Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 23rd November 2004, 17:46   #121
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
most people downloading alternate media players to WMP do so for a smaller size and when you need to download a 23Mb additional set of files to just use a program that may work out as 1mb or so, people are unlikely to want to use it.

now if Winamp is using 2% cpu and as you've said yourself .NET can cause a 20-30% increase in cpu usage, that's still an increase and as soon as that happens people will quote the old 'omg it's bloated' opinion. i don't like .NET for the simple reason that you can do the same in c/c++ for smaller and faster as there is no intermdiate stage needed once on the destination machine. call me old fashioned but i still design my code to run fast on an old P2 since i feel that speed on specs like that is beneficial to all.

now as electricmime has pointed out, this thread is going far off topic. i things are wanted to be continued then i think a separate discussion thread will be more beneficial or can we call it a day on the matter

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 03:22   #122
squall14716
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 349
Send a message via ICQ to squall14716 Send a message via AIM to squall14716 Send a message via Yahoo to squall14716
Maybe I should learn C(++) and make some Winamp plugins.
squall14716 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 06:10   #123
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by DrO
i don't like .NET for the simple reason that you can do the same in c/c++
The point is you can't!.. I know you are a sucker for performance, but what about security?.. I know Winamp5 has had some serious security issues.
In software design, security must allways have #1 priority.
And C# provides the right tools for making secure applications, for example:
C# has a new way of handling errors.. its called: Exceptions. In C++ u handle errors with error codes. In C# an Exception simply falls thru functions until u decide where to "catch" it. This mechanism is possible only because of the extra layer .NET adds with the common intermediate language (CIL).
An extra layer of abstraction allways costs a little performance offcourse, but do u really think people will care if Winamp runs with 2% or 3% CPU usage?
No, they want a Media Player with the best functionality and also a responsive User Interface. People hate to wait when they don't know what they are waiting for. This is where C#'s multi threading features kick in. For instance the extra layer I talked about also has a Thread Pool by default.
...well I can go on and on about this, but I'm sure that when u finally see the light, u will look back at the old COM days and smile.

PS:
I'm not a great fan of Microsoft $$$ company, but with the new .NET development platform they have taken a step in the right direction.
FYI: There also is an open source .NET available at http://www.mono-project.com It can make .NET Linux apps.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 08:11   #124
seyss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brazil
Posts: 142
well ppl dont care about what language is made a program..
if we could code in asm as fast and easy as we code c++ the world would be better
seyss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 08:36   #125
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
Quote:
Originally posted by DrO
call me old fashioned but i still design my code to run fast on an old P2 since i feel that speed on specs like that is beneficial to all.
Thanks for that .

Winamp's secuirty issues have been delt with. What about .net applications that have secuirty issues? MSN messenger is a .net application right? That has had secuirty issues. Is IE a .net application? Adding extra abstraction layers degrades preformance. People don't like less preformance. Stop being super lazy and just be mostly lazy and use C/C++. Use C so you can make some kick ass GBA games.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 09:56   #126
Lord Darius
Senior Member
 
Lord Darius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 248
As a Windows developer, I've already been disappointed by MFC which I find too heavy... so let's imagine with .NET

IMHO, .NET is a good idea for client/server thingies, or web development (like the java language), but designing a media player in .NET is like building a handwatch with armed concrete...

like DrO, I like to have a total control over what I'm developing, so I'll stick with C and C++.

And I'm really looking forward to see the "real" next Windows version where everything will be built upon .NET.
Once again, it will mean buying new computers and all, hence causing to throw away old computers, causing pollution and garbage issues...
On the other hand, an old Pentium box is enough to run Linux (mainly written in C) just fine, and it doesn't look bad at all.

So, to conclude, .NET is evil , media players need to be small and fast, and C/C++ is the way to go (or D, if you need shiny stuff like delegates).

Btw, i think we should fork that discussion to the dev forum, let's call it... "Developing a new media player"
Lord Darius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 10:32   #127
nybergh
Dialup Junkie
(Major Dude)
 
nybergh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
Once again, it will mean buying new computers and all, hence causing to throw away old computers, causing pollution and garbage issues...
Good point. This is something that should get much more attention as the electronics industry is very, very polluting and resource consuming.
nybergh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 12:51   #128
sanosuke
Major Dude
 
sanosuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally posted by BuckyBoy
if u mean a media player for playing movies, u are probably right.. but for mp3's I see no problem.
what is so resource intensive about decoding an mp3 file? on my pc here Winamp never gets above 2% cpu usage.

