Trout is not written to compete with other players.
...
I started writing Trout for myself and I'm very flattered that many many people, including yourself now, have helped shape what it is today.

-skwire (December 12, 2009, 09:03 AM)

:D
That's the spirit. It's usually very hard to work for free and get only requests and complains :)

My foobar takes 28MB of ram and starts within 1 second wait time, kind of 10x less than firefox. So it's still very usable. But I understand you that with bigger collection it takes much more.

I was wondering how much would it take, with library turned off. So I checked :) 14MB
Trout was 8MB empty, and 20MB with all files loaded as playlist.

I tried to drag&drop files to trout, and it failed for the first time. It shown me an icon with plus sign, when I hovered the gray menu zone, but after I dropped it there it didn't add them to the playlist. So I tried second time but dropped files to the playlist zone, and it started to add them.
It is nice, that I could play music that was already loaded while the files were in the queue. But list kept jumping to the beginning while loading and that was bit annoying.

I wondered what would happen, if I exit program, while still loading files. So I closed and reopened trout. And there were only those files, that were already read before exiting.

After I read all the files from disk to playlist, and then reopened program. It took about 3 seconds to open. So it seems slower than foobar with library.
It took lots of time opening them for the first time, probably the same as foobar importing files to the library for the first time.

Strangely I like trout interface better :)