Friday, July 1. 2005
porting amaroK to windows
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Do not port it to Windows!
i know some peolpe who onlychanges to Linux to use amaroK!
But if you port it to Windows let it only be a 'personal' edition and on Linux then you have the 'profession' edition with all features!
i know some peolpe who onlychanges to Linux to use amaroK!
But if you port it to Windows let it only be a 'personal' edition and on Linux then you have the 'profession' edition with all features!
This comes up with all "let's port suchandsuch app" but i don't know if the point of amaroK (or any app) is linux advocacy. I'm just happy to have professional quality apps under the OS of my choice. (Which happens to be linux right now.)
I would say however, I wouldn't like to see the dev team porting to windows themselves if it's going to take away effort put into developing the main program. If there's enough interest, other parties will come along do the windows port, as has happened with FreeCiv and, i believe, theGimp.
I think once there is that port though, it could be really be very useful in helping along the development of amarok... what with a whole extra population to draw upon for patches and developers.
I would say however, I wouldn't like to see the dev team porting to windows themselves if it's going to take away effort put into developing the main program. If there's enough interest, other parties will come along do the windows port, as has happened with FreeCiv and, i believe, theGimp.
I think once there is that port though, it could be really be very useful in helping along the development of amarok... what with a whole extra population to draw upon for patches and developers.
Agreed, Yakhan. If AmaroK is to be ported, I believe the work should come from those aching for the port, and that the dev team should stay focused on improvement.
What I'd be more worried about is that other players, specifically iTunes, will simply adapt to include the most demanded features (I get people drooling almost instantly over auto suggested songs) before a full port could even be done.
Anyway, it's nothing to worry about now. Just make amaroK the best music player ever seen.
What I'd be more worried about is that other players, specifically iTunes, will simply adapt to include the most demanded features (I get people drooling almost instantly over auto suggested songs) before a full port could even be done.
Anyway, it's nothing to worry about now. Just make amaroK the best music player ever seen.
It REALLY should be ported to Windows
In the help file for amarok it say "we do our best to support ALL platfotms"
That MUST include Windows
Sure it makes people change to Linux, but there are other people who HAVE TO use Windows beacause of their work and don't want to install 2 Operating systems
So PLEASE port it to Windows soon.
I'm sure it will knock Winamp off the top and Amarok will be #1 music application!!!
Rock on!!!
In the help file for amarok it say "we do our best to support ALL platfotms"
That MUST include Windows
Sure it makes people change to Linux, but there are other people who HAVE TO use Windows beacause of their work and don't want to install 2 Operating systems
So PLEASE port it to Windows soon.
I'm sure it will knock Winamp off the top and Amarok will be #1 music application!!!
Rock on!!!
I think it is important to keep some "killer-apps" (to drop a buzzword) on linux (unix) only. As suggested, if some hungry MS developer wants to pick uop the ball, then let him/her. The amaroK dev. team, should focus their energy on on making amaroK even better !
I love the attention amaroK gets from all my windows user colleagues - and I've already noticed a couple of them taking an interest to Linux/*BSD - just to try out amaroK.
Keep up the good work
/mich (running amaroK on FreeBSD)
I love the attention amaroK gets from all my windows user colleagues - and I've already noticed a couple of them taking an interest to Linux/*BSD - just to try out amaroK.
Keep up the good work
/mich (running amaroK on FreeBSD)
I agree with the latter comment - windows-stuck guys in the office(s) i work in are staring at amaroK in a wanting mood, and I am very proud of running it... NOW they know that living with Winz also means beign "without" something, in this case amaroK, in other cases virtual desktops, etc.
And - moreover - amaroK is the app I am most happy of as a newbie in suse linux. All the other things work, and I am not complaining; openoffice is impossible for me to use, and I switched to crossover-MSoffice; but amaroK is really outstanding.
Thanks for the good work, keep on rockin'.
P
And - moreover - amaroK is the app I am most happy of as a newbie in suse linux. All the other things work, and I am not complaining; openoffice is impossible for me to use, and I switched to crossover-MSoffice; but amaroK is really outstanding.
Thanks for the good work, keep on rockin'.
P
With the amaroK live CD there's really no need for a Windows port. Msft users don't have to do scary repartitioning and stuff to use amaroK - they just need to put a CD in and reboot.
Even if it is a pretty specialized use for Linux, it may convince a few users to go all the way and install one of the free unixen.
Even if it is a pretty specialized use for Linux, it may convince a few users to go all the way and install one of the free unixen.
ack!
Why is it when there is some killer app on *nix there are always idiots that think it MUST be ported to doze. I'm really starting to hate you people.
How about this, I can make a list of windows apps that I'd like to see ported to *nix and when they are I will personally port amaroK for you.
Oh and whoever thought having KDE on windows is a good idea, what a huge step backwards. Seems to me that we will take away any reason to choose another OS. They surely aren't going to switch just to get gnome ;p.
So if you plan on posting about porting the roK to windows, please go post to winamp or Microsoft and tell them to make an app that has the features you want.
