Winamp adoptive UI?

[Sunblaze]

Is there a winamp skin or w/e that will adopt the current gui/theme of your desktop?

I ask cause I use windowblinds and I change the theme of my computer at times. I was looking to see if there was one available so that I don't have to look for a new skin everytime I change it up so that it matches.

I'm looking for something that does basically the samething as the chat client Pigeon where it adopts the current theme of your OS.

[billyvnilly]

dont think winamp can do that.

[martin.deimos]

1) The Chat client is called Pidgin and is based on GTK
2) Winamp has his own skinning engine that comes w/ it's own window frames. Atm there isn't a option to get native windows frames + controls and i doubt there will be any in the future

[Hitchhiker427]

Yeah, I just posted about this recently, too. Frankly, this is the only thing holding Winamp back. The non-native GUI makes Winamp feel so "old". It sticks out like a sore thumb compared to most other programs. I can't believe the developers won't even address this.

[billyvnilly]

sticks out? you can download skins that look just like vista or XP... or if you're referring to matching windowblinds, you gotta remember that WA is old. They are not going to totally remake the modern skin plugin, just so its native.

When did 3 and 5 come out? I can't remember how popular windowblinds was when it did, but WA basically didnt care about being native because all it had to be native to was windows classic and windows xp.

Itunes isn't native...
Songbird isn't native...
Foo...
mediamonkey? not sure
real?
QT?

[Hitchhiker427]

Please, point me to a single skin that looks "just like Vista". And no, throwing "glass" and gloss all around a black interface is not "looking like Vista". I've done my best to mod a skin to resemble a pseudo-native look (scrollbars, buttons, etc.) for personal use, but even it sticks out, because it's impossible to emulate Vista's glass in a modern skin.

Just because others don't do it doesn't mean it's right. All of the programs you mentioned also stick out and look ugly.

The only good-looking media player I've been able to find for Vista/7 is WMP. Alas, despite it's looks, it sucks in every other department.

This forces me to make a choice of using a barely-functional yet pretty program, or a powerful yet ugly program. Just because I chose the ugly program doesn't mean I don't deserve the right to gripe about it's obvious and obnoxious short-comings. I shouldn't have to choose between looks and functionality. I'd think that there must be at least ONE developer who sees a need for both.

I'm still desperately looking to find something else. It just seems that all traces of Winamp's development have stagnated. I mean, Vista's been out for a couple years now (and was available as a beta/RC before that), and Winamp STILL doesn't support the taskbar previews or Flip 3D properly. Oh, and btw, this wouldn't be a problem if Winamp used a native GUI.

[bemymonkey]

I don't know why you're making such a fuss about this - Winamp looks awesome, whether in the modern skin or bento.

Why not change Windows to look like Winamp instead?

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...ic=127863&st=0

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
Please, point me to a single skin that looks "just like Vista". And no, throwing "glass" and gloss all around a black interface is not "looking like Vista". I've done my best to mod a skin to resemble a pseudo-native look (scrollbars, buttons, etc.) for personal use, but even it sticks out, because it's impossible to emulate Vista's glass in a modern skin.

So just because you're such a diehard Vista fan, Winamp developers should dedicate hours and hours of their time to making the default skins look like Vista? What about the other 90% of Winamp users, who probably detest Vista as much as I do?

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
The only good-looking media player I've been able to find for Vista/7 is WMP. Alas, despite it's looks, it sucks in every other department.

This forces me to make a choice of using a barely-functional yet pretty program, or a powerful yet ugly program. Just because I chose the ugly program doesn't mean I don't deserve the right to gripe about it's obvious and obnoxious short-comings. I shouldn't have to choose between looks and functionality. I'd think that there must be at least ONE developer who sees a need for both.

That's just it - you're one of the few people who's complaining about Winamp's looks. I think it looks just fine, and is more than customizable enough - and I'm guessing most devs do too, otherwise they would've changed it by now. You want an ugly player? Try Foobar2k. On the other hand, that thing will probably use Vista's theme without a hitch ...

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
I'm still desperately looking to find something else. It just seems that all traces of Winamp's development have stagnated. I mean, Vista's been out for a couple years now (and was available as a beta/RC before that), and Winamp STILL doesn't support the taskbar previews or Flip 3D properly. Oh, and btw, this wouldn't be a problem if Winamp used a native GUI. [/B]

Winamp devs have been implementing more important stuff... Just in the last few releases, the media library has become lightning fast, they've implemented awesome ReplayGain support, added an AutoTagger and an Album Art editor... The list goes on and on.

[Hitchhiker427]

Originally posted by bemymonkey
I don't know why you're making such a fuss about this - Winamp looks awesome, whether in the modern skin or bento.

Well, that's certainly a matter of opinion. Frankly, I feel that Winamp's ugly. Also, despite the numerous amount of skins, I'm really hard pressed to find one I like... they all seem so "old" looking. I've settled by doing an extensive personal mod that sort-of emulates a native look.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

So just because you're such a diehard Vista fan, Winamp developers should dedicate hours and hours of their time to making the default skins look like Vista? What about the other 90% of Winamp users, who probably detest Vista as much as I do?

For starters, I don't see why 90% of the users would detest Vista, and I can't see why you do. I'm chalking that up to not understanding and plain ignorance. However, that's an argument for another time.

Secondly, I'm talking about a "native" theme. It's not skinned to look like Vista, it just adapts to whatever visual style the user is using at a given time. If you don't like Vista's look, then I'm sure you've found a way to change it to something you DO like, and thus, Winamp will look like something you DO like. Seems like an obvious move in the right direction.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

That's just it - you're one of the few people who's complaining about Winamp's looks. I think it looks just fine, and is more than customizable enough - and I'm guessing most devs do too, otherwise they would've changed it by now. You want an ugly player? Try Foobar2k. On the other hand, that thing will probably use Vista's theme without a hitch ...

Foobar2k is a native GUI, it's just... plain. Frankly, you can't call it "ugly", because there's nothing to BE ugly. The UI is completely barren. However, I would still prefer the plain, lifeless look of Foobar2k over Winamp's look.

I'd switch to Foobar if it worked the way I want it to. In fact, I spent a few weeks trying to fix up Foobar to replace Winamp. Although I can make it LOOK like whatever I want, I can't change the actual functionality but so much, which brings me back to Winamp. Once again, although ugly, Winamp is light years ahead of the alternatives in functionality.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

Winamp devs have been implementing more important stuff... Just in the last few releases, the media library has become lightning fast, they've implemented awesome ReplayGain support, added an AutoTagger and an Album Art editor... The list goes on and on.

Well, "more important" is surely a matter of opinion. Yes, the faster library is great. However, I couldn't care less about ReplayGain or an Autotagger. I honestly haven't tried the Album Art editor, so I'll reserve my opinion on that.

I definitely consider making Winamp fully compatible with an OS that's been OUT FOR YEARS to be more important than some of those features. Windows 7 is coming out soonish, and the entire UI is based around the thumbnail view. If Winamp is STILL unable to render the thumbnails properly (a current limitation of their poor rendering engine), it's almost unusable in this new OS.

[bemymonkey]

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
I definitely consider making Winamp fully compatible with an OS that's been OUT FOR YEARS to be more important than some of those features. Windows 7 is coming out soonish, and the entire UI is based around the thumbnail view. If Winamp is STILL unable to render the thumbnails properly (a current limitation of their poor rendering engine), it's almost unusable in this new OS. [/B]

But that's just it - just because Vista's been out for years doesn't mean that anywhere near all Windows users have adopted it. I don't think I know anyone who would use Vista when they have a choice. I know exactly 3 people who use Vista: My mom, my girlfriend's sister, and a friend of mine who's studying architecture.

All three of 'em don't have a choice, because they haven't the faintest idea how to get an XP (or any other OS, for that matter) install up and running ...

Winamp has already made some concessions toward Vista - IIRC they had to switch to per-user preferences, which is the reason that user settings are now stored in Documents & Settings instead of the Winamp program files folder.

I also foresee a lot of problems with your suggested "native theme" - that would severely limit the GUI options. For instance, Winamp is extremely compact layout-wise. Vista standard fonts, button sizes, context menus etc. are _huge_ compared to Winamp's regular controls and buttons. You'd need a 30" 2560x1600 monitor to fit the same amount of info on the screen as with Winamp on a 1280x960 17"...

