Winamp2 or Winamp3

Fideo4arroz · 27th October 2003, 23:01

Hi guys, Im new to winamp and Minidisc and just wanted to know which winamp would fit my needs the best.
Which is better for recording to MD, Winamp2 or Winamp3

Bilbo Baggins · 27th October 2003, 23:22

Winamp 5

laz · 28th October 2003, 00:08

Winamp 3, why? I like it, I have used it since the original alpha. It was damn good, untill it got close to release, sure the bugs where fixed, but all the cool parts of it where scraped. The last build was good.

ryan · 28th October 2003, 00:20

Foobar2000

Germ · 28th October 2003, 02:50

What a joke.

Gonzotek · 28th October 2003, 03:05

Ba dum, dum, dum.

err. seriously..What're your needs? Very few pieces of software are one size-fits-all.

DragonSon · 28th October 2003, 04:45

I would have to agree with Bilbo on this one.

Timzone8 · 28th October 2003, 06:38

Winamp to is good and stable, Winamp 5 has been crapping itself completely "vis_avs.dll" errors with some avs's, perhaps it's just the version of the AVS studio?

Bizznatch · 28th October 2003, 06:42

Winamp5 > Winamp3 > Winamp2 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000

will · 28th October 2003, 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Bizznatch
Winamp5 > Winamp3 > Winamp2 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000

the bizz knows.

mark · 28th October 2003, 09:17

Winamp5 > Winamp3 > Winamp2 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000 > Notepad > WIMP > Realplayer

whiteflip · 28th October 2003, 09:51

Winamp 2.81. (WITH THE GAPLESS OUTPUT PLUGIN) The best version of winamp2 besides winamp 2.74 or something.

Not Winamp3
Not Winamp5 Beta. Winamp5 final when it comes out maybe depending on your computer.

Or you can use WiMP. or Damp. or MpegX or Foobar2000 beta.

sidd · 28th October 2003, 10:41

Quote:

Winamp5 > Winamp3 > Winamp2 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000 > Notepad > WIMP > Realplayer

you forgot a few before realplayer, like "MS Shutdown" and "twiddling thumbs v2.3"

ElChevelle · 28th October 2003, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Timzone8
Winamp to is good and stable........

Would it happen to be virgin to point oh?

demonlation · 28th October 2003, 13:49

hey if u want something ultrastable then go for wnamp 2 otherwise go for 5. it may be a bit unstable but so far it shows real potential

zootm · 28th October 2003, 14:08

winamp 5 > foobar2000 > winamp 2 > winamp 3 > *

and people who don't like foobar2000 clearly ain't in it for the music

will · 28th October 2003, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by zootm
and people who don't like foobar2000 clearly ain't in it for the music

People who don't like foobar2000 don't like poor usability and don't like having to comfigure the shit out of their player before it works well.

ctn|chrisw · 28th October 2003, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by will
People who don't like foobar2000 don't like poor usability and don't like having to comfigure the shit out of their player before it works well.

I never have to configure anything, it just works ¬.¬
People who like foobar like things that do what they're made to do, and just that.

Fideo4arroz · 28th October 2003, 20:22

Ok so I guess I goofed a bit. The contenders are Winamp2 Or Winamp5.
My needs are basically copying some WMA files to MD, but since the windows player doesn't support MD, I figured I could use winamp instead.

mark · 28th October 2003, 21:23

no, the contenders are winamp 5 and winamp3. 5 is 2 with dangly bits. unless youre talking about NETMD downloading, wincue (use google) for winamp 2 (or 5 beta2) will do the job very nicly!

laz · 28th October 2003, 22:45

Damn, why is everyone hating on foobar? I love it. Sure it has poor tag support and whatnot... but I dont really care, I dont usualy mess with that.

Gonzotek · 28th October 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by laz9999
Damn, why is everyone hating on foobar? I love it. Sure it has poor tag support and whatnot... but I dont really care, I dont usualy mess with that.