Remember, the reason amaroK is on Linux is because the devs decided that it is the OS that fills there needs, not yours. And come to think of it, all of these requests and the least used link on the homepage is the Donate button. Maybe next time you can put your money where your mouth is.
Why is it when there is some killer app on *nix there are always idiots that think it MUST be ported to doze. I'm really starting to hate you people.
How about this, I can make a list of windows apps that I'd like to see ported to *nix and when they are I will personally port amaroK for you.
Oh and whoever thought having KDE on windows is a good idea, what a huge step backwards. Seems to me that we will take away any reason to choose another OS. They surely aren't going to switch just to get gnome ;p.
So if you plan on posting about porting the roK to windows, please go post to winamp or Microsoft and tell them to make an app that has the features you want.
Remember, the reason amaroK is on Linux is because the devs decided that it is the OS that fills there needs, not yours. And come to think of it, all of these requests and the least used link on the homepage is the Donate button. Maybe next time you can put your money where your mouth is.
---
Why is it when there is some killer app on *nix there are always idiots that think it MUST be ported to doze. I'm really starting to hate you people.
---
Well... it must happen because of the force of demand. If it's good enough, and the code is open, someone will be interested in doing the port. =]
That's the part of beauty of OSS. Do whatever you want with the code, as long as you give back the changes.
I'm not one of them, but i'm sure somewhere there's a coder who has to work in both environments and would just love to get his/her mits on the qt4 version, so he can bring it over.
I'm still convinced that in the end it will be a good thing for amarok (more eyes in the code.)
Why is it when there is some killer app on *nix there are always idiots that think it MUST be ported to doze. I'm really starting to hate you people.
---
Well... it must happen because of the force of demand. If it's good enough, and the code is open, someone will be interested in doing the port. =]
That's the part of beauty of OSS. Do whatever you want with the code, as long as you give back the changes.
I'm not one of them, but i'm sure somewhere there's a coder who has to work in both environments and would just love to get his/her mits on the qt4 version, so he can bring it over.
I'm still convinced that in the end it will be a good thing for amarok (more eyes in the code.)
When a user switches from using windows to linux, they have to learn alot of new software - KDE, openoffice/koffice, firefox/konqueror, amarok, the unix system itself, etc.
If KDE, the office applications, web browsers, and media player are already available on windows then they can get used to those components in their own time without being thrown into the deep end.
Once the user has become comfortable using the common linux applications they can comfortably make the switch to using linux without having to waste alot of time learning alot of new software at once.
If KDE, the office applications, web browsers, and media player are already available on windows then they can get used to those components in their own time without being thrown into the deep end.
Once the user has become comfortable using the common linux applications they can comfortably make the switch to using linux without having to waste alot of time learning alot of new software at once.
Amarok is one of the few apps worth porting,
the only app I know with a user interface.
Port it and get rid of buggy kde libs as side effect. That's my suggestion.
the only app I know with a user interface.
Port it and get rid of buggy kde libs as side effect. That's my suggestion.
>>Port it and get rid of buggy kde libs as side effect. That's my suggestion.
Amarok is the application it is because of those "buggy" kde libs. It is simple ignorance to believe that amarok could be nearly the application it is without kde.
Linux must have killer applications to draw people to it. Amarok is one of those applications. It is my sincere hope that anyone interested it porting it actually decides to move to Linux and the port never happens. I know users who ONLY use linux because of Amarok, K3B, and a handful of other apps. Port them to Windows and they will be lost to us.
Bobby
Amarok is the application it is because of those "buggy" kde libs. It is simple ignorance to believe that amarok could be nearly the application it is without kde.
Linux must have killer applications to draw people to it. Amarok is one of those applications. It is my sincere hope that anyone interested it porting it actually decides to move to Linux and the port never happens. I know users who ONLY use linux because of Amarok, K3B, and a handful of other apps. Port them to Windows and they will be lost to us.
Bobby
I kind of expected this, however is there an alternative player that offers similar functionality for windows?
I have three computers, a laptop running slackware, a server running slackware and a desktop/rencer station that NEEDS to run windows and only windows 24/7.
Is there any decent player that has a database and search functionality that amarok does for windows?
I currently use foobar with its database but it doesnt have search and is still not very useful.
I was considering setting up a computer dedicated to my speakers through a splitter that would run on the network and serve amarok to windows through X ssh forewarding for Cygwin but that requires another computer and is useless if there is an alternative.
Many thanks for all suggestions!
I have three computers, a laptop running slackware, a server running slackware and a desktop/rencer station that NEEDS to run windows and only windows 24/7.
Is there any decent player that has a database and search functionality that amarok does for windows?
I currently use foobar with its database but it doesnt have search and is still not very useful.
I was considering setting up a computer dedicated to my speakers through a splitter that would run on the network and serve amarok to windows through X ssh forewarding for Cygwin but that requires another computer and is useless if there is an alternative.
Many thanks for all suggestions!
I'm not really familiar with the more recent versions of amaroK since I'm having some probs getting it installed on my old mandrake, but I think iTunes (mac os x but also available for windows) can do about everything amaroK 1.1 can. Well, anything I need in any case 
.
