Re: What DO you lose with Linux ??? (fwd)
Hey all,
Just had to jump in with my $0.02 here -- Winamp is _not_ well
written - it is a complete resource cow! It has many features that are
just plain extraneous and introduce unnecessary overhead. I have trouble
even *playing* mp3s on my family's Win98 box, a P133 with 32MB of RAM, let
alone running something else while listening. X11amp uses less CPU time,
it plays well, and it runs on GNU/Linux systems. Now if it was just open
source...
Steve
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> [Lev, who's recovering after a debilitating and unexplained MB crash
> replies]
>
> Somone mentioned that "Winamp" was available as a linux port...is this
> true? if so, what's the URL?
>
> In answering your question, Winamp is well written, well-supported, and
> there's no "maturing nicely" excuse :).
>
> -levi
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Michael Beattie wrote:
>
> > > Mac, and that's still arguable)...and to top it off, Winamp, 'nuff said.
> >
> > Excuse me? Who wants _Win_amp on a linux box? X11amp works perfectly :)
> > Even though it is still maturing nicely, x11amp has everything I need.
> > (Except the File Info box - which is coming :) )
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
>
Reply to: