Reasons why I prefer Winamp 2.80

[sickle]

Hi, these are the reasons why I reinstalled Winamp 2.80 :

1) "File Information" is no more accessible when you double-click on the song title. It's faster than having to use the menu! Everyday, I change numerous ID tags. Having to use the menu is time consuming.

2) We can't choose the output as before, and no option replace the possibility to convert to WAV or WMA.

3) The spectrum analyser options that offer the "fire style", "thin bands" and "falloffs" are removed.

4) The program is slow on my system (Pentium II 300 mhz). Please, don't tell me that my system is too slow for this kind of program!


That's all!

[QHOBBES]

1)Use you menu, you lazy bastard, alt+3, or #491
2)WAV OGG MP3 and AIFF are all supported with PPs plugs for WA3
3)Coming soon to a Winamp3 near you
4)You system is too slow for this kind of program!

[sickle]

Sorry, I forgot the other alternative : ALT+3 !

[sickle]

Thanks for your polite answer. Where do you see the options for the spectrum analyser?

[jarsonic]

sickle: it's not in yet. But it probably will be in soon, in the next few builds. The programmers aren't going to leave anything out, trust me. They're ripping up the insides right now, then they will deal with stuff like that.

- `Jarsonic

[Gonzotek]

I released a skin mod just the other day to do the double-click songinfo deal.

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread....hreadid=112707

-=Gonzotek=-

[sickle]

But what for the speed? I realized that all the interface is based upon XML. I determined that XML is very slow compared to binary. It's why I never used it in my projects. A binary variant of XML could exist (something like OLE files, but better and not proprietary). With an editor, it could be as easy as opening XML files in notepad to edit. So, why XML? The GUI engine seems to be heavy too.

[cybaix]

Originally posted by sickle
But what for the speed? I realized that all the interface is based upon XML. I determined that XML is very slow compared to binary. It's why I never used it in my projects. A binary variant of XML could exist (something like OLE files, but better and not proprietary). With an editor, it could be as easy as opening XML files in notepad to edit. So, why XML? The GUI engine seems to be heavy too.

Its called moving on to the future, get used to it. Hardly anyone is going to program stuff to run on 300mhz pcs! They will decrease the load time a bit, but rather that will help you much I dont know. Upgrade your computer if you dont like it.

[Gonzotek]

Originally posted by sickle
But what for the speed? I realized that all the interface is based upon XML. I determined that XML is very slow compared to binary. It's why I never used it in my projects. A binary variant of XML could exist (something like OLE files, but better and not proprietary). With an editor, it could be as easy as opening XML files in notepad to edit. So, why XML? The GUI engine seems to be heavy too.

I felt the same way at first, but I've watched the alpha builds and beta builds get steadily faster and more responsive and stable. Most of what you can see happening in build 488 is still highly unoptimized.

XML isn't that slow, considering the amount of XML the system requires, it only masses up to, at most, a few hundred Kb.

-=Gonzotek=-

[Aquatakat]

Heh heh... I had a Pentium 1 233MHz processor and I ran Winamp3 just fine. Except for skin loading... hmm...

[sickle]

I build systems that run on Pentium 133 mhz with no problem. Do I'll need the new Pentium IV 3.4 ghz with a board of >300 mhz and ram-bus 800mhz memory to listen to music on my computer? I don't think like that, sorry. I prefer to buy a sound system for this price!

[cybaix]

Originally posted by sickle
I build systems that run on Pentium 133 mhz with no problem. Do I'll need the new Pentium IV 3.4 ghz with a board of >300 mhz and ram-bus 800mhz memory to listen to music on my computer? I don't think like that, sorry. I prefer to buy a sound system for this price!

A 700mhz cpu is like what now, 90 bucks? That would be fine to run winamp3 and keep up to date with the latest intardnet experiance!

