windows 64bit xp :winamp:

[t_regev]

i have windows 64bit xp
i install winamp and it work fine :-)
but it work on 32bit prosses
there a winamp it will work on 64bit prossesor
that capable do the prossesing in 64bit?...
there winamp for other os?....
pls answer me
Thx Tal....

[drewbar]

If it works fine, then it works fine. There is no 64bit version and no other OSes.

[t_regev]

So why u don't efford the new os system?
it new generation!
maybe i am the first that i ask
but many will follow me.
i just the first brave that ask,
the new os 64bit have emulator that run also a 32bit
program but it not last forever.
u may need to upgrade urself like many programs
and move the future.
so pls...
enter into the evolution,
and do winamp for 64bit os!
:-)
thx tal

[drewbar]

There would be no gain in a 64bit version of Winamp. It would just waste developers time.

[t_regev]

u will c....
the will have a new winamp
it will call her winamp 6
or winamp 6.4 :-D
but it will be
it the future
u can't denied that
so pls
effort from now....
be the first music program.
there advantage in 64bit prossesing
more fast more efficent and more option to be added
i really how u don't c the new option!
anyway i hope there a serious devloper that will c
my messege beside u
and understand me and get the work from now :-D
so thx for this forum
and don't forget who the first ask for this new idia :-)
thx.... tal

[losta]

Originally posted by drewbar
There would be no gain in a 64bit version of Winamp. It would just waste developers time.

Not quite. Winamp authors must admit that 64-bit programs behave much better on WinXP 64 then older 32-bit programs. It's a pure fact. Believe it or not, it's true.

[drewbar]

Define 'better', then?

It's still a waste of time.

[losta]

Simply as that: with 64-bit Winamp, there is no need for emulation process in WinXP 64. That's only one reason for 64-bit winamp.

Second reason is speed: I am pretty sure that 64-bit winamp will start between 10-20 % faster. And in real work, I know to notice speed difference.

[Enigma66]

Enjoy your waiting.

[drewbar]

Since it takes under five seconds for Winbamp to start on my plain-oild 32bit system, I don't see how 64bit will invent time travel.

Plus "there is no need for emulation process in WinXP 64." How does that make something better? If io works fine, it works fine.

Ya fell fore the marketing hype around the whole "64-bit" thing. Don't feel too bad, it happens to everyone once in a while.

[DrO]

and resurecting all of the 64-bit threads is a great way to go when only just joining the forums...

and 64-bit as drewbar says is just all hype, look at all the issues with xp 64 systems and their lovely driver support (finds a corner and laughs). now wouldn't a linux-64 build be a lot nicer to have. really there's no point in trying to push the thought, win32 remains the dominant platform and will stay like that for a while and for a media player, 64-bit native support would provide negligable effect so there's no point in keeping this (and this old thread going).

-daz

[losta]

OK, but I am very sad about this.

[t_regev]

I told u SO!!!!
I told u so that many will follow....
now it a qustion of time...
no matter what when the vista come to picture
it will be in 64bit thing.. intel and amd
so.. .all the serious program will come to 64bit
winamp wouldn't?.....
so txh for all my support and the 64bit support idea!!!
if we work together we can do it... winamp 6.4
for 64bit may it free to all!!!! :-P
thx tal

p.s. thx for this forum thing for experssing the new 64 thing idea!!!

[DrO]

a few people is not many and with the delays in vista i wouldn't hold my breathe. 64-bit is still just marketing hype and as has been mentioned, there's little to no advantage of a native 64-bit winamp build. maybe it will happen but it is very unlikely to be the main version shipped if it did ever happen since there's more win32 users out there and will remain to be the case for a long time hence why it's more sense to support the predominant platform when resources are tight to being with. i hope that makes sense and we can now forget about this all until 64-bit OSes become the standard and most common systems in use... 2012 maybe?

-daz

[Benski]

We're already looking at 64bit porting issues and doing some testing on win64. However, like DrO said, it's not worth the effort for an official release at this time, given our very small development team and lack of widespread demand for a 64bit build.

[losta]

Ok, that's something I want to hear. Keep going, Benski.

[Aldomeir]

Not necessarily marketing hype for WinXP 64...though there is some about Windows XP and the amount of memory it can use (effectively use).

WinXP 64 can support up to 128GB of memory.

WinXP (Home/Pro) supports up to 4GB - HOWEVER PCI/PCIe/AGP hardware devices map their memory below 4GB and so limits WinXP to something less than 4GB, usually in the range of 2.8GB to 3.1GB.

So if you want to use 4GB or more of memory, you are going to have to move to WinXP 64 (or Vista 64). There are some nice editing (graphic/video) software that the 64-bit version runs REAL nice under WinXP 64 with 4-8GB of memory (about 3-4 times faster than the 32-bit version under WinXP).

However, none of this is really relevant to producing a WinXP 64 version of WinAMP.

[Rocker]

while this ancient thread is at the top...

i use 64bit windows because its stable as a rock i've never had a windows install last so long before it became unusable.

more than a year of everyday usage, still runs the same as the day I installed windows in the first place, just needs a tweak every now and again with stuff i install.

apart from how much memory the os can handle, theirs not much of an advantage.

[dtmancom]

Consider this another call for a 64bit version.

