PDA

View Full Version : Who is using Songbird?



arbulus
January 14th, 2008, 08:06 PM
I'm interested in trying out Songbird, but I keep getting mixed reviews. I know it's still only in development, but I really like the premise of it and I'm still trying to settle into a good music player.

I saw that Songbird has a new 0.4 release, so I'm wondering: who all is using it and what do you think about it? I checked it out probably a year ago and it was pretty much unusable. But I'm wondering how it's evolved. I have about 50 GB of mp3s in my music library. Does anyone know if can support such a large library? What are your experiences with it?

bobbocanfly
January 14th, 2008, 08:23 PM
The last version i used (0.3.5) was a bit mixed. Loves to eat your Ram, Firefox and Songbird can easily eat a fair bit of 512mb and is still noticable with 1gb of RAM. It doesnt handle Flac well at all (it plays it but not very good a reading tags etc.). On the plus side it is very good looking, and has a library (which i know a lot of people like)

DigitalDuality
January 14th, 2008, 08:40 PM
d

Æniad
January 14th, 2008, 10:16 PM
I currently use it as my default music player and so far I've liked it. I highly recommend at least giving it a try.

new2*buntu
January 14th, 2008, 11:05 PM
It has also been very sluggish, so I am using XMMS, which suits my needs :)

bufsabre666
January 14th, 2008, 11:06 PM
i tried in when it was .3 or something like that and it was still too buggy, i should try it again

BackwardsDown
January 14th, 2008, 11:14 PM
I really really like it, but it hogs up loads of memory.

But I dont really care I've got 2GB memory and Ubuntu NEVER uses it :(. So its no prob:popcorn:

Kernel Sanders
January 14th, 2008, 11:26 PM
In fairness, I don't think there is many people working on the project. Therefore progress is slow, and I don't expect a widely usable 1.0 release for many years yet tbh.

swoll1980
January 14th, 2008, 11:38 PM
Not me. Why would you make a media player that nice with that many features, and not put an equalizer on it. This is the only reason I have kde librarys on my computer because amerok has an eq and no other gnome app seams to have one

Dale61
January 16th, 2008, 03:12 AM
Been using Songbird sine v0.1, and for my needs, I can't fault it.

Pandemic187
January 16th, 2008, 03:20 AM
I've got 1GB of RAM and I never noticed it being sluggish. Plus I don't mind the fact that it has its own window manager.

erykroom
January 16th, 2008, 03:36 AM
0.2.5 was buggy but the 0.3 version is stable enough for me. If only they had last.fm support for the newer versions.

Vadi
January 16th, 2008, 03:38 AM
I just found it today, and I really like it.

pijits
January 16th, 2008, 04:42 AM
I really liked the original songbird (can't remember the version now) because of how the browser inside would allow me to download songs but when i upgraded it seemed that I could only make a shortcut from the /bin folder onto the desktop (Windows way bleh!) but kept the older version in my Applications- Sound & Video pull-down. I just stick with Rhythmbox. I only miss the equalizers.

Spike-X
January 16th, 2008, 10:07 AM
It's gonna be awesome when it's finished, that's for sure.

slimdog360
January 16th, 2008, 10:48 AM
it was going great for me at 0.3, then I tried 0.4 and it didn't quite work. Overall though it has great potential.

ForumTroll
January 17th, 2008, 08:56 PM
I'd love to love it....but at the moment i don't.

I use it because i want to help make it better but 0.4 is v.slow on my 2.8GHz; 1Gb; 800FSB; 128Mb system.

Waiting for the SeaMonkey like integration of all most pop Mozilla apps like that new thing they just brought out that looks a lot like igoogle....what's it called again?

Sockerdrickan
January 17th, 2008, 09:00 PM
I wont use software which logo is a farting bird, I just wont.

Kosimo
January 17th, 2008, 10:54 PM
Not me. Why would you make a media player that nice with that many features, and not put an equalizer on it. This is the only reason I have kde librarys on my computer because amerok has an eq and no other gnome app seams to have one

Completely gree with that...
The same problem with Rythmbox and oter nice apps.

If you don't use media library you can give it a try to Audacious. Is amazing.

About songbird, I think is a very good project, but still needs too much development cuz for now is too buggy for me, and without an eq I would NEVER use it.

billgoldberg
January 17th, 2008, 11:52 PM
I've been using it for a week and haven't had any problems with it (unless the add-ons still suck for the moment).

