Okay, as you may know, more and more people are now getting into Microsoft's product because of media influence, but let us consider some facts that should benefit the user, not the publisher of the product (a.k.a. WIlliam Gates).
Performance
When it comes to performance, WinAMP takes the cake. WinAMP takes about an average of 1mb to 4mb of your processor, while WMP takes an average of 7mb to 12mb.
Saving your RAM usage for other programs is always a good thing, so this will be your first reason to drop off WMP, and start trying out WinAMP.
UI flexibility
Sad to say, WinAMP can be quite frustrating when it comes to creating a playlist. Unlike WMP, which you create and directly saves the song files that you want, WinAMP requires users to manually save it, which could be a nuinsance if you are creating multiple playlist with the same song files.
Hence, when it comes to UI, WMP still gets the upper-hand on it.
All in all, it comes down to what most user wants - easier, or performance, it's up to you to decide, but personally, I'd go with performance, so to hell with WMP.
Eeee I kinda like WMP actually (it improved a lot over the last few revisions). Okay, I'll be totally honest with you. Reason why I chose it initially? Because you could put the name/artist of the song you are listening to on your MSN message. There :P
Reason why I didn't change to anything else (even though many were pushing for iTunes, WinAMP, and RealPlayer *gasp*) is because I shuddered to think of all the renamings I would have to do had I put my files in another music playing software. :(
I understand the performance part mate, good job on actually going through the RAM usage part. :D *salute*
Posted on November 8, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Post a Comment