Comments on: Why amaroK ‘Roks’

By: Joey Cagle

Joey Cagle — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:16:38 +0000

I’ve always been able to get Winamp to work under WINE, so it’s not as if you had to reboot to Windows to use Winamp, unless you don’t have WINE and just don’t want to instal it.

By: Mark Sanborn

Mark Sanborn — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:25:56 +0000

Winamp 2.91 and the original xmms are my preffered music players.

If you want to search for a song in either one just press ‘j’. Then type. There is literally no lag, the search is instant and I have over 20,000 songs.

In my opinion Amarok is bloated and filled with feature creep useless features; however, many people like it for those reasons. So, thanks for the well written article.

My 2 cents.

By: Dale

Dale — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:50:10 +0000

MediaMonkey includes all these features and more.
It’s available for Windows free.

By: Bruno Miguel

Bruno Miguel — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:57:19 +0000

I don’t like AmaroK that much. I kinda agree with Rebenga, although I don’t call AmaroK shitty. It has a confusing and intrusive interface, although it’s a powerfull application.
In the media player field, I prefer Rhythmbox: simple, easy to use.

By: Sneezy Melon

Sneezy Melon — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:28:23 +0000

nice article friend.
heh! my this comment got -5 diggs on Digg.
But Ill say the same thing here-

AmaroxX! :P

By: Mr. Gil

Mr. Gil — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:12:01 +0000

Amarok is faster than it used to be, but it’s still not especially quick on old hardware. foobar2000 under Wine is much faster than Amarok when starting up, sorting on a column, and mass tagging, features I use all the time and don’t want to sit and wait for. I also like foobar2000’s integration of playing and tagging much better than Amarok’s. Amarok may match foobar2000’s flexibility and speed someday, but it still has a long way to go yet, IMO.

By: Rebenga

Rebenga — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:43:51 +0000

Amarok is a shitty player. It’s got some interesting features, but most of them are hidden behind a useless UI filled with clutter and really bad design decisions. The same goes for Exaile, the Gnome-clone of Amarok. It’s got some interesting features, but it’s far too unwieldy and has a horrible interface.

I will never understand why it’s so difficult for Linux-developers to make a decent musicplayer. So far I haven’t seen a single one that comes close to the elegance and sophistication of either Winamp or iTunes.

And yes, I use Linux every day as my primary OS, so this is not another “open source sucks” troll – I’m just completely flabbergasted by the sheer amount of projects and how none of them manage to make anything decent.

I’m tired of these “omg Amarok is like so totally awesome, I’m gonna blow my load over it”-articles. Anyone saying that Amarok is the best player regardless of platform has obviously not used anything else, or is completely oblivious to the fact that every music player under Linux blows ass. Admittedly some blows more ass and some blows less ass, but not one is usable.

By: IAmRoK

IAmRoK — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:07:46 +0000

“Though amaroK has all these features, it has a major handicap – it is currently only for Linux and Unix.”

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!!!

By: Apoorv Khatreja

Apoorv Khatreja — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:13:38 +0000

@nprlisner

Yes it does add your music, and it watches your directories for any changes. Usually within 1-2 secs of adding/copying new music, amaroK detects it and adds it to my collection (if I’ve specified that that particular directory should be scanned, of course).

By: lp

lp — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:18:26 +0000

lp, have you
1) read the article?
2) ever used amarok?