PDA

View Full Version : New Look Songbird!



ooobuntooo
August 22nd, 2008, 11:25 AM
http://getsongbird.com/

One of the best media players available for Linux!
It has a new look.
It support iPods and Zunes.

Metallion
August 22nd, 2008, 11:28 AM
Ok so they moved the main bar from the top to the bottom but I still think Apple wants their layout back. :)

graabein
August 22nd, 2008, 11:31 AM
Wow! Any player that has Fugazi on the front gets my attention. What a fantastic band that is...

YouTube:
Waiting Room (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJFWirQ3ks)
Turnover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzC0RNkBXM0&feature=related)
Smallpox Champion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kowaXbjsXCo&feature=related)

New GUI looks good. The all black is not my thing. I might try it but I really like the album view of Quod Libet.

diwas
August 22nd, 2008, 11:35 AM
I like the old one...yes, its the best media player arnd!!

Kernel Sanders
August 22nd, 2008, 11:48 AM
Urgh. Black was much better.

vishzilla
August 22nd, 2008, 12:15 PM
I wished they made it more native to Linux!

ryantriplett
August 22nd, 2008, 12:19 PM
Thank you for posting this! I haven't used songbird in ages.

joshdudeha
August 22nd, 2008, 12:38 PM
Thanks for posting this.
i just downloaded songbird.
And its amazing!!!

Love it <3

nick09
August 22nd, 2008, 12:52 PM
The best ever since 0.5.1.:lolflag:

But I wont be grabbing version 0.7 because of no ipod support. So 0.6.1 will have to do for me.

billgoldberg
August 22nd, 2008, 01:33 PM
Haha.

0.6 was ok, not great, but this looks like an itunes clone even more

I'll pass.

I'm more than happy with mpd/mpc and xmms.

geoken
August 22nd, 2008, 01:49 PM
Awesome, I hated the black default feathers. I always switched to Goose.

This is officially my favorite music player because it integrates web based music 10x better than anyone else (on account of it's built in browser). I like having grooveshark running in my actual music player rather than a browser window, it just seems more logical.

b3n87
August 22nd, 2008, 02:31 PM
eye chunes

linuxguymarshall
August 22nd, 2008, 02:33 PM
Ew. That looks like ***. I prefered the older look

ICEcoffee
August 22nd, 2008, 02:43 PM
Don't get caught up with eye candy, and shallow functionality, in 18 months, it's gone from version 0.6 to 0.7..... what have they been doing in 18 months? Doesn't inspire confidence.

linuxguymarshall
August 22nd, 2008, 02:50 PM
Don't get caught up with eye candy, and shallow functionality, in 18 months, it's gone from version 0.6 to 0.7..... what have they been doing in 18 months? Doesn't inspire confidence.

lol. And a lot of the art is still propriatary. 18 months, 2 lines of code, and no free BIRDIES!!!!

geoken
August 22nd, 2008, 03:01 PM
Don't get caught up with eye candy, and shallow functionality, in 18 months, it's gone from version 0.6 to 0.7..... what have they been doing in 18 months? Doesn't inspire confidence.

What are you talking about?

SongBird 0.6 was released in June. 0.5 was released in March. The only thing that doesn't inspire confidence is your ability to master the use of Google.

geoken
August 22nd, 2008, 03:06 PM
lol. And a lot of the art is still propriatary. 18 months, 2 lines of code, and no free BIRDIES!!!!

Actually it was 2 months, not 18. And if they were able to add smart playlists, last FM support and a service that lets you find local concerts for artists you're listening to in 2 lines of code then those Songbird developers are seriously skilled.

ICEcoffee
August 22nd, 2008, 03:20 PM
ye, sorry geoken, my mistake, it wasn't version 0.6 18 months ago, it was 0.2, but I think you might be splitting hairs and missing the point of my post.

Be cool dude!

geoken
August 22nd, 2008, 03:34 PM
ye, sorry geoken, my mistake, it wasn't version 0.6 18 months ago, it was 0.2, but I think you might be splitting hairs and missing the point of my post.

Be cool dude!