It's the only one I even use anymore.

You don't even need frostwire anymore, it has build in free mp3 downloads.

Even now it's already better than amarok/exaile/xmms and it's still in development.

There is a review here (http://linuxowns.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/songbird-04/).

waspinator
February 8th, 2008, 03:29 AM
why don't they use VLC in linux. gstreamer has less support then vlc for files wmv files.

Vadi
February 8th, 2008, 03:35 AM
Songbird does use vlc..

Blutack
February 8th, 2008, 03:47 AM
I just don't get why you need a mixture of music player and web browser.
It's all a bit web 2.0, and I personally find it fairly ugly.

Superkoop
February 8th, 2008, 04:07 AM
Songbird does use vlc..

Songbird is going to be switching over completely to Gstreamer, because right now it uses VLC on Windows and Mac, but on Linux it uses Gstreamer.
http://www.songbirdnest.com/gstreamer-for-all

Oh, and I use Songbird as my default Music player, and have been for a while now.

bobbybobington
February 8th, 2008, 04:18 AM
I use songbird mainly, because I can listen to songs online in one app, It works well enough for me, but it still needs support for MTP mp3 players though.

zmjjmz
February 8th, 2008, 04:25 AM
I do!
It's quite buggy and crasherific, but it's still in development...
I like the fact that I can have music without filling up hard drive space though.

Incense
February 8th, 2008, 07:24 PM
After reading through this thread I decided the give Songbird another go. It really is quite nice. I know that MP3 search can't be legal, but it sure is handy if you just want to get a song out of your head. The interface feels fast and fairly stable. iPod works fine with it, and I find myself actually using the built in browser. Can anyone verify if it will update your library on it's own, or do I have to add my music in every time as I do with Banshee and that iTunes program?


EDIT: Never mind, I found the scan for media button. Good stuff!

ounas
February 8th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Being using it for sometime, one of the best players around on other
platforms as well.

:guitar:

jazzdonkey
February 15th, 2008, 08:56 PM
I am by no means a programmer yet (just starting) or an ubuntu power user...but is it at all possible to have an app in which there is a default window manager that it associates with but you could change it if you want? If so, what woud that require? Like I said I am a noob so please no flaming.

I think songbird is pretty slick and the work done so far is one of the best looking music apps out there for any system, however, it is sluggish on my laptop so I am currently trying out exaile and amarok.

In case anyone is curious my laptop is a Sony VAIO VGN-FS760/W and I have 1GB ram installed. I know it is not a very robust laptop but I bought it years ago not knowing any better and it has done what I have needed so far.

Northsider
February 17th, 2008, 08:11 AM
I think it's 'ok'. As mentioned it does eat up a lot of resources...

hynd5224
February 26th, 2008, 07:14 AM
I like it, although it needs an eq. At first i didn't like it because it didn't have and eq, but i found i use it more than any other player on my system.

As far as resources are concerned, I don't really notice anything, I have 2 GB of ram and i'm not using it all, so why not use it for a cool player

The download thing can't be legit, i just hope it doesn't become like napster did.....

Just my 2 cents

drsaamah
February 27th, 2008, 01:45 AM
I've been using it as my default player for about 48 hours now and I love it. The only bugs that I've noticed so far seem to be with the add-ons...not songbird itself. My friend (a Mac user) downloaded it last night and says the iPod support on it is so good he's ready to give up iTunes.
The memory usage doesn't seem to be so bad for me. I'm using it right now and its only claiming about 48 mb of memory.
Anyways, it's still far from a "stable" release. I think it has a LOT of potential. It will be the Firefox of media players. I think the most important features it could use right now are:
*Equalizer
*Better functionality with media keys
*CD ripping
Once those things are incorporated, banshee is gonna get the sudo apt-get remove forever!

bettasbetta
February 29th, 2008, 07:25 AM
ive been running Songbird 0.4 for one week now, and i gotta say that so far it's been a disaster. I was psyched when I installed it, cuz it looks so cool and has a lot of add-ons...

The first time i ran it, it crashed in the middle of a song; since then it doesn't respond when i launch it, and the entire OS seems to get 'stuck'. I have reinstalled twice and nothing has changed... I think I've had enough. I'll probably try amarok or something like that. My advice is: find something more productive to spend time on.