> 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 perfo
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 o
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 G
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] media
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-dat
> 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.
> 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
--
gentoo-user@gentoo
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 memo
> -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 audaciou
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 15:17, Nelson, David (ED, PAR&D) 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 i
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 s
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
