Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:44 +0100, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
>Casper Pedersen wrote:
>>Depends on how you see it; xmms is nice, small, and might not be
>>pretty, but it works. RythmBox is big and slow to use with very large
>>collections of files, but it is pretty.
>Personally, I think xmms looks better. It's plain, but displays what it
>should and doesn't take a lot of screen estate.
It has awful skins, does not integrate with the rest of the desktop,
and does *not* look better.
>it manages to be huge
>and cluttered while not displaying much)
It's not supposed to be on-screen all the time - you're supposed
to choose what to play and minimize it, or run it in mini mode.
I typically just put it on a screen I never visit.
It's a nice browser for music collections. I am just waiting for
it to finally integrate with musicbrainz, and support a radio station
I just don't think it does that in a good way...
>and sloooooooow. When trying to
>add my music collection (5000 songs or so... got way too many CDs), xmms
>is finished in an instant.
Does xmms let you search?
Does it organize by genre? By album? Does it support drag and drop
Radio stations? Does it minimize in the notification area?
Do I like ITunes? Yes. I just happen to think that Rhythmbox does it
> Rhythmbox just stays unresponsive for 30 mins
>using all CPU, not displaying any progress or letting you do anything.
I have about half your collection, and by extrapolating I can tell that
this this is a huge exaggeration on any modern machine.
I wish. Unfortunately, I'm not. Maybe its just slower on mp3s? (systems
I've tried this on is an Athlon 2200+ and Centrino 1.4 MHz, both with a
bit of RAM).
you're not supposed to be adding your entire collection every time.
I do it because get fed up and kill it eventually, before it finishes...
besides, I would do it often anyway, as I encode new CDs with grip/lame
and just think it's easier to add the top dir to scan for new files.
You do that once, so speed is a non-issue.
Not when it is so slow and uninformative that you're convinced it must