3
« on: September 19, 2009, 19:22:02 »
It isn't that there is a problem. I won't say that. I love how great MilkyTracker is, for being a clone. It isn't ugly like MadTracker or something like that. I love the original interface of FT2. MilkyTracker works, I am sure everyone who has used it will admit that.
Again there is no problem. I just think that (re)creating the original interface would be very nice.
MilkyTracker's GUI has it's own plus's and minus's compared to FT2. FT2, had such a simple interface how everything was vertical. I prefer that to the horizontal interface of MT. I feel everything is more cramped (even when I run it at 1920x1200, with bigger font for pattern). I won't say that MT has an unusable interface, it is perfectly usable. This is out of personal prefrences. Sure though if I want to run FT2, I do have an old DOS computer for it, RAD, and Impulse (and other demotools). But that is at 125mHz.
MT has very nice changes however, I will say that. At top with 'Song Title' I like how you can click to change the Title/Time/View Peak. However, the main problem (for me) comes with the buttons. Pat, Pos, Stop, Rec, Add, Sub are too close together (again, for me). I very much like the vertical view for Instruments and Samples, compared to the Horizontal view. I also like having the few buttons to view the instruments/samples (for me, I am not a fan of the scroll bar. Takes away IMO). I also am in love with the fact I don't have to see the scopes.
The top left (where it shows frames) is much better in MT. One of the things I would LOVE to see put in MT however is the fact that in FT2, they show 00, 01, etc on the left AND right. That I love.
I would just prefer the classical interface compared to the interface on MT. Skale(is dead IMO) and looks too, new. MT is classic which is good. This is not a slap in the face or an insult to MT. MT's sound and such is wonderful. Just for me the interface is much better on FT. I am not trying to push it on anyone. Just a preference for me.