I dunno, I just don't see a need for this. Try searching for stuff like ReplayGain, or embedding ratings in ID3 tags - as soon as someone starts a thread about a topic like this, people start replying and showing that they want something like this too. In this thread there are exactly two people who care, one of which seems to have forgotten that he cared after starting the topic ...

[retchless]

Google "the uncanny valley of user interface design".

A general principle of UI design is that interfaces *should* conform to platform look and feel standards, and use standard platform widgets.

Winamp hasn't done this ever. And the argument is always that the development effort required would not be worth the merits . I would argue the opposite. Also, Winamp doesn't want to break skins. But you don't have to - Keep your classic and modern skin modes, but provide an unskinnable interface that uses the platform look and feel.

Here's a laundry list of pros of using platform UI:

1) Platform widgets perform better. I still don't use Modern skins because they're not snappy enough. When I toggle windowshade in Classic, it's instant. Not so in Modern Skins (even on a quad core). A platform mode would make Winamp look as modern as the installed operating system, with the performance of the classic skin.

2) Free features, less code. Ex. A playlist window implemented using the explorer APIs would inherit platform drag and drop, sorting, columns, context menus, and more. Granted, this sucks for JTFE and all the plugins that manipulate the playlist.

3) Look and feel matches the installed operating system.

4) No hacks needed for thumbnails.

5) Touch enablement - the industry is moving towards touch-enabled interfaces (the ribbon). Something that Winamp is completely unprepared for OOTB.


Winamp is by far the most fully featured media player out there. It's a *media platform* with a dated user interface. Bento was intended to play catch-up with iTunes and WMP, which it does to a point, but I'm unhappy with the performance of modern skins, so that's a non-starter for me.

Instead of providing skinning engines (Classic/Modern) and allowing people to write skins, how about allow people to contribute their own UI/Skin engines that call winamp APIs. Imagine using an AIR app as the Winamp front end, or a platform UI version.

I'm still a die hard Winamp user! And no matter what anyone says, the right development decisions can enable everyone's happiness.

[retchless]

This discussion has nothing to do with Vista. It has to do with industry momentum, and style standards.

That said, more people are running Vista than you think.

[pjn123]

Benski just need to fix the current glitch in Winamp skinning engine that dont allow frames with components to have semi transparent png's.
Then he must just add the glare transparent option.

[bemymonkey]

Originally posted by retchless
Google "the uncanny valley of user interface design".

A general principle of UI design is that interfaces *should* conform to platform look and feel standards, and use standard platform widgets.

Not everything you read on the Internet is necessarily true. I'm not saying you're wrong, but surely there's exceptions. I stand by my point of view that most people are probably satisfied with Winamp's skins. The first thing every girl says when they see Bento for the first time (this part of the world is pretty much WMP- and iTunes-infested) is "Och wie sueeeeessss!" (German for "How cuuuute!"). And then they ask where they can get it - solely because of the UI. I don't think Winamp should throw that away

Originally posted by retchless
Winamp hasn't done this ever. And the argument is always that the development effort required would not be worth the merits . I would argue the opposite. Also, Winamp doesn't want to break skins. But you don't have to - Keep your classic and modern skin modes, but provide an unskinnable interface that uses the platform look and feel.

Sure, that would work in terms of usability, but like you said, there's a lot of effort involved. I also seem to have a few bones to pick with your list of pros

Originally posted by retchless
Here's a laundry list of pros of using platform UI:

1) Platform widgets perform better. I still don't use Modern skins because they're not snappy enough. When I toggle windowshade in Classic, it's instant. Not so in Modern Skins (even on a quad core). A platform mode would make Winamp look as modern as the installed operating system, with the performance of the classic skin.

OK, true - the modern skin is a little slow compared to classic, but is Vista's interface really that much faster? I don't know how things have changed since SP1 (and SP2? is that out yet?), but I remember Vista Business Edition being pretty sluggish on my X2 with 2 gigs of RAM and a 7800GTX. No idea how much of that is attributed to the skinning engine, but Winamp with modern skins doesn't really feel any slower.

