Just curious and feeling bored :-D

I still use winamp 2. It starts instantly and takes negligible memory compared to winamp 5 ;)

What do u use?
Posted on 2005-02-19 16:40:15 by clippy
Winamp 5 does the same, provided you use the classic skin.
Posted on 2005-02-19 18:15:09 by death
I like itune because it helps me organise my music. (I know I am lazy) :-D
Posted on 2005-02-19 20:57:26 by roticv
Winamp 5 for me, it does the job and I really don't care too much about the memory used. It seems to load OK for me, though I use the classic skin. Though in reality, for all the time I spend listening to music on my PC, which is almost never, any one would probably do.
Posted on 2005-02-19 21:05:26 by donkey
WinAmp 5 with the neat skin, docked on top of the screen. Appears to be using a whopping 3 MB of memory on standby ;) and 12 when playing an mp3.
Posted on 2005-02-19 21:38:53 by JimmyClif
I am using Winamp 2, don't see any reasons to move to the Winamp 5.
But, this doesnt mean that I am satisfied using it.
I have about 9300 tracks in my playlist. And I get more and more...
And the more I have the more I am annoyed of organizing my playlist. I've tried to use some plugins, but all of them was stupid and almost useless... so the main conclusion: When you have such large amount of tracks the most necessary feature in a player is organizing of these tracks. it is 100%. So, I'm looking forward to find another player...

Also, I like Winamp for plugins. I've written my own plugin for copying current track name and for enabling global control of the winamp.

Didnt see iTunes.. I'll take a look :)
Posted on 2005-02-20 06:25:08 by xor_eax
Winamp5 modern skin HaXb0x, with opacity that changes smoothly depending on focus. I do not use EQ in software, or any plugins for wa5, since my Audigy soundcard has many awesome post-effects you can combine and tweak in any way you like. :-D
Overlapping songs is a must-have. But I'd be most happy with Sonique1.96 if it had hotkeys: ctrl+alt+(left,right, home,end, pageup,pagedown).
I do not use saved playlists - I've sorted my music in several folders, and then just add the whole folder to wa5's playlist.
For online radio, I use wmp6.
Posted on 2005-02-20 14:13:22 by Ultrano
VLC becouse im on linux right now. On Windows Winamp (and who cares about version)
Posted on 2005-02-21 05:38:48 by AceEmbler
Is Winamp already able to quit itself when it has finished the song?
I don't care much about skins because when I listen to the music, my eyes are happier not to watch the screen. So my favourite one is Media Player Classic launched from a batch with
mplayerc.exe /play /close "song.mp3"

see also Talking Player.
Posted on 2005-02-21 14:05:57 by vit$oft
Posted on 2005-02-21 16:53:15 by archphase
Still using winamp 2.91, but I'm considering giving the 5.x series a chance - the ability to queue items from your playlist after the current track (without dragging files around on the playlist) would be the main reason.
Posted on 2005-02-23 06:08:35 by f0dder
I almost never listen to music on pc. But on rare cases when I do - Winamp 5 with ape/flac/mpc plugins and Xmms for linux.
Posted on 2005-02-23 08:35:59 by arafel
i guess winamp is a goooood one
a really one specialized on MP3

media player has some funny stuff that i dont use since i was born
Posted on 2005-02-23 15:49:20 by GR33d
where's the option "i wrote my own mp3player"? :-D ... 8) ...

indeed, windows media player sucks... i plays everything, it sucks too much resources, tough. winamp as well. but at most i need shortcuts that work everywhere.
so i decided to write my personal mp3player - it's just like made for me ^^
it uses virtually no resources and minimal cpu-usage; therefore it starts immediately. however, it's got just the function i need and i felt like programming...

so, if you want a perfect mp3player, you'll have to do it on your own :)
Posted on 2005-02-24 09:38:56 by hartyl
I don't think 1.2meg memory usage (when not showing the GUI) is too bad for a MP3 player (winamp 2.91), and it uses around 0% CPU power (ok, this _is_ a 2.53GHz P4, but still - it never was too bad). WMP, on the other hand, is a completely different story, and it's GUI sucks :)
Posted on 2005-02-24 10:34:18 by f0dder
memory usage is not so important, but cpu usage is. i got 4% on my athlon xp mobile at 400 MHz :) (so the cpu stays cool and the cooler doesn't need to run..)
it was important that i get all the features i'd never have (as nobody would implement them..)

WMP even uses 30-40% just when playing without visuaisation?! the gui musta be for newbe-users as the whole win-xp concept seems to be (this doesn't say the OS itself would be bad :)... it has to be configured correctly ^^ )

greets, hartyl
Posted on 2005-02-24 12:04:06 by hartyl
Ah yes, for laptops with that kind of power-saving mode, CPU usage is very important. What kind of CPU usage does winamp have there?

WMP is very bad indeed, sometimes it can feel sluggish even on my 2.53GHz P4 :)

XP is fine, especially if you have a nLite'd install...
Posted on 2005-02-24 12:21:57 by f0dder
I use Winamp 5.08d, it is very nice, right now it is using 13,096KB memory (Windows 2000 SP4, 512MB system memory). And best of all it uses 0% CPU time, amazing :D,well not really, winamp used to use only like 50-60% on my Cyrix PR166+, so you kind of expect it to use much less on todays CPU's.
Posted on 2005-02-26 22:03:04 by x86asm