XMMS OS X Native

[ShiggyMiyamoto]

Does this exist? How hard would it be to take it and make the initial port?

XMMS = X MultiMedia System = the most popular Unix music player there is.

http://www.xmms.org

[chucker]

You can use it through X11. I don't see the point of porting something as horrible as XMMS to Aqua, however.

[ast3r3x]

You can use it through X11. I don't see the point of porting something as horrible as XMMS to Aqua, however.

Look at it...it looks like winamp! :lol:

Prithee, what makes this better then iTunes?

[Koodari]

Look at it...it looks like winamp! :lol:

Prithee, what makes this better then iTunes?Smaller, lighter, more responsive. Simpler, easier to use. Does not duplicate the music (which iTunes does unless you configure it). Skinnable. Main window and playlist together are so small you can often leave them open in one edge of a desktop display, where they take only 1/5 of the space, but you see the whole playlist.

To sum it up, the main weakness of iTunes is that it's quite bulky if all you want is to play some .mp3:s.

[chucker]

Then use Audion. Or MacAMP. Or some other random player. Anything. But XMMS? What the...

[ast3r3x]

Smaller, lighter, more responsive. Simpler, easier to use. Does not duplicate the music (which iTunes does unless you configure it). Skinnable. Main window and playlist together are so small you can often leave them open in one edge of a desktop display, where they take only 1/5 of the space, but you see the whole playlist.

To sum it up, the main weakness of iTunes is that it's quite bulky if all you want is to play some .mp3:s.

What type of computer you got there champ? I've never had problems with responsiveness at all...but I know others have complained.

Simpler and easier to use? Get real, not only is it definitely not true, but it's not even a good argument because they are both a stinking mp3 player.

Duplication, well I can see how a novice would get annoyed, but not only have you expressed your knowledge of how to not have this happen, but it's really only a problem if you are using songs you have attained illegally...or that you have ripped before, but what are you ripping with if not iTunes?

Your main goal is to "just play some mp3s" but you want to use an app not made for OS X, and so running it through X11? :err:

I guess to each their own...good luck with all that then. Space has just never been a problem for me, I que up some songs (or better the shuffle feature) and hide it, while I do whatever...no screen space taken up, no loading different playlists, they are all loaded, I can choose a different one and start it playing in under 5 seconds. I often use X-Tunes to control iTunes to skip to another song if I don't want to hear it...better yet, not only no screen real estate taken up, but I don't even have to unhide it to change songs.


Well have fun, and good luck getting it to work, if that is what your goal is :)

[greyfire]

I'd be interested to know of this as well. while iTunes is a pretty good program, I really wish it was more customizable in terms of its interface. It can be very unwieldy, and I must say I like narrower, taller windows, to view more songs in a playlist at a time and with the way iTunes uses columns for artist and track title, etc. it's impossible, really, do do that and get the info I want.

Edit: Also, iTunes is pretty resource intensive. RAM usage isn't all that bad, though I'm sure it sould be trimmed down somewhat, but it is relatively CPU hungry for sure.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

I agree with you on the CPU usage. Just playing a song, iTunes takes 10-15% of CPU according to top. This is on a 1.25GHz G4 PowerBook. That seems a bit much to play an audio file.

[Brad]

*sigh* :no: Kids these days just don't understand CPU management.

iTunes should not only take 1 or 5 or 10 percent while it's running. If nothing else needs the CPU, iTunes should take 100% of it. Of course, if you saw that you'd probably freak out and think something is horribly wrong.

iTunes uses a system of soft real-time threads in Mac OS X. That's why (for the vast majority of users) iTunes never skips despite high CPU load by other processes. Using real-time threads inevitably incurs a bit of overhead since they have deadlines that must be met, but that's the small price you pay if you want something to run smoothly.

I can't begin to count the number of times Winamp has stuttered when simply loading a complex web page or accessing the filesystem heavily on a mid-level Windows box. iTunes very very rarely will suffer from this. My Mac is four years old and I can be rendering something in 3D, browsing the web, and doing all sorts of other activities and iTunes *never* stutters or stalls on me. I honestly can not remember a single time since I've had Mac OS X that I've had such a problem with iTunes.

Now, regarding this XMMS business, if you're desperate for a "native" copy (as if the fink port of xmms and esd isn't good enough) the closest thing you'll have is xAudic (http://www.xaudic.net). Good luck with getting it to use less CPU than iTunes, though. When I just tried it, it was bouncing between 39% and 52% usage on my dual 500 G4. :rolleyes:

[staph]

When I just tried it, it was bouncing between 39% and 52% usage on my dual 500 G4. :rolleyes:

Well, that's what mpg123 --single-mix --4to1 is for! ;)

[windowsblowsass]

Then use Audion. Or MacAMP. Or some other random player. Anything. But XMMS? What the...

I second audion if your not going to use itunes for some odd reason audion is great very skinnable visuals etc etc

[Kickaha]

I'd be interested to know of this as well. while iTunes is a pretty good program, I really wish it was more customizable in terms of its interface. It can be very unwieldy, and I must say I like narrower, taller windows, to view more songs in a playlist at a time and with the way iTunes uses columns for artist and track title, etc. it's impossible, really, do do that and get the info I want.

Menu item Edit->View Options. Turn off what you don't want.

Does *no one* try out the features anymore?

Edit: Also, iTunes is pretty resource intensive. RAM usage isn't all that bad, though I'm sure it sould be trimmed down somewhat,

Based on what information are you sure?

More importantly, with the VM in OS X, why do you *care*?

but it is relatively CPU hungry for sure.

Brad addressed this well. You can get lower CPU usage, but at the expense of stuttering. Real-Time threads (even soft ones) have a bit of overhead involved that bumps the CPU use up a notch. Not using RT threads means that your player is simply... lacking. Take your pick.