WinAMP vs. iTunes Conversation

[Brooklyn04]

An interesting conversation I had with a friend (who, if you care to read on, thinks WinAMP has a bad UI and is extremely confusing)

rtc@operamail.com Feel free to spam, LOL.


rob from above: When money is an issue, people work harder, and make better things
Monroe Mindfvkk: If WinAMP had an IPO,it'd be bogged down with useless crap like... a music store for example. =P
...
rob from above: No, it's not worse because it doesn't cost money, it's not as good because the people that created it don't have revenue as driving force
Monroe Mindfvkk: And what I am saying about that... is that it's BS.
rob from above: Money is a driving force for competition
Monroe Mindfvkk: How do you know the people behind WinAMPd on't already have a driving force for their "product" being so popular?
Monroe Mindfvkk: If I made WinAMP, and saw all the people using it, and really enjoyed my work, screw money.
rob from above: You mean they're driven by their popularity?
Monroe Mindfvkk: Or something like that, there must be a reason they've kept it free for so long.
rob from above: Well they obviously aren't, otherwise they'd revise their UI to make it more user-friendly
...
rob from above: And when it comes right down to it, Winamp was written by a bunch of computer geeks with no knowledge of aesthetics, and it shows... It just seems like the program was written like "Hey, this feature would be cool... and this feature would be cool... and this feature would be cool... And let's make all the buttons as tiny as possible!" and now you have a million buttons and a million properties that most people will neve use and will only confuse further
Monroe Mindfvkk: I'm going to put your vews on WinAMP's website, see what other WAMP users think.
Monroe Mindfvkk: LOL

[dlinkwit27]

so what he wants is a very good lookign program with almost no features? riiiight....

[Sandman2012]

Meh. To each his own. Use the product you like the best. I don't care what products anyone else uses and I don't care if anyone like the products I use.

Also, it seems like he's referring to the classic skin rather than the modern one, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

[Vie]

Originally posted by dlinkwit27
so what he wants is a very good lookign program with almost no features? riiiight....

Quicktime

[s1138]

^5 Vie

actually, i find the winamp main window very user-friendly
and im still angry at itunes for reorganizing my music folder :grrr

[Vie]

I actualy quite like Quicktime myself, but it is just decent eyecandy realy. I only use it for pictures thease days.

Winamp was never hard to use, unless your on a big rez and carnt find the "Doubble sise" button.
Then its a real bastard to use.

[gt55x]

What does Itunes do that Winamp does not ?

Apart from that Music store that the USA and i think canada can buy from and connect to a Ipod.

I must test this software and see what the "hype" is about.

[Gonzotek]

Winamp has an iPod plugin. It's not as completely integrated as iTunes is and is missing some key features (playlists don't go to the iPod) and has some rough edges, but it's open source and anyone with the inclination and skill can improve on what's already there.

[InvisableMan]

Originally posted by Brooklyn04
[B]Monroe Mindfvkk: If I made WinAMP, and saw all the people using it, and really enjoyed my work, screw money.
[B]

that's the way it was in the beginning, (and all of the nullsoft staff still really enjoys what they do and they work mainly for the love of the program and for the love of music) but a lack of money to operate was the reason they made the decision to sell their rights and souls to AOLTW. personally i would have tried to sell to microsoft. how hard would that rock for, instead of WMP, have winamp. roxor.

[zootm]

to be honest, i find the winamp interface more intuitive than the itunes one. particularly with the new base skin. i'm not sure if our man rob realises that skins are amorphous, the behaviour is basically up to the skinner.

[morgado]

First thing, Winamp IS free ...
Thinking on this point, you see that u have one of the best Media Players on the market today, totally free ..
This only thing would be enough to take you to like more winamp than iTunes ...
And, I met winamp in 1996, when I got my first computer, a Pentium 100 with 640k RAM ... since this time, i fell in love with winamp ...
I think, if I had the knowledge I would help to improve it and try to make my own softs and other stuff totally for free ... I think internet is freedom ... I'd have an other job, and have an OpenSource project besides my work .. something like winamp ...
And, winamp skin is very easy to understand ... I never had to have anyone's help to play with winamp ...
so, WINAMP IS GREAT !

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

The first version of winamp, v0.20, was released April 21st, 1997.

[s1138]

lol
yes
i vaguely remember encountering it not long after that.

iTunes only has 3 buttons right? play, forward, and back.

[Brooklyn04]

Yes, iTunes only has three main play buttons.

I didn't start this thread to spite him or anything, I just wanted to know what the WinAMP users though in terms of iTunes vs WinAMP.

IMO, speed and functionality outweighs big-names like Apple and iTunes. That's why I use WinAMP. iTunes of course can easily encode to AAC which is cool and all, but other than that, it's useless to me. It's a resource hog (proof: search about it in Google), it integrates the iPod and CD burning by default, even if you don't have either a burner nor an iPod (I have both, but I use better programs to burn and maintain my iPod, like Nero, Alcohol 120%, and EphPod), and I find that the library is ungodly slow. I've got about 40gb of MP3s and when it shows EVERY SINGLE ONE in the main window, it slows things down. iTunes is a great replacement for WMP in my opinion however, but definitely not for WinAMP.

iTunes IS free as well, but it's just a lot bigger and bloated (including QT in it's install, even if you don't want it, costing a good 20mb install file) And of course if you uninstall QT, iTunes wont work, even if you don't plan on encoding to AAC (which apparently, is what QT is used for in iTunes).

So... bottom line, iTunes isn't a good replacement for WinAMP, regardless if it's made by Apple or not. iTunes is awesome for the Mac and all... but other than that...



