Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 31st Dec 2009 01:41 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Just before Christmas Songbird 1.4.0 was released, and a new fix versions was released today as 1.4.3. Songbird now supports MSC storage devices and CD ripping, bringing the app one step closer to replacing iTunes for some users. What's particularly interesting is that Songbird now specifically pushes their product against users of Android, Nokia and Palm smartphones -- which is something I also suggested a few months too. Hopefully Google, Nokia, and Palm will get behind the small team in San Francisco to help out the cause, since it's also on their best interest too.
Order by: Score:
Awful
by kev009 on Thu 31st Dec 2009 02:47 UTC
kev009
Member since:
2006-11-30

I can't pinpoint any singular reason, but I find Songbird to be awful. I was really excited when the project was first announced, a xulrunner media player sounded awesome because Firefox was a FOSS darling. Fast forward to today and it now just sounds silly. I just installed it on a Pentium M laptop with 1.5GB RAM and it really makes things crawl. Not really sure where they are trying to go.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Awful
by kaiwai on Thu 31st Dec 2009 02:55 UTC in reply to "Awful"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I can't pinpoint any singular reason, but I find Songbird to be awful. I was really excited when the project was first announced, a xulrunner media player sounded awesome because Firefox was a FOSS darling. Fast forward to today and it now just sounds silly. I just installed it on a Pentium M laptop with 1.5GB RAM and it really makes things crawl. Not really sure where they are trying to go.


What I find awful about it is the fact that a feature will appear on the Windows version and it'll take at least a year before it finally appears on the *NIX or Mac version. Yet again the non-Windows platforms are seen as the bastard red headed step children of the operating system world.

Edited 2009-12-31 02:55 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Awful
by kev009 on Thu 31st Dec 2009 02:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Awful"
kev009 Member since:
2006-11-30

Have you tried Banshee? It is a first rate media player in my mind. Amarok 2 is slowly recovering as well, though it may be a while before old timers are truly happy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Awful
by kaiwai on Thu 31st Dec 2009 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awful"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Have you tried Banshee? It is a first rate media player in my mind. Amarok 2 is slowly recovering as well, though it may be a while before old timers are truly happy.


I've tried Banshee in the past but it was horrible in terms of locking up with large libraries. As for Amarok 2, I haven't given it a go. For me, I have a Mac and only use it for the library function; for ripping I prefer using XLD which enables me to rip CD's with true VBR rather than the constrained VBR which iTunes employs.

I wish and I hope that maybe the massive gap between iTunes releases is because Apple are re-writing it in Cocoa and hopefully we'll see CoreData being used to index music rather than the almighty massive XML file that is used right now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Awful
by Eugenia on Thu 31st Dec 2009 03:00 UTC in reply to "Awful"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

It IS slow (P4 at 3Ghz here). But then again, iTunes doesn't fly on Windows either.

And besides, that's why I wrote that Palm, Google and Nokia should HELP these guys. Because they already have done the bulk of the work, and they have the framework, all it now requires is polish.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Awful
by kaiwai on Thu 31st Dec 2009 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Awful"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It IS slow (P4 at 3Ghz here). But then again, iTunes doesn't fly on Windows either.

And besides, that's why I wrote that Palm, Google and Nokia should HELP these guys. Because they already have done the bulk of the work, and they have the framework, all it now requires is polish.


I second that; if Palm, Google and Nokia each contributed 2 full time programmers each; and dedicated to getting across the board feature parity and support for my iPod Touch - I for one would be more than happy to leave the iTunes world; the unfortunate problem that as a Mac user I am treated like a second class citizen when it comes to features when compared to the Windows version of songbird.

Edited 2009-12-31 03:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Awful
by lemur2 on Thu 31st Dec 2009 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Awful"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It IS slow (P4 at 3Ghz here). But then again, iTunes doesn't fly on Windows either.

And besides, that's why I wrote that Palm, Google and Nokia should HELP these guys. Because they already have done the bulk of the work, and they have the framework, all it now requires is polish.


