axel_2078 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 (edited) What is the difference between XMMS and amaroK? Aren't they both audio players? Edited March 23, 2005 by axel_2078 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devries Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 http://xinehq.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowchaser Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 i would say amarok is more user friendly and it gives you a better abilty to manage your Music over Xine.. Xine is a Very Powerful Video Player that can play music. but it lacks alot of Music features that Amarok offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foot Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Its apples and pears really - Xine is damned good at playing a variety of video formats (if you make sure you install the codecs from the nightly build page) whilst Amarok is more of a 'jukebox' audio player and is damned good (if a tad confusing at times) at sorting through your music files, making playlists etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel_2078 Posted March 21, 2005 Author Share Posted March 21, 2005 I'm sorry guys. What I meant to ask was what's the difference between XMMS and amaroK? I don't know why I said Xine. Sorry for the confusion. So what separates XMMS and amarok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmc77 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I haven't had any experience with amarok, personaly, but if you're into eye candy, I know that XMMS uses winamp skins. So there's plenty of visual options out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devries Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Amarok is a KDE application so it integrates nicely with the DE. It has all kinds of features: OSD, scripts (you can have the KDE speech synthesizer call out the name and arts of the song), lyrics, easy playlist edit, drag and drop (just drop a mp3, stream link in the play window and it works), different kind of output (arts, gstreamer etcetc), there is a player window option that makes it behave like xmms. In short Amarok is all you ever wanted in a Music player. Xmms shows it's age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 amaroK is audio bliss for me! B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel_2078 Posted March 23, 2005 Author Share Posted March 23, 2005 In amarok, is there a way to stop it from fading out at the end of each song? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devries Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Settings, configure amarok, playback, no crossfading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel_2078 Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 (edited) After using both, I think I like XMMS better. It has a simpler interface and I don't need or care for the cd cover display thing that amarok offers. XMMS is also similar to winamp, which I like. Edited March 24, 2005 by axel_2078 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest riscphree Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I choose amarok over xmms for these reasons: 1) whenever i try to play something in xmms, it crashes. 2) amarok seems to work well for me. 3) what works right away, works for me :) otherwise, its basically presonal preference, xmms is for all the people who used winamp when they used windows ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kastorff Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 The biggest difference is library management, IMO. XMMS has a smaller memory/CPU footprint, but has less features in playlist/jukebox area. amaroK will do just about everything, and with the latest builds, do it well. The combination of mySQL and amaroK is the only way to go if you have a very large music library. We're talking orders of magnitude faster than Madman, Rhythmbox, JuK, etc. And amaroK can be configured to use the xine engine, which IMO simply sounds better for some stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 The biggest difference is library management, IMO. XMMS has a smaller memory/CPU footprint, but has less features in playlist/jukebox area. amaroK will do just about everything, and with the latest builds, do it well. The combination of mySQL and amaroK is the only way to go if you have a very large music library. We're talking orders of magnitude faster than Madman, Rhythmbox, JuK, etc. And amaroK can be configured to use the xine engine, which IMO simply sounds better for some stuff. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, welcome to MUSB, kastorff! B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lärs Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 I prefer XMMS for several reasons. *Xmms is light *Xmms is easy to configure for unorthodox music formats (such as MODs and Atari/C64 music) *Xmms is like winamp :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now