[sanosuke]

Originally posted by sickle
I build systems that run on Pentium 133 mhz with no problem. Do I'll need the new Pentium IV 3.4 ghz with a board of >300 mhz and ram-bus 800mhz memory to listen to music on my computer? I don't think like that, sorry. I prefer to buy a sound system for this price!

PCs would continue to get faster and faster, but if u still want to build sytems for Pentium 133Mhz y not build it on win 3.1??

[Mgz]

I use both of them ,Winamp 2 with music file(mp3,ogg,m3u...) and Winamp 3 with Video file (avi,divx...)



But I listen music everyday and just watch video in weekend --> WA2 is the best with me ,with my rig (Celery 900 - 128 MB - play Counter Strike @ WON and listen WA2 = Lagless but it lag to hell when i play CS+ listen WA3

[sanosuke]

Good for you.
now go back to playing CS...

and what kind of a computer is a celery??? A vegetable processor??

[sickle]

If PCs get faster, it's not to patch unoptimized applications. It's to get more power to executing things in less time. Keep this in mind.

[sanosuke]

Originally posted by sickle
If PCs get faster, it's not to patch unoptimized applications. It's to get more power to executing things in less time. Keep this in mind.

Thats true, but whats the point of developing on older systems, when u can take advantage of the features in newer processors, somethings u can't do on an old processor.

[cybaix]

Originally posted by sanosuke
Good for you.
now go back to playing CS...

and what kind of a computer is a celery??? A vegetable processor??

It runs an opperating system built on VB (vegetable basic).

[Mgz]

You duy don't know what "Celery" Processor is ???


This is nick name of Celeron


Other nick name :
Pentium 4 423 : Willy
Pentium 4 478 Pin (NorthWood) : Woody
ATi Radeon = Raddy


Come on ,you guy make me disaponitted

[sanosuke]

Originally posted by Mgz
You duy don't know what "Celery" Processor is ???


This is nick name of Celeron


Other nick name :
Pentium 4 423 : Willy
Pentium 4 478 Pin (NorthWood) : Woody
ATi Radeon = Raddy


Come on ,you guy make me disaponitted

this is the first time i heard something like this...

[kingo'mountain]

thats because HE made them up, just for the pose

btw: vegetable procccesor......... ROTFLMFAO

[cybaix]

Originally posted by Mgz
You duy don't know what "Celery" Processor is ???


This is nick name of Celeron


Other nick name :
Pentium 4 423 : Willy
Pentium 4 478 Pin (NorthWood) : Woody
ATi Radeon = Raddy


Come on ,you guy make me disaponitted

Do these names sound EXTREMLY GAY to anyone else around here?

''HEY GUYS COME CHECK OUT MY NEW WILLY!''

[X-Doomer]

Originally posted by QHOBBES
1)Use you menu, you lazy bastard, alt+3, or #491
2)WAV OGG MP3 and AIFF are all supported with PPs plugs for WA3
3)Coming soon to a Winamp3 near you
4)You system is too slow for this kind of program!

What an idiot, the guy has a plenty good computer to run a music program. I did the same thing!!! I think the problem is guys like you! They want something that looks better than it actually works. I have a P3 1ghz with 512 ram and a kickass soundcard, and to tell you the thruth Winamp 3 is not an improvement. It looks better, granted, but i thought that a music program was supposed to be about playing music. The new version is a pain. I used to complain about Sonique cuz the navigation was poor, well Winamp has managed to go backwards to give you the opportunity to make music look better. What a crock of s**t! Stick to what music is supposed to be; heard. Go watch MTV if you want your music to look good. I am sure you like the Teeny bopper music and their happy-go-lucky videos. If you want something to watch, just turn on your TV and connect it to your stereo. There's something to watch. Now go back to computing fool!

