Arch Linux

nfm

Member

Registered: 2008-06-13

Posts: 66

Banshee 1.0 bloated

What do you guys think about banshee, version 1.0 is pretty nice in my opinion, no more crashing for no apparent reason as earlier version did. While playing music memory usage reaches almost 100MB:

direct: http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/7090 … hotps9.png

This is really ugly
I'm still using XMMS, I like how fast it loads +3K of songs, how it _seeks_ through the song, and the great efficiency. What's XMMS is missing is Ctrl + F to search a song. Audacious is slow when quickly changing songs, but it uses 2x more memory than XMMS. Exaile is very nice, even though it likes to eat 50MB of memory, it's speedy everywhere, python does not let you down. I don't like the Amarok like look. Man I wished foobar2000 was written for Linux and GTK+.

setsuna

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2008-04-10

Posts: 30

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

The biggest letdown of banshee (tried after reading so much of this release) is that it doesn't support replaygain.

So I'll stick to mpd and gmpc, they work fine, and have (almost) all the features I want.

P.S.
It would be nice a port of foobar2000 for linux, but it works pretty fine in wine, if you try.

Last edited by setsuna (2008-06-22 09:31:40)

smoon

Member

Registered: 2005-08-22

Posts: 468

Website

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

What's XMMS is missing is Ctrl + F to search a song.

IIRC hitting j (when the playlist is focused) let's you search the playlist.

Man I wished foobar2000 was written for Linux and GTK+.

Forgive my ignorance (never tried foobar2000), but what would that be like? How is foobar2000 different from other audio players?

setsuna

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2008-04-10

Posts: 30

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

Forgive my ignorance (never tried foobar2000), but what would that be like? How is foobar2000 different from other audio players?

mh... back when I was using windows, it was my player of choice, handling large playlist, moreover it's HIGHLY customizable and features a lot of plugins for everything you could wish for. It's not open source, but it's free.

I had many problem switching from it, in fact I'm still using it with Wine to tag my files and adding replaygain's tags to my music; I can't find suitable alternatives to both (maybe I should write them...)

Give it a try...
http://www.foobar2000.org/

Gullible Jones

Member

Registered: 2004-12-29

Posts: 4,863

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

What do you guys think about banshee, version 1.0 is pretty nice in my opinion, no more crashing for no apparent reason as earlier version did. While playing music memory usage reaches almost 100MB:

direct: http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/7090 … hotps9.png
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/7090 … ps9.th.png

This is really ugly
I'm still using XMMS, I like how fast it loads +3K of songs, how it _seeks_ through the song, and the great efficiency. What's XMMS is missing is Ctrl + F to search a song. Audacious is slow when quickly changing songs, but it uses 2x more memory than XMMS. Exaile is very nice, even though it likes to eat 50MB of memory, it's speedy everywhere, python does not let you down. I don't like the Amarok like look. Man I wished foobar2000 was written for Linux and GTK+.

Banshee uses Mono. Bloat is kind of a requirement.

You could try Quod Libet... It's a bit heavy on the RAM, but fast in my experience, and very extendible.

Last edited by Gullible Jones (2008-06-22 09:44:08)

wuischke

Member

From: Suisse Romande

Registered: 2007-01-06

Posts: 630

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

Try gmm (google's music manager or similar, it's in the repos). It's not perfect feature wise, but very light weight and fast.

allbluedream

Member

Registered: 2008-04-06

Posts: 155

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

foobar to me is the perfect combination of lightness and functionality.

Currently using Quod Libet though, as it is native. Fairly good.

As for Banshee, the development is disheartening... It is trying to be a media center before it is a useful music manager...

sujoy

Member

From: India

Registered: 2008-02-08

Posts: 94

Website

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

for a library based music manager, i guess mpd+ncmpc does a decent job

---

DeviantArt

brynjolf

Member

From: Sweden

Registered: 2008-05-25

Posts: 63

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

Forgive my ignorance (never tried foobar2000), but what would that be like? How is foobar2000 different from other audio players?

mh... back when I was using windows, it was my player of choice, handling large playlist, moreover it's HIGHLY customizable and features a lot of plugins for everything you could wish for. It's not open source, but it's free.

I had many problem switching from it, in fact I'm still using it with Wine to tag my files and adding replaygain's tags to my music; I can't find suitable alternatives to both (maybe I should write them...)

Give it a try...
http://www.foobar2000.org/

I used to love foobar2000 until I found out that the configfile was hardlocked and you couldn't change it, which was annoying as hell since it crashed on me every second week... So I would advice to try to find something else but your experience is probably different.

---

Cerebral: "Welcome to the distro.  You'll never leave.  Mwahaha"

GogglesGuy

Member

From: Rocket City

Registered: 2005-03-29

Posts: 610

Website

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

It does seem bloated, I guess it all comes down to what features you find important. Comparison of GMM ('musicmanager' in community repos) vs Banshee (note that gmm is playing a track here). Both have the same number of tracks (~7000) in the library.

Added Quod Libet (Python), Amarok and Rhythmbox stat..l.

Last edited by GogglesGuy (2008-06-25 22:13:16)

setsuna

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2008-04-10

Posts: 30

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

Forgive my ignorance (never tried foobar2000), but what would that be like? How is foobar2000 different from other audio players?

mh... back when I was using windows, it was my player of choice, handling large playlist, moreover it's HIGHLY customizable and features a lot of plugins for everything you could wish for. It's not open source, but it's free.

I had many problem switching from it, in fact I'm still using it with Wine to tag my files and adding replaygain's tags to my music; I can't find suitable alternatives to both (maybe I should write them...)

Give it a try...
http://www.foobar2000.org/

I used to love foobar2000 until I found out that the configfile was hardlocked and you couldn't change it, which was annoying as hell since it crashed on me every second week... So I would advice to try to find something else but your experience is probably different.

Well, some versions were buggy, but as you say, most of my needs were in using some of its more "advanced" features (scripting and so on); I still use it for tagging my music and for its replaygain scanner.

But as a player I now use mpd (from svn) with gmpc, but I also use ncmpc if for reasons I need it, like when damned Eclipse crash with X altogether or when I have to make some maintenance in plain bash.

Rasi

Member

From: Germany

Registered: 2007-08-14

Posts: 1,914

Website

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

Forgive my ignorance (never tried foobar2000), but what would that be like? How is foobar2000 different from other audio players?

mh... back when I was using windows, it was my player of choice, handling large playlist, moreover it's HIGHLY customizable and features a lot of plugins for everything you could wish for. It's not open source, but it's free.

I had many problem switching from it, in fact I'm still using it with Wine to tag my files and adding replaygain's tags to my music; I can't find suitable alternatives to both (maybe I should write them...)

Give it a try...
http://www.foobar2000.org/

absolutely the same here.. nothing can keep up with foobar's tagging/renaming features... combined with its scripting engine its simply perfect!

---

He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.

Douglas Adams

equilibrium

Member

From: EU

Registered: 2008-06-18

Posts: 80

Website

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

I have been using rhythmbox for a while

I've just installed GMM to give it a go and can't seem to get last.fm to work apart from that it seems pretty good.
I like the way albumart is shown in the miniplayer.

---

Archlinux x86_64 | Github | acer chromebook c7 (arch)

Rumor

Member

From: Albany, NY

Registered: 2006-07-07

Posts: 638

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

I'm probably in the minority as I am really liking the new release. I like how it manages my podcasts, last.fm and music collection all from one interface. I'm not that worried about 'bloat' as I have ample system resources. So far it has proven to be a rock solid program.

---

Smarter than a speeding bullet
My Goodreads profile

GogglesGuy

Member

From: Rocket City

Registered: 2005-03-29

Posts: 610

Website

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

I have been using rhythmbox for a while

I've just installed GMM to give it a go and can't seem to get last.fm to work apart from that it seems pretty good.
I like the way albumart is shown in the miniplayer.

Drop me an email so I can try to help you resolve the issue you might have.

equilibrium

Member

From: EU

Registered: 2008-06-18

Posts: 80

Website

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

I have been using rhythmbox for a while

I've just installed GMM to give it a go and can't seem to get last.fm to work apart from that it seems pretty good.
I like the way albumart is shown in the miniplayer.

Drop me an email so I can try to help you resolve the issue you might have.

Cool

I was looking in the wiki and there doesn't even seem to be a ~/.goggles/scrobbler.cache file

To start scrobble tracks

Go to <edit><preferences> and fill in your lastfm username and password. If Goggles Music Manager can successfully authenticate with the lastfm service, tracks will automatically get 'scrobbled'. If no internet connection is present (or a invalid user/password has been given), tracks to be submitted will be queued until a internet connection can be established again.

The queue is kept in ~/.goggles/scrobbler.cache.

---

Archlinux x86_64 | Github | acer chromebook c7 (arch)

GogglesGuy

Member

From: Rocket City

Registered: 2005-03-29

Posts: 610

Website

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

I have been using rhythmbox for a while

I've just installed GMM to give it a go and can't seem to get last.fm to work apart from that it seems pretty good.
I like the way albumart is shown in the miniplayer.

Drop me an email so I can try to help you resolve the issue you might have.

Cool

I was looking in the wiki and there doesn't even seem to be a ~/.goggles/scrobbler.cache file

This topic is not the best way to communicate, so an email (or a post in http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=48445 if you insist on using the forum ) would be better.

iphitus

Forum Fellow

From: Melbourne, Australia

Registered: 2004-10-09

Posts: 4,927

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

Banshee uses Mono. Bloat is kind of a requirement.

Erm. No. That's just wrong.

Chances are it's a memleak or a bug in the code...

Lord Illidan

Member

From: Malta

Registered: 2007-10-25

Posts: 248

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

55.3 MB. I have about 4k music items. I must say I'm quite pleased with it, though. I'm glad to replace Amarok at last!

nfm

Member

Registered: 2008-06-13

Posts: 66

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

IIRC hitting j (when the playlist is focused) let's you search the playlist.

Thanks, that just what I needed.

@Lord Illidan, listen to music for a while, after 2 hours banshee ate +130MB.
@Gullible Jones, yes you're are right, bloat included. I at least expected some control of that from banshee, but it's just not happening. C# is proably worst language you can program under Linux, I don't know why they even bothered.

I will stick to XMMS, it has superior seeking, you can literally hold "b" button and it will not lag while flying through mp3s. 10 y/o player mows down everybody.

Bestiapeluda

Member

From: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Registered: 2007-10-16

Posts: 181

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

Lets be honest, if you dont like bloat, dont use gnome to begin with.
Ill maybe try exaile. Does anybody have some experience with exaile ?

GogglesGuy

Member

From: Rocket City

Registered: 2005-03-29

Posts: 610

Website

Re: Banshee 1.0 bloated

Lets be honest, if you dont like bloat, dont use gnome to begin with.
Ill maybe try exaile. Does anybody have some experience with exaile ?

Exaile seems even worse, see my updated post...