Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

View Poll Results: what do you think of the new shoutcast browser
Love it 57 20.58%
Hate it 178 64.26%
Its about the same to me 42 15.16%
Voters: 277. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 24th February 2006, 02:39   #41
MXGzX
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Next to you
Posts: 21
I abhore this change. It really is slow. Don't even say it's my internet, because it is not. And oh I think I just found a bug when playing with it...I shrunk the ML's height to the minimum and I get a runtime error! Nice!!! Line 777 Error: Invalid Argument. You know, some of us may not want to listen to Joe Shmoe's Supertastic Shoutcastic Server. I enjoyed it the old way. It was much better. It required much less effort to pick a station and listen. There is a reason servers has lots of listeners, good music. I don't care what you say, but you can't deny it. Oh that's nice, now I clicked Shoutcast Radio and got "No Stations Available". Wonderful. Your beta testers should be shot!

Anyway, Please (for the love of god, allah, buddah, and your mother) return the shoutcast list within winamp to what it was. People are happy with that! And you don't want sad people. Trust me, this isn't something that will "just take some getting used to." This current setup is very poor.
MXGzX is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 03:14   #42
JavaJones
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 15
I heartily agree with mistergecko's suggestions. This could be done in a lot more flexible, customizable way. Winamp 3 and 5's extended skinning and Winamp's general extensive plugin support should go right along with a flexible ML system!

As to the current, new system, I think it's awful. You can talk all you want about having access to 13,000 stations vs. 1000. The point for me is can I find the stations/music I want to listen to? And the answer so far is a big, resounding NO. It seems like that's the case for many other people too. Even stations I used to like to listen to occasionally (but had not bookmarked) seem much more difficult to find. I can only conclude the new UI is a hinderance to effective station browsing, which completely defeats its purpose. So I say I don't care if I can get 10x the number of stations, if I can't find what I want it's useless. Quality over quantity, etc.

As for 40MB XML files, why not just have the connection speed selector on install set a flag for a simplified/minimal listing of stations for dialup users? Let's see, 13,000 stations, a field for station name, genre, bitrate, and current playing song. Having just typed that up plain text in my text editor now I see it is much less than 1kb. 13,000 stations should thusly be much less than 13mb. How on earth do you get 40MB? Even if it really is that big, how about stream it in chunks as people browse down the list? Or any number of other solutions are possible aside from this approach. You could simplify the list down to bitrate, genre and an abbreviated station name for a reasonably dialup friendly list which, combined with streaming, would work quite well. Bottom line, I may be on broadband, but I know I for one never felt the old system was slow. On the contrary it was much faster than the current one for equivalent capability.

Also, although Winamp has always required IE for its web-based functions, at least those functions were not part of significant "core" functionality (not everyone would consider online services "core functionality", but I certainly do!). Now IE is *required* if we even want browse Shoutcast stations through Winamp. That seems ridiculous. The existing solution seemed far more robust.

I really do not understand this move. But the worst part about it to me is that it was not really beta tested. Clearly there is an outcry about this. The normal users are seeing the system before it is even ready, as is being admitted by moderators further up. If it had been tested properly all of these "little issues" could have been worked out before public release and at the least people would have had the chance to judge it fairly on its real merits. As it is it's quite obviously severely handicapped vs. the old system. So what was the hurry to change the ML? Why so urgent that it is debuted without even beta testing? 5.2 has been in test for a while now and yet this new ML was not a part of it? Why not? Why on earth would you not test such a fundamental change to this core function? If it was a matter of timing, then why release it with 5.2 at all? If it's not ready, hold it back! This kind of impatience speaks poorly for continued Winamp dev if that is indeed the case.

- Oshyan
JavaJones is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 03:41   #43
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,822
@JavaJones, you don't know the half of it my friend ;-)

Besides all that though, ml_online WAS actually included in the public betas, as from build 427, and there were 4 more public beta builds released after that, and absolutely no-one complained at the time. Typical, eh.

Note, it's pretty hard to beta test something when all the content is controlled serverside, and at the time, said content was changing in realtime every few minutes.

