Another person to give up on Winamp 3

[bocadillouk]

Now before I begin, I don't have a slow machine or slow internet connection. I run an Athlon XP 2100+ with 512Mb RAM and a GeForce 4 Ti4200 on Windoze XP combined with an ADSL broadband line.

Winamp 3 still is slow and annoying even with this spec. It does look pretty but that's about it. Guys at Nullsoft!!! My friends and I don't like having to wait 10 seconds for Winamp to start to simply listen to an MP3. Winamp 2.81 was by far the best MP3 player ever released. It's quick, reliable, simple and does exactly what an MP3 player needs to do with all the plugins anyone would ever need.

Winamp 3 is slow, cumbersome, over rated, not particularly stable and why add video to it!!!??? That was pointless!!!! I've never used Winamp as a video player. For that Media Player 2 on Windoze is the best! Simple and it works fine!
I have installed all the updates but I've just not had any luck. I have tried Nullsoft!!!!!!

I suggest you guys carry on developing Winamp 2 is nothing can beat it.

Anyhow. That's my opinion. I'm not here to get into an argument but a creative discussion would be good. I'm just interested in what everyone else out there thinks.

B

[will]

1) No one is stopping you from using winamp2
2) startup time has been improved for the next release
3) There is lots of winamp3 that is great that doesn't involve skins, just you havn't seen it yet
4) Winamp2 is still under development. Winamp 2 and 3 are developed by different teams
5) If you don't like the video support, you could remove it. When you installed there was an option not to install it. Thats the beauty of the winamp 3 component system. Everything can be removed which you don't like.

mmkay?

[Ice]

The problem with winamp2, is there isn't much farther in development that it can go. There isn't much for plugins that can be developed, without changing the pseudosdk so much it'd break backwards compatibility.

Winamp3 right now can use some more work, but I assure you, everyone at Nullsoft is working their asses off on making it the best audio player ever.

[sanosuke]

basically it is getting better, and it is no way cumbersome, since it is modular.

[evil_oj]

The real issue isn't Winamp3's poor performance; I'll explain:

Winamp3 cannot do anything far beyond what Winamp2 can do. Right now, using Winamp3 is kind of like using a really old build of Winamp2, with memory leaks and bugs (nothing against Winamp3, or it's programmers). The only reason why people are so upset about Winamp3's performance, is that they got a little bit too excited when they heard that Winamp3 was coming out. They kept saying to themselves "surely by the time Winamp3 gets through RC status and becomes final, i can finally replace Winamp2." Since there is no real reason to need to switch to Winamp3, aside from the cool skins, (once again, nothing against Winamp3, it's just in Development, hasn't been optimized very much.) those of us who find that Winamp3 is not good enough to replace Winamp2, just use Winamp2, you're not missing too much, for now.

3

[Malkavian^C^]

I think it's funny how so many people complain about the Winamp 3 load times on their pimped out systems....im running a Duron 800 machine w/ 512mb of PC133 and it loads in two seconds max. If you'd use some common sense (since this was an issue in winamp 2 as well) and divvie up your playlist in to smallish parts, you have no load time problems.

[Ice]

hell.. i dont expect it to load my playlist with almost 10,000 items in 2 seconds nor do i expect it to take a single meg of ram to run. ram is cheap, and so are processor cycles.

[The Rhino]

I must admit that wa2 was the shit when it came out but i found that its speed, reliability, and quality fluctuated as it developed, i remember that it used to slow my computer down and my music and then the next release it didnt so i guess what im saying is wa3 is in development just like wa2 was (and still sorta is) and it will get progressively better as time goes on i have already realized a huge difference in its load times since it originally went final and im sure it will keep on getting better.

[TeknoBoy]

I hope Winamp3 gets a lot faster/better soon or people will not want it. For now i am sticking to Winamp2 and if u have any problems wait until another version comes out, like i am.

[spanky]

With consideration to the fact that the majority of people are using Winamp as an audio player I don't see a good reason to upgrade to WA3. Flame me all you want but I think by the time WA3 is ironed out to where WA2 is there will be something newer and better.
To simply play my mp3s WA2 does a fine job - using 20MB less memory and little CPU power.

What ever happened to new software being better, faster, and improved? Users are paying a high price for flexible skins and plug-ins, no?

[Ice]

if all you want is to be able to play music, winamp2 is for you

winamp3 is the future. you'll be able to do a whole lot of cool things with the new component system.

[damage07]

For some reason ... Windows XP takes a LONG time to load on my PC. But I put up with it because I really like XP. It's good looking, it's relatively stable, good functionality and once it's loaded, I have no trouble.
XP is new software (in comparison to previous versions obviously) but for me it takes ages to load. But it's benifits are greater - so I use it. I know heaps of people who still run Windows 98SE because they don't need anything better than that.

So I guess what I'm trying to say ... well, I don't really know ... but basically it's a personal preference. You either want it or you don't - need it or not - use it or leave it. Simple as that.


PS. I haven't been to these forums for a couple of weeks. Let me say this "quick reply" box is an AWESOME idea!

[Nunzio390]

damage07...

Welcome back to the forums! And I like the quick reply box too.

Anyway, here are a few links to get your XP sys to boot faster. I'm running XP Pro Build 2600 and it only takes about 25 seconds to boot right now for me from a dead start.

Windows XP boot Tweak Guide
Boot XP faster
Make XP boot even Faster

And here are some good links for general XP tweaks and tips to improve overall performance...

Windows XP Tips
Tweaks & Tips for Windows XP
Tweaks for Windows XP
Windows XP A to Z Tips and Tweaks Database

[sanosuke]

yeah but don't u ppl agree that xp needs to run on at least 256mb ram?? i know it runs on 128mb but it would be really slow or am i mistaken??

[Nunzio390]

You are NOT mistaken. Totally correct. But memory is dirt cheap right now.

btw... I have 480 MB installed memory right now and XP FLIES!!

[Ice]

you can get memory really cheap, but of course it's not the bleeding edge stuff. if i could get corsair xms sticks cheap.....

[sanosuke]

ur right memory is dirt cheap but is it so for laptop computers??

[spanky]

www.pricewatch.com

[CraigF]

/me likes his ddr400 system/mem combo. yumm.

[sanosuke]

Originally posted by spanky
www.pricewatch.com

prices are so low, too bad i don't have a credit card

[spanky]

Originally posted by sanosuke
prices are so low, too bad i don't have a credit card

Just open a bank account and request a debit/check card. That's what I did until I ran out of money and needed a credit card. Now I am completely broke like every other American.

[QHOBBES]

getting back on the topic, you can add me to the list, its FB2K or
nothing.

[spanky]

Originally posted by QHOBBES
getting back on the topic, you can add me to the list, its FB2K or
nothing.

Peter has a cult following. This is cool.

[sanosuke]

Originally posted by spanky
Just open a bank account and request a debit/check card. That's what I did until I ran out of money and needed a credit card. Now I am completely broke like every other American.

problem is i am not an american, i happen to be in a country where credit cards are limited.

[I am Jesus]

Another Lost WA3 soul