• 0

winamp or foobar


Question

20 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Here is a huge list of winamp downloads from early early alpha, to the latest release. I wouldn't go with anything below 1.0. Its a pretty cool site.

Foobar or winamp should run on the comp just fine, so the decision is completely up to you.

  • 0

The use of CPU and memory resources all depends on how you set it up. Right now I have Foobar2000 customized to my needs, this is with a couple of plugins and using some of the DSP Manager things. This results in a player that is heavier then Winamp (in classic mode), it uses more memory and uses more (twice as much) CPU cycles.

If you use Foobar2000 in the basic setup it might be easier on resources then Winamp (again in classic mode), but not much.

Frankly I think Winamp is in general easier on resources then Foobar2000. At least that is what I experience at the moment.

To back that up see the screenshot. As you can see they use pretty much the same amount of memory, though Foobar2000 uses a lot more CPU resources then Winamp does.

post-12-1095889414.png

  • 0
  insanekiwi said:
winamp for looks and easy usage, foobar for mp3 management/library imo.

That's an interesting recommendation......

Since Foobar2000 offers hardly any decent way of management/library out of the box. Besides playlists there isn't much that is really helpfull.

Winamp on the other hand has a fully functional media library that offers things like ratings, play count, browsing by artist/album/genre, smart playlists.... and a lot more.

  • 0

I use Winamp 5 iTunes skin for streaming music, or playing sound files not in my library.

I just got foobar, and am trying to make the switch from MMJB over to it. I finally got my database organized the way I want, however I need a good GUI. I've only see a few I like and I dont want to make my own

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.