Sorry for flying off the handle.

Anyway, I understand the point you're making, I just disagree. The earliest version of Songbird I used was 0.3. It was extremely buggy, didn't have good functionality or a good UI, was slow and in general wasn't an option when compared to rhythmbox & banshee. Now I compare the current state of rhythmbox/banshee with 0.7 and it seems Songbird is moving a lot faster.

ooobuntooo
August 22nd, 2008, 04:29 PM
The best ever since 0.5.1.:lolflag:

But I wont be grabbing version 0.7 because of no ipod support. So 0.6.1 will have to do for me.

http://addons.songbirdnest.com/addon/12

You have to install the addon!

The only thing it doesn't have is support for Ipod album art and podcasts.

SomeGuyDude
August 22nd, 2008, 04:33 PM
That looks like a really cheap iTunes ripoff. REALLY cheap. At least AmaroK and those players are attempting to have their own look.

damis648
August 22nd, 2008, 04:38 PM
I heart songbird. I think it should be included as default as the music player in Ubuntu.

Kernel Sanders
August 22nd, 2008, 04:41 PM
Don't get caught up with eye candy, and shallow functionality, in 18 months, it's gone from version 0.6 to 0.7..... what have they been doing in 18 months? Doesn't inspire confidence.

I see what you're saying, buy you're wrong. Songbird started ages ago, and development was visually painfully slow. Version numbers seemed to be increasing by 0.1 alpha's every 12 months.

Over the last few months it's like someone poked the beehive over there though. It seems they suddenly have a dev team, and a lot more investment. As such, the project has really taken off.

It's gone from an almost dead project to another flock browser like company.

Tomosaur
August 22nd, 2008, 04:50 PM
Uhhh this looks far too much like iTunes for my taste. I don't see why everybody raves off iTunes - I find it just a horrible experience.

Pathfinder_
August 22nd, 2008, 04:56 PM
Will it ever support MySQL database like Amarok?

geoken
August 22nd, 2008, 05:24 PM
Uhhh this looks far too much like iTunes for my taste. I don't see why everybody raves off iTunes - I find it just a horrible experience.

So what do you consider a good experience and in what ways does this not provide that?

geoken
August 22nd, 2008, 05:33 PM
BTW, in case anyone didn't know, the app is skinnable.

http://addons.songbirdnest.com/addon-images/89/Goose054_large.png

http://addons.songbirdnest.com/addon-images/181/Reflector_large.png

http://addons.songbirdnest.com/addon-images/197/zrzutekranu-Blank_page_-_Songbird_large.png

nick09
August 22nd, 2008, 05:40 PM
http://addons.songbirdnest.com/addon/12

You have to install the addon!

The only thing it doesn't have is support for Ipod album art and podcasts.

I already have that but I'm just holding back with my Songbird 0.6.1 and I already know about the problem of album art and podcasts. But I don't mind not having album art either.

slugicide
August 22nd, 2008, 09:06 PM
Urgh. Black was much better.

It's just feathers. Redecorate it if you want.

Tomosaur
August 23rd, 2008, 01:08 AM
So what do you consider a good experience and in what ways does this not provide that?

Well as a some-time user of Songbird, I find the navigation system horrendous (same deal for iTunes and to a lesser extent, Banshee, which all use the same kind of 'context sensitive' menu system).

The best navigation / song menu system is one which is simply and intuitive, like - say, Amarok's default alphabetic tree menu. On top of being easy to understand and use, it also features the all-important filter, to enable you to find what you want quickly when you have a big song collection.

Songbird and Banshee have great features which is why I occasionally use them even if I find their library navigation horrible. Amarok is my main music player however, because it is instantly understandable, and the menus don't change unless you explicitly tell them to.

Banshee's implementation isn't quite as annoying as Songbird's, but give me a single menu any day of the week rather than some horrible 3 menu disaster.