Originally posted by retchless
2) Free features, less code. Ex. A playlist window implemented using the explorer APIs would inherit platform drag and drop, sorting, columns, context menus, and more. Granted, this sucks for JTFE and all the plugins that manipulate the playlist.

Why in God's name would you want a playlist window that uses explorer APIs? You do realize that you're not handling actual files in the playlist editor, right? Do you really want to have to answer a "Do you really want to send this item to the recycle bin?" prompt every time you want to remove an item from the playlist?

I dunno... this sounds like a step in the wrong direction, to be honest. Please clarify if I've understood you wrong.

Originally posted by retchless
3) Look and feel matches the installed operating system.

OK, I'll give you that one

Originally posted by retchless
4) No hacks needed for thumbnails.

What thumbnails? Have I missed something?

Originally posted by retchless
5) Touch enablement - the industry is moving towards touch-enabled interfaces (the ribbon). Something that Winamp is completely unprepared for OOTB.

Oh GOD no. If Winamp adds a ribbon interface, I am out of here. That's the one feature I hate most in Office 2007. I now spend about 5 minutes trying to find each function I used to have context menus for...

Originally posted by retchless
Winamp is by far the most fully featured media player out there. It's a *media platform* with a dated user interface. Bento was intended to play catch-up with iTunes and WMP, which it does to a point, but I'm unhappy with the performance of modern skins, so that's a non-starter for me.

Why is this a bad thing? I don't know about the rest of Winamp users, but I think Bento does the all-in-one thing pretty well - definitely better than iTunes. WMP is irrelevant since it's completely unusable, IMO.

Originally posted by retchless
Instead of providing skinning engines (Classic/Modern) and allowing people to write skins, how about allow people to contribute their own UI/Skin engines that call winamp APIs. Imagine using an AIR app as the Winamp front end, or a platform UI version.

Elaborate, please.

Originally posted by retchless
I'm still a die hard Winamp user! And no matter what anyone says, the right development decisions can enable everyone's happiness.

I hope that's true. I'd really like to know if there's a lot of people who feel Winamp is inadequate in terms of UI... it's very interesting to me, because I'm pretty much completely satisfied.

[osmosis]

Originally posted by bemymonkey
What thumbnails? Have I missed something?

I don't know about the rest, but for this he means the bugs that still exist with vista window thumbnailing and winamp.

[bemymonkey]

Originally posted by osmosis
I don't know about the rest, but for this he means the bugs that still exist with vista window thumbnailing and winamp.

Oh right, thanks for clearing that up

[DrO]

which a 'native' themed instance probably wouldn't resolve either. the issue leading to that is down to how modern skins work in that the 'main' modern skin window isn't actually the main winamp window (the classic one is that in all cases) which was done like that to not break plugins too badly that messed around with the main window, etc.

now the OS works is to use the window associated as being the main as the one it will use for all of the preview features (is why you only see the classic main window with classic skins). however, we can sort of 'fool' things to overlay the output of the modern skin so the OS will pick that up.

now the issues left with this come down to predominately when winamp is minimised which (as i'm hoping people will agree) it generally disables most of the gui output to save resources, etc. now from some testing i've been doing, we can infact just tell vista to pretty much show the winamp program icon (or a default winamp like image) instead of the lack of drawing which didn't seem too bad an option though the scaling of the icon didn't look to great but the OS was doing that). the other option we've got is to try to enable gui output when minimised and (the bit i've not looked into properly to see if we get a notification) when requested to have the preview shown.

there's a few other quirks like the windowshade mode isn't correctly handled and with at least winamp modern it's drawing a bigger area than is actually visible - something i'd started to look into but haven't gotten particularly far with.

so just saying do it native isn't that simple and just the fact will and i worked out something to make it display ok in most cases (albeit not 100% right with some skins in those cases) i think it's better than just having to have it showing the classic skin incorrectly in all cases.

-daz

[retchless]

Thanks for the thumbnail clarification DrO.

I was really just trying to dig into the reasons why there isn't a native interface - seems to me it's entirely historical. And Winamp is stuck with Classic as the basis for its UI because modern skin support is built on top of it (by the sounds of what DrO just said)..

