MusicMatch V Winamp

Hi

I've been using musicmatch7.5 for years, and think it's a great bit of software, the BIG downside is it a major drain on the processor. I've review many other media players over the past few weeks and came to the conclusion that winamp would suit me. One thing that I haven't seen any of the media plays can do is fetch the album art and track names, I can then use these to rename my tracks.

Can anyone convince me to change to winamp or something similar (free would better too).

Basically what are the advantages to disadvantages for changing.

Many Thanks

No one uses musicmatch anymore....

Anyway since you want lots of features and things like album art I would suggest you take a look at mediamonkey. Found here:

http://www.mediamonkey.com/

I personally use a stipped down player called foobar.

http://www.foobar2000.org/

Winamp works great; people just think it has memory issues. It takes up less than most applications.

XMPlay is nice too. Lightweight, portable and can handle a lot of formats too.

People say foobar is good, but I've seen some dirty sides to it. (Which I'm not going to disclose) XMPlay is superior to foolbar because XMPlay can use only 2,000-3,000k memory while playing a song.

why in the world would people think that Winamp has memory issues? i've been using Winamp Lite for quite a long time(with Dynamic library and some playback plugins) and it has not caused me one problem. not one.

XMPlay is superior to foolbar because XMPlay can use only 2,000-3,000k memory while playing a song.

Yeah but its playlist/ music sorting is awefull. Hey I did use that at school today though from my jump drive. It worked great. :) ( but foobar is a better full time program)

Anyway mediamokey sounds like the best choice for what this persons wants.

Thanks for the input guys.

I tried to used MediaMonkey about 6 months ago and found it to be the ugliest application I've ever came across.

I'll give foobar a try then have a look at winamp again.

The current version of Media Monkey is fully user friendly and does not have any real memory or processor usage problems. I switched to it from MusicMatch because the latter is no longer supported as it once was (Say Yahoo). I will not use WinAmp for a similar reason-AOL controls its functionality in the end. Did I mention that it does everything you are asking about :)

I would suggest you try Foobar2000, looks brilliant(once configured), sounds brilliant and has a plugin for more or less everything you may want it to do.

I use itunes but im totally making a switch.

I would suggest you try Foobar2000, looks brilliant(once configured), sounds brilliant and has a plugin for more or less everything you may want it to do.

Foobar is still a beta; does it have any major bugs or system compromising issues that you guys have noticed? I've heard a lot of positive opinions of it, but I try to avoid beta apps as often as possible.

foolbar sucks. Period. It's just terribly put together. XMPlay has a nice library feature and ways to find songs you want too. Winamp is just as good as far as I'm concerned. Even though AOL bought Nullsoft, doesn't mean it's a bad application. Too many people make that very mistake, and it's so stupid. Just cause AOL owns Nullsoft Winamp, doesn't mean the program is bad at all. Winamp 3 sucked, but Winamp 5 is really good.

Well, I used Winamp 5 for a very short period of time when it came out, but I didn't really like it. The fact that AOL owns it now is an even bigger turn-off, since I despise AOL and all of their products. But maybe I need to give it a second chance. I'll download it and check it out.

I do like the VLC Media Player, but the last version I used was 0.8.2, which was horrendously buggy! Barely even usable!

terribly put together? Dude foobar plays every format and runs on less ram then any other program. It does everything and more then the other programs and can be fully customized.

XMPlay is terrible for someone who has lots of music. It only makes a big long list of songs while with foobar I can make playlists and even have my total collection at my fingertips very organized. But I like using it on my thumbdrive.

My foobar(mine is simple but it can be customized with colors ect.):

untitled9cq.th.jpg

Foobar is still a beta; does it have any major bugs or system compromising issues that you guys have noticed? I've heard a lot of positive opinions of it, but I try to avoid beta apps as often as possible.

I havent seen one bug since I have been using it. The program is a little hard to configure but it is more or less perfect once you get it the way you want it.

Here is a great guide on how to configure it. Get columns ui for sure!

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...wbie_User_Guide

Foobar is still a beta; does it have any major bugs or system compromising issues that you guys have noticed? I've heard a lot of positive opinions of it, but I try to avoid beta apps as often as possible.

If you are at all worried use the current stable release version which is 0.8.3, that's the very I happen to be using at the moment however I "may" give the beta a spin later on.

foolbar sucks. Period. It's just terribly put together.

Pretty harsh words for one of the best damned audio players ever created. Care to elaborate since you're publically putting it down? I'm dying to know why you think it "sucks" right here in the forum and not via a PM! Fb2k is a feature rich audio player that plays a plethora of audio formats, I tried Winamp again just a few days ago and it only lasted a few minutes on my system since it's functionality doesn't even come close to fb2k's.

Btw the developer used to make Winamp plugins some years ago!

terribly put together? Dude foobar plays every format and runs on less ram then any other program. It does everything and more then the other programs and can be fully customized.

Right on brother! Here's a high five for speakin' the truth!

I already proved foobar takes up way more than XMPlay, even if XMPlay has plugins loaded and is playing a song with a skin fully visible.

I already proved foobar takes up way more than XMPlay, even if XMPlay has plugins loaded and is playing a song with a skin fully visible.

Actually when XMPlay is playing a file it dosent use less.

untitled8oe.th.jpg

Its was hard to play music with XM because its library functions are very poor. Foobar plays everything right out of the gate without any plug ins.

People say foobar is good, but I've seen some dirty sides to it. (Which I'm not going to disclose)

Please tell us the "dirty side". I honestly see no problems with foobar. :D

I dont care if I'm the only person that uses foobar but I want to know why anyone could honestly not like it...it seems pretty great to me.

2 men ENTER! 1 man LEAVES!

oooooo rolling stones, i like your taste in music rridgely.

oooooo rolling stones, i like your taste in music rridgely.

They are only the greatest band of all time. :P

Some of my other favorites are

The Beatles

Bob Dylan

Guns N Roses

Aerosmith

Led Zeppelin

Red Hot Chillipeppers

Bruce Springsteen

Dave Mattews Band

The who

Queen

Stone Temple Pilots

Tom Petty

The Doors

Pink Floyd

U2

Metallica

(I'll stop now but I could go on forever. :P )

Foobar is by far the best player currently out, it uses the least memory and cpu(on my pc), its the most configurable and the way it handles playlits is brilliant. It may also be using more memory and cpu then others because of the amount of plugins a user is using or not using.

I'm currently using only 10 plugins and with them it does everything i want nothing more nothing less. Here is my foobar, its a columns ui config file from someone else which i edited very slightly to sought my needs.

http://files.to/get.php?cid=140ea1fad8d7426d59f0545d41b8f85c

Edit: fixed link

I'm also using a Columns UI format string that I completely customized.

za-fb2k-columns_ui-jan_20_06.png.xs.jpg