into bloatware. The interface was getting bloated and cumbersome, and as I recall it went from annoying (would you like to upgrade?) to flat out nagware (do you want to buy album? Do you want to download music like this for $xx?, etc). Beyond that, I haven't touched the software because once it started sporting the Yahoo! banner I knew it was complete garbage.

So, in my search for a Windows based music player, I happened across musikCube. It's a music player with most of the features of MusicMatch, 100% free, BSD licensed, and even supports ogg vorbis. Here's the Sourceforge [] page.

Screw Musicmatch, Winamp, Windows Media Player. Give me musikCube!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>