Old 26th March 2007, 19:01   #1
Agent007
Member
 
Agent007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 63
Any Plans For a Winamp Code Rewrite?

Hi All,

I am wondering if there are any plans for a complete Winamp code rewrite? Coded in .NET maybe to take advantage of the Windows Vista new graphic APIs?

I know there are skins and all to make it look different, but Winamp 5 feels old and the interface does not feel modern.

Moving the ML around creates the `tear` effect.

The Media Library and Playlist are big and clunky and haven't really changed from the v2.x days.

TIA
Agent007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2007, 19:19   #2
Sawg
Forum King
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,456
Send a message via ICQ to Sawg Send a message via AIM to Sawg Send a message via Yahoo to Sawg
That would be a lot of work for some Vista eye candy, so I doubt it. Plus, coding it in .NET kind of kills thta whole small and fast thing.

| Brought to you by ^V ^C | The one... the original... no seriously!
Sawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2007, 20:02   #3
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
and for those of us who like the 'big and clunky' interface items (which barely takes any space on my screen).

writing it in .net is pointless, not worth the time (why re-code a whole app just for that), and i'd have thought it's not necessary to convert everything to be the .net crap to have that fancy stuff but it'd have to be a new interface plugin i'd have thought and then comes the thing of who'd code it? realistic answer is that it's just not worth it in my opinion. i guess others will think differently but like sawg says it 'kills that whole small and fast thing'

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2007, 00:05   #4
A Crazy German
Senior Member
 
A Crazy German's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In a Bunker
Posts: 208
Thats the whole reason I use winamp and not any thing else I can minimize it and forget it. I can run it with high end games that suck up all my ram and not even notice a slight difference between winamp running and not running the only true difference is I have music playing.
A Crazy German is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2007, 19:20   #5
Squadman
Senior Member
 
Squadman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Send a message via AIM to Squadman
I hate .Net with a passion. It'd be the worst route Winamp could take.
Squadman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2007, 20:29   #6
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
When Winamp would require .NET, I would switch to antoher player.

Programs written in .NET are damn slow.

A good example for a bad .NET application is the bloated ATi Control Center, which replaced the small, powerful Tray Controls.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2007, 03:55   #7
Desides
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24
A new default look probably isn't a bad idea, but a rewrite? Not happening.
Desides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2007, 16:06   #8
code65536
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: .us
Posts: 30
Not to mention that this'll kill platform support, too. Imagine 9x/2K/XP users having to download the .NET framework just to run Winamp!

For the record, not even Microsoft is taking their own medicine. Windows Media Player 11, Live Messenger, Live Mail Desktop, IE7, Office 2007, and a host of other major "new" Microsoft applications don't use .NET and thus don't use the new WPF in Vista. If they can't eat their own dog food, why should Winamp (or anyone else for that matter)?

(And yes, .NET is slow, inefficient, and bloated; I would abandon Winamp the second they switch to .NET; on that note, .NET was not really intended for existing apps, but rather as a way to quickly develop new ones. The major--and almost only--selling point of .NET, before Vista's WPF required it, was that it was a way to quickly develop an application, which means that .NET made sense for some company trying to get a product to market as quickly as possible. .NET is the shortcut route from the starting point to the destination. Using .NET for a finished product means hopping back to the starting point and doing things all over again just so that you could take that shortcut, which is a pretty inane concept.)
code65536 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2007, 21:33   #9
Rfire
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 21
If winamp was recoded into .NET I'd stop upgrading most likely.

.NET is simply a horrible platform. Every application I've used that was done in .NET was chock full of memory leaks, loaded very slowly, and had ridiculous CPU usage spikes. I have a modern dual core system with 2GB of RAM.. and it is still horrible.

As for eyecandy/interface, I don't care for that either. Hell, I'd still use winamp if it was a non-skinned 9x/2000-esque basic GDI interface.

Winamp is fine in the language it's been coded in thus far.
Rfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2007, 03:19   #10
devils night
Senior Member
 
devils night's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: your mama
Posts: 306
Recode in .NET? LMAO if you going to do that why not go even worse and code it in Java. Hey it would make the MAC whiners happy sense java woould be cross-platform. Besides i do not know of any reason why winamp would need a rewrite anyway. Well maybe for 64-bit eventually but that is a long way off.

Proud Winamp user since 1997
(Winamp 1.006)
devils night is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2007, 17:45   #11
MP3Chuck
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: OCNY
Posts: 30
Oldie but goodie: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articl...000000069.html

Quote:
The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they've been fixed. There's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't acquire bugs just by sitting around on your hard drive. Au contraire, baby! Is software supposed to be like an old Dodge Dart, that rusts just sitting in the garage? Is software like a teddy bear that's kind of gross if it's not made out of all new material?

. . .

