[flyingfiddler]

Wife likes WMP 11... enough said

Regards,
Dan

[glocK_94]

flyingfiddler, on Dec 5 2006, 12:45 PM, said:

Wife likes WMP 11... enough said

Winamp for music, WMP 6.4 for videos.

[Jaqie Fox]

Kiljaeden, on Nov 20 2006, 02:46 AM, said:

Media Player Classic that comes with the Combined Community Codec Pack. In addition, I install Quicktime Alternative and Real Alternative. Plays everything I throw at it, even high definition video. Windows Media Player can't/won't play certain formats or files encoded with certain codecs. I use Winamp solely for audio. Best combination

QFT.

I was going to post the exact same setup (minus the combined codec pack, I am picky as to what codecs I install and have a list I go through upon reinstalls). The only thing this setup won't play is .ratDVD (which is a very dodgy standard). That i use moopeg for playing when I come across one (which isn't often anymore).

[pepoluan]

foobar2000, Winamp, MPlayer, The Core Media Player.

[nfm]

amaroK in my opinion is the most advanced audio player, I use it a lot but I prefer xmms because I experience occasional crashes because I use gnome interface and amaroK is intended for kde. I rarely use windows but when I do, I use foobar2000 as a player.

For videos, I configure and compile my own version of mplayer from source.

[WBHoenig]

Personally, I use GNOME, too (Ubuntu), and Amarok (from the apt repos) seems to work just as stable as it does under KDE (or more - KDE's not exactly the most stable piece of software out there). I've read horror stories, but it works great for me.

This post has been edited by WBHoenig: 06 February 2007 - 04:50 PM

[Jaqie Fox]

Oh. when in *nix (FreeBSD in my case) I use noatun.

[Zxian]

I'm gonna answer this in terms of music, since I listen to music more than I watch video.

Winamp!!! There isn't another media player out there that has the same kind of UI as Winamp, nor do they have the same kind of functionality built in.

Winamp 5.31 syncs with my iPod, manages my music, plays most formats out of the box (ok... no flac or ape by default). What more could you ask for?

[pepoluan]

Zxian, on Dec 6 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

Winamp 5.31 syncs with my iPod, manages my music, plays most formats out of the box (ok... no flac or ape by default). What more could you ask for?

You'll be glad to know that the latest Winamp supports FLAC out-of-the-box

[WBHoenig]

Zxian, on Dec 5 2006, 10:55 PM, said:

I'm gonna answer this in terms of music, since I listen to music more than I watch video.

Winamp!!! There isn't another media player out there that has the same kind of UI as Winamp, nor do they have the same kind of functionality built in.

Winamp 5.31 syncs with my iPod, manages my music, plays most formats out of the box (ok... no flac or ape by default). What more could you ask for?

Amarok does all of that, too
Although on some Linux distros with some codecs (e.g. wma) you have to type in about three lines in terminal for it to work

[EchoNoise]

quod libet

[Mangix]

foobar2000 for music. the **** thing is simply the best. there is nothing better than it; and nobody can convince me otherwise.

as for Videos, DVDs, and similar s***, Media Player Classic along with ffdshow.

[sonu27]

I chose foobar2000 for one reason only: very low CPU usage on my 850mhz P3.

WMP11 kills it at everything else, except resources.

[Nerwin]

ITUNES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post has been edited by computerMan: 28 January 2007 - 06:16 PM

[sven]

Itunes indeed! I've been using it forever (well, 3 years since i got my ipod). i always found that musicmatch was a like, slow and annoying. on the other hand, foobar2000 doesn't have may library functions (i use it to play flac files. Windows media player has a weird way of organizing playlists. I find it's hard to find them in the ui, but i do use it to play single songs here and there. I tried winamp a while ago, but i didn't use it long enough to get use to it. In the end, it all came down to iPod and Podcast support, which itunes has and i already use.

[Nerwin]

sven, on Jan 28 2007, 11:32 PM, said:

Itunes indeed! I've been using it forever (well, 3 years since i got my ipod). i always found that musicmatch was a like, slow and annoying. on the other hand, foobar2000 doesn't have may library functions (i use it to play flac files. Windows media player has a weird way of organizing playlists. I find it's hard to find them in the ui, but i do use it to play single songs here and there. I tried winamp a while ago, but i didn't use it long enough to get use to it. In the end, it all came down to iPod and Podcast support, which itunes has and i already use.

RIGHT ON!

[chillinfart]

Currently, winamp sux.
WMP(im using WMP 9) are good and can boost my little sound system(headphones).
Mplayer classic. Nice for discrete usage (specially when im seeing p*rn) and don't need a lot of cpu or ram.
itunes... excellent if is installed on a macintosh. Windows version is too HEAVY.

[ytrewq]

chillinfart, on Apr 23 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

Currently, winamp sux.

I somewhat agree. I don't care much for most of the newer stuff in it (I like the new look, but not the library). Not too worried about resource usage or anything like that. It seems to be getting somewhat buggy though: adding part of my mp3's in the library crashes it, half the time it crashes instead of saving playlists, stuff like that. More than annoying. Same stuff works fine in all other players (like WMP). I just might give foobar another try.

chillinfart, on Apr 23 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

itunes... excellent if is installed on a macintosh. Windows version is too HEAVY.

Might be ok on a Mac (don't have nor use one), but on Windows it's absolute garbage. I'd use anything over that bloated useless trash.

[Maelstorm]

It really depends on what the format is. I generally keep formats to their native players. An exception to that rule that I have is MP3s...I play those with Sonique v1.96. It's old, but I like it and it works.

[LUZR4LIFE]

I use WMP11.