hi
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> I upgraded to xmms and I'd like to go back to x11amp.
> >> xmms uses about 30% of my 233cyrix's cycles.
> >
> > that looks like quite consistent numb
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I upgraded to xmms and I'd like to go back to x11amp.
>> xmms uses about 30% of my 233cyrix's cycles.
>
> that looks like quite consistent number. On my cyrix-333
> i usually got 18-19%.
I installed the la
As far as I know, X11amp is being replaced with XMMS. Take a look at:
www.xmms.org
Trying to access www.X11amp.org will take you to XMMS also.
On 05-Jul-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I upgraded to xmms and I'd like to go back to x11amp.
> xmms uses about 30% of my 233cyrix's cycles. I don't
>
hi
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I upgraded to xmms and I'd like to go back to x11amp.
> xmms uses about 30% of my 233cyrix's cycles.
that looks like quite consistent number. On my cyrix-333
i usually got 18-19%.
> I don't
> think x11amp used more than a couple percent.
i be
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 02:03:16AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I upgraded to xmms and I'd like to go back to x11amp.
> xmms uses about 30% of my 233cyrix's cycles. I don't
> think x11amp used more than a couple percent.
One of the bugs in x11amp was that it used to mask the CPU usage of the
5 matches
Mail list logo