I have had a pretty bad time with media players: WMP needs codexes to run anything imagineable, Winamp supports about 6 file formats and VCL doesn\'t have a in-player playlist (means you have to open the saved playlist evertime you want to listen to music).

So, if amaroK is as great as is rumored a port to Windows may not be such a bad idea (firefox wouldn\'t have gone far without a Windows port). Thing is that Windows is very user-friendly and 90% of us Windows users think text commands is something that belongs to DOS and are therefore very reluctant to switch to linux.

www.amaroklive.com

there ya go, it\'s done

So, if amaroK is as great as is rumored a port to Windows may not be such a bad idea

Well, the idea of porting amaroK to windows isn\'t that new. In fact there is a big (locked) tread about this. To sum up, I\'ll provide a digest:

1. Porting amaroK to windows will be possible only after it is ported to QT4 toolkit (that is, not before KDE 4 is released). For now, even considering that QT3 is available for windows, amarok cannot be ported to windows QT version because of licence incompatibilities.
2. Amarok will need a soundengine. Seems that there is gstreamer for windows (never tried it, so cannot be sure).
3. Most important, there should be some devs, who are
a) Familiar with the cryptic and bizzare windows API (it really is)
b) Have a licensed copy of MS Windows
c) Have the motivation of doing a port (highly unlikely IMHO and AFAIK)

Thing is that Windows is very user-friendly

UNIX, in fact, is very user-friendly. It just chooses his friends very carefully. Seriously, windows isn\'t user-friendly, considering it\'s proprietary nature, hidden settings (accessible only through direct registry editing) and holes for countless trojans, worms and viruses.

text commands is something that belongs to DOS

If you compare, all command interpreters on UN*X are much superior to command.com, and using it is way easier and more pleasant. Even thoug, you can install, set up and use Linux w/o even touching the console (just use some easy distro like Kubuntu or SuSE).

Don\'t spread misinformation, blaster

blaster999 wrote:

2. Amarok will need a soundengine. Seems that there is gstreamer for windows (never tried it, so cannot be sure).

xine and gstreamer are available.

3. Most important, there should be some devs, who are
a) Familiar with the cryptic and bizzare windows API (it really is)
b) Have a licensed copy of MS Windows
c) Have the motivation of doing a port (highly unlikely IMHO and AFAIK)

That\'s nonsense amaroK 2.0 will be coded in a portable fashion, so that it\'s going to compile natively on windows (if kde4 is running on windows by then). Qt is a cross-platform library after all, so the portability is inherent, if done right.

Don\'t spread misinformation, blaster

That wasn\'t intensional

xine and gstreamer are available.

I didn\'t know about Xine on windows - now I do.

Ok, item a) is wrong, as QT is a high-level abstraction. But b) and c) still aply (even if amaroK compiles just fine on windows, someone should still maintain it, make sure it compiles, fix bugs that are specific wo the windows port, etc).

My opinion is that amarok port to windows
a) Isn\'t happening tomorrow (not before kdelibs 4 anyway)
b) May or may not be ever created (but I may be wrong - you know better than me )