All that said and done, all your complaints are duly noted, and as Tag said earlier, I'm sure something will be done to address the issues.
DJ Egg is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 03:51   #44
JavaJones
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 15
Yeah I knew it was included in the last few betas actually. I'm quite surprised "no one" complained. But even though it was tested, my point was really about testing it until it's polished enough for final release. As far as I can tell, upgrading Winamp whenever a new official release comes out, most new features are more polished than this. I would say people generally expect more in quality and polish from Winamp features, that's really what it comes down to. If Winamp were a product that has a public release every time a new feature is even close to ready, and it tended to be buggy and unpolished, then we'd have lower expectations. Fortunately Winamp does not have that rep.

In any case I'll keep an eye on the developments and will try to strugle through the current UI.

- Oshyan
JavaJones is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 04:12   #45
peaceofcake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 333
Hmm, 40 megs. Well that changes things a bit. Perhaps require an initial selection to narrow down the listings, but then let us navigate those listings just like in the standard media library views? This would mean that much less data would be needed at once, but we'd still get the old interface. Rather than send an html page, send an xml file with just the raw data and have the media library interpret this. It'd be less bandwidth to boot, because you wouldn't need to send the graphics and formatting. But, because the html interface does have its merits, make it an option too.

Also, why not let users rate stations just like they rate songs? If broadcasters can be repeatedly identified (by ip#, station name, or whatever), these ratings would be useful in the same way that ratings for local media are useful. Furthermore, they could be submitted to Nullsoft and the quality of a stream judged by that measure. This is more fair and accurate than # of listeners.

I also think that the beta testing should have focused on the interface first and then the bugs, because ultimately the interface is the aspect that gets set in stone.
peaceofcake is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 04:27   #46
JavaJones
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 15
I'm kind of curious where that 40MB number comes from. Seems like a tremendous amount of data just for station information. What else is being pushed, and does it all need to be sent at once? Can some stuff just be sent on demand? Surely there's a better solution than this.

- Oshyan
JavaJones is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 04:48   #47
JavaJones
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 15
I switched back to the old dll and was able to find my stations and *enque* them with simple multi-select, setting up my playlist *literally* within 15 seconds of opening the Shoutcast list. The old method is so far superior it's going to take a lot for the new one to impress me.

- Oshyan
JavaJones is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 05:59   #48
dmh4u786
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4
bottom line

i don't like the new shoutcast section of the media library something really needs to be done about that i demand the old shoutcast version which will allow you to see the whole list of streams
dmh4u786 is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 06:00   #49
drewbar
Sawg 2.0
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,916
Oh, now that you demand it, I am sure they will get right on it now.

Count with us!
Jan 1st, 12AM (PST, GMT -8) 2010 - 282,246
drewbar is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 07:57   #50
ATomCZ
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
It´s confused, ugly and slow.

In AOL videos, I can't bookmark favorites video, or send it to my friend.

And when I bookmark some radio station in my playlists, I can't rename it :-( Name as 'http://69.13.158.122:9140' is problem remember.
ATomCZ is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 09:36   #51
tesseracter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
usability

1. new user interaction for using shoutcast, play/enqueue/...add to playlist?
2. table-style is now entry style, with multiple lines, very frustrating on the eyes and pattern recognition.
3. i use a compact UI skin, and i used to be able to manage my media library in a space smaller than the HEADING on the new interface. i opened up shoutcastTV, and couldnt see a single actual station. we all know we are using winamp, i dont need 50 pixels along the top for a silly gradient. put the # of results found either on the sort bar, or next to the search bar.
4. you have a search by genre, and an alphabetical list of genres? what about just having a search by genre, and allow a null string just return all items in the genre?
5.put the most used functions closer to your results. its a basic UI design, im not sure if its carried out here. i suppose its up to you if more people will use a row of letters or a search bar.
6. put actual numbers of listeners/max users. no matter what numbers are there, its easy to see if i can get on, 100% or not, and users/maxusers, but the total volume is nice to know, and popularity is nice to take into account. did you want to have a scaled popularity based on percents? meh, not too interesting.

ok, im sleepy, hope this helps.
tesseracter is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 10:45   #52
Squashed
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: downstairs
Posts: 95
Is the poll over? I can't find a button "Hate it" to click on...