When you throw away code and start from scratch, you are throwing away all that knowledge. All those collected bug fixes. Years of programming work. You are throwing away your market leadership. You are giving a gift of two or three years to your competitors, and believe me, that is a long time in software years.
MP3Chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2007, 19:48   #12
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally posted by Squadman
I hate .Net with a passion. It'd be the worst route Winamp could take.
Me too. v1 is not includet in v2 and v3 has to be installed seperately, too.
I hate Microsoft in general!
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2007, 14:42   #13
code65536
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: .us
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by MP3Chuck
Oldie but goodie: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articl...000000069.html
I wish you hadn't brought that article up. I've long had major quibbles with that article. While what Joel says is true for software in general (and it is certainly true for Winamp--see where Winamp3 got us! ), it is not true for the case that Joel brought up (Netscape). The problem was that Netscape's old code base was so decrepit and hacked-up and continuing to "improve" it would be an increasingly futile thing and that resetting it around Gecko was the only thing that they could have done--i.e., many of the bugs/problems were simply not fixable without a rewrite of the core (in another example, the recent much-smaller-scale rewrite of the reflow engine for Gecko1.9/FF3 was really the only way to sanely fix some of the long outstanding Gecko bugs that they've had, including support for inline-block). And sure, in the short term, it was devastating for Netscape, but in the long term, Firefox (or its much more appropriate original name, Phoenix) would never have been even remotely possible without the Gecko reset.

So yea, it's a good article in principle and in spirit, but by picking on Netscape, Joel picked on the worst possible example (well, this was back in 2000 and being an outsider, he probably wasn't aware of just how necessary it was).
code65536 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2007, 19:18   #14
psycho_maniac
Major Dude
 
psycho_maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,294
If this was open source you would have a guy on the forums saying. "Any single one of you is free to do it."
psycho_maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2007, 23:39   #15
RejZoR
Senior Member
 
RejZoR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe/Slovenia/Ljubljana
Posts: 148
Obviosuly people have as much clue about .NET as coffee machine in catching sea fish...
Maybe they should run Paint.NET (PDN) image editing tool someday and see whats called a professional programming in .NET environment. PDN is roughly 5MB in size and can easily be marked as lite edition of Photoshop. People think that .NET sucks just because stupid ATI programmers made shitty Catalyst Control Center using .NET. Well, thats not true.
Though on the other hand i don't see any reason to port WinAMP in .NET. For me it works just as fine on Vista.
I'd rather see an OpenAL output plugin instead, but for the time being, Shibatch's ASIO output works grat too. Legacy DirectSound sounds like total crap. ASIO and OpenAL are the only things that run in native mode. Even using ALchemy on X-Fi card helps for WinAMP when using DS Out...
So leave the GUI as it is and fix more improtant stuff...
RejZoR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 00:31   #16
jph6t
Major Dude
 
jph6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally posted by Desides
A new default look probably isn't a bad idea
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
jph6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 12:30   #17
MasterViVi
Senior Member
 
MasterViVi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally posted by RejZoR
Obviosuly people have as much clue about .NET as coffee machine in catching sea fish...
Maybe they should run Paint.NET (PDN) image editing tool someday and see whats called a professional programming in .NET environment. PDN is roughly 5MB in size and can easily be marked as lite edition of Photoshop.
You're forgetting all the extra .NET libraries that are being loaded. With other applications they appear as the same process.
MasterViVi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 17:33   #18
RejZoR
Senior Member
 
RejZoR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe/Slovenia/Ljubljana
Posts: 148
Sure. But who doesn't have .NET libraries today? Except maybe the ones living in age of dinosaurs and the ones still fighting off everything with MS mark on it... Those shouldn't use Windows anyway and since WinAMP works on Windows only OS the case is pretty much clear.
RejZoR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 17:36   #19
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally posted by jph6t
If it's not broke, don't fix it.


Correct, Winamp is fast and it works, there are no resources and most important, there is no need for a rewrite, using the slow .NET.
Quote:
Those shouldn't use Windows anyway and since WinAMP works on Windows only OS
If people don't like .NET, then it doesn't mean that they hate Microsoft.

I guess you're using Winamp and not WMP, but nobody says, that you hate MS, 'caue you're using Winamp.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 19:58   #20
RejZoR
Senior Member
 
RejZoR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe/Slovenia/Ljubljana
Posts: 148
Actually i do use WMP11. For video. WinAMP is for music.
Why hate .NET ?
RejZoR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 21:01   #21
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally posted by Koopatrooper
Programs written in .NET are damn slow.

A good example for a bad .NET application is the bloated ATi Control Center, which replaced the small, powerful Tray Controls.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 21:30   #22
code65536
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: .us
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by RejZoR
Sure. But who doesn't have .NET libraries today? Except maybe the ones living in age of dinosaurs and the ones still fighting off everything with MS mark on it... Those shouldn't use Windows anyway and since WinAMP works on Windows only OS the case is pretty much clear.
I'm an avid Windows user and I don't have the .NET libraries. Okay, I lied, my development box has Visual Studios .NET on it and it's kinda hard to avoid having the .NET runtime when you have VS.NET. But I've actually never run an app that needed it. :P

Fact of the matter is, .NET is a virtual machine. And by the very nature of virtual machines, they will not run as efficiently as native code. End of story.

Executable size is irrelevant, too. Java apps generally don't have huge executable sizes. That doesn't change the fact that they run more slowly and have a larger memory footprint.
code65536 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2007, 15:49   #23
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally posted by code65536
Fact of the matter is, .NET is a virtual machine. And by the very nature of virtual machines, they will not run as efficiently as native code. End of story.

Executable size is irrelevant, too. Java apps generally don't have huge executable sizes. That doesn't change the fact that they run more slowly and have a larger memory footprint.
end conversation.

CraigF 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