What is Digg?156 Comments
- mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8There are tons of inaccuracies against iTunes here. He says iTunes can't even rip CD's...
"Winamp can burn and rip CDs... iTunes can only burn" - allthewhile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8He also claims that iTunes can't rip cds, which of course, is incorrect.
- Namco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8There's 2 schools of thought here.
If you were around when MP3s were invented, try to live off the radar, like to preserve cpu cycles, download "a ton of *****", and don't want anyone screwing with your music collection, then you're probably going to use an Winamp or an old version of Winamp.
If you like browsing and downloading from the iTunes store, keep your ID3 tags neatly organaized, spend lots of time carefully ripping and sorting your music, own a shiny white overpriced computer, own an ipod, don't believe in "illegal downloading", or run only 1 or 2 programs at a time, then you probably use iTunes.
On the other hand, I'll admit that I belong to the former group, but still acknowledge itunes' superior (free) CD ripping abilities and music sorting capabilities... but I run Winamp mainly because of Milkdrop/Geiss. If iTunes can let me trip out on Milkdrop or Geiss, then I'll switch. - noumenon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7i use iTunes for its ability to make it easy to organize and access a database of music. this guy doesn't even talk about the browse functionality of iTunes wherein you can trim down what appears in the library window first by genre, then artist, and finally album. plus iTunes organizes all of my music for me in a folder. of course this stuff only works right if you ID3 tags are correct.
oh, and he reviews iTunes 4.7... the current version is, what, 6? c'mon. - 1337geek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Winamp gets my vote, just like Firefox, its great to add those little add-in's which make it just that much better.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I still use winamp 2.X Its small, quick, and does the job. Plus it integrates well into trillian.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4winamp rocks.
- odysseus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3iTunes here. Yes it's a bloated pig, but like Firefox, can't live without it. Two free songs every Tuesday on iTMS, easy ratings system, keeps track of playcounts everywhere you go, and best of all, organizes all my tracks. No more renaming files and sorting them into folders. A huge timesaver.
- ronmexico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can't think of a single thing iTunes can't do very well that I would want it to. I don't think this guy has used it enough to appreciate it.
- mrjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Nobody's going to mention amaroK (http://amarok.kde.org/). It's linux only. I never thought I'd switch from the utilitarian XMMS/WinAmp 2.x combination... but holy cow, Amarok is fantastic.
- ThePaleHunter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a good topic, but this particular review has some factual problems. Maybe he was reviewing an older version of iTunes?
- mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Shoot, undigg. Found that he reviewed old versions.
- HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3iTunes on Mac wins hands down!
- ModernTenshi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I find this review to be heavily skewed in favor if Winamp. I agree that he should have used the latest version of iTunes, and that he really did not look at all the features included with iTunes. I used Winamp for years, then when iTunes was released, I started using it. It was a rough start, but after a while, I found I couldn't live without it. It's simple to figure out, organizes music wonderfully, and the search is incredibly fast despite what this guy says.
- manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm a bit disappointed in the bias in this article.
That aside, I use Winamp in Windows (though it has gotten a bit bloated over the years) because I've been using it for ages (pre-Napster days - I used to giggle whenever I heard "it really kicks the llama's ass"), and I use iTunes on my Macs - it's the slickest player for Mac, but that's because when it comes to Mac, your choices are rather limited.
I'm pretty disappointed in both, in case you couldn't tell. I have two thoughts - 1) the best choice for media management and playback is on Linux (amaroK), and 2) I'm very much looking forward to Songbird - it appears to have to much potential as far as expandability and versatility is concerned (but that's months/years from reaching that level of maturity). - afruff23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's somethings to look at:
Ease of use:iTunes, Winamp, then foobar(haven't used MM)
Functionality:foobar, Winamp, then iTunes
I use Winamp most of the time, due to the perfect balance between ease of use and functionality. Unicode support and correct ID3 tag writing would be nice.
For most people though, they will not use just one program for music. In my experience, the syncing of files with *insert device here* in media players is quite lacking so I use the allway sync program. memory and bloatedness: iTunes is a POS in this account(I don't want to wait half a minute to just edit a tag). Winamp reportedly has the best sound, but still takes a while to load(around 15 seconds with dozens of plugins installed). Foobar is awesome in terms of startup time. It loads in less than a second. The only thing keeping me from using it is that you have to take a few hours to tweak it to your liking and the interface is not pretty. If you're into Smart playlists(called smart views in winamp, and playlist generator in foobar), then this is the order of customizability: foobar, then winamp, then iTunes. Isn't it funny how iTunes advertises this so much, yet they have the worst support? In foobar and winamp you can use logical operators and parentheses(making it easy to base a smart playlist off of another), though only foobar and itunes can limit the size of the playlist. I don't blame people for not using foobar, since it takes so long to tweak, but itunes is just a bloated piece of crap(I wish I never installed it, now I have the ituneshelper and ipod service processes running at all times). Over time, I might switch to foobar because the less than 1 second startup time is a HUGE plus(I can export ALL of my smart playlists easily to my mp3 device in less than 20 seconds). However, I do like iTMS vast library, although I wish they didn't use DRM(can't play videos on to my mp3 player which isn't an ipod due to the DRM). - motionblur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3noobs use iTunes.