I don't think Winamp has an inadequate UI. I've been using it since 1999. It's just that the classic UI hasn't really changed in 10 years even though Windows has I want glass and accurate thumbnails (even when minimized), which don't sound doable given the current state of affairs

My suggestion for pluggable skinning engines was just an idea for decoupling UI from core. It could open the door for using Winamp as a platform (player API, media library API, plugin architecture) with other UI technologies (WPF, AIR, web UI, command prompt, native, ribbon, whatever).

Is it possible to start a parallel UI stack that uses winamp's "foundational" features but implements a fast, native, pluggable UI? It's a major refactor I'm sure.. but i'm just throwing it out there.

Or maybe I'll be happy if Modern skin windowshade toggling performance was made way better so that I could use modern skins without getting frustrated

[Hitchhiker427]

Originally posted by bemymonkey
But that's just it - just because Vista's been out for years doesn't mean that anywhere near all Windows users have adopted it. I don't think I know anyone who would use Vista when they have a choice. I know exactly 3 people who use Vista: My mom, my girlfriend's sister, and a friend of mine who's studying architecture.

Wow, that's crazy. I've experienced the opposite. Most people I know use Vista, and those who don't like it simply don't like it because it's "different".

Originally posted by bemymonkey
The first thing every girl says when they see Bento for the first time (this part of the world is pretty much WMP- and iTunes-infested) is "Och wie sueeeeessss!" (German for "How cuuuute!"). And then they ask where they can get it - solely because of the UI. I don't think Winamp should throw that away

I'm very sorry to hear that your friends have such poor taste. You have my condolences.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

OK, true - the modern skin is a little slow compared to classic, but is Vista's interface really that much faster? I don't know how things have changed since SP1 (and SP2? is that out yet?), but I remember Vista Business Edition being pretty sluggish on my X2 with 2 gigs of RAM and a 7800GTX. No idea how much of that is attributed to the skinning engine, but Winamp with modern skins doesn't really feel any slower.

I've been running Vista since RTM, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Vista's UI is MUCH more responsive than that of Winamp's modern skins, and no slower than XP's UI (I dual booted for a little while after installing Vista, so I know). I've gotten used to the delay in Winamp's modern skins, but yeah, I suppose it would be cool to see that go.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

Oh GOD no. If Winamp adds a ribbon interface, I am out of here. That's the one feature I hate most in Office 2007. I now spend about 5 minutes trying to find each function I used to have context menus for...

Although I agree that a ribbon would be a horrible idea for Winamp, I find it curious that you don't like the ribbon on Office 2007. It's designed to make things easier to find. Oh well, your opinion is like the antithesis to everyone else's I've ever met.. it's kinda funny, really.

Originally posted by DrO

so just saying do it native isn't that simple and just the fact will and i worked out something to make it display ok in most cases (albeit not 100% right with some skins in those cases) i think it's better than just having to have it showing the classic skin incorrectly in all cases.

That's great to hear, and I will look forward to that in a future update. However, that really feels like nothing more than a band-aid to cover up the problem. I now understand that a native UI will not be a quick-fix, however, I still feel that it is a proper fix.

I mean, once again, Winamp feels "old". It's needs to be refreshed so that it fits in with a modern UI. Most modern UIs are trying to shoot for some level of consistency (for good reason).

Of course people like bemymonkey don't agree with me. They've already rejected the new technology (no Vista, Office 2007, etc.). Winamp must feel right at home in their old OS with their old software. I wasn't complaining about this years ago with XP, either. However, times have changed, and it sucks that those of us who actually keep up with the times are the ones holding the short straw in the end.

[Wildrose-Wally]

So you are saying Winamp should look the same as Vista? No choice for them, let Microsoft decide what it has to look like?

You are reeally going to have a long wait for that to happen.

[retchless]

That's not what we're saying at all. There is a lot freedom and room for UI innovation within the native OS look and feel. Look at Eclipse, Windows Live Messenger (the new one built on WPF), etc etc.

[bemymonkey]

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
Of course people like bemymonkey don't agree with me. They've already rejected the new technology (no Vista, Office 2007, etc.). Winamp must feel right at home in their old OS with their old software. I wasn't complaining about this years ago with XP, either. However, times have changed, and it sucks that those of us who actually keep up with the times are the ones holding the short straw in the end.

