Does linux have a good music player?
Ever since this thread I have been running over what Microsoft products I use and realised there may be a better player then Windows media player.
On a W2K machine of mine, I always quite liked the original Media Player (still should be available on all other Windows versions, if, like me, you don't want all the bells and whistles, just to
play the sodding sound/video file), but have since changed to VLC. Apart from anything else, I use it to listen to radio programmes, and I can set them to play at 1.5x speed, still perfectly intelligible but less time-consuming than the original. As mentioned, VLC is cross-platform multimedia hence you could use on just about any platform you want (with the appropriate install) and it deals with video as well as audio.
Audacity is a great free audio editing package that's also cross-platform, and could play your music (even if you don't want to edit it), whatever system you're on. I also use ffplay and its ffmpeg format converting companion, but that's probably too much of a technical solution (practical feature-packed, interface feature-sparse, although there are front-ends for it that may address that issue) to practically suggest. I've never known a genuine video/audio format that neither VLC nor ffplay can handle (including subtitle tracks, in the case of the former), save for some protected by DRM, and I bet there's a solution for
that as well...
Been a long time since I used WinAmp. (The 'skin'ning ability is not my thing. Not turned on by eye-candy, however useful the functionality below is. I know I differ from many people on this point, though.) But I remember it being very good back when I did use it and so can't see a reason not to support it, in principle, these days.
There are any number of other pieces of software, though, and you'll probably get some examples in your default installation[1], but if they don't float your boat, try something else until it does. The problem is choice. As it is with the original distro you use[2], not the lack of software, but of going through any number of pieces of software that you might get along with and working out which one(s) do work for you. Much as with the vi/emacs debate, you'll also find that there are camps of people who stopped when they found one package that they liked who might well cast mutual dispersions with another camp of people who happened to miss that one but stopped at another, effectively equally powerful, package that the latter liked. Geek culture at its finest.
[1] One of the many "K<foo>" things under KDE or "G<foo>" things under Gnome... A sign of something well-integrated into the window manager you've chosen, so if the "<foo>" echoes a <foo> that you know and trust from elsewhere, it'll probably be worth it, although some of the things created purely for that WM can sometimes seem like basic test programmes.
[2] Want windows? Well, if you haven't got a handy XP install that you can use (well, that'd be my ideal, YMMV), then you only have to choose between the various levels[3] of Windows 7. Going for Linux and, as you can see, you have: Mint, Ubunto, Debian, Suse, Fedora, etc, etc, etc, never mind MythTV, Puppy, Backtrack, etc as versions that are heavily tuned to particular tasks. (Although at least then you know where those latter are aimed, without even trying them under a misapprehension, of course.)
[3] Out of Thin, Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional, Enterprise and Ultimate, for a desktop/tower you've basically only got a choice between Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate.
- Thin=>Not yet available, but won't be relevant to most people.
- Starter=>Netbook pre-install or buy as an OEM if you're technical, but really only useful if you want/need small-footprint.
- Home Basic=>The '3rd world edition', probably doesn't apply to you.
- Home Premium=>The word 'premium' probably attracts the people flitting about the shelves, and is probably what you'll get from a high-street store. I happen to think that the 'premium', although applying properly to the level of the 'Home' package, grossly mis-sells this version to the average man/woman in the street as being "the best", when it's really the lowest level desktop OS that they'll be able to get. Sorry, bit of a rant, there.
- Professional=>Now we're getting there, something that entices me, especially with intrinsic Windows XP Mode for compatibility issues (although there are other solutions available to Home Premium). Probably what I'd be getting, if I ever personally get a machine together for the purpose of running Windows 7
- Enterprise=>Business version of the software. "Professional+", with some interesting additional features, but not relevant to most personal users.
- Ultimate=>A lot of people gravitated towards Ultimate because (if they had the spare cash to pay for this, or upgrade to this from their original version) it promises 'everything', although I've heard reports that things fell short of what was expected. I tend to believe that the 'Ultimate' has ended up as much a mis-selling term in the geek community as the 'Premium' bit of the 'Home Premium' has been for the lay-person community.
Author
Topic: Linux...how/why? (Read 4591 times)