Why would Nokia want to help Songbird?

There are already the following very capable players that run purely on Nokia's platform (which is Qt):

VLC
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

SMPlayer
http://smplayer.sourceforge.net/

qmmp (like Winamp, lightweight)
http://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/index_en.php

cuberok (like Amarok, no KDE dependency, works on Mac)
http://code.google.com/p/cuberok/

Quasar (for handhelds)
http://freshmeat.net/projects/quasar-media-player

and the following which also require kdelibs as well as Qt:

Amarok (the most capable, works with iPods)
http://amarok.kde.org/

Juk (KDE 3.x)
http://developer.kde.org/~wheeler/juk.html

All of these media players (some of them are also music collection managers) work far faster than Songbird.

Most of them require only Nokia's Qt platform (which includes Windows, Mac and Linux).

Edited 2009-12-31 04:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Awful
by Eugenia on Thu 31st Dec 2009 05:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awful"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Your comment makes no sense. Just because Songbird doesn't run on Qt doesn't make it useless for Nokia. None of the players you mention have all the features of Songbird. Amarok is close, but it is not ported to Mac/Win to run on its own, AFAIK.

As for Songbird not being fast: iTunes is not fast either on Windows. Didn't stop it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Awful
by lemur2 on Thu 31st Dec 2009 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Awful"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Your comment makes no sense. Just because Songbird doesn't run on Qt doesn't make it useless for Nokia. None of the players you mention have all the features of Songbird. Amarok is close, but it is not ported to Mac/Win to run on its own, AFAIK.

As for Songbird not being fast: iTunes is not fast either on Windows. Didn't stop it.


Songbird requirements are too steep for almost all of Nokia's devices:

http://getsongbird.com/system-requirements.php

The features that Songbird appears to support:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songbird_%28software%29#Featur...
that are not supported by faster players are DRM-related (including Fariplay and Windows Media DRM on Windows platforms).

Songbird appears to be constrained to x86(-64) architectures (probably due to DRM and binary codecs):
Cross-platform compatibility with Windows XP, Vista, Mac OS X v10.5 (x86, x86-64) and Linux (x86, x86-64).


All things considered, especially considering Nokia's current multimedia devices (which are mostly not x86)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N900
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N97

The one exception might be the Nokia Booklet 3G which uses an Atom processor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_booklet_3g

Given that most of Nokia's multimedia devices either won't run Songbird, or won't run it well, and also given that Nokia could choose from a growing selection of quality Qt-based software, Nokia's choices for media players probably wouldn't include Songbird.

PS: media players specifically designed for Maemo include:
http://maemo.org/downloads/OS2008/multimedia/
Kagu, Canola2, UKMP, Mplayer, KMplayer, WorldTV99, YouAmp and MediaBox.

Edited 2009-12-31 06:37 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Awful
by Eugenia on Thu 31st Dec 2009 06:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Awful"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>Songbird requirements are too steep for almost all of Nokia's devices:

What in the love of God are you talking about????

Nobody is talking here about porting that app on cellphones!!!! We're talking about a DESKTOP COMPANION app, like iTunes. How fast (or not) is the cellphone makes no difference whatsoever, because Songbird is supposed to run only on a desktop OS. This is an iTunes replacement app, not a cellphone media player app! :o

We are in need of an iTunes replacement, a **sync** app, not a new media player for cellphones.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Awful
by lemur2 on Thu 31st Dec 2009 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Awful"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

>Songbird requirements are too steep for almost all of Nokia's devices:

What in the love of God are you talking about????


Nokia. Perhaps also Qt, and Maemo, which are Nokia's platforms.

Nobody is talking here about porting that app on cellphones!!!! We're talking about a DESKTOP COMPANION app, like iTunes. How fast (or not) is the cellphone makes no difference whatsoever, because Songbird is supposed to run only on a desktop OS. This is an iTunes replacement app, not a cellphone media player app! :o

We are in need of an iTunes replacement, a **sync** app, not a new media player for cellphones.