And yes: I'd like to go back, even if it's limited to "only" 1000 stations. Who cares? When I want the vast amount I launch my browser and browse shoutcast, there I have the 13.000s of stations. And besides: I can't find *any* station when I don't allow ActiveX (which I don't for security reasons).

So I downgraded to the old ML but:
--> I really would be glad if the Dev-team would decide to support the approved old ML in addition to the new one so the user could switch instead of deciding.
Squashed is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 10:57   #53
PaulAtreides
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
5.13 was better!

I'm disapointed with 5.2.
- The new colors makes it harder to read. Now it's almost impossible to find radio stations. I had to change skin colors to be able to read without getting a headache. With all but two skins the contrast is too low between text and background now Winamp 5.2. So it takes longer to read, and it's harder to find what I want. The font size is also a little bit too small. And by the way I have perfect sight on both my eyes. (Is there anything perfect in this world? What I mean is that my sight is good enough for me to be a fighter jet pilot, if I would have wanted to.)
- The next big problem is that there is no way to sort shoutcast stations by bitrate. You have to sort them by genre first before you can do any other sorting.
- I would like to have the possibility to see only stations from 160kbit - 320kbit, now I get a list containing 24kbit and other low speed stations.
- The new shoutcast list doesn't allow drag and drop to the playlist. Now I can only have one station in the playlist. With 5.13 I used a long list of different radio stations in case one would fail, or just to make it easier to switch between my favorite stations, and my music files were further down in the playlist if the music on the radio stations was boring.
- Now It's easier to go to www.shoutcast.com to find the stations I like. (So now there is no advantage in using winamp, I could as well use any music program.)

I'm probably going back to 5.13.
I really hope that a future version of winamp will have the shoutcast part as good as 5.13, but with more than 1000 radio stations. (And if there has to be a 1000 station limit to limit CPU/RAM usage, then winamp should have the possibility to get 1000 stations within a bitrate range that we select, or within a genre that we like.)
If not, I'm going to find another player or continue using 5.13. The shoutcast part was the little thing that made Winamp better than other players.
If you take away that thing, there will be no reason for me to continue using Winamp.
Remember what happened to realplayer. The program was good and one of the most popular, but when they started to implement a lot of unnecessary things, changed the GUI and added more ads and other stuff that people didn't want, people imediately changed to other programs (like Winamp).
If something is good, then why change it? It's better to improve things instead of changing them.

I suggest that you make a Winamp 5.3 that has both the possibility to sort radio streams in various ways like 5.13, and that supports the full amount of radio stations like in 5.2.

Paul Atreides

Last edited by PaulAtreides; 24th February 2006 at 11:48.
PaulAtreides is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 12:19   #54
NetSpider
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10
Damn , i can't stand the new media library ...
The new one is useless .
please bring back the old good library , or at least make an option to switch back .
NetSpider is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 12:44   #55
sacharja
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 81
I can retrace the argument with the traffic. I´d propose a compromise:

- the old list with 1000 stations remains
- the data that needs to be transfered is packed, e.g. a zip that winamp saves in it´s directory, unpacks it and deletes it after use
- if the user wants to browse the stations he´s redirected to shoutcast.com, or the infos in winamp that needs to be transfered are shrinked to a minimum, means only the groups are loaded, no extensive scripts or data that needs special security settings/plugins
- to minimize data transfer it´d be useful to manage the data through SQL, the info is stored in the DB and if a user requests the info (browse the stations) no data is transfered, he simply requests some DB entries

Overall that would limit the transfer volume to a minimum (alike this forum) and everybody´s happy
sacharja is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 12:58   #56
kiro82
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4
Voted

And here's why:
I understand the attempt to provide more than "just" 1000
streams and would agree to the thesis, listener counts
distracts people from choosing the station THEY like.

But the new "online services" don't work for me. For what I've
read so far it uses IE to display the contents. If that's true
and there's no way of letting any alternative browser do the
work, you may as well set your winamp.com site "IE only".

