I know you can't really compare them. But I've always used WinAmp myself but I'm thinking of installing ITunes for the sole purpose of being able to use the avetunes desklet to display album art.
I've heard ITunes is a really memory hogger (rumors? I don't know) pretty much like the bloated RealMedia series of players.
So is this true?
If not I guess it's bye bye to WinAmp...
iTunes uses about 9 meg's O' RAM on my system.
I don't know what qualifies to be a "memory hogger" to you.
Originally posted by wizard@Sep 27 2004, 06:17 PMiTunes uses about 9 meg's O' RAM on my system.
I don't know what qualifies to be a "memory hogger" to you.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Aight.. that's pretty much like what winamp uses on my comp..
So have you used winamp before Itunes? Maybe you can give me some pro's and con's between them 
Well, I'm using Winamp, because :
-I like small players (and the Itunes' mini-player doesn't have enough features)
-iTunes is Aqua but not skinnable
-The searching interface of Winamp Media Library is better than iTunes : when you search something in iTunes the 'Explore' panel doesn't match your search but still the whole playlist
-I like Milkdrop vis.
-I like separated windows for playlist and Media Library
-iTunes hardly supports plugins, and I often play some SNES or N64 extracted songs, so I need plugins
Well, that's my opinion
As Seph said, try them both...
Originally posted by Seph@Sep 27 2004, 06:42 PMyou could... try it....
Then you can decide... see?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes of course I could but I rather ask before uninstalling Winamp and losing preferences and file associations and so on.
You can run them both, it is amazing... 
I would not make a choice because of what i read from peoples experiences, every computer is different and yours will be to. The best way is to give them both a test run side by side and decide on what you want to use.
Such a thread will only end up leading to an iTunes is better than winamp or vice versa thread.
Originally posted by Seph@Sep 27 2004, 07:06 PMYou can run them both, it is amazing...
I would not make a choice because of what i read from peoples experiences, every computer is different and yours will be to. The best way is to give them both a test run side by side and decide on what you want to use.
Such a thread will only end up leading to an iTunes is better than winamp or vice versa thread.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Heh that wasn't the purpose of the thread..
And running two music players on an os will usually render in file association conflicts and mess up things in general..
You could always change the file associations back.
I use both because I can't choose. iTunes has a better playlist and everything is right there on the screen. However, winamp lots of visualization and sound plugins. Some of which makes winamp sound better than iTunes.
The memory hog issue is relative to the user. If you have the program minimized to the tray it'll use less resources, if it's not then it'll use more. Generally it's not really a memory hog when compared to something like a graphics editing program.
Originally posted by pcw@Sep 28 2004, 03:04 AM.... running two music players on an os will usually render in file association conflicts and mess up things in general..
[auf-topik] i had QCD as my default player for streaming media and one-offs with iTunes as my player for listening to albums and playlists. i never had any conflicts whatsoever. a lot of the people on these boards have similar setups from what i've observed. [/auf-topik]
Originally posted by wizard@Sep 27 2004, 12:17 PMiTunes uses about 9 meg's O' RAM on my system.
I don't know what qualifies to be a "memory hogger" to you.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
it uses 30mbs on my system. what gives?
30 MG for me too- I don't think I've ever gotten it as low as 9. Are you using a memory manager?
I have never used WinAmp, mostly because I really don't need too many music players- I have QCD, Musicmatch, and iTunes installed, though 
.
-nightcrawler1089
That is what Seph means by a person trying it. Every system is different.
No, I don't use a memory manager. The highest I have ever seen it was about 20 megs. At that time it was running low. Right now it is 14 megs.
I've never heard about QCD... what's that besides a music player?
did u uninstall windows media player when u installed winamp...
u can read about qcd on there homepage...
and iTunes have a awsome sound enhancer...
Seph was right about the topic!
Peace
Originally posted by Sputnikk@Sep 28 2004, 06:04 PMdid u uninstall windows media player when u installed winamp...
u can read about qcd on there homepage...
and iTunes have a awsome sound enhancer...
Seph was right about the topic!
Peace
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't see any one bashing any player here (unless I'm blind)
And there isn't really a way to uninstall windows media player since it's "built in"/"part of" Windows. And why should I do that?
What can't WinAmp do that iTunes can?
The lingering for a Avedesklet I get, but a winamp version is in developement I thought, or you could always use dashamp, which is sweet I think.
From apple site
Windows System Requirements:
- Windows XP or 2000
- 500 MHz Pentium class processor or better
- QuickTime 6.5.1 (included)
- 128 MB RAM minimum/256 RAM recommended
- Latest Windows service packs recommended
- Supported CD-RW drive to burn CDs, video display card, soundcard
DSL, cable modem, or LAN-based high-speed Internet connection recommended for buying and streaming music
I't not gonna happen for my, judginng my specs below 
Originally posted by pcw@Sep 28 2004, 06:13 PM....and why should I do that?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It was youre words: "And running two music players on an os will usually render in file association conflicts and mess up things in general.."
Just føcking whit u 
Peace
I am very happy with winamp, I can use photoshop,imageReady, flash, and more at the same time. 
winamp Only Use In my system 3MB
I use Winamp 2.x as my default MP3 player (lightweight) but I organize and listen to music in iTunes.
Currently, WinAmp is a much better music player than iTunes. At least for Windows. You can use iTunes to organize and tag your music [i.e. add artwork and such] but listening to music in iTunes and using some resource hungry apps like Photoshop, Macromedia Flash or whatever... will make your system crawl. Now, if you have 2 GB of RAM and the latest computer, you might not feel it, but I certainly do.
And let's not even get into ripping music. iTunes uses 80-85% of CPU to just simply rip music. While I get, at most, 15-20 with MusicMatch JukeBox, or even less (around 10%) with AudioCatalyst.
One advantage iTunes clearly enjoyes is its intuitive interface. Its the best organized music player I have ever tried and its very good-looking. When it comes to looks at least, iTunes is the true leader.
I can't use Winamp for more than 5 minutes without crashing. That, and iPod, therefore iTunes.
I know you can't really compare them. But I've always used WinAmp myself but I'm thinking of installing ITunes for the sole purpose of being able to use the avetunes desklet to display album art.
I've heard ITunes is a really memory hogger (rumors? I don't know) pretty much like the bloated RealMedia series of players.
So is this true?
If not I guess it's bye bye to WinAmp...
I believe other than program is extremely sucks, people need to adapt on certain new environment. In other word, if you never used this new software, you may prejudge yourself that it's so difficult to use and the software I've used before is better than new one and etc....
I never used itunes before......I was so used to winamp before.....I tried itunes, and there is good and bad, like winamp has one, too.
Frankly I don't know which one would be better.....If I got used to itunes and spend many time on this, I would say this one is better, and vice versa.
But one thing for sure, after I got little bit used to itunes, I realized I was wrong about my prejudgement that itunes is too hard to use and so on....
Both are really nice softwares......I use both of them.....
I guess my keyword is adaptation and your preferences.
Aqua-Soft Forums