FYI there is a more lightweight .net on pocketpc.. it's only 1 MB or so.
I said a .Net player will not work on a POCKET Pc. Such processor intensive apps will not work, considering how much slower such handhelds are to desktop pcs.

Big-assed signature deleted by errr.. whats his name again??
sanosuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 14:58   #129
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by whiteflip
Thanks for that .

Winamp's secuirty issues have been delt with. What about .net applications that have secuirty issues? MSN messenger is a .net application right? That has had secuirty issues. Is IE a .net application? Adding extra abstraction layers degrades preformance. People don't like less preformance. Stop being super lazy and just be mostly lazy and use C/C++. Use C so you can make some kick ass GBA games.
No, MSN and IE are not .NET apps.. but i agree it's a nasty habit of Microsoft to use the .NET label for a whole lot of others things that really have nothing to do with the .NET development platform.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 15:09   #130
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
You are forgetting that you're making apps on an slow operating system (windows) in the first place.
Have you ever played good Xbox games, like Halo 2 for instance? An Xbox only has a 700 Mhz CPU and an average graphics card and it still runs games amazingly fast. It doesn't have an OS, only a small kernel in the bios.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Darius
As a Windows developer, I've already been disappointed by MFC which I find too heavy... so let's imagine with .NET

IMHO, .NET is a good idea for client/server thingies, or web development (like the java language), but designing a media player in .NET is like building a handwatch with armed concrete...

like DrO, I like to have a total control over what I'm developing, so I'll stick with C and C++.

And I'm really looking forward to see the "real" next Windows version where everything will be built upon .NET.
Once again, it will mean buying new computers and all, hence causing to throw away old computers, causing pollution and garbage issues...
On the other hand, an old Pentium box is enough to run Linux (mainly written in C) just fine, and it doesn't look bad at all.

So, to conclude, .NET is evil , media players need to be small and fast, and C/C++ is the way to go (or D, if you need shiny stuff like delegates).

Btw, i think we should fork that discussion to the dev forum, let's call it... "Developing a new media player"
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 16:24   #131
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
I don't think, that we need tons of new features.

Some things in Winamp's installer and in the default configuration should be changed.

E.g. Uncheck "Use fast layer 3 EQ" in in_mp3 as default.

Also ad the missing Milkdrop files to the installer.

This would be a very good release.

Winamp is the best audio player and will ever be.

I don't found any audio player, wich is as good as winamp.

I don't use Winamp for videos, because the video support is nearly the same as in Winamp 2.9x.

Video support in Winamp is very basic. Just a Directshow decoder. There are no controlls for brightness etc, the progressbar in fullscreen in to small, no auto fullscreen on start and no option for always on top for just video window.

I know, this is part of the Wishlist and there are plug-ins, but I don't want to install a hand full of plug-ins to get these basic features.

Winamp is and will be my favorite audio player, for videos I use MPC.

The QCD player sucks, it looks like a poor copy of Winamp. The same video options, nearly the same options etc.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2004, 16:36   #132
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
agree, i use Winamp only for audio playing too.
All the fancy visualisations are nice, but i won't look at those for more than one time. The same thing for the all those user made skins. I found that most of these skins are just no usable and now i only use the modern skin.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2004, 00:07   #133
squall14716
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 349
Send a message via ICQ to squall14716 Send a message via AIM to squall14716 Send a message via Yahoo to squall14716
Quote:
Originally posted by BuckyBoy
You are forgetting that you're making apps on an slow operating system (windows) in the first place.
Have you ever played good Xbox games, like Halo 2 for instance? An Xbox only has a 700 Mhz CPU and an average graphics card and it still runs games amazingly fast. It doesn't have an OS, only a small kernel in the bios.
That's because Halo 2 was made for the X-Box hardware specifically. It was also not made in .NET, so the whole point is moot.
squall14716 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2004, 01:47   #134
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by squall14716
That's because Halo 2 was made for the X-Box hardware specifically. It was also not made in .NET, so the whole point is moot.
actually my point was: if you're programming for windows, you're losing 50% performance anyway. So you may as well use .NET and make applications in less time or make applications with more functionality.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2004, 02:00   #135
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Darius
And I'm really looking forward to see the "real" next Windows version where everything will be built upon .NET.
hmmmmm.. what do u think about Longhorn? It will be the first ever Managed Operating System. That's right: the operating system itself is in managed code.
by that time you guys will still be using old COM stuff.. while I can happily continue programming in C# for Longhorn.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2004, 03:01   #136
squall14716
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 349
Send a message via ICQ to squall14716 Send a message via AIM to squall14716 Send a message via Yahoo to squall14716
Quote:
Originally posted by BuckyBoy
actually my point was: if you're programming for windows, you're losing 50% performance anyway. So you may as well use .NET and make applications in less time or make applications with more functionality.
Losing 50% performance compared to what? Windows isn't that bad, at least Windows NT isn't (9x has always sucked).

