Old 15th December 2005, 06:37   #1
rezmoon
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
winamp 64bit

its worth to release? i just try current version of winamp( 32bit) on my windows xp 64bit and it working well. but how bout 64bit with extra performance and features,i hope


~sorry if my english is broken

thanks
rezmoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2005, 06:48   #2
drewbar
Sawg 2.0
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,916
There is no real reason for a 64bit version, it won't help anything.

Count with us!
Jan 1st, 12AM (PST, GMT -8) 2010 - 282,246
drewbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2005, 18:03   #3
Benski
Ben Allison
Former Winamp Developer
 
Benski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,057
Not to mention that many of the third party libraries we use (e.g. AAC, WMA, CD Burning) don't work on 64bit. It would be a very "lite" version of Winamp
Benski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2005, 01:19   #4
rezmoon
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
"the third party libraries we use (e.g. AAC, WMA, CD Burning) don't work on 64bit." wow, i see, third party issues
dont you(winamp) have plan on 64bit system in your incoming version?
~so now im running a very 'lite' version of winamp on my win 64.. hehe

btw,thanks for replying
rezmoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2006, 20:08   #5
losta
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Serbia
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Benski
Not to mention that many of the third party libraries we use (e.g. AAC, WMA, CD Burning) don't work on 64bit. It would be a very "lite" version of Winamp
Well, why winamp team then try to resolve that problem by contacting third party vendors and persuade them to make 64-bit libraries for winamp.

I will pay higher price for 64-bit version of Winamp, but for FULL version with all libraries, not for Lite version.

Live long and prosper
losta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2006, 20:12   #6
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
because it offers little back for the time spent to fix things to work and then you also have another code base to deal with which is tricky enough to do with the size of the team as it is. basically you're flogging a dead horse as indicated in my other response to you're wanting a 64-bit version post...

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2006, 20:19   #7
losta
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Serbia
Posts: 29
Then winamp team should engage more engineers.

Live long and prosper
losta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2006, 20:52   #8
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
easier said than done since the men in suits would most likely not agree to it and explains why it's been so small for so long now.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 15:19   #9
losta
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Serbia
Posts: 29
Look Nero, Winamp team should try to work like their fantastic team.

Live long and prosper
losta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2007, 17:55   #10
z3r0c00l
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8
I believe it would not be so much of a lack of time since most OSes will become 64-bit very soon, knowing that windows Vista takes a minimum of 1GB of ram and that the limit for 32-bit is 4GB, there is a very big chance that the next windows will need 2-3GB minimum, which will make 4GB useful, but useless at the same time, since 32-bit caan only address 3,25GB of ram. That's why I run Vista 64-bit on my 4GB of ram. I say, in the next two(2) releases of Windows, we will start seeing some 64-bit only OSes due to the Memory limitation. On 64-bit the limit of ram is an approximate of 16EB(16 ExaBytes) which could take almost 20 years before it is reached (32 years according to moore's law). Winamp would only be taking a step ahead in the future, fixing problems even before other media players even make the switch to 64-bit. This 64-bit transition could benefit Winamp alot since most computer enthusiasts already use 64-bit versions of Windows (and some on 64-bit Linux). The transition would be useful for the next 20-30 years before they would need to shift to 128-bit.

I hope you guys don't find this text too long. XD

z3r0c00l12
z3r0c00l is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2007, 19:01   #11
Rocker
Hiding in plain sight (mod)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,910
theirs no benefit from a x64 winamp at the moment.

- plugins won't work(as all will be incompatible)
- winamp will be buggy
- won't be faster
- might use more resources

it just defeats the purpose of winamp in the first place, when the developers could be spending more time fixing current bugs or adding more features.

since winamp x86 works on x64 systems just fine, why fix something when it isn't broken?

its not viable for the team to port winamp to x64(or any other operating system and/or architecture) and it would only really work properly if another code base was used(like wasabi)
Rocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2007, 21:36   #12
z3r0c00l
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8
I understand that the Winamp staff's time is very important and should not be wasted, but as I mentioned earlier, it would be more of a benefit to the future. The plugins could be fitted to work on 32-bit on 64-bit versions and when the plugins do become available in 64-bit version then would come an update to winamp with actual X64 plugins. It would allow winamp to gradually increase it's performance accordingly to the newer more powerful systems as they come out. People that don't have x64 don't have to upgrade, many programs run several divisions at a time, including windows x86, windows x64 and lots of Linux x86 (some x64), and most programs that are compatible with Linux are also backward compatible with Mac.

For the bugs, it is normal, lots of programs have bugs, which are found by beta testers and usually fixed. The rest of them are reported and fixed on a regular basis. I don't think I ever saw a program without some sort of problem. This is why there is a variety of places to fix these problems, like this forum.

