Songbird 0.2.5 Final

[apul]

Songbird 0.2.5 Final

Updated: 2007.03.01 | Freeware | OS: Windows 2000/XP/Vista, Linux and Mac

Play music.

Play the Web.?

Songbird? is a desktop Web player, a digital jukebox and Web browser mash-up. Like Winamp, it supports extensions and skins feathers. Like Firefox?, it is built from Mozilla?, cross-platform and open source. Like Firefox, it is built from Mozilla, cross-platform and open source.

[Changes in Songbird 0.2.5:5:

? New Default Bundle (you may opt-out)

- iPod Device (linux/osx/win32)

- USB Mass Storage Device (win32)

- Quicktime DRM Audio Playback (osx/win32)

- Windows Media DRM Audio Playback (win32)

? New Features

- Commandline Handling - You can launch us with media from your OS, now.

- Classic "Plucked" Feathers - Runs Songbird in your native OS chrome.

- Web Library - A filterable list of all the mp3 files you've seen while surfing.

- HTML Subscriptions - Now view the subscribed webpage along with the media tracks.

- New Tools Menu - We moved "Extensions..." to "Add-Ons..." and "Preferences..." to "Options..."

? Major Bugfixes

- Dragging the window on Linux no longer loses the mouse off the window.

- Download playlist handles errors and redirects better.

More screenshots[/urlDownloadDownload: Songbird 0.2.5 HomepageHomepage: SonView

View: Features | Screencast

Edited March 5, 2007 by apul

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

This looks interesting - will look :)

[Windam]

works in vista..

that is all

[Techno_Funky]

Comparing it with WMP11 ,songbird (xulrunner.exe) is quite a hog. :blink:

[ckempo]

Comparing it with WMP11 ,songbird (xulrunner.exe) is quite a hog. :blink:

Yeah but MS have had eleven attempts at getting WMP right - this hasn't even hit version one yet. It'll come down in time, I bet.

Side note.... I've just updated from 0.2.0 to 0.2.5.1 so it's been updated slightly already.

[Slimy]

^ Ouch. That's disgusting. I see it inherited the resource hogging from firefox :pinch:

What an odd process name too :s

[Mathiasdm]

^ Ouch. That's disgusting. I see it inherited the resource hogging from firefox :pinch:

What an odd process name too :s

Eventually, Firefox, Thunderbird and any other XUL programs will all run on Xulrunner ;-)

[Toology]

I've been following the development of Songbird since it was just a PoC and I'm staying away from it until they get the kinks out.

[Coreguy]

Comparing it with WMP11 ,songbird (xulrunner.exe) is quite a hog. :blink:

Usually XUL based applications are greedy resource eaters, like Firefox and Thunderbird

[*John*]

I've been following the development of Songbird since it was just a PoC and I'm staying away from it until they get the kinks out.

What he said (Y)

This has promise, but its not even close to being usable yet (N)

[PyX]

I know iTunes doesn't do everything Songbird does, but I still prefer the original interface

[Banzai]

i tryed this when it was first discussed on the boards, ill stick with itunes does the job nicely.

[:: Lyon ::]

The only thing I love is the bird :D

[Quillz]

Sorry, what exactly does this do? Obviously, it's a music player, but also manages your Last.FM profile?

[Crazysah]

I think so. I am going to try it out again and see if it is any better than before.

[Techno_Funky]

Sorry, what exactly does this do? Obviously, it's a music player, but also manages your Last.FM profile?

Songbird™ is a desktop Web player, a digital jukebox and Web browser mash-up

So its just the last.fm site being surfed while the screenshot was taken.

[ATLien_0]

it looks like a black itunes from the screenshot, i was expecting a new style player and interface

[kaiwai]

Usually XUL based applications are greedy resource eaters, like Firefox and Thunderbird

Well, just wait till you see the XAML applications being released in the future for Windows; its no difference.

Bloat without justification is bad; there is justification for the apparent bloat with XUL applications as the benefits out weigh the costs; just like the benfits of VM based languages in regards to security, stability and improved development vs. the overhead by way of cpu utilisation and memory usage.

[HawkMan]

There is no reason why a XAML app should use 10 times more memory, XAML is mainly just used as a layout language for the GUI. it might use slightly more than the average .net or C app, but it shouldn't be anywhere near 10x.

And he is right, XUL applicatiosn are greedy resource eaters, more than that, their GUI tends to be a lot less responsive as well.

so simply put. sure a slight increase in resoruce usage would be ok, but 80MB for a media players, thats ridiculous. usually I don't complain about high memory usage, and if it had been 40 I may not have.. but 80... that's not even excusable by it being pre 1.0 version. If nearly 100 megs of memory compared to less than 10 is he cost of usign a simpler/easier layout language like XUL, then perhaps they should just not use XUL.

[*John*]

If XAML and XUL are that bad, why do people use them? :s

[ckempo]

If XAML and XUL are that bad, why do people use them? :s

Portability? The aim of Songbird is to be a cross-platform player, building it on top of something like XULRunner allows them to focus on building their app, not building multiple cross-compatible layers (I guess).

Maybe someone who's actually tried writing something in it knows?

[Mathiasdm]

Portability? The aim of Songbird is to be a cross-platform player, building it on top of something like XULRunner allows them to focus on building their app, not building multiple cross-compatible layers (I guess).

But couldn't somebody do that in a language like Java? It would run faster and use less memory (And for those who are going to jump in and say Java is slow: it's slow than C and C++ because it's interpreted. The difference however is negligible when we're talking about desktop applications.)

Perhaps it's becayse XUL looks a lot like HTML, so people that are new to programming will be less scared?

[dagamer34]

But couldn't somebody do that in a language like Java? It would run faster and use less memory (And for those who are going to jump in and say Java is slow: it's slow than C and C++ because it's interpreted. The difference however is negligible when we're talking about desktop applications.)

Perhaps it's becayse XUL looks a lot like HTML, so people that are new to programming will be less scared?

Fast, portable, use little memory. A program can only pick 2 out of 3.

[fpd]

Comparing it with WMP11 ,songbird (xulrunner.exe) is quite a hog. :blink:

If you were to consider the overhead of the sql database and web browsing capabilities of songbird then I think it would look more reasonable. Afterall opera.exe is using 70MB on its own! Plus songbird hasn't even reached 1.0 yet - its still in its infancy whereas wmp is a mature product.

I am a long-standing user of foobar2000 but I must admit this looks interesting. What is your experience using the software like?

[jimbo11883]

It still takes 10x longer to import my music compared to foobar2000. Memory usage will always be a problem as its based on XUL.