On 2007-01-04, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious
being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single
one of them is wrong and this myth really needs to be
debunked. Here's why:
I agree. I'm still using xmms so I
On 2007-01-04, Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks, nice to have some terminal ouput sent along to
substantiate this discussion! i like the 'mem window' a lot.
top is cool...
VMS used to have a very cool program that would watch the
address space of a specified process. It displayed a live
On 2007-01-03, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 15:17, Nelson, David (ED, PARD) wrote:
I moved to amarok, I might give audacious a shot.
What about noatun for a smallish player? Not sure on it's RAM usage.
Also look at Quod Libet or Banshee which are meant
Hi,
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:27:41 + (UTC) Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The X server is using 56M of virtual memory with 33M resident
and 10M shared. Audacious is using 58M of with 14M resident
and 10M shared.
possibly shared, to be exact. Whether it actually _is_ shared is not
On 2006-12-29, Mark M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about media-sound/audacious ?
its a nice and lightweight player.
Lightweight??
It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a
virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M. The only
thing with a slightly larger resident size
On 12/29/06, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-12-29, Mark M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about media-sound/audacious ?
its a nice and lightweight player.
Lightweight??
It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a
virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of
He may have meant lightweight as in easy to use. And compared to mplayer it
is lightweight on the memory side.
On 12/29/06, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-12-29, Mark M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about media-sound/audacious ?
its a nice and lightweight player.
On 2006-12-29, Ryan Crisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He may have meant lightweight as in easy to use. And compared
to mplayer it is lightweight on the memory side.
On my system mplayer uses about 1/3 the memory that audacious
does, but that's the non-gui version of mplayer -- I don't
think
On Friday 29 December 2006 18:50, Mark M wrote:
On 12/29/06, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-12-29, Mark M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about media-sound/audacious ?
its a nice and lightweight player.
Lightweight??
It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system
On 2006-12-29, Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about media-sound/audacious ?
its a nice and lightweight player.
Lightweight??
It's the biggest virtual memory user on my system with a
virtial set size of 58M and resident set size of 14M. The only
thing with a slightly larger resident
On Friday 29 December 2006 14:42, Mick wrote:
I'm missing xmms too. I hope xmms2 will eventually be developed enough to
use as a stable package, but without the bloatware that winamp has become.
xmms2 is nothing like the first version. It is a client / daemon setup really.
Few users of xmms1
11 matches
Mail list logo