Quote:
Originally posted by BuckyBoy
hmmmmm.. what do u think about Longhorn? It will be the first ever Managed Operating System. That's right: the operating system itself is in managed code.
by that time you guys will still be using old COM stuff.. while I can happily continue programming in C# for Longhorn.
Longhorn is just Windows NT 6. It's not some magical recoding of Windows, it is just more eyecandy and bloat, plus some other new things that will then be backported to Windows XP making the whole thing useless.
squall14716 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2004, 09:41   #137
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
your managed code is flawed anyway, last time i checked, microsoft still have bugs in their code. The next GDI+ flaw will then effect all apps written in .net. yeah, more security.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2004, 20:31   #138
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigF
your managed code is flawed anyway, last time i checked, microsoft still have bugs in their code. The next GDI+ flaw will then effect all apps written in .net. yeah, more security.
GDI has no future anyway.. in windows longhorn graphics will done tru Directx
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2004, 20:36   #139
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by squall14716
Longhorn is just Windows NT 6. It's not some magical recoding of Windows, it is just more eyecandy and bloat, plus some other new things that will then be backported to Windows XP making the whole thing useless.
obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Longhorn goes a step further than .NET.. it will be called WinFX, because the OS itself will be in managed code. But it uses the same technologies which are the foundation of .NET.
btw. don't stare blind on the label .NET ..it's just a name for commercial purposes.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2004, 20:38   #140
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
for more information on what .NET really means look here:
http://www.mono-project.com/about/rationale.html
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2004, 21:21   #141
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally posted by BuckyBoy
GDI has no future anyway.. in windows longhorn graphics will done tru Directx
you clearly missed the point i was making.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 00:35   #142
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigF
you clearly missed the point i was making.
well it's a bit unfair to blame .net for some flaw in GDI+.. GDI+ has simply grouped all the old GDI functions in classes, to make them more accessible.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 00:42   #143
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
also, i didn't say .net will guarantee security.. C# simply provides the right tools.. it's up to the programmer if he's gonna use those tools.

Quote:
Originally posted by CraigF
your managed code is flawed anyway, last time i checked, microsoft still have bugs in their code. The next GDI+ flaw will then effect all apps written in .net. yeah, more security.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 03:16   #144
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,824
As far as this actual thread is concerned, I think it's time to move on :/
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 03:54   #145
squall14716
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 349
Send a message via ICQ to squall14716 Send a message via AIM to squall14716 Send a message via Yahoo to squall14716
Quote:
Originally posted by BuckyBoy
obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Longhorn goes a step further than .NET.. it will be called WinFX, because the OS itself will be in managed code. But it uses the same technologies which are the foundation of .NET.
btw. don't stare blind on the label .NET ..it's just a name for commercial purposes.
And what exactly are you refering to by the "OS itself"?

Either way, what is the big deal about WinFX and why should I really care about it? For that matter, what about Avalon and WinFS (even though WinFS won't be available for the client release of Longhorn). If it just takes more resources to do the equivelant of nothing that I care about, then it is just one more thing to disable.

I have been following Longhorn, I even have a few leaked alphas that I played around with. Still waiting for the next leaked build. Maybe it won't suck as bad as 4074.
squall14716 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 09:51   #146
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally posted by BuckyBoy
also, i didn't say .net will guarantee security.. C# simply provides the right tools.. it's up to the programmer if he's gonna use those tools.
you stated that managed code is more secure. I simply stated that depending on microsoft code is not always secure.

so gdi+ is just a grouping of gdi into classes? isnt that the same definition as any .net namespace?

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 18:16   #147
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
here's a good article about longhorn development:
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/Code/20...nghornApps.asp

more stuff here:
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/Longhorn/


Quote:
Originally posted by squall14716
And what exactly are you refering to by the "OS itself"?

Either way, what is the big deal about WinFX and why should I really care about it? For that matter, what about Avalon and WinFS (even though WinFS won't be available for the client release of Longhorn). If it just takes more resources to do the equivelant of nothing that I care about, then it is just one more thing to disable.

I have been following Longhorn, I even have a few leaked alphas that I played around with. Still waiting for the next leaked build. Maybe it won't suck as bad as 4074.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 18:24   #148
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigF
you stated that managed code is more secure. I simply stated that depending on microsoft code is not always secure.

so gdi+ is just a grouping of gdi into classes? isnt that the same definition as any .net namespace?
no, no.. GDI is the stuff windows uses to draw the windows on your screen. It has existed for way too long and really is a pain in the $$$.. we should get rid of it as soon as possible, because it really slows windows down. GDI+ just makes it easier to build a custom user interface. .NET cannot make the old GDI better or faster. We are all stuck with it until windows longhorn is released.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 19:11   #149
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
jesus christ, you really are clueless arent you.
since when does the age of the code make it any less secure?

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 21:33   #150
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigF
since when does the age of the code make it any less secure?
LOL.. I said that??
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 21:56   #151
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
and to conclude this thread:
The whole question "Is it time to move on?" is wrong. I looked around a bit and as far as i can tell there are no good mp3 players.
What makes Winamp my favourite is the media library, the auto search for playlists, and the nice user interface.
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 23:06   #152
caskater
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1
I started using Winamp with the first releases of version 2.0. I thought it was the best player that could never be topped. With the release of version 3 I find myself wishing for things it simply didn't offer anymore, such as more plug-ins or a simpler more refined interface like version 2. Then I find iTunes. Now this isn't meant to sound like a commercial. I should note that I am a full on PC enthusiast and have been anti-Apple for most of my years but I really have to hand it to them for producing the best media software out there. Why do I like it? Simply put, I get every feature that you find in the new Winamp 5 including ones in the Pro version with a cost of nothing. Its free and its great. I believe iTunes is even opensource (though i may be wrong). It's tight integration and sheer simplicity of its CD ripping/burning and mp3 player support far outstrips other players. Not to mention it has low CPU usage and nearly nero security flaws (actually i'm aware of none). I just visited this website to see what Winamp has been up to lately and was sorely dissapointed to read this posting that says the original team has fled, and I was a but infuriated that the people now running Winamp are now charging for it. Not to mention the security flaw problems the new player has definitely frightens me. I think its all bullcrap. The only reason why I miss Winamp at this point is because of Geiss and Milkdrop, but I never used them enough to really require using Winamp again since iTunes has a fairly adequate visualizer anyway. Reading this post and seeing the recent changes has definitely made me change my mind from considering Winamp again and now I can definitely say i've moved on for good. Whatever you end up choosing good luck to you.
caskater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2004, 23:46   #153
squall14716
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 349
Send a message via ICQ to squall14716 Send a message via AIM to squall14716 Send a message via Yahoo to squall14716
First of all, who's charging? Really, unless you want to rip and burn from within Winamp, the "Pro" version is pointless.

Every program has security flaws, the only difference with Winamp is some of them are being found and fixed. I see nothing wrong with that.

And then you compare Winamp 2.x with Winamp3? Winamp3 was and always has been a seperate product. Winamp3 more or less is dead anyways, so it's a non-issue anyways.

Winamp 5.x is a direct continuation of Winamp 2.x. Fully backwards compatible, etc, etc. It's just a catchy name along with Modern skinning, which is just a plugin anyways.

I'll end this post by mentioning that iTunes is not open source.
squall14716 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2004, 01:48   #154
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
itunes is funded by the itunes music store, its also supposed to go hand in hand with the ipod.. you can argue that this is optional, but so is buying winamp pro(the only dif is that winamp gives you music for free and makes you pay for fast ripping, while itunes makes you pay for music and gives you ripping free :P)

also, itunes supports very few formats(alac, aac, mp3, wav... any others?)

and itunes has never used very few resources on my computer.. plus hotkeys, and it bugs me that its all one window.. i dont like everything being in one window, i also hate its media library, if you just want to add a song to a playlist, it auto-adds it to the media library.. if i want to play a song quickly in winamp, i dont have to go through the trouble of deleting it from the media library as well

plugins allow everything that itunes does(except the store) and tons more, plus its all optional, so if you dont want something, you dont have to worry about the bulk(i dont believe there are any plugins for itunes, except the apple version witch i believe uses 'applescript'), plus skins, itunes only has one skin(and imo its kinda ugly) if you think winamps skin is ugly, you can find a new one or make your own, and theres also hotkeys

but the main reason i hate itunes(as a media player) is the fact that theres no stop button... that bugs me everytime i open it up, i hate not being able to stop or restart easily, apple has managed to make playing music retarded, more so than windows, at least windows media player put a stop button on there instead of just getting lazy

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2004, 03:49   #155
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,824
*yawn*
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2004, 08:04   #156
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
It is not time to move on as there are no other viable alternatives to Winamp 5.06 full out there. Nothing with the resource happyness or modern skins that are so nice or the extensibility of the plugin structure or the internet radio aka shoutcast integrationt that is so flawless. When something faster smaller more robust more featured and easier to use comes out then it will be time to move on but when will that be? When 128bit systems come out? Who has the passion to make something that good?

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2004, 00:04   #157
BuckyBoy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 29
Itunes is good for pc noobs.. and i don't necessarily mean that in a negative way. To make a desktop app with lots of advanced functions and still make it usable for noobies, is very difficult. I can imagine that noobies will find Winamp 5 too difficult. However, Itunes doesn't have any advanced functions.

Quote:
Originally posted by electricmime
itunes is funded by the itunes music store, its also supposed to go hand in hand with the ipod.. you can argue that this is optional, but so is buying winamp pro(the only dif is that winamp gives you music for free and makes you pay for fast ripping, while itunes makes you pay for music and gives you ripping free :P)

also, itunes supports very few formats(alac, aac, mp3, wav... any others?)

and itunes has never used very few resources on my computer.. plus hotkeys, and it bugs me that its all one window.. i dont like everything being in one window, i also hate its media library, if you just want to add a song to a playlist, it auto-adds it to the media library.. if i want to play a song quickly in winamp, i dont have to go through the trouble of deleting it from the media library as well

plugins allow everything that itunes does(except the store) and tons more, plus its all optional, so if you dont want something, you dont have to worry about the bulk(i dont believe there are any plugins for itunes, except the apple version witch i believe uses 'applescript'), plus skins, itunes only has one skin(and imo its kinda ugly) if you think winamps skin is ugly, you can find a new one or make your own, and theres also hotkeys

but the main reason i hate itunes(as a media player) is the fact that theres no stop button... that bugs me everytime i open it up, i hate not being able to stop or restart easily, apple has managed to make playing music retarded, more so than windows, at least windows media player put a stop button on there instead of just getting lazy
BuckyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2004, 05:15   #158
peaceofcake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 333
Even with it's flaws, winamp is still a lot more functional and than iTunes. It's easy to add music so that's not a problem and the fileformats it rips to are actually better than apples IMO. You can use aac in an mp4 package just like iTunes, or if you want even better quality you can use LAME VBR. If your into the lossless stuff there are free programs like audiograbber that'll do that for you. Winamp finds the music automatically or at your request. If your into live music downloading, your going to have to go through a few extra steps to get the music into itunes with the names intact, because iTunes won't even import FLAC or SHN.
Winamp 5 is the same as winamp 2, with the new modern skin plugin added in. You can still use the original skins. Virtually all of winamp's skins present more information in a smaller space. For those of you who think the text is too small, right click anywhere on the skin and the's a zoom option. The playlist and media library fonts can be adjusted too.
For me at least, iTunes is slower and more buggy. Bugs can also mean security flaws too.
Winamp works with ipods too, and IMO does a better job than iTunes. It'll recompress your music if you want. You don't really want 1000kbps lossless files on your ipod do you? It can also take music off an ipod.
I haven't found a way to make iTunes respond to my keyboard's media buttons, neither has anyone else I know. A company the size of Apple should be able to do this automatically, the buttons seem to be standardized across all keyboards (the winamp plugin I use actually registers the buttons with their names, not just some random character code.
Winamp's visualizations look better and run smoother. They're just plain cool.

I expect a lot from my media player, it needs to be able to do just about anything I can imagine. ITunes is still a good piece of software, well though out, but it just can't do what I want. Those arguing that iTunes is easier are probably right, but they could have included more features without making it any harder to use. The apple version is good though, almost as good as winamp in terms of flexibility, since you can get a lot of good plugins for it, and OSX is pretty nice too. I guess it all comes down to personal preference though, so there's no point in arguing over which player is better. Each kinda has its own niche and people need to respect that. I just hate to see people missing out on good features because they were afraid to explore winamp, and chose iTunes because of an easier learning curve.
peaceofcake is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
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