There's a big difference between rejecting new technology and choosing which ones to use.

Just out of interest: Where are you from? What do you do?

I'd really be interested to hear if there's more people here who want Winamp looking like Vista. I mean, the thumbnailing for Flip3D I can understand, but the rest?

[osmosis]

Windows Media Player doesn't even use straight OS chrome. Neither does Songbird, iTunes or RealPlayer. Foobar is the only functional one I know that does.. so Winamp might be breaking the norm for all programs in general, but not for media players.

[Bilbo9955]

Winamp is what it is. Most Winamp users judging from the posts, prefer functionality over prettiness. The great thing about the state of the industry is that their are hundred's of players out there. If you don't like one, don't use it; there a probably others that would fit your needs. There is a term for software that tries to be all things to all people. It is called BLOAT, and has destroyed many once good programs.

[Hitchhiker427]

Originally posted by bemymonkey
There's a big difference between rejecting new technology and choosing which ones to use.

Just out of interest: Where are you from? What do you do?

I'd really be interested to hear if there's more people here who want Winamp looking like Vista. I mean, the thumbnailing for Flip3D I can understand, but the rest?

Well, if you're curious, I'm from the USA. I'm currently a PhD student in engineering.

Also, once again, I don't necessarily want Winamp to look like Vista. I want it to be a native UI that adapts to whatever visual style the user is using at any given time. Currently, the non-native UI breaks all consistency and is an eye-sore. Please do some Googling on the subject. I hate arguing about something when both sides don't even understand the issue.

Originally posted by osmosis
Windows Media Player doesn't even use straight OS chrome. Neither does Songbird, iTunes or RealPlayer. Foobar is the only functional one I know that does.. so Winamp might be breaking the norm for all programs in general, but not for media players.

Yes, but just because all the other kids are doing it doesn't make it right. Your mother should have taught you better.

Originally posted by Bilbo9955
Winamp is what it is. Most Winamp users judging from the posts, prefer functionality over prettiness. The great thing about the state of the industry is that their are hundred's of players out there. If you don't like one, don't use it; there a probably others that would fit your needs. There is a term for software that tries to be all things to all people. It is called BLOAT, and has destroyed many once good programs.

For starters, there is no logical reason why we should have to choose between functionality and prettiness. This is especially the case with Winamp, which has a robust plugin system that allows users to remove any feature they don't want. It annoys me to no end that most software developers choose to fall into either one of those categories, and completely ignore the other. GREAT software is that which can appreciate both.

Secondly, I have tried all alternatives that I can find. Although I've found some that do look better (IMO), not a single one can match the functionality of Winamp. So yes, if I'm forced to make a choice, I too prefer functionality over prettiness. If I could find a player that looked better and offered the same functionality, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. I'm here, because unlike the alternatives, Winamp actually has potential.

Lastly, you obviously don't understand the request. We're asking for a NATIVE UI. That's the absolute opposite of bloat. The current skinning engines (both classic and especially modern) are MUCH more bloat than a native UI.

Yes, I personally feel that bloated UIs are ruining the software industry as well. However, these bloated UIs are never native, and always incorporate their own UI system.

You claim to hate bloat, yet disagree with my request that Winamp remove its bloat. Come on now...

[osmosis]

Your responses are getting increasingly condescending. Have some respect, especially when it comes to referring to a person's mother..

[bemymonkey]

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
Well, if you're curious, I'm from the USA. I'm currently a PhD student in engineering.

Interesting - Over here I mostly hang out with mechanical/computational engineering majors, and none of them can stand Vista

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
Also, once again, I don't necessarily want Winamp to look like Vista. I want it to be a native UI that adapts to whatever visual style the user is using at any given time. Currently, the non-native UI breaks all consistency and is an eye-sore. Please do some Googling on the subject. I hate arguing about something when both sides don't even understand the issue.

I actually know the subject you're talking about pretty well. The concept of an OS-native UI isn't as hard to grasp as you make it seem.