Performance never really is an issue when running x64 applications, most of them run at the same speed, it just creates a more versatile environment for improvement. Lots of applications tend to use a bit more resources in x64, but the main reason people switch to x64 is usually to be able to address their full 4GB of ram, which means that they got plenty of horsepower for winamp to use a few more MB of memory.

I would gladly donate more to winamp with x64 support.

z3r0c00l
z3r0c00l is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2008, 20:18   #13
RyanEricW
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally posted by Rocker
theirs no benefit from a x64 winamp at the moment.

- plugins won't work(as all will be incompatible)
- winamp will be buggy
- won't be faster
- might use more resources

it just defeats the purpose of winamp in the first place, when the developers could be spending more time fixing current bugs or adding more features.

since winamp x86 works on x64 systems just fine, why fix something when it isn't broken?

its not viable for the team to port winamp to x64(or any other operating system and/or architecture) and it would only really work properly if another code base was used(like wasabi)
Wow you sound like you are very much biased against using a 64bit platform to code upon. Perhaps such ignorance will lead to the downfall or existance of Winamp in general when faster, more reliable media players become available, while winamp is sitting still in the dust still stuck in the 32bit spectrum. Start developing now while there is time to improve instead of waiting a couple years while others are in that stage already.
Of course it's not like you can just compile ever plugin and the code base and expect it to be 64bit sufficient, so you will have to start out simple like you did (how many years ago?).
Winamp wasn't always bug free, nor was it loaded with functions.
Not starting now, and saying "oh but we wont be able to do as much", is just about the same is car companies complaining about developing alternative fuels stating "its expensive, and dont get as much raw power" out of it all.
Every program has to start somewhere -_-...
And it's not like people download winamp for the functionality, it's mainly because of it's performance and simplicity. Switching to 64bit code can only increase performance and actually take advantage of the thousands of dollars worth of parts in people's new computers.
RyanEricW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2008, 01:23   #14
z3r0c00l
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8
Thank you RyanEricW, I'm sure if we get more people to complain about this, they will start doing something about it.

On my part, I switched to VLC media player already, like Winamp, but without useless features, and very simple to use. The features that are included are hidden so that a regular user would not feel bad. I switched to VLC because of it's functionnality, and it's technical features, compared to the mass of add-ons for winamp that nobody use.

Anyways, I'm done flaming, sorry if it sounded a bit harsh, but someone had to do it.

Z3r0c00l
z3r0c00l is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2008, 15:54   #15
! AA !
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10
I think, there is no real reason for a 64bit version.
! AA ! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2008, 06:05   #16
Gabrielpc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 1
I was under the impression that it's considerd common place and a best practice to code on an x64 platform. At least that's what my company and most of the ISVs I deal with are doing.

I'm surprised to hear from developers not interested in moving forward. Is there a corporate x64 timeline in place - or are there no official x64 plans at all? I almost expect the parents at AOL would have dictated a timeline of some sort...

Also seems odd considering MS likes to say only x64 after Vista. That and I don't think you can even buy a x32 based processors anymore. I also wonder how an x64 version would ever consume more resoures... I think you mean to say legacy code wrapped in 64 bit clothing would take more resources, not a native app.

I sure remember the glorious winamp past when the edge of the envelope was always being pushed. As a developer have you lost your love for the product Ben?

I'm assuming you realize that x64 isn't just YOUR problem, but an industry issue. Perhaps you [read winamp] could use your resources to marshall in a new era of open source development by championing the move to x64. It's going to happen eventually. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, right?

Imagine the renewed interest in winamp - aka revenue generating power..
Gabrielpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2008, 07:36   #17
Restroom
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1
Quote:
Also seems odd considering MS likes to say only x64 after Vista.
I'm guessing you don't do a lot of business with Microsoft, then.
Who said that and when? The closest thing you're going to find is a rumour ("I had expected") from a tech journalist speculating about Windows 7, likely in a bid to say something to wake up his readers. Nobody in Redmond has that impression of OS development, so how did you hear it?

You're making bold-faced assertions based on no, insufficient, or invalid evidence. So far, this is just an exercise in consuming space; tell us why and how Winamp would benefit from a 64-bit code rework, and be convincing enough with that to justify the projected cost of such an undertaking, be it to the resource pool currently tasked to live product development, in terms of licensure and acquisitions and partner cost in dollars and cents, be it to training and deployment, marketing... you know, if you're going to be in charge and tell this company how to run its show you'd better be able to do all these things, and do it better than the folks in charge who've been doing it just fine without you.

