Media Monkey at mediamonkey.com. absolute must if you have thousands in your library. It can auto tag from the amazon database including album art. It can reorganize your file names and/or directories. i.e by selecting all of my library I can "Auto Organize" to have my music stored as \MyMusic\Artist\Album\Artist - Track_Title.mp3 or just as simple to redo to \MyMusic\Artist\Track_Title.mp3 Syncs with most of all media players out there. Most winamp plugins work with also. To help the DJ at my sisters wedding (who was using my computer) he ran to instances of media monkey with a cross fad plugin and did a fantastic job. He loved now its his software of choice. I only use iTunes to get podcasts and sync any mp4 video to my iPod. All other task are done with MM. Goodluck :-D

AMD 3800+ x64 2GB Ram dual channel SATA Raid drives. 256MB ATI X1550 Performance Rating 5.1 Ran Vista x64 for about 3 months with SQL Server 2005 Developer's Ed., few other background apps. My kid's Intel duo laptop with 1GB which is running Vista x32 and it obvious the x64 version is utilizing the 64 bit registers of the processors better. The problem is most software is not compiled for the x64 OS so it runs much slower on Vista compared to XP. Vista is OK on my machine and below average on the kid's laptop. I just re-installed XP SP2 x64 because I had enough of the visual fluff which I know was eating up clock cycles. I think M$ has to re-think the way they do their graphics because to me it's the obvious difference in performance between Vista and XP. I think XP is by far the best OS that M$ has ever produced. I remember doing engineering solid modeling on a Unix box 20 years ago which had a processor equivalent to a 386DX and 128MB of RAM. It's graphics was quite impressive for speed and rendering. The point I'm making is not that Unix is better but but it seems that OS developers (all of them combined) today are getting lazy in developing efficient code. Just look at the hard drive footprint for a typical OS, thats lot of code. The 32bit 386DX processor is a a very powerful piece of silicone, very powerful. Compared to today's devices its a kid's toy. So how is it that OS's haven't maintained the same performance as the hardware? One of my assumptions is that OS developer's are less concerned with clock cycle consumption as they can just through more hardware at the problem to increase their software performance (or lack of). I'm an M$ person as that's what I develop for and something is definitely amiss in Vista as far utilizing hardware capabilities, especially the graphics. M$ should ashamed of the price they charge for Vista compared to value it brings to the user.