On Thursday 04 January 2007 01:49, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms':
Incidentally, I just did a similar comparison on my machine between
audacious and amarok, and found that amarok consistently uses at least
2.2 times the amount of memory
IMHO audacious is using a perfectly reasonable
amount of resources,
OP here. My original problem was that xmms wouldn't
play wmas and mplayer, which does, sputtered whenever
the hard drive was active.
Following the thread led me to audacious which I
hadn't even heard of.
So far it's
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:43:48 +0100
Robert Cernansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 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
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Barkalow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 December 2006 05:28
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, maxim wexler wrote:
Will audacious not work for you?
Haven't tried yet
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 to be similar in
features to amarok but lighter in
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 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
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 23:43, Robert Cernansky wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 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
Hi group,
mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't.
Whenever a lot of hard-drive activity takes place on
my PC, mplayer faulters and sputters. I have to run
xmms if I want uninterrupted music. And this is a
fairly up-to-date unit with a Gig o' RAM.
If I want shuffle mode I must first open
On 12/29/06, maxim wexler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi group,
mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't.
Whenever a lot of hard-drive activity takes place on
my PC, mplayer faulters and sputters. I have to run
xmms if I want uninterrupted music. And this is a
fairly up-to-date unit with a
On Friday 29 December 2006 19:23, maxim wexler wrote:
mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't.
[SNIP]
So why don't you just keep using xmms? Do you have any problems with it?
mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus.
Doesn't the xmms-wma plugin work for you?
$ eix -c xmms-wma
[N]
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 10:23 -0800, maxim wexler wrote:
Hi group,
mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't.
Whenever a lot of hard-drive activity takes place on
my PC, mplayer faulters and sputters. I have to run
xmms if I want uninterrupted music. And this is a
fairly up-to-date unit
So why don't you just keep using xmms? Do you have
any problems with it?
mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus.
Doesn't the xmms-wma plugin work for you?
No. It just skips the wmas.
$ eix -c xmms-wma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ eix -c xmms-wma
[I] media-plugins/xmms-wma (1.0.5): XMMS
Will audacious not work for you?
Haven't tried yet. Fellow down the list says it's a
resource hog like mplayer.
Maxim
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, maxim wexler wrote:
Will audacious not work for you?
Haven't tried yet. Fellow down the list says it's a
resource hog like mplayer.
I don't have xmms any more to compare against, but audacious seems to be
almost identical to it as far as I can tell. As far as memory
14 matches
Mail list logo