Let's just step down the arrogance and ignorance an order of magnitude or two, folks, and get off this belligerent, know-it-all anti-corporate bandwagon of narcissistic entitlement. Just roll at ground level for a while and accept the fact that not everyone with internet access is or is expected to be an eminent expert in whatever field they happen to have an interest in, and likely the most immediate indicator of this is the fact that we're talking about it in a software tech support forum. Communication is grand, and forums serve truly wonderous purposes, but for all the trolls and blowhards and fanboys and armchair executives in every one of us, none of us is in the big office calling those shots, and much to the chagrin of our collective doting mothers, it's pretty unlikely we're ever going to be.
And that's okay! We don't have to be! We can in fact still have the same ideas to espouse, but instead of just assuming we can pass off our two-bit opinions because we're entitled to them, we can actually do the work, hit the books, talk to the sources, and bring our topics of passionate interest to the table in convincing, rational, reasonable and relatively objective ways. Once we start to do that, the communication has the potential to become multidirectional, effective, and even possibly pleasant.

Last edited by Restroom; 17th July 2008 at 08:01.
Restroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2008, 11:13   #18
clubV
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1
i didnt knew that winamp is coming up with 64bit version. if its true it is surely going to be a kick ass stuff!
Vik
clubV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2008, 14:32   #19
jab_au
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Send a message via ICQ to jab_au Send a message via MSN to jab_au Send a message via Yahoo to jab_au
Quote:
Originally posted by ! AA !
I think, there is no real reason for a 64bit version.
While a 64bit version would be nice, I agree that I don't think it's necessary for WinAMP at this point. WinAMP isn't really a demanding task and I don't really think you would notice any difference.

The question I would ask is what the real advantage for WinAMP being 64bit?
jab_au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2008, 15:26   #20
mp3melen
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19
I thik its' no thing it's not going to work for you . I mena no help you can get with 64 bit.
mp3melen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2008, 05:09   #21
D555
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 19
Vote for x64 version too !!!
because of 64bit-OSes era is already became...
D555 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2009, 15:52   #22
orfeas76
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3
one more vote!
I am using Vista 64-bit
and I just don't want to see 32bit apps anymore.


Please make a poll
about that.
More and more peaople are interested in 64-bit apps
orfeas76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd October 2009, 17:29   #23
grodii3k
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2
I know it's a bit late... but here's my thoughts on x64 WinAmp...

Technology is continually changing... I personally run 64bit, and 32bit winamp is quite buggy, plug-ins included.

If winamp was released as a 64 bit version, initially I would think that it would be essentially only a music player. But, there is another option...

Just like windows can run 32bit apps on a 64 bit os, WinAmp could be designed to work with 32bit audio plugins (not necessarily DSP's or visuals, but at least audio).

Unfortunately, we are moving closer and closer every day to only 64bit OS's because 32bit simply isn't capable of harnessing the power of some of today's hardware. So, if winamp want's to stay in the grove of things, they really do only have one option and that is to ultimately release a true 64bit native client. And maybe it's about time to take winamp to the next level. Maybe it's time for the 'Boyz in Suitz' to decide to help push the movement just a little further and create their own plugins and DLL's.

Anything is doable, all it takes is the determination.

Winamp, I hope you're still around as the years progress. Currently, I fear for your existence...
grodii3k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2009, 04:41   #24
PainfulWatching
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1
Wow, this thread is *so* painful, I went out of my way to create an account so that I can post a reply here, and save the developers the time.

The majority of you seem to be severely missing the point here. What the developers are trying to tell you, is that it is entirely unlikely that a move to a 64-bit version of winamp would be beneficial in any way shape or form. 64-bit software doesn't "magically" go faster, run more efficiently, etc (this applies to winamp's case).

Further, it *doesn't matter* that OS's are going to be released for 64-bit architectures only (note the phrasing here)... 32-bit support will still exist in these OS's for the forseeable future. It also doesn't matter that you "can't purchase a 32-bit proccessor anymore", as that statement is largely ingorant from a technical perspective.

The argument that "I just dont want to see 32-bit apps anymore" is completely irrelevant from a business point of view, and unfortunately also entirely unrealistic from a technical point of view (for the next few years).... as similar to Winamp, there is just no business need to drive software developers to commit the effort for applications that *just* *will* *not* *see* *any* *benefit* *from* *it*.

All of you that are still harping on this topic have yet to provide a single real reason why a 64-bit version of winamp will be beneficial to the community, and even more importantly to yourselves. If it makes you feel better, move it from your "C:\Program Files (x86)" folder to your "C:\Program Files" folder, and be done with it (the benefit would be *exactly* the same).

Lastly, decisions like this should be left to the developers and the developers alone. They are aware of the features and limitations of their software, and have an understanding of the technologies involved to a MUCH greater extent than the majority of the other people (myself included). If you feel that they are making a large mistake, then apply for a job, and at the interview, I'm sure that pointing out some crazy good argument for why a 64-bit version of winamp would help (that the existing devs have apparantly totally missed) would almost guarantee you a job there.

