On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:47:18 +0000 Yorvyk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:13:22 +0100 > Julien Lavergne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Le lundi 15 novembre 2010 à 09:43 -0300, Jean-Pierre Vidal Piesset a > > écrit : > > > But let me tell you that the behaviour of Audacious compared to these > > > two others is far better. Is there something that i'm missing with > > > this program? > > > > I also try audacious, and the result was not so fantastic : CPU 22%, RAM > > 27 Mb. It's similar to aqualung. > > > > To see a real boost ... try to use gnome-mplayer : CPU 6%, RAM 15 Mb ! > > But the bad point is that the GUI is not really good when you use it as > > a music player. > > > I’ve tried Audacious as well, and get results some where in between Aqualung > and DeadBeef. As I said earlier, there isn’t really much to choose from > between them and none really shines above the others. > > Don’t know why I sent the previous message before finishing it. I have used Aqualung, Audacious & DeadBeef throughout today for listening to a great variety of music, podcasts and the live stream of Linux Outlaws. and all of them coped perfectly well. The one area they struggled with was the initial scanning of my music collection, currently nearly 28,000 tracks at 200 GiB. I abandoned it after a couple of hours as none appeared to be more than ⅓ the way through, Rhythmbox only takes 2 hours from a clean install. I don’t really organise my music with the player, so didn’t investigate that side of things. Generally I just want the player to play tracks at random while I’m working at the computer and all of them did this. I’ll leave others, who need play lists, etc. to discuss those aspects. -- Steve Cook (Yorvyk) http://lubuntu.net _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