[cybaix]

Originally posted by X-Doomer


What an idiot, the guy has a plenty good computer to run a music program. I did the same thing!!! I think the problem is guys like you! They want something that looks better than it actually works. I have a P3 1ghz with 512 ram and a kickass soundcard, and to tell you the thruth Winamp 3 is not an improvement. It looks better, granted, but i thought that a music program was supposed to be about playing music. The new version is a pain. I used to complain about Sonique cuz the navigation was poor, well Winamp has managed to go backwards to give you the opportunity to make music look better. What a crock of s**t! Stick to what music is supposed to be; heard. Go watch MTV if you want your music to look good. I am sure you like the Teeny bopper music and their happy-go-lucky videos. If you want something to watch, just turn on your TV and connect it to your stereo. There's something to watch. Now go back to computing fool!

Thanks for sharing,
I do hope your post count stays at 1.

Thanks,
now fuck off

[thepyr0x]

1. don't call someone an idiot unless you expect to be called it back

idiot

first of all, nobody is forcing you to use WA3. There is still classic.winamp.com and wa2 is still up for downloads along with all it's skins and plugins for download.

second of all, what more do you really expect WA2 to do? There isn't a whole lot of improvement you can make with the wa2 engine.

third of all, freeform skinning is totally awesome. I love having my wa3 with mmd3's vertical shade mode up at the top of my screen. It's there enough that I can see everything I want and control it, but not so much that I can't read titlebars or click buttons in Opera. awesome.

fourth of all, WA3 is made by the same people that made WA2, are you gonna tell me that you don't trust them to make a better program out of a new engine? Of course it's new so it doesn't have all it's features, and it isn't completely optimized. If it weren't for AOL deadlines then we probably wouldn't have called WA3 "final" when we did.

fifth, and last, of all; where do you see how WA3 has gone backwards? The base skin is almost exactly the same. The decoding engine is exactly the same. The loading time leaves a little to be desired but such comes from unoptimized programs - especially when compared against a program made for computers that were made for much slower processors.

[X-Doomer]

Originally posted by cybaix


Thanks for sharing,
I do hope your post count stays at 1.

Thanks,
now fuck off

Looks like i made a friend! Hmmm, I see you can critize but can't take the heat.

Looks like I hit the spot directly. What was it, Teeny boppers or the fact you have no respect for others?

If you can't take being told off, stop making ignorant remarks. Just a friendly reminder why discussion boards exist!

Go back to listen to NStink!

P.S. Why the need for swearing. If you can't come back with something intelligent, you SHOULD be watching TV.

Merry Christmas

[X-Doomer]

Originally posted by thepyr0x
1. don't call someone an idiot unless you expect to be called it back

idiot

first of all, nobody is forcing you to use WA3. There is still classic.winamp.com and wa2 is still up for downloads along with all it's skins and plugins for download.

second of all, what more do you really expect WA2 to do? There isn't a whole lot of improvement you can make with the wa2 engine.

third of all, freeform skinning is totally awesome. I love having my wa3 with mmd3's vertical shade mode up at the top of my screen. It's there enough that I can see everything I want and control it, but not so much that I can't read titlebars or click buttons in Opera. awesome.

fourth of all, WA3 is made by the same people that made WA2, are you gonna tell me that you don't trust them to make a better program out of a new engine? Of course it's new so it doesn't have all it's features, and it isn't completely optimized. If it weren't for AOL deadlines then we probably wouldn't have called WA3 "final" when we did.

fifth, and last, of all; where do you see how WA3 has gone backwards? The base skin is almost exactly the same. The decoding engine is exactly the same. The loading time leaves a little to be desired but such comes from unoptimized programs - especially when compared against a program made for computers that were made for much slower processors.

You seem to know a lot about masturbation. Watching too many Teeny boppers videos. Yes programming is all nice but are we forgetting the music and the use of the program. What did you program this s**t, did i hit a sensitive nerve? Man, how old are you, 12?

Go watch TV, i'm sure there is a good Spice Girls video on, that you can jack off to!

I feel welcome, and will stay here forever now!

Thanks to you "Senior Member" LOL, what a dumb @$$!

[thepyr0x]

are you kidding me?? teeny boppers in spice girl music videos rock!! jacking off to them is better than sex with my girlfriend!