Sorry about the rant... but this was a really painful thread.
PainfulWatching is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2010, 21:01   #25
a_n_wwf
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1
thank you alot i've been looking for it since along time waiting for your masterpieces
a_n_wwf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2010, 18:42   #26
Domar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by PainfulWatching View Post
Wow, this thread is *so* painful, I went out of my way to create an account so that I can post a reply here, and save the developers the time.

The majority of you seem to be severely missing the point here. What the developers are trying to tell you, is that it is entirely unlikely that a move to a 64-bit version of winamp would be beneficial in any way shape or form. 64-bit software doesn't "magically" go faster, run more efficiently, etc (this applies to winamp's case).

Further, it *doesn't matter* that OS's are going to be released for 64-bit architectures only (note the phrasing here)... 32-bit support will still exist in these OS's for the forseeable future. It also doesn't matter that you "can't purchase a 32-bit proccessor anymore", as that statement is largely ingorant from a technical perspective.
I'm sorry but it's the same with 32 bit Software...
Why aren't we programming for 16 bit systems?
All Windows versions supports 16 bit applications, and they also don't run slower!

So let us make 16 bit software!!!!!!!!11

Quote:
Originally Posted by PainfulWatching View Post
The argument that "I just dont want to see 32-bit apps anymore" is completely irrelevant from a business point of view, and unfortunately also entirely unrealistic from a technical point of view (for the next few years).... as similar to Winamp, there is just no business need to drive software developers to commit the effort for applications that *just* *will* *not* *see* *any* *benefit* *from* *it*.

All of you that are still harping on this topic have yet to provide a single real reason why a 64-bit version of winamp will be beneficial to the community, and even more importantly to yourselves. If it makes you feel better, move it from your "C:\Program Files (x86)" folder to your "C:\Program Files" folder, and be done with it (the benefit would be *exactly* the same).

Lastly, decisions like this should be left to the developers and the developers alone. They are aware of the features and limitations of their software, and have an understanding of the technologies involved to a MUCH greater extent than the majority of the other people (myself included). If you feel that they are making a large mistake, then apply for a job, and at the interview, I'm sure that pointing out some crazy good argument for why a 64-bit version of winamp would help (that the existing devs have apparantly totally missed) would almost guarantee you a job there.

Sorry about the rant... but this was a really painful thread.
I have a big reason about 64 bit software!
If there is no program with 32 and 16 bit code, we are able to blow those fuckin emulators in the wind!
There is NO REASON why this shit shuld be on evry windows system, waisting a lot of ressources and memory!

Why should we deal with old ballast if we have a new and better technology?

The same thing with the master boot record and the crap that you can only have 4 partitions on your hard drive....

Let the past in the past, live in the present and think for the future!
Otherwise we would have 16-, 32-, 64- and 128 bit emulators in 2210^^

Just think about it!
Domar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2010, 23:07   #27
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
To put this another way... hands up who here remembers 16-bit software? Yep - a few oldies at the back who remember DOS, Windows 3.11 and Windows 95.

That 16-bit software has been supported by Microsoft in all versions of Windows since then. NT 3 (1993) was a pure 32-bit OS - but could still run 16-bit programs happily. NT3.51 to 4.0 to W2K and then to XP. Both 16-bit and 32-bit applications kept running fine.

It is only now, with the release of the 64-bit OS (Vista and Win7) have they FINALLY dropped support for 16-bit applications.

The 32-bit versions of Vista\Win7 STILL RUN 16-bit applications quite happily. Here in 2010 code from 17 years ago will still run.

So, there will be support for 32-bit applications for many years yet. And us, the users, really won't see any difference.


It really is noticeable as to who are the coders in the above thread.... how many people here understand the actual work involved with converting to pure 64-bit source code. We are the guys who have a little bit more respect for the programmers behind Winamp.

Those who think the 32-bit emulators add "bloat" to their OS should realise that the emulator will only run when you need it to. Otherwise it eats a few MB of disk space.

And I bet with a little bit of digging on your Shiny New Windows 7 64-bit PC you will find a HUGE number of 32-bit applications are running. Both from Microsoft and Third Parties. (And why do you think IE is installed as both 32-bit and 64-bit? Yep... them Third Party plugins ain't ready yet...)

(This thread is really funny...)
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2010, 10:25   #28
johnny_chronic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 15
** comment removed by author **

Last edited by johnny_chronic; 1st August 2010 at 10:32. Reason: maybe not a good idea after all
johnny_chronic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2010, 01:58   #29
Jamil
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 95
I currently run 64-bit Windows 7, and I am fine running 32-bit Winamp at the moment. Note that my current ASIO plugin for 32-bit Winamp happens to be 64-bit, and it works perfectly (Otachan's 64-bit ASIO output plugin).

I do not see a pressing need for a 64-bit build of Winamp. Winamp currently has no need for over 2 GB of memory (my playlists are nowhere near that large).
Jamil is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Technical Support

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