I decided to dig a bit more on this, mostly to close the discussion :) As the direct performance is the same for the 3 players, I made a review adding some others features and important informations :
== Performance, using top == On a 2 Ghz, 6Gb RAM, 64 bits configuration VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 754m 29m 18m S 3 0.5 0:01.32 audacious 680m 26m 16m S 3 0.4 0:01.56 deadbeef-main 584m 36m 22m S 3 0.6 0:01.60 aqualung On a EEEPC 701 (1Ghz, 512 Mb RAM, 32 bits) VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 176m 27m 13m S 23.5 5.6 0:23.65 aqualung 163m 16m 11m S 21.1 3.3 0:04.07 audacious2 184m 22m 12m S 23.8 4.6 0:04.27 deadbeef-main ==> Not a big difference, audacious a little (but really little) better == Big playlist loading == Trying to load a big collection of music on my big configuration : Audacious : Fast (a few seconds) Deadbeef : Slow (many seconds) Aqualung : No options available to load subdirectory == Maintained Upstream ? == Is Upstream active : Audacious : Yes (stable, less development) Aqualung : Yes (stable, slow development) Deadbeef : Yes (young, development very active) == Maintained in Debian / Ubuntu ? == Is it maintained on Ubuntu / Debian by someone else (it's a good point in my POV) ? Audacious : Yes (by the Multimedia teams) Aqualung : Yes, but not on any team. Deadbeef : No == Skin / Themable == Is it easy to add a custom theme ? Audacious : Yes Aqualung : Yes (but difficult) Deadbeef : No == Keybinding == Is it able to use key-bindings ? Audacious Yes (with a plugin) Deadbeef No (or doesn't work) Aqualung No == Notifications == Is it using the notifications specs (notification-daemon or notify-osd) ? Deadbeef Yes (with a plugin) Aqualung No Audacious No Conclusion : Regarding the direct performance, there is not a big difference. But IMO Audacious have several advantages over the 2 others : - More mature + more maintenance on the Debian / Ubuntu side + probably more users - Skinnable (which should please Rafael ;-)) - Key-binbings We have until Wednesday to think about it. Regards, Julien Lavergne Le mercredi 24 novembre 2010 à 08:49 -0300, Jean-Pierre Vidal Piesset a écrit : > Hiyas everybody: > > > I picked another PC to see how is the resource consumption changing > depending on the hardware, and the result is this: > > > On a new machine (AMD Turion Dual Core M520, 3GB RAM ~ Lubuntu 10.10) > Aqualung 4%CPU 32RAM > Deadbeef 4%CPU 25RAM > Audacious 4%CPU 17RAM > > > On my old laptop (P3 700MHZ, 256MB RAM ~ Lubuntu 10.04): > Aqualung 28%CPU 28RAM > Deadbeef 16%CPU 24RAM > Audacious 9%CPU 19RAM > > > Freshly installed Audacious consumes a little more RAM, i think > because is doing something on the background... can you check again > for it Julien? For me, first run was about 28RAM and minutes later and > all the runs after that were about 18RAM. > > > I'll try to send a report from the computers i have acces to. > Hope it helps on the decision! > > > -- jpxsat > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop > Post to : lubuntu-desktop@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop Post to : lubuntu-desktop@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp