Songbird 1.8.0.1800

Rated 50/50 by peispud at Dec 2, 2008

I have Songbird ( running under wine ) , aMSN ,Kmail , Firefox , and Steam all running at the same time in PC-BSD and barley using 49 Meg.of RAM . I like BMPx better for its Lastfm support , but Songbird works just fine and looks good doing it .

Rated 30/50 by netean at Dec 2, 2008

there is a lot to like in songbird and I nearly almost love it. I like the interface, it's quite iTunes like (which isn't a bad thing, as I kinda like the interface to itunes - just hate the application itself) - however, it's somehow just nicer than iTunes. Has a lot of nice features, and is a really good alternative to iTunes IMO. However: it does have limited audio support - really should support aac, AAC+ and others (on all platforms) really NEEDS to use less ram - shocking bad at the amount of memory it uses - uses even more than iTunes which is a quite a feat. no Iphone/Ipod Touch support, and that for me, kills it dead - I SO want Touch support, I so want to leave iTunes behind. it's good, and if you have a generic mp3 player, I think it will rock for you, but I'll have to hang back for ipod/iphone support. Also for the record: installed this uses 53mb running it uses 80-150mb of ram. Itunes 86Mb of HD + 75Mb for Quicktime, 82Mb Ram + 9mb for mobilehelper+1mb for ipodservice. For a media player they're both awful for memory use, but suprisingly round about the same in terms of memory used.(i.e way too much) update: tried to sync with my n95 - didn't work at all, but helpfully offered to erase the contents!!!! (did also use 350mb of ram at one point trying to read my n95) uninstall - oh dear, so many left over registry entries and files. that's very poor. REvised my rating downwards, 350mb ram is shocking, and uninstall should really work better than that!

Rated 20/50 by Aegis69 at Dec 2, 2008

Sooooo... basically this is the same as running Firefox twice? Maybe if I had 5 gigz of ram, until then I'll stick with AIMP

Rated 10/50 by computershack at Dec 3, 2008

iTunes, 99MB. Songbird, 253MB. Plugins still letting it down but without them, it's lacking key features now expected in a media player.

Rated 40/50 by tylerhw at Dec 19, 2008

People need to recognize that it's not solely a music player it is also a web browser, when you have a music player and a web browser (Firefox) open for a while they begin to use a lot of memory, that's just what happens after a while. Anyways, it seems to run much faster than the old betas, add-ons work good and I can browse the web at a reasonable rate while flipping through my music, it is very intuitive and some people will undoubtedly love it/hate it, but I'll stick with aTunes/Rhythmbox and Firefox.

Rated 10/50 by roj at Jan 19, 2009

A web browser built into a music player. What an incredible idea for a truly impossible-to-live-without absolutely-must-have-or-the-universe-will-end product. ZillaLand, stop flogging your browser products - this is a solution in search of a problem. As far as the audio capabilities go: No ASIO support. No WASAPI support. Piss-poor format support. YAWN. ONE star for yet another player with no discernible redeeming value and a lot of gimmickry.

Rated 20/50 by thartist at Feb 27, 2009

pathetic a salad of uncapable BS that does nothing on a fine level.

Rated 10/50 by Juhandra at Feb 28, 2009

What a shameless bunch of crap.

Rated 10/50 by molumen at Feb 28, 2009

It is huge, bloated, and as a music player it is even worse than Itunes... Browser? Worst interface ever...

Rated 50/50 by n8p at Mar 17, 2009

I've been using Songbird since early beta releases, and am blown away how it has progressed. Right about version .9 it was better than iTunes in nearly every way except it seemed just about as slow and bloated. Now with the last two releases it has pulled ahead in performance. My only gripe is the lack of CD ripping built in....or maybe I just haven't found that feature yet.

Rated 50/50 by Daily Activist at Mar 17, 2009

Wow! What a bunch of haters. First of all, Songbird is open source, which is reason in and of itself to support this project in my book. If there's something you don't like about it, you can change it. So, instead of complaining about it, make it better. I like this project. It is not completely there yet. Several features that will make it complete are still being worked on. However, the potential for Songbird is incredible. I love the add-ons. It makes the possibilities for Songbird quite endless. I also like the integration of a web browser. There are several sites I visit that are enhanced by visiting them with Songbird instead of Firefox. As for the complaints about size, it is smaller than iTunes so I don't know where that comparison comes from. I imagine it will only get smaller as development continues. I would normally give Songbird a 4 because it isn't feature complete - yet. However, I'm giving it a 5 to offset some of these ridiculously low reviews.

Rated 10/50 by emanresU deriseD at Jun 4, 2009

"If there's something you don't like about it, you can change it. So, instead of complaining about it, make it better." Oh, yeah--sure, what a reasonable and sane suggestion! I'll just tell my family to go to hell while I learn a programming language in my spare time, then I'll make Songbird stop sucking, all so I don't have to download another player that already works acceptably. That makes total sense! And then I'll come here and give it a glowing 5-star review, saying "Songturd used to suck heavily, but it now deserves a high rating because I made it great!" Damn right I'm a "hater". I hate crap software, open source or otherwise.

Rated 50/50 by MozzUK at Jun 4, 2009

Songbird has advanced well over the past few releases. Noticeable increases in speed as well as lots of bugs being squashed. The looks are great as well as the extendability and the ability to customize. The addition of an equalizer and automatic organization make it even better. As stated previously, the fact that this is a fast developing open source project makes it worth supporting and it provides a decent alternative to iTunes (a piece of software I'll never consider installing). Overall Songbird feels fast, doesn't eat up too much CPU (whereas memory usage is a bit high, but it's got a built in browser y'know). It looks great, sounds decent and allows me to sort out all my media with ease.

Rated 10/50 by emanresU deriseD at Jun 19, 2009

@styxchan: "Even for dumb people like you" I can speak just fine, thank you. And of course, 1 star. @Ozzy1: I gave it six minutes, if you must know. Some people don't need an eon to figure out that a certain bit of software is crap.

Rated 50/50 by styxchan at Jun 19, 2009

If you have seen them working on this project you wouldnt say something like this! They are doing great, great work ! For free ! Even for dumb people like you ;) And of course 5 Stars !

Rated 50/50 by Ozzy1 at Jun 20, 2009

I actually like these new versions of Songbird. When i started on version 1, I was really disapointed, and moved fast back to Winamp. But with the new versions, its really nice to use. The addons makes it even better, just like firefox. The interaction with Ipod has become even better than with winamp! I really recomend this to people who can take five minutes with it before making judgement.

Rated 30/50 by nms04 at Jun 20, 2009

it's crap compared to winamp ... it's ipod support simply sucks, it slows my computer down ... the only positive things about this player are build in last.fm support and it's open source nature

Rated 40/50 by Hawk999 at Jul 23, 2009

I am using it with Ubuntu and it's working great The only thing I would need is a fade out when I press the pause or stop button or while doing a seek. Other than that I really like where it is going. 4 stars.

Rated 40/50 by Eeyan at Dec 18, 2009

Installed and ran perfectly on my Windows 7 x64.

Rated 30/50 by LakotaElf at Dec 18, 2009

Disappointed indeed, will not install on Windows 7 X64, gives error msg of this OS not supported. How odd, they certainly have had enough time to know windows 7 and x64 exist. For this oversite on their part, they get only 3 stars from me.