Nokia happen to make cellphones, it happens to be their primary business.

Now, with that fact in our minds, I will repeat my question ... why would Nokia spend their money on helping Songbird?

Edited 2009-12-31 06:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Awful
by Eugenia on Thu 31st Dec 2009 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Awful"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>I will repeat my question ... why would Nokia spend their money on helping Songbird?

Because if Nokia wants to survive the current smartphone onslaught, they will have to fix their freaking usability and services (something that only very recently figured out that they should do).

And one of the main things people want to do with their phones these days, is having a great mp3 experience, similar to that of the iPod's.

And creating a spiffy mp3 player is only 50% of the job. The other 50% is the SYNC application. Since Nokia phones don't work with iTunes, and using Explorer to drag n drop mp3s is less than ideal for most people who already use iTunes, a new sync app is needed. And the only sync app that is an iTunes clone and it works, is Songbird.

Do I really need to make everything so clear for you to understand all these basic things? Qt, non-Qt, doesn't freaking matter. What matters is what customers need and what customers get. And it's CHEAPER to contribute to Songbird rather than write such an app yourself. It took Songbird 4 years now to get to this stage. Do you think that the current slaughtering of Symbian in the market has 4 years to waste?

I'd guess not.

I'm out.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Awful
by muda on Thu 31st Dec 2009 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Awful"
muda Member since:
2008-12-23

We are in need of an iTunes replacement, a **sync** app, not a new media player for cellphones.


Absolutely agreed! Ask why Apple has de facto monopoly in the portable music/online media sales business. The reason is not in their great player but the whole hub integrates perfectly in too many aspects.

One can not beat Apple by providing non-integrated bits of some awful download client and messy device syncing application. It must be one-click solution and Songbird is in the position of being cross-platform middleware (between media source and portable device) with some additional nice features.

The reason I don't use Songbird is because it doesn't play well in my media hub which is podcast RSS - X - iPod. The iPod is only there because of the X part.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Awful
by Eugenia on Thu 31st Dec 2009 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Awful"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I think you need to get some orientation here. Read the news in the past year with Palm almost getting sued for using iTunes. The problem for Palm, Android, and Nokia is that they don't have a good, multi-platoform iTunes-CLONE for their users to use with their mp3 smartphones. And Songbird is coming very close to that realization. It's the ONLY app that does, because it's multi-platform, and it operates like iTunes, which is what users want. That's what we are talking about here. Not a new media player for cellphones. Each cellphone can have any media player it wants to have, it's irrelevant.

It only becomes relevant, if having an actual new protocol (like iPods have one) to store music in databases, that might make it faster on players with over 16 GBs of storage (MPT/MSC are very slow at over 16 GBs). Only in that case, a new protocol might need to be created, and it would benefit everyone if it's a protocol accepted by all new players and smartphones. But other than that, what you wrote about Qt and porting Songbird to cellphones is not what we're talking about here.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: Awful
by lemur2 on Thu 31st Dec 2009 06:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Awful"
RE[3]: Awful
by rhavenn on Thu 31st Dec 2009 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awful"
rhavenn Member since:
2006-05-12

My personal favorite: MOC / MOCP http://moc.daper.net/

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Awful
by segedunum on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Awful"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It IS slow (P4 at 3Ghz here). But then again, iTunes doesn't fly on Windows either.

iTunes is being used by people now, comes with every iPod and has a massive installed base. Quite how you figure people are going to use a cheap knock-off that has all the performance and arcane issues of any XUL application I don't know. We also have a ton of other media players, particularly on Windows, such as Winamp should people wish to use them. Sync? People are already using iTunes for that.

No one is terribly interested that it is just as slow as iTunes. It will make no one switch, not that they would anyway.

And besides, that's why I wrote that Palm, Google and Nokia should HELP these guys. Because they already have done the bulk of the work, and they have the framework, all it now requires is polish.