I registered just to say that. I'd even be willing to finally purchase the premium version of Winamp of it would get me a 64 bit version... I've been using the free version for over 10 years.

And the person who called 64 bit architecture "marketing hype" made me laugh... and that's coming from someone in the computer manufacturing industry.

[Red Lion]

As for me: I'll run Vista64 just to use Winamp64!

I'm guessing Vista will be available sooner than Winamp64, but I'll upgrade to Vista, if there's a Winamp64.

[fr34k]

Add another tally to the request of 64 bit winamp
I am currently using 64 bit Windows XP and i love it, notice some sluggishness in winamp , same as with my 32 bit baby next to me and know we can improve its speed by making the port. Thanks again for your continuing effort and testing even with your limited resources

Vista certainly is recommended with a 64 bit architecture, perhaps tal may be right

[Rocker]

theirs no point in 64 bit winamp. plugins won't work unless their specifically made for winamp 64 so we'd loose what winamp is all about.

it is not sluggish, if anything its faster in windows x64 than in 32bit windows.

[purplehawk]

Originally posted by Benski
We're already looking at 64bit porting issues and doing some testing on win64. However, like DrO said, it's not worth the effort for an official release at this time, given our very small development team and lack of widespread demand for a 64bit build.

Please count me in as one of those who is hoping for 64bit build or patch, or crutch. I love WinAmp and can't use it on either of my 64bit machines.

[HuDDy24k]

Here is another hand up for a winAmp x64 version be good to have a sidebar function for windows vista too

cheers HuDDy

[Tanj]

I'll pitch in behind the call for winamp64! I really like Vista 64 and won't switch.

[Dilburt]

Here is another Vista 64 user who casts his vote with the others.

However, I have a slghtly simpler request for the development team. We don't really need a complete native 64 bit rewrite of Winamp, we just need a version of Winamp with a few tweaks and fixes here and there and it will run great on Vista 64. Of course, one of the major issues is the Sonic burning/ripping engine which is up to Roxio to fix (but it looks like they are working on it).

We've seen all these "stick with the past" statements before, each time a major new computing environment comes out. What happened to all the leading MS-DOS companies who laughed at supporting Windows. All dead now. What happened to all the Win 3.1 companies that laughed at supporting Windows 95. Dead. Laughed at Windows XP? Well, most had learned by then so there was fewer bodies.

People need to remember that Vista 64 IS Vista. The 32 bit version is simply a hack down version to keep the software vendors happy until they can rewrite for the real Vista. There are many reasons why 64 bits is here to stay. Just as with 8 to 16 and 16 to 32, the jump from 32 to 64 bit computing will provide the catalyst for faster games, bigger data sets (which is needed for all the digital audio/video), etc.

I'm just happy to see that the Winamp developer who responded (Benski) had a great pragmatic answer as most good software developers do. "We're already looking at 64bit porting issues and doing some testing on win64." That gives me confidence that these guys will have it figured out soon - probably before Sonic is even ready. Not a 64 bit rewrite, but a solid Winamp version that runs just fine on Vista 64.

Thanks to the Winamp team for developing a great product.

[XmDXtReMeK]

Hi,
Ive been a winamp user for a very long time and now im a vista x64 user. I think you should really consider a 64bit port it does really effect performance imo. Its the new generation like everyone else says. for now im using uAmp till I see a winamp release for 64bit.whoever says that it doesnt make a difference either doesnt have a 64bit system or never bothered to use their pc's maximum capabilities. Compare 32bit winamp vs 64bit uAmp(mem usage,cpu usage and responsiveness) and youll see the difference. Dont get my wrong I love winamp and will always be a supporter for it,and will still be using it on my 32bit laptop but not on my desktop computer. In the end people will always switch to what client give more performance its a fact, look at uTorrent vs Azureous bitorrent clients. Look at the amount of people who migrated from Azureous because uTorrent offers the best performance and same functionality. Finally the fastest growing browser in the world (firefox) has also been working on the 64bit build of their browser.

[Tork]

wow, i can still have my forum account Anyways, 64bit winamp would be sweet.

[DrO]

the point still is that even if there was a native 64-bit compile, how many people are going to moan about plugins x,y and z not working with winamp since that's sure as hell going to happen or people are going to try and mix-match things and then moan when it's not working. a 64-bit version of winamp effectively kills all of the existing 3rd-party plugins (some people may see that as a good thing, heh) and it's the extensible nature of winamp that helps it.

there's enough issues with seeing plugin's updated to use the newer multi-user apis, etc (been in there since 5.11), so getting people to make 64-bit compiles is going to be even more of a nightmare i think. but that's my view from a dev and end-user view point. since if there ever was a 64-bit build of winamp, i'd fear the update process i need to do for 50 or so i've got

-daz

[purplehawk]

Daz, I'd be happy with a player that works. I paid for WinAmp Pro, but right now I'd be happy with just the player.

[purplehawk]

Any news on a 64-bit player?

[Sawg]

Yup, the normal version of Winamp still works on XP 64

[purplehawk]

I should have been more specific. I have a 64-bit Vista machine - two of 'em, in fact.

[roDa]

you shoul use windows media player 11!!! it comes on 64-bit edition...

[Rocker]

dude this thread ended 6 months ago why did you bring it back?

i'm making it stay closed as the answer is final.