WMP10 doesn't remember Sort by title

The problem is in the library/all videos-section and sorting video files by
title.
Everytime I open WMP10, it forgets that I had them sorted by title. Now they
are in some kind of random order. (I haven't made any playlists, I just want
all the videos to be sorted alphabetically by title.)
When I click the Title field, it sorts them by title as it should.

So is there a way to make wmp remember that all videos are organized by title?

pk wrote:
> The problem is in the library/all videos-section and sorting video files by
> title.
> Everytime I open WMP10, it forgets that I had them sorted by title. Now they
> are in some kind of random order. (I haven't made any playlists, I just want
> all the videos to be sorted alphabetically by title.)
> When I click the Title field, it sorts them by title as it should.
>
> So is there a way to make wmp remember that all videos are organized by title?

No. It was "optimisation" for v10, so that it does what you don't want,
faster.

I have exactly the same problem. I bet yours are listed in file size order -
of no interest to anyone. I rearrange them in alphabetical order and then,
the next time I opened WMP-10, they are back in file-size "random" order.

WMP is too complicated. MS are too clever for their (our) own good. What I
would like is a player that just has a volume and shuffle control. All this
library business is a waste of time if you have your music in a dedicated
folder already. It just adds to the possibility of things going wrong and
prevents customisations.

I symapthise. I'm irritated aswell. If I find a work around I will let you
know.

Alex Gladwell

A question for Mike Williams who replied earlier that "No. It was
"optimisation" for v10, so that it does what you don't want, faster" (Mind
you, I think his quotation marks indicate his answer was slightly tongue in
cheak) ---

How do you go about finding a titile if you have literally hundreds of
tracks if they are not in alphabetical order? Is this making things faster?

There must be a way round this. It must be possible for the display to be
customised for human needs - ie alphabetically.

Alex Gladwell wrote:
> A question for Mike Williams who replied earlier that "No. It was
> "optimisation" for v10, so that it does what you don't want, faster" (Mind
> you, I think his quotation marks indicate his answer was slightly tongue in
> cheak) ---
>
> How do you go about finding a titile if you have literally hundreds of
> tracks if they are not in alphabetical order? Is this making things faster?

It's very hard. Search is abysmally slow, and doesn't work across all
the track meta-data. For example, you can't search by composer, which is
a top-level category in WMP 10! Search is great in iTunes, but there are
many significant feature trade-offs required to use that software.

> There must be a way round this. It must be possible for the display to be
> customised for human needs - ie alphabetically.

Well obviously it can, by sorting each time you get a view. This of
course is very unsatisfactory.

Supposedly there are performance improvements for larger libraries (I
have over 30000 tracks) in the next version, but as to whether or not
they will be more usable, is to be seen.

A small update to WMP v10 was promised last year* by the head of Windows
Division, but nothing eventuated. That may be because he's announced his
retirement and is now considered a lame duck. A question remains also as
to whether the next version of WMP is available off Windows Vista. If
not, then Windows XP users will be in the same boat as Windows 2000
users who cannot avail themselves of bug fixes as they're tied to a
major version change and a newer platform.

*http://thomashawk.com/2005/04/micros...o-windows.html

"Mike Williams" <mikew@m-v-p-s.org.null> wrote in message
news:43B8114B.8000400@m-v-p-s.org.null...
> A small update to WMP v10 was promised last year* by the head of Windows
> Division, but nothing eventuated. That may be because he's announced his
> retirement and is now considered a lame duck.

> *http://thomashawk.com/2005/04/micros...o-windows.html

I would imagine that this was the 3802 release of WMP that he was referring
to? It was aimed at compatibility with devices, which is why it's a
fundamental part of the "EZCD" kit sent to vendors. So definitely a small
win for a huge number of customers? Or something like that.

-Zach
--
(speaking for myself and doing this in my free time)
See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

zachd [ms] wrote:
> "Mike Williams" <mikew@m-v-p-s.org.null> wrote in message
> news:43B8114B.8000400@m-v-p-s.org.null...
>
>>A small update to WMP v10 was promised last year* by the head of Windows
>>Division, but nothing eventuated. That may be because he's announced his
>>retirement and is now considered a lame duck.
>
>
>>*http://thomashawk.com/2005/04/micros...o-windows.html
>
>
> I would imagine that this was the 3802 release of WMP that he was referring
> to? It was aimed at compatibility with devices, which is why it's a
> fundamental part of the "EZCD" kit sent to vendors. So definitely a small
> win for a huge number of customers? Or something like that.
>
> -Zach


I think the implication from Allchin (and private communications) was
that it was going to address some of the library issues that Thomas and
I were blogging about.