I'm not that sure about the database stuff though.
.I'm not that sure about the database stuff though.
"That's the part of beauty of OSS. Do whatever you want with the code, as long as you give back the changes."
This is exactly the point, if you want to port, there is the source and quit bugging people here.
This is exactly the point, if you want to port, there is the source and quit bugging people here.
It's stupid to boot windows, download all the mp3s and then reboot and use amarok. Who wants to do that?
(it's 100 times easier to use file sharing software under windows)
It's better to use an alternative media player.
At least it's an audio player.
It would have good chances on windows, but not a single user will switch to Linux because of a single application.
If the developpers want real success they have to port it. And they know it.
(it's 100 times easier to use file sharing software under windows)
It's better to use an alternative media player.
At least it's an audio player.
It would have good chances on windows, but not a single user will switch to Linux because of a single application.
If the developpers want real success they have to port it. And they know it.
"(it's 100 times easier to use file sharing software under windows)"
I disagree. I can use 3 different p2p networks in one program under linux. Apollon isn't the best program but it's better than kazaa or kazaa lite.
I disagree. I can use 3 different p2p networks in one program under linux. Apollon isn't the best program but it's better than kazaa or kazaa lite.
nobody.
in fact you boot from linux AND do both things. actually i can't see a reason why a desktop computer should have 2 os'es installed, if you can't live without windows linux isn't for you. i consider amarok's porting to win a good idea, although i'm not gonna do it
in fact you boot from linux AND do both things. actually i can't see a reason why a desktop computer should have 2 os'es installed, if you can't live without windows linux isn't for you. i consider amarok's porting to win a good idea, although i'm not gonna do it
Hell no, don't ever port this to Windows. Screw them. You don't see MS doing anything for us, really. We don't get Windows Media Player, we don't get Word, or Excel, and they are trying to kill Linux off on the server platform just so they can spread their monopoly. As if they need more money.
Besides, porting amaroK to Windows would be a waste of resorces for the developers of Linuxs' best music player. The release of 1.3 would make it the best music player period.
I fully support not porting this to Windows. We're the ones that support open and free standards. They just want a free lunch in their propriatry world.
Besides, porting amaroK to Windows would be a waste of resorces for the developers of Linuxs' best music player. The release of 1.3 would make it the best music player period.
I fully support not porting this to Windows. We're the ones that support open and free standards. They just want a free lunch in their propriatry world.
Well the problem, is sitting in the fact there is a lot of linux users that are oblige to work on windows to have a pay check (like me) and i'm against an amarok port for political reasons. But when i'm worknig I'm missing amarok very Badly so even if i'm against a port I won't say that i'm not gonna use it.
If a port is done it need to be done by others, not by amarok Devs.
If a port is done it need to be done by others, not by amarok Devs.
I have 4 boxes. 3 of them run Gentoo Linux. The other is a Windows box which houses my killa sound card. Amarok is great but Foobar is more than sufficient and even handles Replay Gain. I have preached to all my friends the virtures of Amarok but, quite frankly, my music sounds better on the Windows box with Foobar. When Amarok handles Replay Gain for flac and ogg files then it will rule. The SQL database is nice but only useful with Audio Scrobbler. That is, I already know what I listen to and how often and certainly don't need a reminder. Nice feature but useless. As it is, Audio Scrobbler isn't working properly...
Not porting to Windows is bad!
A port would make AudioScrobbler more popular then Windows Media Player... lets show them that Open Source is everywhere... don't play this "don't port it to Windows"-game because they will use Windows with amaroK and not Linux! Why should I use Linux? Only amaroK? What do you want? That Linux don't loses users? I don't think so... the guys will stay. But show that Open Source is everywhere and that OpenSource can kill a application like Windows Media Player!
Don't think so small when you could think big and get Open Source spreaded over Windows - right now!
A port would make AudioScrobbler more popular then Windows Media Player... lets show them that Open Source is everywhere... don't play this "don't port it to Windows"-game because they will use Windows with amaroK and not Linux! Why should I use Linux? Only amaroK? What do you want? That Linux don't loses users? I don't think so... the guys will stay. But show that Open Source is everywhere and that OpenSource can kill a application like Windows Media Player!
Don't think so small when you could think big and get Open Source spreaded over Windows - right now!
I do believe that a port to windows would be extremely succesful, and indeed it's good to show that Open Source can exist everywhere, but this IS a part of KDE and so far, almost 0 apps that are part of the kde repository have been fully ported, only seperate projects.
Once again, I stand with "if the devs want to port it, port it. If they don't, we shouldnt pressure them into it"
Once again, I stand with "if the devs want to port it, port it. If they don't, we shouldnt pressure them into it"
They should port it to tell the world KDE is here... and then when KDE 4 releaes with new Plasma interface the world would maybe change to use the cool new amaroK 2.0 that will be introduced together with KDE 4!