TheSlipstream
August 23rd, 2008, 02:25 AM
I love it. AmaroK just looks messy and unprofessional, Rhythmbox can't even write bloody ID3 tags, Banshee looks too unsophisticated and simplistic, with too few features. As much as I want to love Audacious, I don't feel it matches what surrounds it, and is again, too simple. Sure, maybe Songbird looks like iTunes, but for me, iTunes is as good as it gets.

Songbird forever!

andamaru
August 23rd, 2008, 02:27 AM
Is this the new itunes?

come on, I'm not using songbird just because of that B.S. :mad:

amazingtaters
August 23rd, 2008, 02:45 AM
I love it. AmaroK just looks messy and unprofessional, Rhythmbox can't even write bloody ID3 tags, Banshee looks too unsophisticated and simplistic, with too few features. As much as I want to love Audacious, I don't feel it matches what surrounds it, and is again, too simple. Sure, maybe Songbird looks like iTunes, but for me, iTunes is as good as it gets.

Songbird forever!

Have you used the new 1.x version of Banshee. It's simply wonderful, leaps and bounds ahead of the version that is default in the repos up through hardy. The new version of Banshee is in the repos for Ibex, and it is my default media player. I'll have to give Songbird a go though, it was only at 0.3 last time I tried it and it was slow, buggy, and not really worth much. I mean, it couldn't even write ID3 tags at the time.

C!oud
August 23rd, 2008, 03:09 AM
Have you used the new 1.x version of Banshee. It's simply wonderful, leaps and bounds ahead of the version that is default in the repos up through hardy. The new version of Banshee is in the repos for Ibex, and it is my default media player. I'll have to give Songbird a go though, it was only at 0.3 last time I tried it and it was slow, buggy, and not really worth much. I mean, it couldn't even write ID3 tags at the time.

Banshee had horrible performance for my large library and songbird has been the best performing media player for me in Linux. I don't however like this new skin of theirs. They went from looking like Winamp(another awesome media player) to looking like itunes(considered one of my more worst media players) which for me is a step backwards. I see no reason why they have to emulate itunes so that they could potentially draw more users in. Instead they should focus on their own unique look

C!oud
August 23rd, 2008, 03:42 AM
Just finished downloading and installing newest version and my fears where confirmed. This new default theme is absolutely horrible. Even itunes lovers can agree with me there, it's very poorly made. It's looks like a patchwork job as things don't match like half the artwork for the add new playlist is outside it's button window. Or with the tabs which look incomplete depending on from which tab you look at it. Although this has irked me quite a bit I can live with these changes since its still beta software and I keep expecting it to get better. But what I can not live with is the new layout. In the sake of simplicity in order to make it easier it seems that almost all the features have been buried. Correct me if I am wrong but I can't access any menu's or preferences. This to me is unacceptable for me, under no way should they simplify or dumb down their program just so that they can get a larger user base. Even itunes has way more features than this and I no longer see any point in running Songbird. I used Songbird for its superior performance on my machine and it's multiple features but now I see no difference between this than VLC media player. In all I am hugely disppointed with this release and it might cause me to jump ship, hopefully not being able to access any sort of menu or preferences was some kind of bug as I really hope that I am wrong about it otherwise I'm back to my quest for a linux media player.

**just looked at one of the screenshots on their homepage and it looks like i am indeed wrong and there is in fact a menu along with a complete theme that looks somewhat coherent. Unfortunately my songbird is still buggy as all get out and i still have the same problems

northwestuntu
August 23rd, 2008, 07:38 AM
i love songbird!!

all other media players on linux seem so plain to me. songbird brings some style.

mrgnash
August 23rd, 2008, 07:55 AM
The new theme is awful. iTunes has always looked terrible, and this is an almost verbatim rip-off.

I think I'll stick with Banshee.

hakimaki
August 23rd, 2008, 07:56 AM
Love the new look, hasn't crashed on me yet as the previous ones always did. However, being a fan of album art, they need to implement viewing any existing album art thats already there. I really dont feel like redoing an album art collection of 11000+ songs according to their scheme. I do like Songbird a lot and think it has potential so i'll follow the development, its just not ready yet.

Spike-X
August 23rd, 2008, 08:01 AM
I'm also disappointed about the decision to make it look exactly like iTunes. I much prefer the look of previous versions.

doorknob60
August 23rd, 2008, 08:48 AM
Looks too much like iTunes...I'll stick with Amarok, I love it :) (I tried Songbird about a year ago and I liked it though, it was right before I switched to Linux, I was making sure I could find alternatives to all my software (iTunes in that case) before I switched :-P)

keiichidono
August 23rd, 2008, 04:36 PM
Songbird has Zune support, Songbird runs on Linux. Does that mean you can sync your Zune with Songbird?

C!oud
August 23rd, 2008, 04:45 PM
Surprisingly I just tried the new version of Songbird in Slackware which in the past never performed as good as when I had it running under Ubuntu but this time all the bugs I experienced in Ubuntu where non existent. The theme (which I still hold by that it looks ugly) is actually coherent but there are always skins(or feathers if you want to call them) which can change its look.

ooobuntooo
August 23rd, 2008, 04:47 PM
Songbird has Zune support, Songbird runs on Linux. Does that mean you can sync your Zune with Songbird?

I think so, as long as Linux recognizes the Zune.
You will need the Zune plugin for Songbird.

santiump
August 23rd, 2008, 04:54 PM
I downloaded Songbird yesterday and I quite like it so far, but I can't get it to show album covers, I have files called cover.jpg in the album folder but Songbird refuses to show them. Most addons I have found that relate to album art are incompatible with the current version.
If I can't get Songbird to show my covers I won't use it anymore, after all the work I have done to get the cover for every album I have in a good quality, I NEED to see them.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

nick09
August 23rd, 2008, 05:11 PM
I downloaded Songbird yesterday and I quite like it so far, but I can't get it to show album covers, I have files called cover.jpg in the album folder but Songbird refuses to show them. Most addons I have found that relate to album art are incompatible with the current version.
If I can't get Songbird to show my covers I won't use it anymore, after all the work I have done to get the cover for every album I have in a good quality, I NEED to see them.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
The plugin does not support this currently.

ooobuntooo
August 23rd, 2008, 05:35 PM
The plugin does not support this currently.

I wish they would get a move on!

gtkPOD supports Album art and all the other metadata!

graabein
August 23rd, 2008, 11:17 PM
I love it. AmaroK just looks messy and unprofessional, Rhythmbox can't even write bloody ID3 tags, Banshee looks too unsophisticated and simplistic, with too few features. As much as I want to love Audacious, I don't feel it matches what surrounds it, and is again, too simple. Sure, maybe Songbird looks like iTunes, but for me, iTunes is as good as it gets.

Songbird forever!

Hey have you tried Quod Libet? Try the album view with plugins for grabbing cover art and musicbrainz lookup. I love it. I'm no iTunes fan though. I like foobar2000 on Windows though.

RiceMonster
August 23rd, 2008, 11:24 PM
Haha.

0.6 was ok, not great, but this looks like an itunes clone even more

I'll pass.

I'm more than happy with mpd/mpc and xmms.

Yeah, I really wish they wouldn't try and make it look so much like the iTunes UI. I'm not going to make a complete decision about it until the final release though.

I like XMMS too, but I use audacious, because it's like an "updated" XMMS.

ShanghaiTeej
August 24th, 2008, 02:09 AM
Wow, I don't understand why people are bashing Songbird because it resembles iTunes. I guess Songbird does look like iTunes, but who cares? It's not iTunes. It's an opensource music player. Need I mention what Kde and Gnome resemble?

Anyhoo, the reason why I think it's going to be the "new" player is that it's based off of Mozilla technologies. So, when the plugins start coming in that enhance its features and power, you might be singing a different tune (no pun intended). Plus, you have to remember that you can surf the web with this thing and download music easily, which is the main reason I use it. So, knock it's user interface all you want, it's still the most evolved music player I have seen of late. And, I'm sure they will come out with something that will allow users to change it's "iTunesish" looks.

Mateo
August 24th, 2008, 02:23 AM
Wow, I don't understand why people are bashing Songbird because it resembles iTunes.

iTunes looks like crap, there's your why.


