That's good news! I still love Winamp on Windows. Does the Mac version support the same formats, especially FLAC?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Winamp Finally Comes to Mac, Bringing Easy Android Music Syncing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
About six years too late alas. Had this been on the Mac when I switched, I likely would never have used iTunes. I wouldn't go back now though, as fun as Winamp was back in the day though with it's many skins and visualiser plugins.
If it manages to not be a ram/resource HOG like iTunes, I'll use it.
Otherwise, I'm sticking to using Vox.
----------
Are you familiar with the term 'Beta' ??
Otherwise, I'm sticking to using Vox.
----------
Are you familiar with the term 'Beta' ??
I still use winamp on my windows desktop, I really like it.
I was the first to get winamp for mac on my macbook and that was a big disappoint.
This thing have nothing to do with the windows version and it is so much like iTunes that I see no reason to use this and not iTunes.
Also what I hate in iTunes is the inability to move the tracks on the main playlist (I mean the list with all my music in iTunes) freely up or down to arrange them and then save them as playlist (and not make a new playlist first and then adding the tracks and messing with their sequence).
In winamp for mac... it is the same as iTunes, that means the only feature it can make me pick winamp over iTunes is not here...
I wonder what wrong with them...
(Also I recall a time back when winamp 2 was the #1 music player, I was asking at the forums if there is a possibility to ever see winamp on mac. How things change... the response was that it is unlikely since the low popularity of mac platform.)
I was the first to get winamp for mac on my macbook and that was a big disappoint.
This thing have nothing to do with the windows version and it is so much like iTunes that I see no reason to use this and not iTunes.
Also what I hate in iTunes is the inability to move the tracks on the main playlist (I mean the list with all my music in iTunes) freely up or down to arrange them and then save them as playlist (and not make a new playlist first and then adding the tracks and messing with their sequence).
In winamp for mac... it is the same as iTunes, that means the only feature it can make me pick winamp over iTunes is not here...
I wonder what wrong with them...
(Also I recall a time back when winamp 2 was the #1 music player, I was asking at the forums if there is a possibility to ever see winamp on mac. How things change... the response was that it is unlikely since the low popularity of mac platform.)
Wow I remember having this thing on my PC for awhile but then just using the media player because we upgraded computers and I couldn't remember everything I had. While I doubt I will ever use it over iTunes (on a mac iTunes really is the only choice) it might be nice to get once some new features are introduced so that I can sync with my HTC phone.
Pleasee let Mediamonkey be soon to follow, the Best Media management program I have ever used!!!
2 TB library loaded.
iTunes doesn't even smell like a resource hog. Damn thing is only in your head.
Just for kicks, I checked this out. Recalling the fad for skinning MP3 players in the late-90s, I was leery that this version of Winamp for Mac might try and continue using skins. Fortunately, it appears that this was designed fairly decently. It feels like a bare bones version of iTunes. The interface is a little too dark for my tastes, and the old Winamp icon just feels dated since it hasn't changed much in years and years, but still, this exceeded my initial expectations.
I remember using Winamp on the Windows platform years ago, absolutely loved it compared to Windows Media Player at the time (because Windows Media Player version 6 sucked and version 7 sucked even more).
Two can play this game:
Vox is literally 1/10th on resources as iTunes. 145mb for a simple MP3 player is inexcusable. Youre clearly exhibiting denial though.
Let me make the facts clear: 145mb for an mp3 player.
The one clearly exhibiting denial is you here. iTunes is more than just a player, do you even know how many frameworks it loads and UI elements, not to mmention support for God knows how many different iPods.
There are quite few smaller apps with bigger memory footprint.
Application is a hog when you can't justify resource consumption, but in case of iTunes it would be very hard.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.6; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRK39F) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
I must admit I'm a big fan of MediaMonkey Gold on the Windows side.
I may have to give WinAmp a go tho.
RHVC59 said:
I must admit I'm a big fan of MediaMonkey Gold on the Windows side.
I may have to give WinAmp a go tho.
Yes thank you for pointing out all of its downfalls for executing a simple task such as playing MP3s. Some of us that use macs have no desire to buy into the iOS 'ecosystem' thus have no need for bloat from support for ipods, iphones, ipads, a music, movie app and store etc.
Sorry, but for the purposes of doing ONE single and simple task, Vox takes the piss out of iTunes.
Again; 145mb of RAM vs 14mb to play an mp3. The numbers speak for themselves.
While true on that part does not change the fact that it is a resource hog.
See attach screen shot. That is with my 35gig library of just music files loaded up and the program has been open and idle for at least the past 15 hours. It is sitting at under 150 megs. Noticed the peak. That was from when I was playing it for a while.
Now lets compare this to WMP when it is actively playing a 350 meg movie file plus has the same music library + a 100+gig movie library loaded up it is sitting at 100 megs. Same program is active. It peak size is still less than the current usage of iTunes.
That should tell you volumes right there. iTunes is a bloated pig of a program and only has gotten worse over the years.
Attachments
If you had ability to understand i'd try, but why bother. iTunes is more than a player, you can't compare media manager and sync utility with an app like Vox which is made of small HUD and basically has no interface.
If you can't compare applications on the same terms then don't and stop this BS.
While I know how difficult it may be to accept realities that may not be best suited for your own interests, such as the difference between 145 and 14, I would recommend you read this book as it may help coping with discomfort.
On a side note, I did make myself clear in order to be objective and relevant that the comparison between Vox and iTunes was merely based on simple functions such playing an mp3 file... something iTunes struggles to do efficiently.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
See my post showing how bloated itunes has become. It is comparing it to something that I would argue is more feature rich and does more all while using less resources.
iTunes is bloated. For most people it is nothing more than a music player and a way to sync iToys. It has become bloated as hell with a lot of extra crap.
Do you even understand how execution of a program works? The core binary executable of iTunes is 55.4MB. This means that the smallest possible memory footprint is 55.4MB. A program needs to occupy a set amount of RAM to contain all of its code. In the remaining 90MB its has to load frameworks for additional functionality that are not already loaded in to the system. It then loads an additional 20.5MB of libraries, meaning it has ~69MB left for runtime (if we take the above memory consumption) In this we then have to consider what images, interfaces, working data (such as library database, currently playing song, etc). Compared to the size of the executable, iTunes' memory footprint has grown less than 50%.
Now let's take a look at Vox. The core binary of Vox is 965KB in size, plus an additional 2.4MB of libraries and frameworks, meaning we have ~10MB left for runtime. This has quadrupled in size compared to the size of the executable... Now what is it doing so inefficiently in there?
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