Probably because the developer is an ex-Winamp developer who "jumped ship". _Some_ people think that was a good thing, but since this is the Winamp Forums, not the Foobar Forums...you're not as likely to hear that here.

whiteflip · 28th October 2003, 23:53

If I want a media player that does nothing but plays mp3s ill use DAMP. or TinyAmp or whatever that visual basic mp3 player is called that is only a few kb in size.

zootm · 29th October 2003, 00:02

Quote:

Originally posted by will
People who don't like foobar2000 don't like poor usability and don't like having to comfigure the shit out of their player before it works well.

it works as well as winamp out of the box. it's basically like having both the player and playlist windows in one window. just unskinned. as for poor usability, how? it works almost identically to winamp! it has more advanced facilities for tagging, but if you don't like them you don't have to use them! almost all of the usability is the same as winamp with more advanced playlist features and less skin support. that's basically the difference.

Quote:

Originally posted by laz9999
Damn, why is everyone hating on foobar? I love it. Sure it has poor tag support and whatnot... but I dont really care, I dont usualy mess with that.

foobar's tag support is better than winamp's. if you're concerned about the lack of id3v2 support, if you get the full edition it supports them (now). id3v2 is a horrible tag format, though. i'd like it if winamp would support APEv2 tags for mp3s, as foobar does.

Germ · 29th October 2003, 00:05

Doesn't it rely on keyboard hotkeys mainly? For regular users, that's not good usability.

zootm · 29th October 2003, 00:09

it doesn't, no. older versions had menus, newer versions have the buttons actually on the player, at the top (similar buttons to the main winamp buttons). the hotkeys are secondary, as in winamp, except that you can reconfigure them, and make global hotkeys without a plugin (which i had to install in order to use hotkeys with winamp, which i'm currently using).

Germ · 29th October 2003, 00:12

Have to use a keyboard hotkey to change the volume, do you not? Anyhow, I'm not going to argue with you about a program. It's a program, use it if you want, doesn't bug me none.

zootm · 29th October 2003, 00:19

that's true - you do use a keyboard shortcut to change the volume. i tend to use the volume key on my speakers, though, so it hadn't really affected me. to be honest (as i said in my last post) i don't use foobar any more (winamp implemented the feature that i really couldn't live without of it in winamp 5), but i can understand people who do. to say it's a horribly inferior player is to lie. it's an excellent player, it just has a lot less emphasis on its image - and more on its functionality - than other players.

Germ · 29th October 2003, 00:30

Well I'll play with foobar a little bit, but if people think that's it's actually stiff competition with Winamp, they are wrong. It needs some time to mature first. Only a very small amount of people use it, especially compared to Winamp and for good reason. Peter knows what he was getting himself into when he started this project, and I wish him the best of luck with it.

zootm · 29th October 2003, 01:04

i'd say for people who want an mp3 player that does certain things well, foobar is more than competition for winamp, but for most users, i agree with you germ.

is this the first time we've agreed? i doubt it.

Fideo4arroz · 29th October 2003, 03:03

Thanks for the help Noddy Nobbs, cool pluggin for MD recording however can I use it with a USB connection?

Viper007Bond · 29th October 2003, 07:53

Winamp5 > Winamp2 > Winamp3 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000 > Notepad > WIMP > Music Match > Realplayer

They had WA3 and WA2 switched.

Seriously though, I could never get WA3 to run stable on me as there were like 10 different versions of skins that would only work with cetain builds of WA3 not to mention WA3 was a RAM hog...

asandvig · 29th October 2003, 09:26

Quote:

Originally posted by whiteflip
Winamp 2.81. (WITH THE GAPLESS OUTPUT PLUGIN) The best version of winamp2 besides winamp 2.74 or something.

Now, *gapless* playback would be quite silly if you're trying to record to MiniDisc, wouldn't it..?

At the moment I suggest Winamp 2.9x with WinCue 1.35

On the other hand, any program that can play your audio files can be used to record to MiniDisc, so it's really up to you and what you like.

ctn|chrisw · 29th October 2003, 10:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Viper007Bond
Winamp5 > Winamp2 > Winamp3 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000 > Notepad > WIMP > Music Match > Realplayer

They had WA3 and WA2 switched. Seriously though, I could never get WA3 to run stable on me as there were like 10 different versions of skins that would only work with cetain builds of WA3 not to mention WA3 was a RAM hog...

you mixed up sonique and foobar

mark · 29th October 2003, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Fideo4arroz
Thanks for the help Noddy Nobbs, cool pluggin for MD recording however can I use it with a USB connection?

i hate you.

finalcut · 29th October 2003, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Bizznatch
Winamp5 > Winamp3 > Winamp2 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000

ROFL!!!!!

talk about a free dirty talk
wow, nice arguments!!