Palm, Google and Nokia don't give a shit because it's not quite that important to them and the framework is a pile of dog turd that is trying to compete with a firmly entrenched existing application in iTunes. The thing choked on getting through a quarter of my music collection that Winamp has happily imported in for years. I don't know why you think it would be important to these companies since it's all been done before. If they want to create such a player then I'm sure they can make a better job.

There is very little point to Songbird. We have applications like Winamp as alternative players and there have been many, many efforts to create alternative iTunes knock-offs and iPod sync alternatives.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Awful
by FunkyELF on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Awful"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

And besides, that's why I wrote that Palm, Google and Nokia should HELP these guys. Because they already have done the bulk of the work, and they have the framework, all it now requires is polish.


I would rather Palm, Google, or Nokia help XBMC get syncing support since it already has polish.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Awful
by WereCatf on Thu 31st Dec 2009 06:45 UTC in reply to "Awful"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I've always found it silly to integrate a full freaking web-browser with a music collection manager/player. It's a whole lot of unneeded stuff, especially since I doubt anyone actually uses it for browsing the web, instead opting for a separate browser.

I still use Songbird, it's less of a memory hog than iTunes, but it's still awfully slow and seems to actually be more of a CPU hog, especially scrolling the list of songs you've got almost hurts.

I'd ditch it if I could, but I haven't found any other player with a similar UI. They all try to look like Winamp and I hate the Winamp UI. I like having a clear view of all of my songs, a search for whenever I want to listen to a particular song, and so that I can sort my songs by the score I've given them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Awful
by Eugenia on Thu 31st Dec 2009 06:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Awful"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I personally use iTunes. It has 3-4 small bugs, but other than that, it does the job perfectly for me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Awful
by WereCatf on Thu 31st Dec 2009 07:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awful"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

iTunes would be good if it wasn't Apple product and if it wasn't so god damn resource-heavy :/ It seems it's impossible to get a plain music player/manager, without browsers, without video playback, without kitchen sink..

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Awful
by darknexus on Thu 31st Dec 2009 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Awful"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

These days it's close to impossible to get anything without being forced to get the kitchen sink with it. Honestly, the only music player that I can think of which has a somewhat similar UI to iTunes and yet doesn't come with the kitchen sink is Rhythmbox. It's a music player, pure and simple, with some functionality for utilizing some iPod models. No video, no web browser.
Too bad it's basically been abandoned, I really enjoyed using it though it's still useable for the moment.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Awful
by WereCatf on Thu 31st Dec 2009 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Awful"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I actually have always loved Rhythmbox. It's fast, sleek, has really clean and clear UI, it's stable, and it's non-bloated. But the issue is, it's a Linux app. It's not available for Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Awful
by darknexus on Thu 31st Dec 2009 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Awful"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I could make the exact same argument when it comes to WinAMP or iTunes, but in reverse. And, technically, Rhythmbox is not a *Linux* app it's a *GNOME* app, which means it'll run on any platform you care to get GNOME running on. And yes, that'd mean Windows too if you really wanted to, would be a bit of an effort just for a music player app though. Thing is, the "Oh, it doesn't run on my os of choice" bit doesn't really matter. Use the os with the most apps you need, but recognize that you will not have access to others. Can't have everything ;) .

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Awful
by WereCatf on Thu 31st Dec 2009 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Awful"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Use the os with the most apps you need, but recognize that you will not have access to others. Can't have everything

Unfortunately. If I could have what I wanted, I'd have Linux with GNOME as desktop, but with all the games and gaming performance of Windows.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Awful
by Mellin on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Awful"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

Rhythmbox isn't abandoned that's a novell lie so that they get banshee as the default player on ubuntu and other dists

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Awful
by Morgan on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Awful"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Rhythmbox isn't abandoned that's a novell lie so that they get banshee as the default player on ubuntu and other dists


Do you have a source for that claim? Only asking because it sounds a bit odd to me that Novell would do such a thing. I've not read of any bad blood between the two projects. Personally I prefer Rhythmbox as it seems more stable, though I do like Banshee's feature set and visual style.

