Old 15th July 2012, 22:03   #41
Troglodyte
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!! :=)

Last edited by Troglodyte; 15th July 2012 at 22:09. Reason: Not in the correct location
Troglodyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2012, 06:01   #42
xlordvader
Junior Member
 
xlordvader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
64-bit and taking the step forward

So, previously I have agreed with the lack of need for a 64 bit version of Winamp. And how it would break existing plugins.

I have thought on it recently and how things should move forward and not get stale. Not that Winamp is stale (not yet anyways)

But, I would like to put forward the case of mobile technologies. (yes its not and apples to apples comparison). But the idea and sentiment remain. I think if blackberry was not stuck in its little software comfort zone and moved forward they would never have lost the lead.

I would never want to see Winamp overtaken by another mp3/media player.
Yea a 64 bit version would break plugins - But I think with that will come opportunities to build all new ones with possibly more features. I'm sure there is some advantage when it comes to plugins with 64 bit addressing.
It could give rise to an all new revolution like what Winamp was when in 98

As for the existing plugins, those who want to maintain the plugins can continue using Winamp5.

I change my vote and think there should be a 64bit Winamp 6 (or 5+3 = 8)
xlordvader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2012, 01:49   #43
Controller
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlordvader View Post
I would never want to see Winamp overtaken by another mp3/media player.
I've seen a media player (GUI for bass/fmod/fmodex) written in Visual Basic 6 supporting full unicode long before Winamp went unicode... btw that app still runs on Windows 9x, too.
And there are quite some 64 bit players around already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xlordvader View Post
Yea a 64 bit version would break plugins - But I think with that will come opportunities to build all new ones with possibly more features.
As far as I understood input plugins, there never was support for opening multiple files simultaneous (?), and crossfades were done via dsp or output interface.... When going 64 bit - what will require to have 64 bit plugins - I wish opening multiple files will be supported and maybe some other enhancements, instead of just rebuilding the binary in 64 bit. In that case using winamp input plugins in other players/programms really would make sense.

I think 64 bit is overrated. Even 32 bit games using Windows APIs to theoretically access more than 4GB memory are not even "large address aware". Considering virtual address space per application, 32bit programs can - in theroy - access up to 4 GB when running on 64 bit Windows(?)

Multithreading
Threre are some situations where multithreading is usefull, but it usually requires synchronisation, which can be tricky or cause performance issues up to livelocks, deadlocks etc.
Or simply: Either
1) a grand idea for a certain issue, or the only solution
2) a real performance breaker (some number of threads as cores are available I guess)
3) wasted time and performance

Quote:
Originally Posted by xlordvader View Post
It could give rise to an all new revolution like what Winamp was when in 98
There are still few people around using Winamp 2, and I can understand them. However, Winamp 2 has no unicode support
However I don't think Winamp was any revolution - there were other and better players - but it was stable and had plenty of good skins, and overall a good choice for Windows users.
Controller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2012, 18:30   #44
JackBassV
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1
All those people who say "64 bit has no performance improvements over 32 bit" should try this:
Download either Opera in 32 and 64 bit varieties or Firefox and Waterfox.

Now try loading the Winamp home page in both: Want to bet the 64 bit versions are faster?

Nearly everyone will tell you that a 64 bit browser is pointless as there is no worthwhile performance gain. Wrong. Sometime this month, I'm going to be removing both of the 32 bit browsers as they're slow and, to put it bluntly, as waste of space.

As an bonus, when you run waterfox (for example) the plugins run in their own protected memory, which means if they crash, they won't take the entire program down with them (well, not as often.)

So lets have Winamp v6.4 developed as a priority. Just because more people use old 32 bit systems, doesn't mean that you shouldn't develop for the new ones. FYI, even my wifes ion based net-top runs Win 7 64. Forget the disadvantages, look at the advantages (and don't forget multicore processing while you're at it.)
JackBassV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2012, 22:11   #45
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Waterfox runs faster than normal Firefox since it's compiled to work just against newer CPU features than going for the default which will work on _any_ x86 compatible CPU architecture. Winamp does already have some specific CPU based optimisations on some of the input plug-ins depending on the libraries or custom implementations made, but with what Winamp does, most of those optimisations have a negligible impact on actual usage.

64-bit programs only have an advantage over 32-bit ones if they are specifically compiled or make use of the features that 64-bit programs offer. Winamp does not do that and just because it can be compiled as a 64-bit program does not magically make it so much better just by being 64-bit (as has already been covered in the earlier parts of this thread).

the thing which would have more of an effect (primarily on transcoding and similar things) would be being able to make better use of multiple CPU cores - not something that is limited to just a 64-bit version (as some people seem to incorrectly think is the case).