Hey there is a way to test just building amaroK on a Windows machine because there are the KDElibs/win32 and a GPLed Qt Version avaible... someone could just compile it and see the result... ok sound wouldn't work currently but maybe it would compile and run... then someone could write a little app that connects it to the Windows sound system and well done - amaroK runs under Windows.
(No sorry I'm no a developer!)
Hey there is a way to test just building amaroK on a Windows machine because there are the KDElibs/win32 and a GPLed Qt Version avaible... someone could just compile it and see the result... ok sound wouldn't work currently but maybe it would compile and run... then someone could write a little app that connects it to the Windows sound system and well done - amaroK runs under Windows.
(No sorry I'm no a developer!)
Neither am I but I'll give it a try...
I'm just SO ANXIOUS to see it ported
good idea
I'm just SO ANXIOUS to see it ported
good idea
After just finding out about amaroK, I'm impressed at all of the features of this program. It seems like there are tons of music players out there for linux, but few that bring all the features together that I'd like to see like amaroK does. In reguards to porting it and I also being a gtk guy, I'd be more excited to see a gtk port!
As for windows, unless there are some people that really want to take on the task, otherwise I'd say keep on focusing and making a great app for linux!
As for windows, unless there are some people that really want to take on the task, otherwise I'd say keep on focusing and making a great app for linux!
You know, the self-righteousness of alot of the *nix users here is really off putting.
I understand the devs' choice not to go and make a windows port. They have there priorities with *nix version development, that's fine. But all these people saying don't ever port to windows are essentially behaving the same way MS does, and they also don't understand the reasoning behind OSS.
As it is, I'm tempted to take on the challenge at v2.0 even though my windows development is very shaky. Most of my work is in linux, but like any hacker, I love a challenge ;P
I understand the devs' choice not to go and make a windows port. They have there priorities with *nix version development, that's fine. But all these people saying don't ever port to windows are essentially behaving the same way MS does, and they also don't understand the reasoning behind OSS.
As it is, I'm tempted to take on the challenge at v2.0 even though my windows development is very shaky. Most of my work is in linux, but like any hacker, I love a challenge ;P
Boy, do I really miss Amarok now when I'm back to Windows. This is the best player ever. I'll be switching back to Linux as soon as I can just because of it, and that's good. Don't port it for free. Just show a demo and charge for it.
"Don't port it for free. Just show a demo and charge for it."
LOL... so why should it be free on linux? Or you think that opensource should only exist on linux? Why is it that firefox has so many users? Is it because it's only available freely for linux? I don't think so...
LOL... so why should it be free on linux? Or you think that opensource should only exist on linux? Why is it that firefox has so many users? Is it because it's only available freely for linux? I don't think so...
that's low to restrict windows users. i use linex at home and i love amaroK, but at work, i'm FORCED to use the windows XP OS. I have been DYING for amarok to be compatible with windows.
What you must remember is this:
Amarok is a saleable entity for the Linux operating environement. Any comercial entity exists for it's own promotion and success, perhaps in an almost pathalogical way. Despite the immense technical (and legal QT license issues[thought i think QT4 may have a new slant on this]) in porting this, Amarok has a responsibility to the OSS world as a key application. A saleable entity.
This is why I believe as little effort should be put into porting and more effort in to original app design and bug fixing on OSS platforms.
Amarok is a saleable entity for the Linux operating environement. Any comercial entity exists for it's own promotion and success, perhaps in an almost pathalogical way. Despite the immense technical (and legal QT license issues[thought i think QT4 may have a new slant on this]) in porting this, Amarok has a responsibility to the OSS world as a key application. A saleable entity.
This is why I believe as little effort should be put into porting and more effort in to original app design and bug fixing on OSS platforms.
This is open source development. The developers are working towards their goal of a perfect audio player, they are not trying to "sell" anything, they are not trying to make a living doing it. With this in mind, there is absolutely no reason under the sun to port it to windows, as there is no profit to be made.
This isn't a company, its a group of people doing something for enjoyment.
This isn't a company, its a group of people doing something for enjoyment.
That said, bundling some trojans with the Windows binaries is a crackerjack idea. There's $$$ in selling zombies I hear.
Amarok is a reward for Linux users... don't spend time in port it to Windows
The attitude some of you have here is really childish ("It's OURS! I don't like you, I'm going to take my ball and go home").
If someone wants to do a port to Win32, all the more power to them. Though I do agree that the devs shouldn't trouble themselves with it - let an outside group have a go at it.
If someone wants to do a port to Win32, all the more power to them. Though I do agree that the devs shouldn't trouble themselves with it - let an outside group have a go at it.
Yeah, and we are making an effort to make the code as portable as possible to make it easier.