And what do you all think about WAMP's interface? Do any of you find it confusing? My buddy seems to think too many buttons is confusing. =P

[J_Bloggs]

"And what do you all think about WAMP's interface? Do any of you find it confusing? My buddy seems to think too many buttons is confusing. =P"

Depends on the skin.

I've looked at a lot of media players other than winamp, ok maybe not for long enough, but none of them met the grade. Foobar came close, but when it plays for a fair amount of time it suddenly stops playing sound, and sound in everything is fucked, and I have to restart my comp. Other than that I'd be using foobar right now, no skin = less resources and it's easyily fullscreen or almost any size.


my 2 cents.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

I use Steel-This Amp. The skin makes it look a LOT like the front of an old stereo system. I dont find the interface confusing at all...

[s1138]

i have to say, ive tried pretty much every audio player out there, and i still find winamp to be the best.

i mean, dont forget the plugin support...that is a HUGE plus.

[henry3k56]

What is WinAMP?


Hmm, anyway. Winamp for a matter of fact is working it way from a rut a few years ago (v.3). Everything in Winamp is nicely cut together and pieced that it makes it a player that works for the newbie style and the rather tech savvy. (IE: Button pushers and hotkey freaks.)

[s1138]

thats what makes it so great henry.
n00bs and uh...l33t people use it

[Sandman2012]

I mostly use foobar2k for personal stuff, but I also use Winamp occasionally when I want some eye-candy (the new skin is beautiful and Milkdrop is great for parties). Winamp was definitely my first love as far as software media players. I've tried tons and I like Winamp and foobar the best. Bur others may have different needs than I do. It really boils down to what you need from a player.

[Brooklyn04]

Agreed w/ s1138, WinAMP is teh 1337!

[xzxzzx]

A couple of points: Winamp can use skins. REAL skins. So if the skinners don't make a skin simple enough, bitch at them. I think the default interface is fine.

Furthermore, iTunes uses >70 MB of RAM on my system, between the "iTunesHelper" service and other crap. That's freaking huge!

Sure, iTunes is nice for ripping CDs with no brain power. Put CD in, done (if you've configured in a certain way).

But still, 70+ MB of memory for an audio player? That doesn't even have a stop button? Fuckin-A. Give me Winamp any day of the week.

And besides, since they're both free, how is iTunes more motivated than Winamp? iTunes is closer to a "apple music store and iPod interface" than an audio player. And yeah, Winamp does have a shitload of features, but I've never heard "oh, this software is too customizable, it's got too many features" from anyone but an idiot.

I like Winamp's features. I havn't used every single one of them, but I'd say I find 90% of them useful.

Furthermore, what the hell isn't user friendly about the interface, dammit?

[gt55x]

tryed it.

Darn is ugly. Winamp has a load of more features.

Also winamp is skinable if u dont like the interface u can choose any other one u want.

The whole thing reminds me if "real jukebox".

Also its very limited in what file formats it can open.
While Winamp is pritty much the whole package.

Also the online store sucks.....if your not an American you can not buy music.
allso 99 cent a track ? a little expencive dont ya think. Its actually cheaper to go out and buy the cd also u would have a hard copy incase anything nasty happened ur pc.

[J_Bloggs]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
... So if the skinners don't make a skin simple enough, bitch at them. ...

If the skinners don't make a simple enough skin, go make your own. Unless you show the green.. which still is no reason to be rude and 'bitch at them'.

[eleet-2k2]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
I use Steel-This Amp. The skin makes it look a LOT like the front of an old stereo system. I dont find the interface confusing at all...

I use that skin too amongst others, and it's quite simple. Infact, the default skins for Winamp 2, 3, and 5 are all straight forward and intuitive so that anyone with even a slight bit of intelligence or creativity can figure out that the triangle is play, square is stop, etc for all the features. that rob above is quite dumb.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by J_Bloggs
If the skinners don't make a simple enough skin, go make your own. Unless you show the green.. which still is no reason to be rude and 'bitch at them'.

People will always bitch, but who to bitch at can be changed. Developers are not responsible for the inability of a skinner to make a simple skin.

[Namelessv1]

Or better yet, if a skinner is incapable of making a simple skin, use a different skin and don't bitch at all.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Dawg4Life2K1
Or better yet, if a skinner is incapable of making a simple skin, use a different skin and don't bitch at all.

My point was if all skins were hard to use, then bitch at the skinners.

[Wildrose-Wally]

WinAMP

is officially spelled "Winamp".

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by wildrose-wally
is officially spelled "Winamp".

Or, it is now. IIRC, it used to be WinAMP, which is why people tend to still use it, just in case anyone was wondering.

[Sasarules]

I think that iTunes is far superior to Winamp. It has many better options and the sound is perfect. When in Winamp there are many bugs.

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by Sasarules
I think that iTunes is far superior to Winamp. It has many better options and the sound is perfect. When in Winamp there are many bugs.

Care to give some specific examples?

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Sasarules
I think that iTunes is far superior to Winamp. It has many better options and the sound is perfect. When in Winamp there are many bugs.

Hmm. Too bad you're wrong. Unless you can point out some examples, perhaps?

[zootm]

i agree with xzxzzx. the sound in iTunes is basically identical to winamp. the options are roughly the same. the look is far inferior. iTunes has many, many bugs (even searching these forums will find them), whereas most winamp bugs are fairly swiftly fixed.

[Brooklyn04]

I agree as well, iTunes may look pretty and stuff, but when it comes to support for formats, customization, and anything from giving it a low CPU priority and tossin' it down to the system tray, to raw power and visualisations (like at parties)... Winamp is teh 1337 and spanks iTunes.

I like how I can minimize it to the system tray and LET it eat up the 2mb or so memory while I'm dukin' it out online in UT2K3 or something. iTunes... well... let's just say the CPU wont be paying a whole lot of attention to the game while iTunes is running. =P