32-bit programs can do things with running processes in their own protected memory which is something that has been integral to the x86 CPU for decades now - it's the fundamental thing which allows Windows to work in the way it does and has done since Windows v3. so once again not something that is 64-bit only and in the Winamp case that has no relation to things since Winamp plug-ins are _always_ loaded into the same process space (which is why they cause so many issues when they break - yes the whole plug-in infrastructure could be changed but if is pretty much no one developing 3rd party plug-ins now, yes breaking things would be fine for the end-user in most cases but what about people dependent upon plug-ins or those who create them but don't have the time / means to update them ?? that would be one way to kill Winamp off - look at the pain that Winamp3 changing the plug-in system caused...). i'm not saying the Winamp 2.x system is good as it has masses of issues but just saying screw everyone for something that causes more pain for 3rd parties and also users is not good for anyone.


pretty much everything that would improve performance (or seemingly improve performance) is fully possible with the 32-bit program - it is more a matter of resources being available to do things like changing transcoding to run as a multi-core thing.


i am not saying 64-bit doesn't have a benefit for specific programs and tasks but for Winamp it doesn't and most of the deficiencies are down to not making use of multi-core features which are independent of the bitness of the compiles. and really most of the complaints / requests for 64-bit builds stem from not actually understand things and just being brain-washed into thinking that 64-bit is all great and must be used - maybe with time Winamp should move to 64-bit but as Android seems to be the main focus, don't expect anything to happen soon on the desktop.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd September 2012, 22:03   #46
xlordvader
Junior Member
 
xlordvader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
What ? Android - Its fine for the moment.
I hope you aren't ignoring Windows 8 :P
xlordvader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2012, 14:05   #47
Roob
Member
 
Roob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benski View Post
At various times I've managed to get 64bit builds up-and-running, at least for a subset of functionality. As DrO mentioned already, the main issue is plugin compatibility...
We shouldnt need 3rd party plugins...
Roob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2012, 14:33   #48
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Winamp has always relied on plug-ins so yes it is an important need and as someone who has done work on a plug-in, i would have hoped you would have been someone more sympathetic to what plug-ins allow and that amount of work which is needed to make even just one, let alone a full players worth of features. so plug-ins are a massively important aspect.

you don't seem to be happy with Winamp or anything else related to it from the continuously negative nature of your posts since your posting hiatus. maybe you should move to using another player as you have already stated you were going to do in your ultimatum thread as clearly nothing anyone on here can say or do is going to appease your constant negativity.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2012, 10:29   #49
ilomambo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3
Go 64

Eventually 32bit app will disappear, be it on Windows 12 or Windows 14. It does not matter.
Why not start to polish and debug 64bit Winamp now?
Leave it in beta stage until it is ready.
Some plugins will need recoding, some only recompile. Other SW has gone 64bit which had plugins too, I am sure they adjusted.

Also it strikes me all of you have been talking only about music. They way I see it there are other areas too, mainly UI and video.

Video playback has been supported by Winamp, it seems the users in this forum don't really take Winamp as a serious video player. If Winamp aims to be a media center, it should stick with video playback and add all other kind of media too. Overdued are Karaoke and Picture albums/slideshows management. If media center is not a target, then drop video, there are much better players right now in the market.

Back to 64bit issues.
Please don't tell me video processing is not going to benefit from 64-bit, specially the effects and frame processing for filtering and image improvement.
And last but not least important aspect: the User Interface, or as I see it: User Experience. Surely a more powerful and speedy processor, a.k.a 64bit, could allow to implement amazing UI efects for the player and the media library, the playlist, the karaoke, the artwork.

So, yes, I think its time (overdue) to recode Winamp for 64bit.
ilomambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2012, 09:20   #50
McGuywer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 8
I agree, a 64 bit version is the future!
McGuywer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2012, 18:10   #51
Sabine Klare
Forum Queen
 
Sabine Klare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 2,492
But many people will keep their "very old" PCs & notebooks with their 32-bit Windows for the next years, and they cannot install 64-bit softwares on their computer. Many friends in Facebook have told me, they never want to give up with Windows XP...
I also know, many people want 64-bit versions of Winamp, because their "very new" computer have Windows only in 64-bit and not in 32-bit. But if they really want that, then I want to suggest, side-by-side with the well-known 32-bit versions...
I see less problems with the standard-plugins for Winamp, but there will be many problems with very much 3rd-party-plugins, if a 64-bit version of Winamp will come out some day, because these 3rd-party-plugins will be in 32-bit also some years later...
Greetings from Sabine Klare Aka Sternenmaschinebine
Sabine Klare is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & SHOUTcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Wishlist

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump