What is Digg?68 Comments
- KevinJim, on 06/08/2008, -5/+22Seriously, don't compare Amarok to winamp or iTunes. It's disgraceful and insulting to Amarok. Banshee is a worthy competitor. Also Amarok is the only one that can handle music collections with more than 10.000 songs and playlists with 2000 songs AND not ***** up the listing. Also, it has the best rate/score system out there. So please no matter what OS you have. When Amarok 2.0 roll out, give it a try. It's not like you are paying for it.
- BrainCoder, on 06/09/2008, -0/+16Just check http://amarok.kde.org/features
How can this post be useful? I hate blog diggers. - badassninja, on 06/08/2008, -1/+14After making the Ubuntu switch (from xp), Amarok finally dethroned winamp in my heart. Don't get me wrong, there are some great clones of winamp for linux. But Amarok is just freaken awesome. I love it's so powerful yet is still light weight.
- mrloco, on 06/08/2008, -4/+16its the only one that doesnt completely suck...
I'm still praying for a foobar2000 equivalent... my folders are so organized that i dont need a clunky music library that eats up system resources FFS. - geoken, on 06/08/2008, -2/+13They missed the biggest one for me, Device support.
- scy1192, on 06/09/2008, -1/+11negative 23 years
- Jennica, on 06/08/2008, -0/+8I was trying various Linux players today, and Amarok being my default, I just didn't like any of the other ones. They didn't have the features Amarok did, or the usability. I like my Last.fm, and music managing, and tagging and Amarok has all of that easily incorporated into that. It does bog down a little bit since I have 15000+ songs.
- thenumber8, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7i think you've missed the point – Amarok is most certainly not the only free Linux audio player, so that can hardly make it stand out from the crowd.
- danomagnum, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6foobar 2000 is amazing, but it does have a library
- amfantasy, on 06/09/2008, -1/+6you do know amarok has a music store, right. It's not like your shooting off your mouth without knowing what you're talking about.
- cwraig, on 06/09/2008, -0/+5Try the MYSQL database backend & everything will be snappy again
See http://amarok.kde.org/wiki/MySQL_HowTo - armo, on 06/09/2008, -0/+5I ♥ the suggested songs feature in the context view. It's great for building up playlists.
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd58/armo_2007/ ... - stutimandal, on 06/09/2008, -2/+7Amarok may be great, but my Winamp (full version, not pro) has 5500 songs and does not freezes on a WinXP Pro box from 2004 with Pentium 4 and 512 Mb Ram. It skips to a random file seamlessly and takes less than 12 Mb RAM and less than 1-2% CPU most of the time.
- ApoorvKhatreja, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4A more comprehensive one - http://stuff.techwhack.com/2853-amarok
- kinghajj, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5I prefer Rhythmbox, even though I use KDE. To each his own, though.
- TheRealToma, on 06/09/2008, -2/+6Personally, I dont need a big chunky music player to play some mp3s. Audacious works great here but I do recognise Amarok as a fantastic tool. Its great that we have so many excellent options in GNU/Linux :)
- dramaticlemur, on 06/09/2008, -2/+6It's really simple, Amarok is the only Linux player that doesn't completely suck and the only Linux application I'd ever consider using if it was ported to Windows.
Every other Linux player is full of useless crap like ***** last.fm recommendations in Banshee, while still missing the basic features like the support for the "compilation" tag (this way albums with multiple artists don't screw your music library). - BlueSkyfish, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5Just install it through Synaptic Package Manager. It will automatically do that stuff for you.
- islingt0ner, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4have you tried gmusic browser?
- mynameistux, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3amarok 2.0 vs banshe 1.0
I really want to know which ends up better. - dualscreenman, on 06/09/2008, -2/+5It might take up a bit more RAM than it would in KDE since it has to load the KDE libs, but unless you're hurting for RAM it shouldn't really hurt performance.
- rodrigo74, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3Songbird was buggy as hell when I first tried, 2 years ago, was still buggy as hell when I tried again last year, and guess what, I tried a couple of months ago and it was buggy as hell. Not to mention the memory leaks.
- WomensUnderwear, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3why is every single music player ever made such utter *****?
- armo, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2The only problem with KDE apps for me is it's pretty slow to launch the first one. After that it's all very quick especially with preload and prelink installed. I'd just like to find a way of adding kdelibs to the session startup to get rid of that initial wait.
