A comparison

[Trainer NIU]

I think I have finally figured something out. It seems that everyone and their ass has complained out winamp3 being slower/longer loading time/etc. Let's compare this to DOS/Windows. For each new version of DOS/Windows (each new version of winamp) the requirements went up. Heck even Win XP won't run on less than 64 megs RAM.
So please for love of god...stop complaining and just realize that new, more powerful software needs newer, more powerful machines to run on.

[nierke]

I aggree but don't have any problems with winamp3 too

[prodangle]

Yeah, how come DOS and Win311 only took a few seconds to boot up my old 286, but Windows XP takes almost an entire minute on an Athlon 1200!!?? This is proof that Win311 is obviously far better than WinXP. We should all go back to using it. Why did Microsoft bother making any other OS after it I wonder?

[cybaix]

Yea, and windows crashes all the time and has lots of bugs. The programmers are obviously dumbfucks! Lets all go back to dos!

*for the sarcassticly inept, everything in this post is a joke... well except for the programmers being dumbfucks part *

[nierke]

Jofana!!!!!!!! So make your own mediaplayer and even your own OS if you are not happy with wheese... Or maybe just stop using PC maybe you will be happyer without it?

[sanosuke]

Originally posted by nierke
Jofana!!!!!!!! So make your own mediaplayer and even your own OS if you are not happy with wheese... Or maybe just stop using PC maybe you will be happyer without it?

yeah i agree with....the all the bitchers would stop bitching....

[Ice]

DOS crashes. trust me.

FreeBSD is your savior.

[cybaix]

Originally posted by Ice
DOS crashes. trust me.

FreeBSD is your savior.

BSD can eat my ass... red hat is where its at

[thepyr0x]

Any OS is going to crash once in a while
get over it

[MahRain]

Just the fact that you are comparing an 1 mb download of a "light, fast" mp3 player to a whole Operating System points out that there's something wrong here.

Maybe the programmers could make winamp open source? or the 2.x series (which are to become obsolete) open source so the GNU community can go work on those?

[waxdart]

Re: A comparison

Originally posted by Trainer NIU
I think I have finally figured something out. It seems that everyone and their ass has complained out winamp3 being slower/longer loading time/etc. Let's compare this to DOS/Windows. For each new version of DOS/Windows (each new version of winamp) the requirements went up. Heck even Win XP won't run on less than 64 megs RAM.
So please for love of god...stop complaining and just realize that new, more powerful software needs newer, more powerful machines to run on.

So... did this just occur to you, or did you read it in the FAQ?

"Why is Winamp3 slower then Winamp2?
Winamp3 is A LOT more powerful then Winamp 2, so yes it will take more system resources. Also, yes Winamp3 may not work on some of the older systems that Winamp 2 works on, but nobody is forcing you to upgrade to Winamp3. Winamp 2 will still be available. Remember when Winamp 2.0 first came out it took a lot more resources on the systems of the day. Unfortunately you cannot make a Next Generation software product without raising system requirements."