I've been Vista-focused because that's what you seem to be worried about. Take a look at this for instance:

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
Of course people like bemymonkey don't agree with me. They've already rejected the new technology (no Vista, Office 2007, etc.). Winamp must feel right at home in their old OS with their old software. I wasn't complaining about this years ago with XP, either. However, times have changed, and it sucks that those of us who actually keep up with the times are the ones holding the short straw in the end.

Old vs. new software in this context is XP vs. Vista. To me, this means you're worried about Vista. Wouldn't XP benefit from an OS-native UI as well? But we're going off on a tangent here.

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
For starters, there is no logical reason why we should have to choose between functionality and prettiness. This is especially the case with Winamp, which has a robust plugin system that allows users to remove any feature they don't want. It annoys me to no end that most software developers choose to fall into either one of those categories, and completely ignore the other. GREAT software is that which can appreciate both.

The thing you're forgetting is that you have absolutely no proof that Winamp is anything but pretty. Prettiness is very subjective, so you're going to have a lot of opposition (like me). Until you've at least got a few numbers to back it up ("70% of Winamp users think Winamp is ugly! - Here's a link to the poll I started..."), I'd refrain from broad statements like that.

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
Secondly, I have tried all alternatives that I can find. Although I've found some that do look better (IMO), not a single one can match the functionality of Winamp. So yes, if I'm forced to make a choice, I too prefer functionality over prettiness. If I could find a player that looked better and offered the same functionality, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. I'm here, because unlike the alternatives, Winamp actually has potential.

I don't get it - you say you've tried Foobar (I'm just assuming, since you say you've tried the alternatives, and Foobar is _the_ alternative), but the functionality isn't up to par with Winamp? Are you sure that was Foobar? Because (I'm sorry to say this as a die-hard Winamp fan) Foobar is quite functional, and has Winamp beat in quite a few areas. Far more customizable, and the sheer amount of functions (which, I would think, should translate directly into functionality) and options make it pretty much the ultimate audio tool. The reason I'm using Winamp is because of the UI... and I'm guessing that's also the reason you're here (and you're just confusing having buttons for certain functions in certain places instead of buried in context menus with general functionality - there's a huge difference in usability and functionality).

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
Lastly, you obviously don't understand the request. We're asking for a NATIVE UI. That's the absolute opposite of bloat. The current skinning engines (both classic and especially modern) are MUCH more bloat than a native UI.

So define bloat - bloat is extra code, features, and just anything in general that's included with a program, that's never used or not needed. For me, that includes a native UI. If I never use it, it's bloat, isn't it?

As you can see, it all depends on your point of view - so broaden your horizons and take a look at the subject from a few different angles...

Originally posted by Hitchhiker427
Yes, I personally feel that bloated UIs are ruining the software industry as well. However, these bloated UIs are never native, and always incorporate their own UI system.

You claim to hate bloat, yet disagree with my request that Winamp remove its bloat. Come on now...

Didn't you say you wanted to _add_ the native UI to the existing UI? How would this be removing bloat? The native UI and the existing UI would now both be present, obviously leading to more bloat rather than less.

AFAIR, the saying is "Less is more!", not "More is less!"



All in all, I understand that having a native UI would be nice for some people - but some of the reasons you're posting just don't make a lot of sense ...

Originally posted by osmosis
Your responses are getting increasingly condescending. Have some respect, especially when it comes to referring to a person's mother..

Aech... I don't think he meant anything by it. Just don't start with the "Yo Mama" jokes

[Hitchhiker427]

Originally posted by osmosis
Your responses are getting increasingly condescending. Have some respect, especially when it comes to referring to a person's mother..

I think it's pretty clear that I'm just joking around. But, if you really take offense at that for whatever reason, then I'm sorry.

Originally posted by bemymonkey
Interesting - Over here I mostly hang out with mechanical/computational engineering majors, and none of them can stand Vista

Yeah, I see that from time to time. EVERY time (in my experience, at least) it's been because someone just doesn't understand something. If I sit down and show them what has changed and explain why, I've been able to make fans out of just about everyone. Vista's biggest problems are poor drivers when it first came out that left a sour taste in people's mouths, and a sheer lack of understanding. I'm not here to convert anyone, though. That's an argument for another time.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

I actually know the subject you're talking about pretty well. The concept of an OS-native UI isn't as hard to grasp as you make it seem.