The whole conversation is fun . amaroK is the best player in linux but the players in the windows are years ahead of amaroK. lets start comparing amaroK with wmp
amarok supports only audio - wmp supports audio and video
no good theme support - one of best
takes > 60MB of memory - its not up to that extent yet
not plugin architecture - has great plugin arch
support scripts - former things will take care of that
fetch lyrics - it will also
fetch album covers - it will also
support large play lists - it will also (me having 20000 songs)
require sqlite or mysql - not required
required backend engine - not required
wikipedia support - who wants it :-p
unstable - stable
has to wait for the new release for a format to get supported - install a plugin
will not support integrated burning - will have
can any body reply with some mindblogging feature of amarok.
so better not to waste time in porting it to windows . make it stable and try to include some innovative features.
amarok supports only audio - wmp supports audio and video
no good theme support - one of best
takes > 60MB of memory - its not up to that extent yet
not plugin architecture - has great plugin arch
support scripts - former things will take care of that
fetch lyrics - it will also
fetch album covers - it will also
support large play lists - it will also (me having 20000 songs)
require sqlite or mysql - not required
required backend engine - not required
wikipedia support - who wants it :-p
unstable - stable
has to wait for the new release for a format to get supported - install a plugin
will not support integrated burning - will have
can any body reply with some mindblogging feature of amarok.
so better not to waste time in porting it to windows . make it stable and try to include some innovative features.
Yay, now let me tell you why you are wrong. amaroK has a different philosophy to wmp. Let's break down your argument.
"amarok supports only audio - wmp supports audio and video"
amaroK is a music player. Makes sense, no? wmp is *media*.
" no good theme support - one of best"
Will never have, themes suck, and we are a kde based app, which means style is dictated by kde.
"takes > 60MB of memory - its not up to that extent yet"
You obviously don't understand how to interpret memory usage for applications - most memory is shared, and even in windows it is difficult to get a good estimate of real usage.
"not plugin architecture - has great plugin arch"
When was the last time you looked?
"support scripts - former things will take care of that"
What former things?
"fetch lyrics - it will also"
but does it now?
"fetch album covers - it will also"
does it now?
"support large play lists - it will also (me having 20000 songs)"
Nah, wmp sucks for large collections
"require sqlite or mysql - not required"
It does, you are just not aware of it. This is also the case in amaroK, especially if you are using a package from a distro - which should take care of it for you.
"required backend engine - not required"
Once again, it does, it is the fact that windows has a predictable and workable sound engine which will work on all machines. This, imo, is one of the biggest problems in linux, there is no standard for this type of stuff. As a result, we can't assume/guess what a user will be using for audio output/processing, and we provide options.
"wikipedia support - who wants it :-p"
Start using it and you will realise you will too!
"unstable - stable"
Are you using a development version? 1.3.6 is pretty damn stable. wmp always crashes for me
"has to wait for the new release for a format to get supported - install a plugin"
Yes, true.
"will not support integrated burning - will have"
Why support integrated burning when we can just export to k3b? It would only increase the memory footprint of the application.
As well as this, wmp (and all win apps) are shocking with tags, encodings and music management. I found wmp to be a real pita to use (it lagged, was a poor responder etc).
So, nikki, instead of flaming these forums, why don't you offer suggestions instead.
"make it stable and try to include some innovative features."
Erm, I think all the answers where "wmp will soon" as your response are pretty innovative features. Lyrics, context browser, stats, high performance for large collections, integrated last.fm support, cover fetching, wikipedia support, script interface, ipod/ifp support (soon usb) are just some of the innovative features which exist.
"amarok supports only audio - wmp supports audio and video"
amaroK is a music player. Makes sense, no? wmp is *media*.
" no good theme support - one of best"
Will never have, themes suck, and we are a kde based app, which means style is dictated by kde.
"takes > 60MB of memory - its not up to that extent yet"
You obviously don't understand how to interpret memory usage for applications - most memory is shared, and even in windows it is difficult to get a good estimate of real usage.
"not plugin architecture - has great plugin arch"
When was the last time you looked?
"support scripts - former things will take care of that"
What former things?
"fetch lyrics - it will also"
but does it now?
"fetch album covers - it will also"
does it now?
"support large play lists - it will also (me having 20000 songs)"
Nah, wmp sucks for large collections
"require sqlite or mysql - not required"
It does, you are just not aware of it. This is also the case in amaroK, especially if you are using a package from a distro - which should take care of it for you.
"required backend engine - not required"
Once again, it does, it is the fact that windows has a predictable and workable sound engine which will work on all machines. This, imo, is one of the biggest problems in linux, there is no standard for this type of stuff. As a result, we can't assume/guess what a user will be using for audio output/processing, and we provide options.
"wikipedia support - who wants it :-p"
Start using it and you will realise you will too!
"unstable - stable"
Are you using a development version? 1.3.6 is pretty damn stable. wmp always crashes for me
"has to wait for the new release for a format to get supported - install a plugin"
Yes, true.
"will not support integrated burning - will have"
Why support integrated burning when we can just export to k3b? It would only increase the memory footprint of the application.
As well as this, wmp (and all win apps) are shocking with tags, encodings and music management. I found wmp to be a real pita to use (it lagged, was a poor responder etc).
So, nikki, instead of flaming these forums, why don't you offer suggestions instead.
"make it stable and try to include some innovative features."
Erm, I think all the answers where "wmp will soon" as your response are pretty innovative features. Lyrics, context browser, stats, high performance for large collections, integrated last.fm support, cover fetching, wikipedia support, script interface, ipod/ifp support (soon usb) are just some of the innovative features which exist.