Fideo4arroz · 29th October 2003, 20:44

Sorry about that, bad type-o on my part.

richardharris · 30th October 2003, 03:02

winamp2 forever

Rocky Raccoon · 30th October 2003, 14:48

weird... I decided to download foobar2000 to give it a try, so I went to their site and downloaded the "special version"... after a little configuration (enabling Equalizer, Crossfader and Volume Control plugins) I noticed it uses more CPU than winamp5 with the MMD3 skin.

I thought foobar used less resources?

I have an Athlon 700mhz, 256 ram, xp pro SP1.
Winamp5 uses 7-11% cpu when playing (0-1% if I minimize it)
Foobar2000 uses around 15% all the time - even if minimized.

Also, for those of you foobar lovers - If you were trying to switch me from winamp to foobar, what argument would you use to convince me?

mark · 30th October 2003, 15:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Fideo4arroz
Sorry about that, bad type-o on my part.

its ok, people are allways doing that...

but only to me...

27th October 2003, 23:01	#1
Fideo4arroz Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 4	Winamp2 or Winamp3 Hi guys, Im new to winamp and Minidisc and just wanted to know which winamp would fit my needs the best. Which is better for recording to MD, Winamp2 or Winamp3

28th October 2003, 03:05	#6
Gonzotek Gunslinger Join Date: May 2000 Location: Terminus Posts: 4,693	Ba dum, dum, dum. err. seriously..What're your needs? Very few pieces of software are one size-fits-all. I was away for a while. But I'm feeling much better now.

28th October 2003, 04:45	#7
DragonSon Fears the boots Forum King Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,445	I would have to agree with Bilbo on this one. Moderatio est figmentum No Idols, No Heroes, No Leaders.....Just Pure Inner Strength

28th October 2003, 09:51	#12
whiteflip Post Master General (Forum King) Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas Posts: 6,032	Winamp 2.81. (WITH THE GAPLESS OUTPUT PLUGIN) The best version of winamp2 besides winamp 2.74 or something. Not Winamp3 Not Winamp5 Beta. Winamp5 final when it comes out maybe depending on your computer. Or you can use WiMP. or Damp. or MpegX or Foobar2000 beta. I'm Back?

28th October 2003, 23:53	#23
whiteflip Post Master General (Forum King) Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas Posts: 6,032	If I want a media player that does nothing but plays mp3s ill use DAMP. or TinyAmp or whatever that visual basic mp3 player is called that is only a few kb in size. I'm Back?

27th October 2003, 23:22	#2
Bilbo Baggins Wind Chime of the Apocalypse Join Date: May 2000 Location: The Forest Posts: 17,228	Winamp 5

28th October 2003, 00:08	#3
laz Major Dude Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: the internet Posts: 1,089	Winamp 3, why? I like it, I have used it since the original alpha. It was damn good, untill it got close to release, sure the bugs where fixed, but all the cool parts of it where scraped. The last build was good.

28th October 2003, 00:20	#4
ryan not fucked, not quite. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Missouri via Tennessee Posts: 8,813	Foobar2000

28th October 2003, 02:50	#5
Germ rules all things Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 3,149	What a joke.

28th October 2003, 06:38	#8
Timzone8 Major Dude Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 569	Winamp to is good and stable, Winamp 5 has been crapping itself completely "vis_avs.dll" errors with some avs's, perhaps it's just the version of the AVS studio?

28th October 2003, 06:42	#9
Bizznatch Forum King Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 4,180	Winamp5 > Winamp3 > Winamp2 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000

28th October 2003, 09:17	#11
mark Forum King Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Norn Ir'nd, leek... Posts: 6,287	Winamp5 > Winamp3 > Winamp2 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000 > Notepad > WIMP > Realplayer

28th October 2003, 13:49	#15
demonlation Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 21	hey if u want something ultrastable then go for wnamp 2 otherwise go for 5. it may be a bit unstable but so far it shows real potential

28th October 2003, 14:08	#16
zootm Forum King Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland Posts: 13,375	winamp 5 > foobar2000 > winamp 2 > winamp 3 > * and people who don't like foobar2000 clearly ain't in it for the music

28th October 2003, 20:22	#19
Fideo4arroz Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 4	Ok so I guess I goofed a bit. The contenders are Winamp2 Or Winamp5. My needs are basically copying some WMA files to MD, but since the windows player doesn't support MD, I figured I could use winamp instead.