[sanosuke]

Originally posted by X-Doomer



You seem to know a lot about masturbation. Watching too many Teeny boppers videos. Yes programming is all nice but are we forgetting the music and the use of the program. What did you program this s**t, did i hit a sensitive nerve? Man, how old are you, 12?

Go watch TV, i'm sure there is a good Spice Girls video on, that you can jack off to!

I feel welcome, and will stay here forever now!

Thanks to you "Senior Member" LOL, what a dumb @$$!

i think u obviously did not read what thepyr0x said, to put it simply IF U DUN LIKE IT DUN USE IT!!

now run along...

[-SCORCHIO-]

man, i hate winamp 3. i have a 2ghz p4 and it takes ages to load. why do i wanna sit here waiting for a music prog to load. i just wanna click the icon and bang its there. another annoying thing is that some of the skins ( well the good lookin ones) take up loads of system resources. i only wanna play tunes for gods sake. i have other programs that play mpgs and avis ( and they r better at it too). why dont u release a seperate prog for avis etc. winamp used to be something special, what on earth possesed u to change it. dont say "its the future, get on with it" coz that is a stupid answer. i thought the future was supposed to make things easier to use and quicker to use, instead u seem to have gone for the "fill it with loads of pointless shite" approach. all i want is a music program. nothing more and nothing less. plz dedicate more time to making winamp a kickass prog again.

[sanosuke]

Originally posted by -SCORCHIO-
man, i hate winamp 3. i have a 2ghz p4 and it takes ages to load. why do i wanna sit here waiting for a music prog to load. i just wanna click the icon and bang its there. another annoying thing is that some of the skins ( well the good lookin ones) take up loads of system resources. i only wanna play tunes for gods sake. i have other programs that play mpgs and avis ( and they r better at it too). why dont u release a seperate prog for avis etc. winamp used to be something special, what on earth possesed u to change it. dont say "its the future, get on with it" coz that is a stupid answer. i thought the future was supposed to make things easier to use and quicker to use, instead u seem to have gone for the "fill it with loads of pointless shite" approach. all i want is a music program. nothing more and nothing less. plz dedicate more time to making winamp a kickass prog again.

it is only the first release, give it time and it would get better, the internal builds r much faster now then even the first release.

If u still hate winamp3, winamp2 would still be there for downloading.

[flaviocrispim]

I really liked winamp3, but it becomes unstable and slow with a large playlist(4000mp´s). I´m running a dual PIII 1100 MHz
with 384MB Ram and Win2k and a Pentium III 733Mhz with the same problem.

[-SCORCHIO-]

im not giving up yet, that would be foolish. but it is really annoying. i have 3d games that load quicker than winamp 3. i understand that coz it is one of the first builds its gonna have teething probs, but i hate this whole ethos that the computer industry has of release it quick and fix it later. what ever happened to quality control.

[sanosuke]

Originally posted by -SCORCHIO-
the computer industry has of release it quick and fix it later. what ever happened to quality control.

name a company that releases 101% completely bug free software.

[-SCORCHIO-]

that is exactly my point. no company does it. fair enough, even older software had its problems, but at least more of an effort was made to ensure that it would at least run to a reasonable fashion, because it was harder to fix once it had hit the streets. now that we have high speed net access, companies r more willing to release a product before it should be released and to patch it later. i used to work for a games company, so i am not ignorant to the pressures that publishers etc. put onto the developers to release a piece of software. but.... what happened to the philosophy "if something is worth doing, its worth doing well"?

[Guffypup]

ALRIGHT

[-SCORCHIO-]

bit of a lame come back dont u think. plz dont waste my time by making me check back for such a pathetic reply.

[Guffypup]

lol i wuznt' replyingh 2 u,,,,,


I was looping around you.

[-SCORCHIO-]

in that case i apologise. it did seem like it was to do with the conversation i was having.

[Guffypup]

I can't read or write.