| 1 |
> -----Original Message----- |
| 2 |
> From: Daniel Barkalow [mailto:barkalow@××××××××.org] |
| 3 |
> Sent: 30 December 2006 05:28 |
| 4 |
> To: gentoo-user@l.g.o |
| 5 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, maxim wexler wrote: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > > Will audacious not work for you? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Haven't tried yet. Fellow down the list says it's a |
| 13 |
> > resource hog like mplayer. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I don't have xmms any more to compare against, but audacious |
| 16 |
> seems to be |
| 17 |
> almost identical to it as far as I can tell. As far as memory |
| 18 |
> usage, it's |
| 19 |
> much less than, say, firefox. It is presently at the top of |
| 20 |
> my CPU usage, |
| 21 |
> but it's still only taking 1% of the CPU, so it's hard to complain. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> -Daniel |
| 24 |
> *This .sig left intentionally blank* |
| 25 |
> -- |
| 26 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I moved to amarok, I might give audacious a shot. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
What about noatun for a smallish player? Not sure on it's RAM usage. |
| 33 |
Also look at Quod Libet or Banshee which are meant to be similar in |
| 34 |
features to amarok but lighter in terms of resource usage (or so I |
| 35 |
hear). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
David |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Note: These views are my own, advice is provided with no guarantee of |
| 40 |
success. I do not represent anyone else in any emails I send to this |
| 41 |
list. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives