That’s pretty much Mr. Olives’ position on the matter. I guess we all have our preferences. shrug
Oh and I forgot to add if you keep having problems shut down your virus checker and don’t do anything that will hog resources. It’s not so much of a problem as the old days where you’d make a coaster if you opened a browser but it couldn’t hurt.
As recommended above switch to a better brand of CD-R if all else fails.
As one who recommended it, let me say that that wasn’t my experience back when I was using it. However, this was a few years ago so it’s certainly possible that newer versions hog more resources. The smallest memory footprint of any audio player I’ve used has been, by far, Foobar2000. But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it has a steep learning curve and requires much tweaking to fully take advantage of its capabilities.
For easy-to-use, all-in-one audio players, I still recommend MM for the simple fact that it’s much more flexible than WMP. It can handle ogg-vorbis and FLAC lossless out of the box, can sync to ipods, has better file tagging and media library capabilities, all of which are contained within a more streamlined interface (I hate the pointless eye-candy of WMP).
I’m hardly a cultist. Although I’m a big proponent of open-source software and have occasionally fooled around with Linux, I’m also a realist who thinks Linux still has a long way to go before it becomes a viable multimedia desktop alternative. I think WinXP is the best desktop OS on the market right now (minus WGA which I hacked strictly on principle).
Ahh Foobar does seem to be much better. I’ll give it a whirl.
Quicktime is mostly C++, as I recall. And anyway, yes, they do need to port half of OSX to get it to work. What Windows users call Quicktime is actually just the Quicktime Player, an interface to the Quicktime media layer. Quicktime on Windows is an abomination.
On the other hand, it’s less of an abomination than WMP for OSX. At least Apple can get Quicktime on Windows to play Quicktime files. WMP for OSX only plays about one third of the WMV files you feed into it, and forget about AVI files, you have better luck with Quicktime(!!). It’s also a horrid memory and CPU hog. So I don’t think comparing ported software from either company is particularly fair.
Though supposedly, Office for OSX is nice.
Actually, the version I have is 5.5MB.
I rarely use it, as I like VLC, but then again I have way too many video/audio players installed on my computer as it is.
I’m assuming you meant “reinstalled” and not “removed” (or WMP11).
WMP10 is OK, but WMP11 does suck. I still have the d/l WMP11 on a CD somewhere, but will never use it. WMP10 is far better.
I’ve heard that. I’ve heard Office2004 is nice too.
-Dooku, Collective bloatware-maker
SP2 works fine.
WMP11 works fine, except it was meant to work like shit 
Seriously, I’m sure WMP11 is great for the average user, but it I believe it sucks. Too many “features” added, and stuff that was easily found in WMP10 was either hidden or removed.
Office is great, and consistently wins praise from the Mac community. At times I hardly believe it’s a MS product. I think the only reasons alternatives to it are ever mentioned are 1) preference for a less resource-intensive app, and 2) general anti-MS principle.
possibly there may also be a few people out there who don’t have a few hundred dollars spare and some strange ethical hangup about getting a copy from bittorrent. I’ve heard they exist, but I’ve never met any…
Anyhow, this whole ‘multimedia’ experience they’ve been promising me since the mid-late nineties has still to arrive - I’ve yet to encounter any PC media player that can deliver the same success rate as a TV; they’re all shit, IMO. But some are more shit than others (RealPlayer, QT for windows, etc. etc.)