I use itunes if I am goin to be playin mp3s for a long time... like when I am doin homework. For playing one file or so I use winamp plus winamp is still a good video player... however for H.264 I use Media Player Classic. Great little app and no install!
I love that it mentions MediaMonkey with the 2 heavy weights. I've been using it since it was SongDB. MediaMonkey has the best library and tagging functionality of the 3, plus scripting, supports most WinAmp plug-ins, and now has mp3 player (including iPod) support.As for the comment about the nodes, MediaMonkey does have the node hierarchy and with a script called "MagicNodes" you can customize the nodes however you like (Album/Artist/year/format/encoding/etc).
I 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.
anything but iTunes. iTunes sucks and anyone who thinks it is better is an idiot. It cant even play videos.Winamp is getting to much like iTunes, getting all caught up in the proprietary s**t. Mp3s are the best.
Someone 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 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' assiTunes = not that many features, slow, relatively huge footprint, not as many visualizations as winamp, poor format support
Closed AccountDec 19, 2005
winamp rocks.
phyreflyDec 20, 2005
Foobar = FastERAlthough I've stuck with Winamp, since I've found the perfect skin for it (clearONEbeta).
Closed AccountDec 20, 2005
ÉÉùiuayeah that's russian. thanks iTunes
dark_helmetDec 20, 2005
oh ya, i have an Athlon 64 3000+ with 1GB of ram and itunes is still slow, i ONLY use it for podcasts and syncing my ipod
mossflyDec 20, 2005
I use itunes if I am goin to be playin mp3s for a long time... like when I am doin homework. For playing one file or so I use winamp plus winamp is still a good video player... however for H.264 I use Media Player Classic. Great little app and no install!
leechDec 20, 2005
foobar kick every player ass!small, clean, and quality over all..maybe give the chance to Songbird.. MAAAAAAAAAAYBE
gtbuzzDec 20, 2005
I love that it mentions MediaMonkey with the 2 heavy weights. I've been using it since it was SongDB. MediaMonkey has the best library and tagging functionality of the 3, plus scripting, supports most WinAmp plug-ins, and now has mp3 player (including iPod) support.As for the comment about the nodes, MediaMonkey does have the node hierarchy and with a script called "MagicNodes" you can customize the nodes however you like (Album/Artist/year/format/encoding/etc).
bkimDec 21, 2005
I 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.
w00masterDec 21, 2005
tarun-Also, nice that you have to PAY to burn full speed w/ winamp.Lame. Lame.
mossflyDec 21, 2005
MajorOutage, I can't wait for Songbird either!
afruff23Feb 3, 2006
Also, the database of foobar is either lacking or it has some hidden option to make it easier to use.
illpointMar 16, 2006
anything but iTunes. iTunes sucks and anyone who thinks it is better is an idiot. It cant even play videos.Winamp is getting to much like iTunes, getting all caught up in the proprietary s**t. Mp3s are the best.
emillesMar 29, 2006
It was mentioned that Winamo could not stream audio to an AirPort Express. This is untrue. Try this output plug-in:<a class="user" href="http://emilles.dyndns.org/software/out_apx.html">http://emilles.dyndns.org/software/out_apx.html</a>
emillesMar 29, 2006
Winamp is small and easily extensible. It gets my vote for any file type other than mp3, m4a or wma. Also, you can now stream audio from Winamp to an AirPort Express using this plug-in:<a class="user" href="http://emilles.dyndns.org/software/out_apx.html">http://emilles.dyndns.org/software/out_apx.html</a>
eternalmelodyJul 25, 2008
Someone 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).
eternalmelodyJul 25, 2008
Someone 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' assiTunes = not that many features, slow, relatively huge footprint, not as many visualizations as winamp, poor format support
ibexmatchSep 30, 2008
i prefer winamp, i hate all product of apple. you can visit <a class="user" href="http://www.ibexmatch.com/buscarpost.php?Winamp-vs-iTunes&cdpost=20">http://www.ibexmatch.com/buscarpost.php?Winamp-vs- ...</a> for a match winamp vs itunes.