I don't think it's hard to grasp at all. It's just that most of the responses I've gotten in this thread indicate that the poster DOESN'T understand. I'm glad that you do, and frankly don't see why you wouldn't.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

I've been Vista-focused because that's what you seem to be worried about. Take a look at this for instance:



Old vs. new software in this context is XP vs. Vista. To me, this means you're worried about Vista. Wouldn't XP benefit from an OS-native UI as well? But we're going off on a tangent here.

Well, for starters, I'm mostly concerned with Vista because that's what I use. Also, because it is the most recent version, I DO believe that it (or actually, 7 would probably be better) should be the primary focus.

But, yes, XP users would also benefit just as much. As would custom VS and Windowblinds users.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

The thing you're forgetting is that you have absolutely no proof that Winamp is anything but pretty. Prettiness is very subjective, so you're going to have a lot of opposition (like me). Until you've at least got a few numbers to back it up ("70% of Winamp users think Winamp is ugly! - Here's a link to the poll I started..."), I'd refrain from broad statements like that.

Point taken. I have heard many people in real life say that it's ugly when using it on my computer... and frankly, I agree. However, that's hardly a leg to stand on. I realize this.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

I don't get it - you say you've tried Foobar (I'm just assuming, since you say you've tried the alternatives, and Foobar is _the_ alternative), but the functionality isn't up to par with Winamp? Are you sure that was Foobar? Because (I'm sorry to say this as a die-hard Winamp fan) Foobar is quite functional, and has Winamp beat in quite a few areas. Far more customizable, and the sheer amount of functions (which, I would think, should translate directly into functionality) and options make it pretty much the ultimate audio tool. The reason I'm using Winamp is because of the UI... and I'm guessing that's also the reason you're here (and you're just confusing having buttons for certain functions in certain places instead of buried in context menus with general functionality - there's a huge difference in usability and functionality).

Yes, I should reiterate that statement. Foobar does not lack functionality. It lacks the functionality that I want. Despite its huge library of plugins and such, I can't get it to work the way I want it to. I've spent quite some time learning how to customize it inside and out, and have come to the conclusion that getting Foobar to do what I want is impossible (unless I wrote my own plugins).

Winamp, on the other hand, is close to perfect upon clean install. The whole eye-sore thing is my main beef.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

So define bloat - bloat is extra code, features, and just anything in general that's included with a program, that's never used or not needed. For me, that includes a native UI. If I never use it, it's bloat, isn't it?

As you can see, it all depends on your point of view - so broaden your horizons and take a look at the subject from a few different angles...



Didn't you say you wanted to _add_ the native UI to the existing UI? How would this be removing bloat? The native UI and the existing UI would now both be present, obviously leading to more bloat rather than less.

AFAIR, the saying is "Less is more!", not "More is less!"

To me, bloat is defined as a set of features (usually gaudy in nature) that I don't intend to use and cannot remove. Throughout the years, Winamp has been my shining example of "near bloat-less" software. Every feature, including the modern skinning engine can be easily swapped out by adding/deleting plugins.

Now, you compare a native UI to be a feature that you won't use. A native UI shouldn't be a feature at all. It should be the norm, without the addition of an external skinning engine.

You claim to like Bento. You do realize that Bento is possible because of the modern skinning engine, which is an easily removable plugin, right? This makes sense. An external skinning engine should be a "feature" that is easily removable.

Now, my problem is with the classic skinning engine. I don't see why an external skinning engine should be "baked in" to the program, and impossible to remove. I feel that the classic skinning engine should be a plugin in the same way that the modern skinning engine is.

The native UI should be presented when neither of the external skinning engines are in use. It should be "Winamp" at its core. I consider stripping the classic engine (which is certainly a "feature", much more so than a native UI) the removal of bloat. The classic skinning engine's functionality not being placed in a plugin is that last track of bloat I see in Winamp, and I want it removed.

Originally posted by bemymonkey

All in all, I understand that having a native UI would be nice for some people - but some of the reasons you're posting just don't make a lot of sense ...

Well, if anything confuses you after my last post, feel free to ask. I really can't see why any of my requests are confusing. I also can't see a downside (other than development time) to my requests.