I'm a user that tried LINUX and I like it, but there aren't enough software packages out (yet) (e.g. for gaming: I'm not gonna pay 60eur/year for CEDEGA when I can play for free on my Windows platform) but I need to say one thing: AmaroK is by far the best mediaplayer I've ever used (and I've used quite a lot of them: i used fubar, winamp, wmp, musicmatch dukebox,...). It's very easy to use, has a great database and does not use a lot of memory etc. Who cares about the plugins? I don't. On windows I have Winamp pro 5.08 and I never installed any plugins because I find them useless.
So what I wanna say is please port AmaroK to Windows. It'll be so popular I think. And about that "don't port it because windows never did anything for us"thing: I think you should spread open source software as much as possible. I use as much open source programs as I can just for them being free.
So what I wanna say is please port AmaroK to Windows. It'll be so popular I think. And about that "don't port it because windows never did anything for us"thing: I think you should spread open source software as much as possible. I use as much open source programs as I can just for them being free.
Do what every Windows based software business does: If they want it, charge for the Windows Edition (proprietary software! -if all the authors agree it is possible). There is no reason why you should not profit form your work.
But again it's just a suggestion... I am not aware of how much work it would actually take to port it, even if you bought the Qt 4 licence.
But again it's just a suggestion... I am not aware of how much work it would actually take to port it, even if you bought the Qt 4 licence.
As a windows and linux user, i think Amarok should be ported to WINXP. Who gives a damn if linux users think they're better because of it? i have a few words for you: Windows Media Player 10. It rules.
Amarok should be on every OS, because it gives the average user a chance to try something new without being swamped in too many technicalities or too much spyware.
Amarok should be on every OS, because it gives the average user a chance to try something new without being swamped in too many technicalities or too much spyware.
AmaroK is a great player, but let's devote the resources to making it even better, not to a MSWindows port.
FYI If you're looking for a AmaroKish player for MSWindows, try out MusikCube.
Looking forward to Songbird getting more developed as well.
http://www.musikcube.com/
http://www.songbirdnest.com/
FYI If you're looking for a AmaroKish player for MSWindows, try out MusikCube.
Looking forward to Songbird getting more developed as well.
http://www.musikcube.com/
http://www.songbirdnest.com/
You CAN run Amarok in windows.. if you were so inclined..
via QEmu, SDL and your favourite ISO!
via QEmu, SDL and your favourite ISO!
Where's the damn problem? Officially porting amaroK would mean losing a killer app for Linux (I migrated my main machine because of very little facts beside having a politically correct PC, one big reason was amaroK... ), hundreds of people annoying the devs with support questions and so on.
The source is available. I can understand the annoyance of having to use Windows and hence not being able to use amaroK, but I'd prefer some more cool features over some hundred thousand more users.
In the end, it's up to the devs.
The source is available. I can understand the annoyance of having to use Windows and hence not being able to use amaroK, but I'd prefer some more cool features over some hundred thousand more users.
In the end, it's up to the devs.
I understand the politics, but I don't think many people will replace Windows with Linux to use this software, because that would entail also switching their other software (document editor, financial software, business software, games, browser, etc). The modern computer multitasks, and people want to use their music player on the same desktop as their other software. Most software people use is not Linux compatable, or the Linux alternatives are not evolved enough (debatable) in terms of ease of use and compatability. They're not going to be able to run useful (to them) software alongside AmaroK, and how many people will set up a dedicated AmaroK computer? Would those people even contribute to the Linux community when their allegiences are still primarily with MS?
I, for one, would gladly fork over money for a port that works as a native Windows application. I'm sure MANY others would do the same. It has all of the ease-of-use of iTunes, but with more customizability and power, and would be a natural upgrade. iTunes is BY FAR the most popular music player among the mainsteam public around the world. Just by its shear size, this is the group to focus on if maximizing the number of users is the goal. Charge em money and you
a) weed out the scumbags
b) earn money to support development on both platforms
Doing so can increase the size of the userbase of AmaroK, and won't decrease that of Linux. These people would not switch anyways, many will be drawn to Linux (as iTunes for Windows draws people to OS X), and nobody is using AmaroK but dying to switch back to Windows. Anyone who dedicates a Linux box to the program isn't contributing to Linux, and hardly counts as a Linux user.
Keep in mind I'm a Windows user who desperatly wants to switch, but can't justify the complexities of running two computers. Too much of the software I may use on the job is Windows only, and depends on actual Windows not an immitation of the API. In other words, reality prevents me from switching, and I'm not hardcore enough to be a hobbyist. I use my computer as a tool and that's it, it's not a plaything. Some games are playthings, but the computer is an ends to the means. Linux currenly won't support reaching those ends.
