On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:51:00 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Kelsey Bjarnason ] on Saturday 02 June 2007 00:45 \__
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:32:29 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> __/ [ Kier ] on Friday 01 June 2007 19:22 \__
>>>
>>>> What it says on the tin:
>>>>
>>>> http://shiftbackspace.com/2007/06/01/amarok-a-review/
>>>
>>> I love AmaroK, but it's very heavy. After about a year I moved back to
>>> XMMS (at home and at work). It's solid proof that less is sometimes more.
>>
>> xmms is a nice little program, no doubt about it, but I must admit I still
>> like Amarok best of all.
>
> Unless it's in sight, I don't see the advantage. With global keyboard
> accelerators it can just be in some other virtual desktop doing its thing
> (or minimised). The sound quality is the same. Maybe album management, file
> scanning, and recommendation engines are of use here. But no much so... XMMS
> doesn't have album covers displayed in its translucent OSD.
One thing I do like about Amarok... okay, several things....
Tie-ins to musicbrainz, for snarfing track info.
Lyric fetching.
Genre-based auto playlists.
Recently-played tracking, and shuffling with preference for
not-recently-played tracks.
Artist info.
Timestamped additions.
Searches on everything from Title to bitrate.
Queue management.
Dupe checks.
Basically, it does everything I want a music player to do, and then some.
xmms does a lot, too... but not as much.
--
Christ will come sameday. - Leonard Bernier
|
|