I've cropped IE funcionality to the bare minimum and use
Firefox instead. I'll rather change my music player than
switching back to IE.

But for now I'm using the "old" 5.13 ML dll. Yay.

Greetings!
kiro82 is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 15:08   #57
goublabba
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5
I find the new shoutcast browser to be pretty awful. I hate the "quick genre" feature, as it doesn't include the genre I always used (Alternative). I thought maybe if I chose the Rock genre that Alternative would somehow be available as a sub-genre, but instead all the Rock genre shows is "No stations available." (This must just be broken at the moment?)

Now I have to search for the few stations whose names I remember. I liked being able to browse all the Alternative stations, and yes, check out their popularity based on the number of listeners. It's a nice goal to be able to include all 13000+ shoutcast streams, but not something that I felt I was missing out on before. There were probably 50ish Alternative stations there before; I can't see needing any more options than that anyway.

I also liked being able to sort by bitrate. In fact, I liked having the stations listed in a table where I could sort it however I wanted. A table was a sensible way to display all the info. I don't like the alternating color scheme of the new list either -- I find it hard to read.

I have been using Winamp since the dawn of time, and I've been a big proponent of it despite everyone trying to get me to switch to WMP or some other player. But now I'm heartbroken. The shoutcast player had grown to be my favorite part of Winamp, and now I feel like it's ruined. I'm going back to 5.13.
goublabba is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 15:21   #58
ujay
Forum King
 
ujay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 6,072
Re: 5.13 was better!

Quote:
Originally posted by PaulAtreides
... The new shoutcast list doesn't allow drag and drop to the playlist. Now I can only have one station in the playlist. ...
You can use Right click > Enqueue to put multiple stations in the playlist if you want.

Why not reserve judgement on this for a while, I'm finding it's getting better all the time.
Maybe it should have been held back until it was more mature, but that's a different matter.

How it looks depends on the colour scheme you're using, some I like some I don't. If you use the modern skin you have plenty to choose from. It's actually the size of the text that I find most difficult(I'm partially sighted).

UJ
ujay is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 15:28   #59
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,822
@goublabba

Alternative genre is listed under "A" (the A-Z menu underneath Quick Genre) and I get 396 returns for it, and "sort by: name | bitrate | type" is working fine too.


Other than that, yeah, we still hear you (all).


@PaulAtreides
Good post.
Yup, text size needs to be configurable
Yup, the alternating color scheme is a bit ott
Yup, would be nice to be able to filter out lo-bitrates
Yup, old drag+drop feature is missed


And again, as already stated, listener count (including: sort by) is coming back,
but the lists will NOT be auto loaded by popularity. Some of you who've posted here might not care about the broadcasters trying to run smaller stations, but we do :-)
DJ Egg is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 19:40   #60
kiro82
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4
Well if it's not sorted by listener count IMO it should not
be sorted at all. Read: random order. I mean the listener
count at least is more helpful than alphabetically sorted
stations.

I know the following would be a feature request but it fits
quite nicely into this thread:
Maybe have some community based rating system introduced.
With del.icio.us and stumbleupon.com gaining more and more
popularity I see a decent chance to integrate a similiar
system into the station browser. I register and mark "80s",
"lounge" and "electronic" to be my favorite genres and rate
the stations I hear. Other users with the same interests
will be proposed to check out the stations that I like and
vice versa. So when in mood for electronic music I simply
click a button and winamp picks a random stream with
positive rating out of specified category.

This would a) provide a chance to minor stations to get
played by random chance and b) give me a chance to fight
my way though the vast amount of stations available.

Cheers!
kiro82 is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 19:47   #61
maoric
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally posted by vob
My primary reason for using winamp is its media library and shoutcast support. what a disappointment the new shoutcast browser is. It's slow, unresponsive, requires more steps to find what you want. This format is ok for other stuff like XM radio or AOL video, but not for shoutcast. There's a lot available genres and it would work much better as old drop down list, plus no more convenient sorting capabilites.

very dissapointed

How about providing an option for users to choose old or new style browser?

