Comments on: Winamp 5.5 lite vs. XMPlay Memory Management

By: maille

maille — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:25:54 +0000

Winamp Messed up years ago when they made winamp 3, it got slow and buggy, XMplay is nice and great for a memory stick but I’ve moved to media monkey it’s great for managing media and you can have all your favourite winamp plugins

By: HiddenPalm

HiddenPalm — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:48:24 +0000

Does XMPlay have dsp plugins or feature and can it crossfade to the beat and take out dead noise like sqladvanced crossfade?

I cant listen to music without those features. I could care less about looks as long as my music can sound like amazing with those two features.

By: Winamp Auto Tagger

Winamp Auto Tagger — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:45:02 +0000

[...] a new operating system. This has changed in the last two years because I did switch from Winamp to XMPlay which is only using half of the resources that Winamp Lite is using when playing music. (4 MB vs. [...]

By: unruled

unruled — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:22:06 +0000

@thinker: even if you have 50gb of ram, why use an inefficient program if you have a more efficient one?

That is the policy I follow, and it doesnt have to sacrifice on looks: xmplay has really nice skins. For me its also not only memory usage, but how snappy and fast the program feels. This is strongly ocrrelated to memory usage ofcourse, but not solely.

By: Top aplicaciones para reproducir multimedia » By arturogoga » article » arturogoga.com

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:40:11 +0000

[...] es la primera vez que mencionamos a XMPlay. Lo probé debido a las buenas recomendaciones de Martin al respecto, y hasta ahora no me ha [...]

By: Mosey

Mosey — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:55:20 +0000

I’m personally a fan of Winamp for music (love the skin availability) which I find isn’t readily available for Foobar or XMPlay. As Thinker mentioned, when Firefox (love, dislike relationship :P) is taking up tonnes more memory, 2-3 MB extra from Winamp isn’t really going to hurt. It would be nice (one day) if I could find a current Winamp version that *didn’t* support video play-back, since as Ghacks has already pointed out – it video functionality is rubbish – and VLC or MPC are far better alternatives.

By: Winamp 5.5 lite对XMPlay » Ghacks CN

Winamp 5.5 lite对XMPlay » Ghacks CN — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:28:48 +0000

[...] 原文链接。 I hope you enjoyed reading this post. You may now subscribe to my RSS Feed, scroll down to 留下评论 or get back to the homepage. I recommend Giganews, the ultimate P2P alternative: Read here why [...]

By: Thinker

Thinker — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:29:23 +0000

Does that few MB really matters?
You have 3MB more free ram, but for example Firefox consumes more than 100. One FF plugin can consume few MB.
Of course lite programs are better, but only if they dont slow down computer in the long run.

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:12:41 +0000

Well I got 2 Gigabyte of Ram and prefer it as light as possible. Must be a relict from the past ;)

By: Enigma

Enigma — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:07:01 +0000

I know the feeling, i prefer foobar2000 especially with this config

http://www.fooblog2000.com/2007-06/fofr-version-09

By: Joose Haverinen

Joose Haverinen — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:07:47 +0000

When having 2gb of RAM (which a lot of people nowadays do), people prefer looks over lite. For example foobar2000 has skins which both look good and are fluent to use.

http://dawxxx666.deviantart.com/art/AvA-1-4-on-Vista-63667544

This one is my current favorite. Waiting for the next version.

By: HED854K

HED854K — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:23:36 +0000

Great article.
I switched from Winamp to Xmplay since ages, but I didn’t know about the memory things.

By: yair

yair — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:49:00 +0000

and i though foobar200 was lean… thanks martin. great content