Besides, why would Novell care what the default is on Ubuntu and other distros? I'd think they would concentrate on their own distro and let others do as they please. After all, it's not like they make any real money off of Banshee development.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Awful
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 31st Dec 2009 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Awful"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I'd ditch it if I could, but I haven't found any other player with a similar UI. They all try to look like Winamp and I hate the Winamp UI. I like having a clear view of all of my songs, a search for whenever I want to listen to a particular song, and so that I can sort my songs by the score I've given them.

Winamp was one of the major losses I was forced to deal with in my switch to Linux back around 2006. I never did like the idea of a media library, that's what my damn file system is for--it's all nicely organized by genre, band, year/album, and finally song.

I don't know how Winamp's UI is not clear, as you load files (typically, in my case, an album) into a playlist and don't have to worry about a bunch of useless metadata all over the screen about all the songs in your collection. Of course, since WA5 Windamp does provide that pointless "library" functionality, so you can have it either way.

Winamp is, IMO, the best. Though Audacious seems to be the next best thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Awful
by WereCatf on Fri 1st Jan 2010 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awful"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Winamp was one of the major losses I was forced to deal with in my switch to Linux back around 2006.

I only know of XMMS, but I think it's more or less a direct clone of Winamp. I know there are others too, but I don't know the names.

I don't know how Winamp's UI is not clear, as you load files (typically, in my case, an album) into a playlist and don't have to worry about a bunch of useless metadata all over the screen about all the songs in your collection. Of course, since WA5 Windamp does provide that pointless "library" functionality, so you can have it either way.

The problem with Winamp is that I don't do playlists. I like to have my whole music collection right there, every single song, and I play them in random order. Oh, I also have the habit of rating my songs and ordering my collection based on the rating, with the best songs at the top and easily accessible. Whenever I want to play a particular song which isn't in the view I just click on the search field and type in the name, doubleclick the song, and clear the search again. Winamp however insists on always creating a new playlist whenever I do that and then I have to import all of my songs again. It's really annoying.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Awful
by segedunum on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Awful"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem with Winamp is that I don't do playlists. I like to have my whole music collection right there, every single song, and I play them in random order.

Errrrrr, you can do that. You have one local media list that you can go through and sort.

Oh, I also have the habit of rating my songs and ordering my collection based on the rating...

Errrrrr, you can do that as well and at the very least list the most played tunes you have in your collection.

I don't know what you're doing with Winamp but you're doing it wrong.

Reply Score: 2

No Musepack Support
by TheBashar on Thu 31st Dec 2009 04:41 UTC
TheBashar
Member since:
2005-06-30

Lack of musepack support renders songbird useless to me.

Reply Score: 1

ah, so this is where the cheese went
by mieses on Thu 31st Dec 2009 05:38 UTC
mieses
Member since:
2006-02-07

what's with the chrome metal and cheesy band graphics? did they lose a UI designer?

edit: just found the Gonzo feather. it's not too bad but the old one was better. now.. how to turn off the embarrassing splash screen with the U2 guy in the ski hat.

edit 2: thankfully the cheesy splash screen is only for cheesy windows users like me. and there's a plugin to change it.

Edited 2009-12-31 05:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

slow.
by roar on Thu 31st Dec 2009 12:30 UTC
roar
Member since:
2009-12-26

Killed it after 10 minutes or so it took to import a quarter of my music folder - going to stay with winamp, obviously.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by motang
by motang on Thu 31st Dec 2009 13:29 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

1.4 takes for every to load on my machines, while 1.1.2 was fast. I also see they took out last.fm radio, which is a huge bummer for me. I do hope they will implement podcasting support soon.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by motang
by roar on Thu 31st Dec 2009 16:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by motang"
roar Member since:
2009-12-26

The removal of last.fm radio is actually last.fm's fault since they restricted access to the radio for non paying customers. Also they are going to remove their old radio API, which Songbird probably used ;)

Reply Score: 1

Too bad it soesn't work
by werterr on Thu 31st Dec 2009 15:09 UTC
werterr
Member since:
2006-10-03

It's just too bad that the application does not work ;)

Just downloaded it and unpacked the tar ball only to receive a crapload of warnings (mostly GStreamer-WARNING) and then having the application die on apparently a symbol lookup error.