28th October 2003, 21:23	#20
mark Forum King Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Norn Ir'nd, leek... Posts: 6,287	no, the contenders are winamp 5 and winamp3. 5 is 2 with dangly bits. unless youre talking about NETMD downloading, wincue (use google) for winamp 2 (or 5 beta2) will do the job very nicly!

28th October 2003, 22:45	#21
laz Major Dude Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: the internet Posts: 1,089	Damn, why is everyone hating on foobar? I love it. Sure it has poor tag support and whatnot... but I dont really care, I dont usualy mess with that.

29th October 2003, 00:05	#25
Germ rules all things Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 3,149	Doesn't it rely on keyboard hotkeys mainly? For regular users, that's not good usability.

29th October 2003, 00:09	#26
zootm Forum King Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland Posts: 13,375	it doesn't, no. older versions had menus, newer versions have the buttons actually on the player, at the top (similar buttons to the main winamp buttons). the hotkeys are secondary, as in winamp, except that you can reconfigure them, and make global hotkeys without a plugin (which i had to install in order to use hotkeys with winamp, which i'm currently using).

29th October 2003, 00:12	#27
Germ rules all things Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 3,149	Have to use a keyboard hotkey to change the volume, do you not? Anyhow, I'm not going to argue with you about a program. It's a program, use it if you want, doesn't bug me none.

29th October 2003, 00:19	#28
zootm Forum King Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland Posts: 13,375	that's true - you do use a keyboard shortcut to change the volume. i tend to use the volume key on my speakers, though, so it hadn't really affected me. to be honest (as i said in my last post) i don't use foobar any more (winamp implemented the feature that i really couldn't live without of it in winamp 5), but i can understand people who do. to say it's a horribly inferior player is to lie. it's an excellent player, it just has a lot less emphasis on its image - and more on its functionality - than other players.

29th October 2003, 00:30	#29
Germ rules all things Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 3,149	Well I'll play with foobar a little bit, but if people think that's it's actually stiff competition with Winamp, they are wrong. It needs some time to mature first. Only a very small amount of people use it, especially compared to Winamp and for good reason. Peter knows what he was getting himself into when he started this project, and I wish him the best of luck with it.

29th October 2003, 01:04	#30
zootm Forum King Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland Posts: 13,375	i'd say for people who want an mp3 player that does certain things well, foobar is more than competition for winamp, but for most users, i agree with you germ. is this the first time we've agreed? i doubt it.

29th October 2003, 03:03	#31
Fideo4arroz Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 4	Thanks for the help Noddy Nobbs, cool pluggin for MD recording however can I use it with a USB connection?

29th October 2003, 07:53	#32
Viper007Bond Major Dude Join Date: May 2002 Location: Portland, OR Life: None Posts: 1,054	Winamp5 > Winamp2 > Winamp3 > * > ............... > sonique > foobar2000 > Notepad > WIMP > Music Match > Realplayer They had WA3 and WA2 switched. Seriously though, I could never get WA3 to run stable on me as there were like 10 different versions of skins that would only work with cetain builds of WA3 not to mention WA3 was a RAM hog... - Viper007Bond \| Viper007Bond.com

29th October 2003, 20:44	#37
Fideo4arroz Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 4	Sorry about that, bad type-o on my part.

30th October 2003, 03:02	#38
richardharris Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 132	winamp2 forever

30th October 2003, 14:48	#39
Rocky Raccoon Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Abbey Road Posts: 384	weird... I decided to download foobar2000 to give it a try, so I went to their site and downloaded the "special version"... after a little configuration (enabling Equalizer, Crossfader and Volume Control plugins) I noticed it uses more CPU than winamp5 with the MMD3 skin. I thought foobar used less resources? I have an Athlon 700mhz, 256 ram, xp pro SP1. Winamp5 uses 7-11% cpu when playing (0-1% if I minimize it) Foobar2000 uses around 15% all the time - even if minimized. Also, for those of you foobar lovers - If you were trying to switch me from winamp to foobar, what argument would you use to convince me? Salaam

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode