User "Jon.Kantro" Profile
|
About Jon
|
Real Name:Jon Kantro
Posts:18
|
Last Login:7 May 2008 18:10
|
|
User Reviews
 |
Type: Hint/Tip
Date: 21 Feb 2008 02:12
|
|
Great widget. It does exactly what it was intended to do and more. The only thing I would suggest is adding a 4 or 5 second delay in adding the lyrics to the metadata in itunes, otherwise it causes a little pause in the song. |
 |
Type: Hint/Tip
Date: 12 Jan 2008 13:38
|
|
Awesome! You are certainly a top-notch developer as you listen to your users and in a quick, responsive, and friendly way! Anyway thanks for the update and trying to improve last.fm support. Regards, Jon Kantro |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 12 Jan 2008 13:10
|
|
Thank you for acknowledging my response. Hope to see this get implemented properly :) . |
| |
Type: Hint/Tip
Date: 12 Jan 2008 12:51
|
|
To the developer: If you are going to have last.fm support in your application, please use the proper protocol and methods. Right now your application is sending submissions after a track has just been played for 10 seconds. To quote Audioscrobbler protocol, "The track must have been played for a duration of at least 240 seconds or half the track's total length, whichever comes first. Skipping or pausing the track is irrelevant as long as the appropriate amount has been played." I would love to use your application, but I can't due to this. For more information on the Audioscrobbler protocol (v1.2) http://www.audioscrobbler.net/development/protocol/ |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 2 May 2006 23:15
|
|
the only thing holding me back from this browser is RSS |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 22 Feb 2006 10:52
|
|
I'm using adium and It doesn't seem to be working with it. Nothing happens to my buddyicon at all. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 18 Feb 2006 16:48
|
|
except ive been looking for a whole application rather than a menu item. the only thing i realized this needs is the specific capability of playing a song of your choice rather than a playlist. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 30 Jan 2006 21:08
|
|
Well my personal view on this browse as files. Great concept, great design, decent functionality (site loading speed) , talented developers, not worth a pricetag (this is my personal view on all browsers), has great potential. Now I had read other harsh reviews about how this wasn't worth any money. I feel that no browser is worth money. Why? If you look at OmniWeb and compare it to others, it isn't that great compared to them and it's shareware. I can understand that the developers of this browser are young and want to earn some money but this definately is not the right market to do so. If it was an application like BeerAlchemy, which is in its own specific market and there aren't many competitors that can live up to it due to it's UI and functionality (in which this case DeskBrowse does except their are browser that are similiar or plug ins that do the same for free). Yeah I'm rambling but I think you get the idea. |
 |
Type: Developer
Date: 18 Dec 2005 17:14
|
|
We do realize that we have a major problem with the application constantly crashing on some peoples machines. Currently we are planning on either re-writing the core code of Solarseek or are going to look in depth at the core code or connections (binds the interface and the code together). We know that one of these is causing the application to crash and are sorry for the inconvenience. -Jon Kantro |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 13 Dec 2005 14:21
|
|
and the probelm with independent software is what exactly? |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 13 Dec 2005 14:18
|
| Features: |  |
| Ease of Use: | |
| Value: |  |
| Stability: | |
|
well as a friend of the developers i know what their take on this subject is. some of the adium developers such as adam iser and evan schoenberg actually have spoken to the fire developers about some of the code. fire has influenced bits of code in adium. there is a great interview with evan schoenberg on the drunkenblog and he mentions that fire and adium have nothing against each other. he says the fire is a polished, stable client in code and thats exactly how its meant to be. think of fire as the father, and adium as the modern day son. they dev team sometimes work with each other but there is no need to join together. fire is meant for the older version of OSX in which i beleive is untrue it all depends on personal and practical use. fire. the reason why fire is still made for that exact reason. if you dont need all the extras, and fire is the way to go. if you want a little more glitz galmor and up to date program adium is the way to go. no hard feelings, at all. the interview that i was talking about can be found here: http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000306.html im sorry if my post made no comprehensible sens but im typing fast in a school library. read the interview though. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 13 Dec 2005 11:23
|
|
adium 1.0 will support real time video due to libgaim 2.0 (what makes all the services of adium work). |
The opinions expressed in the reviews are not necessarily those of MacUpdate.
MacUpdate waives any legal binding related to the comments and opinions expressed in the reviews.
Please contact MacUpdate politely if you wish for a comment to be reviewed by MacUpdate for removal.
Main