Shame cause I would have given it a serious try. I finally want a Linux media player that can handle enormous libraries and playlists.

At this point 32gb of music on my N900 runs way better then any application desktop linux got to offer ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Too bad it soesn't work
by rhavenn on Thu 31st Dec 2009 22:49 UTC in reply to "Too bad it soesn't work"
rhavenn Member since:
2006-05-12

I would recommend not using tarballs and look at your distros repository and install from there. There are probably some configuration hooks that are different on your distro vs. the tar ball install.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Too bad it soesn't work
by darknexus on Fri 1st Jan 2010 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Too bad it soesn't work"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Fat lot of good that'll do if your distro doesn't have it.

Reply Score: 2

Foobar2000
by stipex on Thu 31st Dec 2009 19:23 UTC
stipex
Member since:
2009-07-30

I don't like songbird because it's slow and bloated.
I find Foobar2000 as best audio player software avabile for Windows.
Lightweight but still very powerful app with clean UI.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Foobar2000
by yfph on Fri 1st Jan 2010 00:19 UTC in reply to "Foobar2000"
yfph Member since:
2009-09-03

I have to agree. I never really liked Songbird all that much. It always choked when imported my media library.

For windows, I use:

mediamonkey - works great with large libraries
foobar2000 - anything local on my laptop

For linux, I use:

amarok 1.4.10 - large external library
banshee - local library..

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Foobar2000
by Tuishimi on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Foobar2000"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for the tips! Just installed foobar2000, seems pretty slick and responsive.

Reply Score: 2

Their priorities are crazy!
by Tuxie on Fri 1st Jan 2010 14:24 UTC
Tuxie
Member since:
2009-04-22

I've been following SongBird with excitement since its very first pre-alpha announcement. Every version becomes better but their priorities are completely backwards IMHO. Every version includes new advanced features like integration hooks for web sites, social networking and so on, but they still lack a lot of the most fundamental basic features to make it a usable music player and manager.

For example, the only way to make it treat compilation albums (pretty common, aren't they?) as albums and not a bunch of separate tracks is still through an ugly, time consuming, manual workaround that works poorly.

The library management names files like 1-*.mp3 + 10-*.mp3 for tracks 1 and 10, by design, with the only comment "Modern file managers can sort numerically, you don't need to name it 01-foo.mp3". Also it can't have conditional names like (1-21-foo.mp3) for multi-disc albums. (This complaint is more with the attitude, not so much with the strange behaviour/missing feature)

Recently, they have started to include many major features as "Windows only", treating us *nix and OSX users as second citizens. ;)

It has become quite a bit more responsive for large libraries recently though, but their main focus is still on buzzword features like Web 2.0, social networking and pretty skins. Optimizing it for the most popular usage pattern as a player+manager for a local music collection seems to be at the bottom at their priority list.

I still have hopes for it, though. I'll probably give it another try in 2011.

Reply Score: 2

Still not there
by kvarbanov on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 14:04 UTC
kvarbanov
Member since:
2008-06-16

I see I've posted about Songbird a while ago, now, I see no change in regards to my previous issues. The biggest one is the performance, still not on the right track - this is quad core xeon on Linux. After going through the issues list I've compiled before, Songbird crashed, and after the restart I had no sound. No reinstalling, no rebooting, no process killing, no rm -rf, nothing helped.
Foobar2000 is my preferred choice on Windows since the very first versions, and Amarok does a decent job on Linux.

Reply Score: 1