|
winamp vs media player (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Simon |
Winamp 5.22.
2mb resources.
Suits me fine. |
|
|
| Bega |
| winamp ftw, 2.8 is good, but I like 5.09 without all the online services. The media library is ing incredible. |
|
|
| RickyM |
Mainly use Ultra Player - http://www.ultraplayer.com/
Minimal, doesn't take up your CPU or take half an hour to start up...I would use Itunes though sometimes as it's much easier to create playlists and browse your music, especially as I have an ipod. |
|
|
| wizniz |
| winamp but i use wmp to burn cds |
|
|
| SPACEMASTERS |
| Winamp b/c of he radio.... |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| Tried winamp once. Deleted it after a day. Been using WMP ever since. I don't see what everyone's got against it other than the ressource hogging. |
|
|
| The 3am Junkie |
| I use Apollo it's simple and with great sound quality |
|
|
| placebo |
| media player sucks balls, its slow and uses up a load of your memory. i've used winamp since 1997, never used a prog that was as good as it. XMMS on linux is a close second, but they basically just copied winamp. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| windows media is the best in organizing media on your computer. but winamp has the best internet radio. i use both. but for only those reasons. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| Hey I just tried foobar 0.9 and it works pretty well. Now I'm thinking of skinning it. I dl'ed ColumnsUI 0.1.3, but haven't figured out how to add Panels to it yet. Any help from foobar gurus would be appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