This is exactly what I joined the forums just now in order to say. I use winamp as my default media player on my computer, but primarily use it (and while at work, exclusively use it) to listen to Shoutcast radio. Now I can't even get connected to my favorite stations, even when trying the links from shoutcast.com. They don't even show up when I try to search for them with the "improved" layout.

This needs to be fixed. There was nothing wrong with the old layout, you had the ability to sort your stations quickly and easily, and it actually showed all stations.

At least I have other things I can listen to at home until Winamp works again, and I know to not upgrade at work until it is fixed.
maoric is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 19:50   #62
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
I like that idea kiro!

I don't mind it I guess. After messing with it for a bit and not liking it, I was able to figure out how to use it and find what I wanted to find. So I'm good.
Mattress is offline  
Old 24th February 2006, 23:43   #63
urbanite
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4
Until the Shoutcast interface is fixed, I'm just keeping a Firefox window open with shoutcast.com open. It allows me to view the stations by # of listeners and filter by bitrate, two very important features.

Very very disappointed in this version! Will probably need to backtrack soon to 5.13.
urbanite is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 00:52   #64
vic06
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1
It sucks,
DJ Egg your makeing it seem like people listen to a station because of the usercount. Is that true? do you listen to a station just because it has 1000+ listeners? No you listen because they play good music. A high listenercount means the sation is doing something right. Ya its good to discover new stations but not all the time.

It doesnt all have to be server-side, zip/rar/tar the xml file for the people that want 13000+ and have thier pcs do the work and decomprass the file. Text files usealy have very high comprassion ratios.
vic06 is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 01:00   #65
Axellink
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 24
Yup, the new look is very user unfriendly, no matter how much you try and defend it. Damn usability is bad. Anywho I know you guys will fix it sooner or later as you guys always do. Keep up the good work guys.
Axellink is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 01:17   #66
eavs
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1
I've got to vote it down also. I want my own capability of sorting the 13,000+ using one of the many schemes proposed in this thread. I'll be looking to see if I've still got an older version stashed on my pc and reinstall.
eavs is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 01:58   #67
MeanStang
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 25
where the heck did all the shoutcast radio stations go? you've got to be joking me if you call this user-friendly. it takes forever now just to navigate thru all these menus to find a station to listen to. not to mention the load times of the menus are slow. given the poll results thus far, the users hate this new "online services" menu. this new online services garbage is only going to HURT radio stations. I cant find my favorite stations nor can i find the bitrates i want to listen to. its the most discombobulated thing i've ever encountered in a media player. someone tell me where i can download 5.13 again?
MeanStang is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 02:14   #68
unknown-name
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 71
DJ Egg says:
-------------
So you want to go back to being limited to a list of the top 1000 streams only?
I know for sure that I don't :/
-------------

That's why there is a poll for what EVERYONE wants, not just you.
Why can't you just accept the fact that most people don't like it??? Geez.

YES I am aware that the old version can't handle more than 1000 stream listings without locking up, but I would rather that than this new system (looks like I'm not alone according to the poll/comments).


Although, reading your posts later on, it seems you finally got off your high horse and started paying attention to what people were saying instead of just constantly jumping down their throats.

Either way, as the old saying goes (probably heard it a million times), if it ain't broke, don't fix it.. OR, at least provide the option of having either the NEW system or the OLD one (in much the same way you can select a modern skin vs a classic skin). Wouldn't that make things easier?

p.s. I've done what someone said with the old 5.13 gen_ml.dll file and replaced it (great idea!!).. Thank god I still had the old 5.13 install file.. What about people that don't, and wanna go back to the old Winamp? Maybe the website should keep a link for the previous Winamp version somewhere near the current/new link?? Hmmmmmmm.


*insert /end rant statement here :P*
unknown-name is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 02:49   #69
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,822
Quote:
Originally posted by Axellink
Anyhow I know you guys will fix it sooner or later as you guys always do. Keep up the good work guys.
Correct :-)
DJ Egg is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 03:26   #70
ivand67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 121
It's so sad that Winamp developers are focusing on these features while more and more bugs continue to be introduced with every new version.