old schoolers use Winamp, because it still whips the llama's ass! - aaarg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2mediamonkey hands down and winamp a close second (uses more memory for some reason on my box)
not that the mac fanboys would ever consider anything than i(insert lame name here) - catullus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1btw MediaMonkey has a stunning iTunes skin that makes it look almost identical to it
- pyrolupus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Been using Winamp (and the X11amp clone) for a looong time. Lightweight and feature rich, it'll likely continue to be my favorite for a long time to come.
- laughterkillsme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1winamp blows if you have more than 10 songs. itunes for some reason is horribly slow when dealing with the podcast directory and uses too manyu resources for everything .. and I switched to linux so i don't are about media monkey now. lol
- TheRealStyro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I use iTunes (v6!) for my general collection (and update the living room iPod). WinAmp is used for checking new acquisitions before adding to iTunes.
- catullus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the reason i switched to MusicMatch was that it can do a sort of Windows Explorer-ish tiered view like Genre>Artist>Songs
something like this
- Rock
+Audioslave
+Everclear
-Foo Fighters
- Best of You
- Monkey Wrench
etc. with each Genre and Artist expanding when you click the +
does anyone know any other programs that have this specific functionality? as far as i can tell, iTunes, MediaMonkey, and WinAmp don't. maybe they do though... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1iTunes you can buy music, but most people just download it off of p2p. other than that reason, there are no others to not use winamp over iTunes. winamp is clearly the winner seeing as it is smaller and has more features than all the others. plugins and millions of skins open it to a whole new world of functionality and customization.
- jhsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i go with winamp. i don't think it's mentioned, but Winamps ability to use hot-keys is one of the most useful things for me, being able to hit a few keys and have the library pop up. organization? i prefer winamps because the sort by artist, and instead of listing per song, winamp shows artist and when selected, you can select albums on one pane and songs below.
winamp also has a lot of skins out there, so finding one you like isn't hard (they usually come with plenty of colors).
you can also change the opacity of the different windows.
The statement about Itune's scrolling speed and those extra processes is accurrate though, they are annoying. - gk128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love my Winamp, but have been finding myself on iTunes alot. Te fact that it shuffles my whole collection easily and I can pinpoint a song in the browse bar is nice.
- CountZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I kind of use both. I use iTunes because my podcast aggregator (iPodder) can add the files to either Windows Media Player or iTunes, and I'd much prefer iTunes to WMP
- zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I use Winamp if for no other reason I can load my ipod from any computer and not worry about ITunes erasing my music from the player when I connect it to a foreign computer.
- smafty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It took me a while to get over the bland appearance of foobar compared to Winamp. But it won me over by doing little things well, like not inserting gaps between songs, which Winamp does for some reason.
- t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok, this is truly lame. Not only is it comparing old versions, it also has inaccuracies in it such as him saying that iTunes can't rip CDs.
- zone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Winamp! It really whips the iTunes's ass!
- emaf37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Battle of the MP3 giants (article created on 27th March 2005"
This is why hes reviewing an older version of iTunes. Perhaps an update to the article? - ibis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm with mrjones, I used to use winamp2 and just keep my music organized in explorer. I tried itunes for ages when I got an ipod, even went to the trouble of fixing all my id3 tags, but never liked it much. Then I switched to amarok, and it's frickin' amazing.
Incidentally, what I really want in itunes is a way of tagging a directory as being a "various artists" directory or something, and no file in that directory shows up as a seperate artist in the artist view, because I'm sick of having the artist view full of artists out of compilations and one-offs. - bkim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can stream audio using a lossless codec to my Airport Express' S/PDIF optical output using iTunes. Even the golden ears at Stereophile magazine like the Airport Express. You can't do that with WinAmp.
- teebiss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have both iTunes and Winamp installed on my computer. That said, I use musikCube for day-to-day mp3/ogg listening.
I'm one of those guys whose music collection is neatly organized and impeccably maintained. Every filename, every folder, every ID tag is perfect. I have a very large collection, so being able to find what I want to listen to quickly is very important to me.
Back in the day I used Winamp exclusively, but eventually found their media library functions lacking. I then switched to iTunes, but grew weary of its huge fat ass. After some poking around the freeware stuff I finally found musikCube and fell in love.
musikCube gets my vote for several reasons: low memory/footprint, nice plugins and configurable, freeware and open source, and I love its media library.
If you like the way iTunes organizes into genre/artist/album windows, but hate how bloated the app has become, then give musikCube a chance.
http://www.musikcube.com/ - EternalMelody, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Someone said that Winamp cannot read unicode characters. WRONG!! I use winamp and it can display Japanese characters (or any other unicode character for that matter). I agree that Winamp is better than iTunes. I have never used MediaMonkey so I can't say much about it.
Noobs use iTunes because of its so called "superior organizing capabilities"
I don't need my music to be organized by the media player. I know where my files are. In windowshade mode, winamp barely uses any processor power. As another note, iTunes have a very limited number of supported formats, unlike Winamp which by the way supports FLAC by default (which is a superior format compared to Apple Lossless). - jhsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0songbird is coming soon btw...
anyways if you want asian character support for winamp, the easiest way is to use NJstar communicator (read http://www.njstar.com/support/NJStar_Communicator/ for help) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0iTunes is only good on a macintosh seeing as it is really your only decent media player. it still doesn't do videos like others can.
- ericpp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I actually like both...
Winamp is a nice when you just want a lightweight music player. I also like the shoutcast/aol music directories in the winamp library.
iTunes is good for digging through you and your roommates music collections. The music sharing features are really nice in iTunes when you have roommates. - ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Amarok croos-platform?
Otherwise i think it works like this. iTunes is great for the database driven listener with large (50-100+ song) libraries.
I havent used winamp in a while (yeah im a switcher) but the 2.x series I liked the most, but then I only had few songs. The other versions were mad bloat.
IMO iTunes is superior because of its clean, intuitive layout. Winamp used as a library just doesnt seem as streamlined as it should be. - diargasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People still use winamp? itunes is the best, especially if you like podcasts and own an ipod.
- subscribtion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Quintessential Player>*
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Winamp is at 5.12 now, so it's even better than the reviewed 5.02 version ;-)
- Whyarewerunning, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Forget all of these I want to see more about Songbird.
- baltakatei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While Winamp is definitely a functional application, I use iTunes since I figured out how to use its smart playlists. A Winamp plug-in may exist that serves the same functionality, but iTunes has it built-in and has a nice big play button.
However, I keep Winamp around specifically for ripping dated video game ROM sound files into mp3 or ogg. That is a job I don't trust to iTunes nor do I wish iTunes had such capabilities. Each program has its role on my computer. - ibexmatch, on 09/30/2008, -0/+0i prefer winamp, i hate all product of apple. you can visit http://www.ibexmatch.com/buscarpost.php?Winamp-vs- ... for a match winamp vs itunes.
- topher1078, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not the best written article, especially when it is so old.
- colonelpanic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Old versions, false info. iTunes visualzation is much broader and fully customizable (press the q a z keys while your using it for those that don't know). Also iTunes has been able to rip cd's since it was released ofr OS 9 several years ago. I'm an iTunes guy, if you haven't figured that one out yet, both on my mac and PC. How many of those apps can share music over a network? Not to mention the completely integrated podcast feature, and who can forget-party shuffle.
No digg due to outdated versions and false info. - EternalMelody, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Someone said that Winamp cannot read unicode characters. WRONG!! I use winamp and it can display Japanese characters (or any other unicode character for that matter). I agree that Winamp is better than iTunes. I have never used MediaMonkey so I can't say much about it.
Noobs use iTunes because of its so called "superior organizing capabilities"
I don't need my music to be organized by the media player. I know where my files are. In windowshade mode, winamp barely uses any processor power. As another note, iTunes have a very limited number of supported formats, unlike Winamp which by the way supports FLAC by default (which is a superior format compared to Apple Lossless).
Someone up there also said that Winamp is featureless. Once again, wrong. Winamp has hundreds of plugins that you can download to get most of the features you will ever need for a media player.
Winamp wins by a big margin here.
Winamp = fast (full mode is faster than iTunes' mini mode), has many features, has many more visualizations (infinite with the built in AVS), small footprint, very good format support, totally whips the iTunes' ass
iTunes = not that many features, slow, relatively huge footprint, not as many visualizations as winamp, poor format support -
Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is