I, for one, would gladly fork over money for a port that works as a native Windows application. I'm sure MANY others would do the same. It has all of the ease-of-use of iTunes, but with more customizability and power, and would be a natural upgrade. iTunes is BY FAR the most popular music player among the mainsteam public around the world. Just by its shear size, this is the group to focus on if maximizing the number of users is the goal. Charge em money and you
a) weed out the scumbags
b) earn money to support development on both platforms
Doing so can increase the size of the userbase of AmaroK, and won't decrease that of Linux. These people would not switch anyways, many will be drawn to Linux (as iTunes for Windows draws people to OS X), and nobody is using AmaroK but dying to switch back to Windows. Anyone who dedicates a Linux box to the program isn't contributing to Linux, and hardly counts as a Linux user.
Keep in mind I'm a Windows user who desperatly wants to switch, but can't justify the complexities of running two computers. Too much of the software I may use on the job is Windows only, and depends on actual Windows not an immitation of the API. In other words, reality prevents me from switching, and I'm not hardcore enough to be a hobbyist. I use my computer as a tool and that's it, it's not a plaything. Some games are playthings, but the computer is an ends to the means. Linux currenly won't support reaching those ends.
Please, do not port this software to Windows. Let Linux/Unix keep some very special software for itself, *like Windows does*.
When all the great Linux software gets ported to Windows, how can we persuade average PC users to switch to Linux/OSS?
When all the great Linux software gets ported to Windows, how can we persuade average PC users to switch to Linux/OSS?
Do not port Amarok to Windows and I am donating 20€ to Amarok right away. I mean it.
Well, i would like it if it's ported to windows, i still have to use both windows and linux (but i prefer to work in linux) so it would be nice to see amarok in windows too, it would be familiar. Other applications are ported to windows too, like GIMP, so porting amarok wouldn't be a bad thing.
Hey, copyrighted music downloads are legal and free where I live (Netherlands) So why don't you get started? 
I have to run some closed source programs on windows on occasion. VLC is nice but dies at the mere thought of making a playlist with all my music. WMP sucks. I use amarok under FC5, why shouldn't we be able to use it when we are banned to the real of M$?
I think it's pretty lousy of people to be so selfish as to say Amarok should remain exclusive to *nix.
Some people don't have an option in which OS they use, some people aren't well-versed enough with computers to deal with Linux's complexities, and some people just prefer the familiarity and compatability of the Windows OS.
A friend of mine is searching desperately for a good music player for her Windows PC, which refuses to even run WMP. Recently she's developed problems with Winamp, and iTunes just does not suit her needs feature-wise. That eliminates the most popular options for Win users. All three conditions mentioned above also apply to her, which rules out switching to *nix.
I know she's not the only person who has issues with popular Windows apps, yet can't change their OS, and it's really unfair that anyone should be so greedy over open-source software to say that it shouldn't be made available to everyone.
I would love to see Amarok ported to Windows. I use both Windows and Ubuntu on my system, and I'm quite sick of having to put up with WMP11 any time I'm running under Windows.
I'm not saying the dev team should throw their lives out the window to work on a Windows port, but I really don't think it should be discouraged for anyone with great enough Windows programming knowledge to step in develop a port.
That's just my two cents, but I'm eager to see how future development unfolds in the regard of a Windows port.
Some people don't have an option in which OS they use, some people aren't well-versed enough with computers to deal with Linux's complexities, and some people just prefer the familiarity and compatability of the Windows OS.
A friend of mine is searching desperately for a good music player for her Windows PC, which refuses to even run WMP. Recently she's developed problems with Winamp, and iTunes just does not suit her needs feature-wise. That eliminates the most popular options for Win users. All three conditions mentioned above also apply to her, which rules out switching to *nix.
I know she's not the only person who has issues with popular Windows apps, yet can't change their OS, and it's really unfair that anyone should be so greedy over open-source software to say that it shouldn't be made available to everyone.
I would love to see Amarok ported to Windows. I use both Windows and Ubuntu on my system, and I'm quite sick of having to put up with WMP11 any time I'm running under Windows.
I'm not saying the dev team should throw their lives out the window to work on a Windows port, but I really don't think it should be discouraged for anyone with great enough Windows programming knowledge to step in develop a port.
That's just my two cents, but I'm eager to see how future development unfolds in the regard of a Windows port.
I agree. My primary OS is Kubuntu Edgy (sometimes Ubuntu; I waver between KDE and Gnome, but that's a whole 'nother story!), but I have to run Windows at school, et cetera.
More than likely, though, once KDE4 and Amarok 2 come out using Qt4, it will more than likely be quite easy to recompile on cygwin or the like, and under the GPL, the feeling that *n*x is the elite OS and no *n*x apps should be ported to Windows will not be able to do anything to intervene.
More than likely, though, once KDE4 and Amarok 2 come out using Qt4, it will more than likely be quite easy to recompile on cygwin or the like, and under the GPL, the feeling that *n*x is the elite OS and no *n*x apps should be ported to Windows will not be able to do anything to intervene.
It's the popularity and userbase that counts, not the "freedom". It's not like there's going to be a nuclear strike if GPL software is used in Windows.