See my thread here: http://forums.winamp.com/showthread....52#post1873952
ivand67 is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 03:50   #71
unknown-name
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 71
On the positive side of things, I do have one good thing to say about it though. It is at least giving the less popular stations a bit more exposure compared to the old system. So in that sense it ain't a bad thing.
unknown-name is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 04:27   #72
JavaJones
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 15
It seems like the server load is really the main justification for this. The "only 1000 stations listed" issue was a *result* of that original problem. So the question is why was *this* seen as the best fix? Unless I'm smoking something it seems like HTML (which we have now) is not going to be particularly smaller to send than the previous XML file. The difference is you can just send it in pieces because it's been split up into many, many pages. Well, that would be no different than splitting the old XML file up into multiple chunks. No need to change the whole UI! Either way the system needed to be using "chunks" - the new HTML version clearly isn't able to list all 13,000 stations at once either. So again the question becomes why not just fix the server issue itself with some of the many, many great suggestions in this and other threads (segmenting by genre, on-demand list streaming, minimized default list information, separating presentation and content, server mirroring, etc, etc.). Surely this was not the best solution for all involved!

I'm curious whether mirroring the old 5.13 dll would be illegal. I'm guessing yes, but if not I will gladly do so for anyone who wants it. I think people deserve that option. AOL can shut it down at their end, fine, but they'll just be pissing people off more. It seems like people would rather have 1000 stations in which they can find what they want than 13,000 in which they can't.

- Oshyan
JavaJones is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 05:51   #73
CW-4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1
The multi-line listings just don't work... well not for my old tired eyes. The other little things I can work around, but you have to see them first. Lots of eyecandy isn't always better.
CW-4 is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 07:42   #74
amokoura
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1
- The new listing is confusing
- The radio station info row is a big box of text => hard to find info
- I can't filter the non-high-bandwith-stations

The main point is:
The older structure was easier to handle and read
amokoura is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 07:46   #75
Darketernal
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7
The interface is nice , but you should have the ability to switch back to a classic setting. It has no oversight , and i absolutely hate it.
Darketernal is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 08:02   #76
EfaustuS9
Major Dude
 
EfaustuS9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 1,895
Send a message via ICQ to EfaustuS9 Send a message via AIM to EfaustuS9 Send a message via Yahoo to EfaustuS9
I too prefer the old engine over the new html one found in the current release. Might I suggest that in the next release incorporate an option so that the user can decide to either use the new or old shoutcast search engine, just like the option is given to use modern or classic skins. I like being giving a choice keep up the good work in any event.


Last edited by EfaustuS9; 25th February 2006 at 09:29.
EfaustuS9 is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 08:05   #77
drewbar
Sawg 2.0
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,916
http://www.sawgweb.com/sawgstuff/winamp5/gen_ml_513.zip

I assume you all know what to do with it (and it beats installing, copying and uninstalling).

Count with us!
Jan 1st, 12AM (PST, GMT -8) 2010 - 282,246
drewbar is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 08:14   #78
Kampy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Send a message via ICQ to Kampy
Why? I cant understand why they took away the Shoutcast TV section?! There is this TV button on the main Winamp menu and it used to bring up the shoutcast tv section, but now it does nothing! I can still watch my favorite servers because I had saved them in a list, but this sucks! Im gonna reinstall the old version (good that I saved the install file).
The only question I still have is "why?" - why would you do such a thing. Its like one of the most popular features of winamp isnt it?

this winamp version is:
Kampy is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 08:45   #79
drewbar
Sawg 2.0
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,916
It's still there. Click on "Online Media" in the Library and make sure SHOUTcast TV is checked.

Count with us!
Jan 1st, 12AM (PST, GMT -8) 2010 - 282,246
drewbar is offline  
Old 25th February 2006, 09:28   #80
bimbobo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 17
I do not like it at all, I like the old one and decided to stay with 5.1.13 until you change to the old one again.
You do not that? I'll stay with the old version....
Very bad decision... The old one was so easy to use...
bimbobo is offline  
Closed Thread
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

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