Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Looks like alot of us will be buying Winamp Pro

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by IDN

    But people like me don't like bloat and end up using the older versions with the bare minimum.
    Like Acdsee,, i still use version 2.42, it was in my opinion, the best release before they put in all the video features, which i dont like.
    MCSE, MVP, CCIE
    Microsoft Beta Team

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Asendin
      Like Acdsee,, i still use version 2.42, it was in my opinion, the best release before they put in all the video features, which i dont like.
      Yes, I don't see what the point of the video features is.

      Comment


      • #33
        I'll just stick with iTunes and its free Mp3 encoding.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by IDN
          Yeah right, My 2Ghz machine with 1GB ram and all the latest does the same thing, i think the software doesn't work right. Not the other way around

          And WA5 is too bloated, it's not simple like WA2, it's sad i have to use all the older software because company's think that bloat is progress.
          I have a 1.8 GHz Athlon XP with 512 MB of RAM, loads instantly. Something is wrong with your setup, sorry to say.

          Most of the bloat (sans the ripping and such) are features that I usually had to get plugins for.

          http://i.ksilebo.com/ksicom_button.png
          http://i.ksilebo.com/simpli_button.png

          Comment


          • #35
            Oh really? It's tweaked to fine performance and gets high benchmark settings and runs everything but WA5 perfectly?
            Running vB since 4-14-2002

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Freddie
              Yes, I don't see what the point of the video features is.
              Me either,, they should have branched off and made versions with and without video features and support, just disabling them dont seem to help that much..

              Its just not affective for viewing video at all
              MCSE, MVP, CCIE
              Microsoft Beta Team

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by MasterMac
                Except an MP3 encoder
                yes, but that's why there is Cdex: http://www.cdex.n3.net/

                it's free, open source and already comes with LAME which is the best mp3 encoder

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by IDN
                  Oh really?
                  Really, cuz I've got about the same and it loads instantly for me too. WMP loads slower then WA, a lot slower.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Winamp is supposed to be known for it's stability and the fact that it "doesn't" use up as much resources as other media players.
                    I must say though that Winamp 5 totally sucks, ok it looks good but that is all.
                    I have a 3.2Ghz CPU with 1024mb DDRAM and Winamp 5 crashes on me a LOT of the time and even fails to play some media.

                    It was installed as soon as i re-formatted my Windows XP installation, so it can't be a problem regarding the OS. I am not having any problems with any other software that i use, so i don't see why it would be a hardware problem either.

                    Also why can't Nullsoft count? It goes; 1,2,3,4,5 NOT 1,2,3,5. Whatever happened to version 4?!

                    It has come to a point where i am using Real Player. I just want to be able to listen to music. My player lives at the bottom of my taskbar most of the time, even when i have music playing. I don't know why a media player has to look so brilliant when most people won't be looking at it THAT MUCH.
                    As people are likely to be doing other things whilst listening to music, i think it is important to swap looks/design for performance. Therefore i don't see a need for it to look flashy. I think it is better to have a media player that uses less resources, rather than a media player that looks flashy that uses up a lot of resources.
                    Last edited by HostOrbit; Sat 17 Jan '04, 8:26pm.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      They named it winamp 5 ... because ... I am not positive but it was once rumored that winamp 5 was winamp 2 plus winamp 3 (2+3=5).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Not sure what the problem is, my 2.0GHz Athlon XP with 1.5GB's RAM runs WinAmp 5 fine, 2 second load and then 1-2 more to press the play button and I am off. Heck, it even runs in the same amount of time on my laptop with a 1.86GHz Athlon and 960MB's of RAM (Windows XP Pro on both).

                        WinAmp seems to be fine for me, but I see no need to pay when it is not needed CDEx works wonders and is quick to rip even at 192 over 128 so the classic duo of rip & burn work fine here. No reason to pay $15 for what you can do already for free...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Switched from Musicmatch to iTunes and never looked back.




                          h

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I've personally been using WA for awhile now, two was "OK" in my opinion. My gripe with media players is that they're often not aesthetically friendly. WA2 ran great on my 400MHz back in the day, still does. When WA3 came out, I loved it, I loved the new skinning system. The kicker with WA3 was the performance just sucked. Instead of pulling ~4MB or so for memory, it started pulling ~18MB. No, biggy since my box had 1GB in it, but annoying none-the-less. I don't really see any difference with WA5, it looks like a cross between 2+3 on the main "Modern" skin. I paid the $14.95 for the Pro version, and I'm pretty happy with it so far. It even integrates with my Logitech keyboard, so I can control the volume with my mouse and skip tracks with my "media keys."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Hell, if you want to be perfectly honest, they skipped 3 as well, but let's not get into that.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by klisis
                                They named it winamp 5 ... because ... I am not positive but it was once rumored that winamp 5 was winamp 2 plus winamp 3 (2+3=5).
                                Thats actually exactly why.

                                http://i.ksilebo.com/ksicom_button.png
                                http://i.ksilebo.com/simpli_button.png

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X