- 000dom000, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2When switching to linux, I tried so many music players, and the ones that stood out were Amarok and Sonbird, however I do prefer Songbird because of the built in web browser and the itunes-like GUI.
- Spuy767, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3My iTunes labrary has been over 10k songs for about 3 or 4 years now and It's never ***** up.
- Gatesophile, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2It's always run pretty fast for me.
- Protoss, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Sonata+Mpd=Awesome.
- rodrigo74, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Linux Mint looks quite sexy...will try it :)
- seenxu, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1maybe waiting for another 3 - 6 months I will give it a try, again.
- trying2hide, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1why did YOU click the link?
- mickstephenson, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Exaile is good if you are really into playlists, bad if you just like to have a big music library and listen to various albums in the order they were intended. This is why I prefer Banshee and Rhythmbox which aren't as playlist orientated.
- Spuy767, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2I think it's because iTunes isn't available for Linux. . . "I keed, I keed."
- holyskeleton, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I second that. I just need a simple music player without any of those hassles and plays files with a good sound quality.
- Canadian0207, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2can anyone tell me what's the best linux distro out there that looks flashy? Ubuntu isn't as flashy as the Aero theme on Vista. I'm looking for something that's solidly coded, secure, and still has the pizzazz of mac osx or vista aero look.
- ukblacknight, on 06/09/2008, -4/+5I've tried Amarok three times now and I just can't get into it. I personally can't stand the way it has all the artists in a tree view, expanding them to show album, tracks etc, I don't get how that's usable. If there's a different way of viewing your music library, then I'll give it another go when I get the net back.
Otherwise, I stick with Rhythmbox, although I've got my eye on the new Banshee, as RB is far too simple and buggy. - theWrkncacnter, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1you can still run it, it will just start up more slowly -- that's what k3b is like in gnome
- kdesu, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Linux Mint and openSUSE are nice. Compiz Fusion adds flashy stuff like transparency, wobbly windows, maximizing/minimizing effects, etc... to any Linux distro, so just install it on whatever distro you choose and you're done (Linux Mint may have it installed out of the box, I don't remember).
- ZachSka87, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1The biggest for me is decent internet radio stations indexed quite conveniently.
- 47f0, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I have to say - this is absolutely correct. I'm a media idiot - I'm perfectly happy with my tiny collection and XMMS. But my friend has a huge collection of music, an iPod, and really needs Amarok - but it was slow. I'm a former database analyst, so I went with Postgresql (also supported by Amarok), and the difference in speed when scanning my friends collection was astounding.
For my friend's distro, I had to rebuild Amarok to include the Postgresql option, but that was a snap, and the results were just great. - ZachSka87, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Decent streaming radio stations?
- ozzy19, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1I've had the exact same experience! I hear everyone talk about how amazing Amorok is, and I really want to try it again...then I download it. It's kde, which I'm not a huge fan of, and that stupid tree view bugs me to no end. I like the simplicity of the Rhythmbox, although I sure do wish it had some of the more advanced features that these other clients do. I also feel like it manages my huge library better than any other that I've tried.
- inactive, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Rock on, I'm bookmarking that tip. I'm running xp atm, so I can't fix this now, but as somebody who as 10k+ songs, every little bit helps.
- trying2hide, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I use audacious with Tunapie. Amarok is cool, and easy to configure. If I didn't always have it on streaming radio, I would amarock it out
- inactive, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1http://www.gnome-look.org
http://www.kde-look.org
How pretty linux looks is strictly up to you. - tehsagemaster, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1i noticed some bugs too, but with what i was doing with it, the bugs from .4 and .5 didn't get in my way that much considering it isn't even a 1.0 release anyway. basically, its a great concept and its cross platform. amarok is great too, more stable, i don't think its cross platform, but for me, being able to have a built in browser and features that can take advantage of streams in a website is pretty cool, and UI is pretty nice too, doing that at only a .5 release is pretty good.
- seenxu, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I just can't get used to amarok, i'd prefer rhythmbox over amarok at the moment, because it has a similar user experience while I am using mac, my fav - iTunes!!!
in my opinion, rhythmbox only lacks of two or three features to be a complete replacement on linux for iTunes. hopefully someday somebody or myself can write plugins for rhythmbox to make it possible. - titooo1, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0 IMO, Amarok is great but is some more than ugly. Exaile is also cool. I have to check Banshee
- kfsutops, on 06/09/2008, -2/+2It's popular because there is no iTunes or WMP on Linux.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 