I think the best reason for porting "killer" apps like Amarok to Windows is that, if windows users get used to using them, windows users will become more and more comfortable with SWITCHING to Linux because they won't have to relearn how to do everything they do. I use both Linux and Windows regularly, and I enjoy running some apps from linux on my windows machines under cygwin, but just as much so under Linux. Over the recent years, it has come to the point where the only software that keeps me using windows is development software for work (Visual Studio) and any games I may play. Everything else I can do equally or better under linux. So, porting Amarok, while time consuming, would, I think, be beneficial to everyone. (except maybe Microsoft in the long run..I hope..)
Booohooooo....
I just love amaroK, but at work I have to use Windows.. I just cannot find a player for Windows that would be as good as amaroK.
I guess I just have to slice my wrists open. sigh
I just love amaroK, but at work I have to use Windows.. I just cannot find a player for Windows that would be as good as amaroK.
I guess I just have to slice my wrists open. sigh
Nobody mentioned the moodbar. Does wmp have a moodbar? Might not be useful in some peoples' eyes but it sure looks nice
"There is as much chance of any of the current dev’s porting to windows as there is copyrighted music download becoming free."
In Spain copyrighted music download is free (both as in free beer and in freedom)
Greetings from Spain
In Spain copyrighted music download is free (both as in free beer and in freedom)
Greetings from Spain
Linux has windows too 
BTW all you people who want to run amarok on windows. I do!
How? install cygwin(http://www.cygwin.com). Add the following URL to your server list and select it as the server to use:
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports (it is called the cygwin ports project and you can find them here: http://cygwinports.dotsrc.org/)
Install amarok as you would install any cygwin application, by selecting it from the list (dependencies are handled for you). Click "next" a couple of times.
Run cygwin. You get a terminal. Type "amarok". Voila.
(BTW this is from memory. Use common sense.)
BTW all you people who want to run amarok on windows. I do!
How? install cygwin(http://www.cygwin.com). Add the following URL to your server list and select it as the server to use:
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports (it is called the cygwin ports project and you can find them here: http://cygwinports.dotsrc.org/)
Install amarok as you would install any cygwin application, by selecting it from the list (dependencies are handled for you). Click "next" a couple of times.
Run cygwin. You get a terminal. Type "amarok". Voila.
(BTW this is from memory. Use common sense.)
Hello
I have seen your post on the amarok blog
You say you have managed to make amarok run in windows
I have tried everything, but it doesn't work
Please show me a complete tutorial or something to show me how i can make it work
PLEASE
I have seen your post on the amarok blog
You say you have managed to make amarok run in windows
I have tried everything, but it doesn't work
Please show me a complete tutorial or something to show me how i can make it work
PLEASE
well that was certainly easy thank you cygwin is more versitle than I ever belived possible I hardly ever use it but in the future im going to try to find more uses I love darwin and the mac idea platform independent software is great and as far as GNU is concerned imagine how ggreat their software would be if we started donating better its our own fault its not available on windows we never pay for it on linux you want them guys and gals to work pay pal em a paycheck it will get the gears ro;;ing...
Man, I love Amarok. It's ruined me for Winamp on my laptop.
Thanks a lot for making it; it's badass.
Thanks a lot for making it; it's badass.
Winamp works fine for me on teh Wind0ze.
It has search, it organizes your music, and all sorts of other things. It might be kinda nice to have amarok on Windoze. I use it on Linux and I definitely think it's the best audio player out there. But on Windows... I don't think I'd use it. I like Winamp and I've grown comfortable with it's interface. I don't see any reason to replace it.
It has search, it organizes your music, and all sorts of other things. It might be kinda nice to have amarok on Windoze. I use it on Linux and I definitely think it's the best audio player out there. But on Windows... I don't think I'd use it. I like Winamp and I've grown comfortable with it's interface. I don't see any reason to replace it.
I vote for not porting it. You might be helping out some users in getting a good, free media player, but in a larger aspect, you are helping to enrich the corporate Windows environment.
amarok... two words: "the best"
uindows media is very bad and uinamp... i haven´t words to describe.
uindows media is very bad and uinamp... i haven´t words to describe.
I use Linux at home, but I'm forced to use Windows at work. I also use Gnome, but Amarok is so good, that I don't mind to load KDE libs to run it.
I really would be pleased if Amarok is finally ported to Windows, but I think Amarok should improve its features, not to be stopped while porting to Windows.
I guess the best option is to wait till QT4 version of Amarok and ask portableApps to port it in a UFD portable application. So, everyone could use it anywhere.
I really would be pleased if Amarok is finally ported to Windows, but I think Amarok should improve its features, not to be stopped while porting to Windows.
I guess the best option is to wait till QT4 version of Amarok and ask portableApps to port it in a UFD portable application. So, everyone could use it anywhere.
To the creators of amarok what would it cost to get a port of amarok for windows and fully supported im in give me a link to pay for a win version amarok is the best player out there check out the comparison of media players on the wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_media_players
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_media_players
I love amarok, it is the best thing that ever happened to digital music and I'm a linux user since years. Still my day job is windows only... so I would love to have amarok on my win machine. There is no match for the amarok features in *amp...