I guess Songbird does look like iTunes, but who cares?

Me, others.


It's not iTunes. It's an opensource music player.

That's unattractive and looks like iTunes.


Need I mention what Kde and Gnome resemble?

Please do.


Plus, you have to remember that you can surf the web with this thing

Mozilla makes this other product which also surfs the web, FYI.


it's still the most evolved music player I have seen of late.

Doesn't even download album art or have a tray/notification icon out of the box.

ShanghaiTeej
August 24th, 2008, 02:40 AM
1.) I don't think the program looks like crap, I think it's fairly intuitive for what it does, but we can't argue that. Agree to disagree.

2.) Firefox does surf the web, but this program makes it easier to download and listen to music.

3.) Yes, it doesn't have album art and system tray support...yet. Give the program a break, it's only on version 0.7. Plus, those two options are pretty nitpicky considering what the programmers have accomplished and want to accomplish with this program.

4.) Gnome (Macish) and KDE (Windowish) both chose UI paradigms that are similar to the "no no flamewar" words in the parentheseses. It's a fact that programs sometimes adopt things that have worked in the past, not because it's intuitive but because it has become intuitive, being the de facto standard.

Mateo
August 24th, 2008, 02:43 AM
2.) Firefox does surf the web, but this program makes it easier to download and listen to music.

How does it make it easier to download music?


3.) Yes, it doesn't have album art and system tray support...yet. Give the program a break, it's only on version 0.7.

? It's been out for 2 years.


Plus, those two options are pretty nitpicky

Nitpicky? They are basic features that any media player should have.


considering what the programmers have accomplished

Such as what?

ShanghaiTeej
August 24th, 2008, 03:06 AM
How does it make it easier to download music?



You can surf Hypemachine, Skeemer or Google and whenever you get to a page with music, a dialogue box pops up from the bottom and allows you to play or download any media that is on the web page. This is extremely handy for finding new bands. Sometimes, I'll search through different music blogs just to see what kind of music pops up on the dialogue, instead of looking through every blog entry. It's pretty nifty.



? It's been out for 2 years.

This is true, but I don't think that's such a big deal. It's an opensource player and has probably had it's ups and downs in funding and manpower. It took a while for Banshee and Amarok to gain usership as well. Anyway, the amount of time it has taken to create the program doesn't really matter. As long as it is still chugging things out, I'm happy. There have been tons of examples of opensource developers throwing something awesome out, and then letting it stagnant and whither away (like Listen).




Nitpicky? They are basic features that any media player should have.


I guess what I was trying to say is that if the list was longer, you would have a greater cause to be angered. Two small features that don't really disrupt the usability of a program don't really stop me from using it. Hell, I'm using linux and I have had to tinker and deal with a lot of bad features or no features at all in the past and present!



Such as what?

A cool Firefox based music player, that allows users to easily find new bands, find out when bands are coming to their town, play music like any other player, handle an iPod or other portable player with ease, integrates well with last.fm and, most importantly, allows users to create plugins to increase the players power and features.

mister_k81
August 24th, 2008, 03:40 AM
32 and 64bit Debs are here: http://www.getdeb.net/app/Songbird

I'm trying it out right now, and so far I think it's not bad. I don't care for the iTunes look either though, but as others have said, it's easily skinnable. But I do kinda prefer the new GUI over the old one, it feels easier to navigate.

But yeah, I don't like the lack of being able to dock it in the system tray. And having to insert CD covers in manually, is a bit of a pain in the a**.

I think I'll keep this one around for a while, but I doubt it will replace my default music player.

voteforpedro36
August 24th, 2008, 04:04 AM
I like it, but no reason for me to replace MPD + Sonata with it. My question for all the people complaining about it's Itunes-like look:
How often do you look at your media player? And if you say that you use Songbird to browse the web, then how many other media players do you have that can do that?

BTW you can do the download media thing in Firefox too, just no way that I know of to get it to pop up automagically.

Kabezon
August 24th, 2008, 09:35 AM
I tried it last night. I have to say Songbird is nothing compared to Amarok :P