Enqueue1.0.1

Is it still under active development?

This application is fantastic, finally a lightweight, well organized, nice looking application that can play FLACs! I have tried songbird, and clementine, and this is better than both. Its a must have. My only two suggestions are: 1 DTS playback 2 Organize album by artist/year Hopefully the developer can get these two suggestions in.

Just an FYI, but the old "free" betas are located here: http://www.enqueueapp.com/files/

iTunes uses 3.2/3.3% range of CPU. Enqueue uses 4.0/4.3 range. Not a big deal. The HUGE difference is in RAM. iTunes is at 221 MB Real & 348 Virtual. Enqueue is at 90 R & 133 V. Now *that* is significant. Now, after quitting iTunes and Enqueue and purging RAM, playing a 10 MB MP3 from boot drive, iTunes is at 118 R & 133 V; Enqueue at 60 R & 103 V. This is with 8 GB RAM, BTW. My issue is with wireless network. WAY too many dropouts on a 30 MB ALAC file. This might account for the differences in RAM. iTunes may be loading more of it into RAM. For sure Decibel does. I also don't have dropouts like this with Swinsian. Speaking of which, until Enque gets Airplay support I will consider it seriously lacking for my uses. But for a an alternative to iTunes playing locally stored files, it's certainly making it's way. I'd prefer the bottom placed control/info bar be on top and the Library/Playlists, etc. on the bottom. Between the two I use the former more. Really like the Info pane. The History presentation is nice. Really do not like the contents of the currently playing Playlist showing in the Mini-Player, unless I'm missing something.

This program has alot of potential but as its still in beta, here's a few things I personally want: - Ability to browse/organize library based on folders - improved cue splitting support (some cue + range rips did not split in the library, showed only one big file) - minimal view (I saw this is coming from Twitter) Good luck developing this, its already better than iTunes anyhow...so far I prefer Vox because of its ability to handle cues, and very low CPU use, however I think your programs design is the most pleasing to the eye.

I tried this in hopes it would be "lightweight' compared to iTunes on my system resources but surprisingly and regrettably I've found it uses more ram than iTunes does and roughly the same amount of cpu. It's not a large amount more ram usage than iTunes, but nonetheless, I was hoping it would be be less and I had hoped it would be leaner and use less cpu. The interface is clunky compared to iTunes. For example the volume slider is located very far away from play, stop buttons. I think for now I'll stick with iTunes. On the plus side it seem to work ok, no crashes in my limited usage of it. But, if you're look for lightweight as in less ram and cup usage, this isn't your playing to your tune.

I have yet to find an application as good as foobar2000 on a mac, but I quite like this. I feel like saying the emperor has no clothes, but is no one else aware of the drawbacks of iTunes? It's unusable for large collections, especially ones that are organized by folder. Don't even try to use your 100gb+ classical collection in iTunes' oppressively metadata-driven management. Enqueue doesn't fix these problems, but it's by far my favorite little OS X music player anyway. It's lightweight, clean, and emulates the foobar2000 style interface. If the author of enqueue added an option to browse by folder directory instead of metadata (artist, genre, album), I would be ecstatic.

very nice, monitors folders which iTunes still cannot do ......but NEEDS an equalizer

Nice try. But it always crashes on importing my iTunes library. I won't start from scratch with my playlists, so it's basically unusable for me right now. Hoping for a bug fix.

No gapless playback is a shame, making it useless for me. It does show some great potential though.