Winamp 5.8 Beta leaks online

[musicf8]

Originally Posted by eliotime3000

I usually was a hardcore user of Winamp MP3 decoder and/or CD ripper. It was much more advanced in comparisson to iTunes MP3 encoder for CD ripping.

Now that I discovered much more better alternatives to Winamp MP3 encoder and CD ripper, I don't need to use them longer.

I tried winamp to rip audio once, and hated it... Never again.

I naturally went from audiocatalyst -> musicmatch -> audiograbber -> EAC

Nothing else seems to compare

[eliotime3000]

Originally Posted by voodoohippie

I've not posted in a while and just came to see the progress of Winamp.

I'm glad there is a legit FREE version of Winamp that does not need any KeyGen to rip a CD or use Mp3's. The fact that you have to use a LAME encoder DLL proves that this may indeed be a legit FREEWARE leak and not simply an already cracked version of Winamp under an assumed version name.

But I still like the version I have and see no reason to put this version in unless I have a system crash and have to reinstall Windows 10. Then it may be worth a try.

I've been using the leaked Winamp 5.8 version, and the results are the following:

1.- The installation process is nothing but the same, with the "top secret" warning in capital letters.

2.- The lack of Fraunhoffer AAC/AVC/HECV/MPEG-4/AVC codecs are solved with the usage of Windows Media Foundation feature, present since Windows Vista and over (Windows 7 brings a full support of the previously quoted codecs in comparisson of Windows Vista). In the case of the MP3 codec, is replaced with mpg123 codec.

3.- Winamp 5.8 trunk beta still keeps the Vorbis decoder. Kudos for that.

4.- Due to the dependence of Internet Explorer, the access of SHOUTCast directory (with HTTPS) can be trunked on Windows XP SP3 and Vista due to the poor support of SSL from IE8/IE9. In Windows 7, this issue is easy to solve with just upgrade the IE browser to the version 11.

5.- The credits roll is not complete. Also, in some components of the players still remains the "Nullsoft Inc." name, but the "Winamp SA" is still present in the About window and the organization name of the installer.

I'll be updating more info of the performance of Winamp 5.8 on my Windows XP SP3 VM that I'm running on VirtualBox.

[eliotime3000]

Originally Posted by musicf8

I tried winamp to rip audio once, and hated it... Never again.

I naturally went from audiocatalyst -> musicmatch -> audiograbber -> EAC

Nothing else seems to compare

Yeah. That's right. Even iTunes brings a much better result than Winamp in this sense.

Also, iTunes is still using Gracenote CDDB for autotagging for CD ripping (good enought for english-speaking material, but not so accurate in foreign/odd productions).

[MrSinatra]

i like EAC too. others like dbpoweramp. cueripper is by the same folks who do cuetools i think, but like EAC its for tech geeks. while i agree ripping on winamp, WMP, itunes, etc sux, it was what most people used once upon a time.

u'd be crazy to rip with winamp atm, as it doesn't get any metadata info.

[musicf8]

Originally Posted by MrSinatra

u'd be crazy to rip with winamp atm, as it doesn't get any metadata info.

Well yeah, but it's like winamp and video files too... I mean K-lite codec+mpc is far beyond winamp. Not to mention Winamp was good as an ipod syncing alternative to itunes (due to the plugin capability and ml_ipod) but nowadays its mostly useless.

Winamp is a great music player, but I think tried to be too much in the long run. Hopefully one day (WACUP?) I can finally strip out the stuff I don't want like video and the web bbrowser

[musicf8]

Originally Posted by eliotime3000

Also, iTunes is still using Gracenote CDDB for autotagging for CD ripping (good enought for english-speaking material, but not so accurate in foreign/odd productions).

eh, I installed itunes once on my computer (XP days) and it caused me to need to reformat my bloody computer because all the crap it installed, not to mention jacked up all my tags. When I got my first and only ipod in 2008 I did everything in my power to never install it on my primary computer. /rant

[tistou77]

I'm trying this beta and I can not find some options
As the option of "Shell Option" (for associations in Windows)

In the library, the options "Manage playlist"

Thanks

[MrSinatra]

Originally Posted by tistou77

I'm trying this beta and I can not find some options
As the option of "Shell Option" (for associations in Windows)

In the library, the options "Manage playlist"

Thanks

are those JTFE functions? was JTFE removed from the beta?

if so, maybe JTFE from 5.666 would work in 5.8?

[tistou77]

Originally Posted by MrSinatra

are those JTFE functions? was JTFE removed from the beta?

if so, maybe JTFE from 5.666 would work in 5.8?

JTFE ?

Thanks

[musicf8]

Originally Posted by tistou77

JTFE ?

Thanks

"Jump to file extra" It was a core aspect of winamp that was removed due to DrO not giving the rights to winamp after he left

[MrSinatra]

Yep, but it's a plugin u might be able to take from 5.666 and use in 5.8

Ymmv.

[tistou77]

Originally Posted by musicf8

"Jump to file extra" It was a core aspect of winamp that was removed due to DrO not giving the rights to winamp after he left

Originally Posted by MrSinatra

Yep, but it's a plugin u might be able to take from 5.666 and use in 5.8

Ymmv.

Ok, I looked in the Winamp 5.666 directory and I do not have that kind of file (where it's called otherwise)
And I have these options with the 5.666

[musicf8]

I think it's the gen_jumpex.dll in the plugin folder

[eliotime3000]

Originally Posted by musicf8

Well yeah, but it's like winamp and video files too... I mean K-lite codec+mpc is far beyond winamp. Not to mention Winamp was good as an ipod syncing alternative to itunes (due to the plugin capability and ml_ipod) but nowadays its mostly useless.

Winamp is a great music player, but I think tried to be too much in the long run. Hopefully one day (WACUP?) I can finally strip out the stuff I don't want like video and the web bbrowser

When I've been using the K-Lite codecs on Windows XP, the Matroska + FFMPEG codecs literally improved the performance of Windows Media Player for MPEG-4, AAC/AVC/H.264 playback. Even the Plesk server brings a much better experience for those applications that depends from Media Foundation feature.

Personally, since the arrival of Windows 7, the usage of K-Lite codecs have sense in Windows XP and Vista due the lack of native support of the widespread usage of codecs of these versions of OSes. However, I found a much better experience with FFMPEG + Matroska + Libav codecs than same Media Foundation codecs for the hardware usage.

[tistou77]

It's good with gen_jumpex.dll file

Thanks

[tistou77]

By cons the location on the desktop is not memorized
I place Winamp at the bottom left of the desktop, and when I open it, it is at the top left (no problem with the 5.666)

[musicf8]

Originally Posted by tistou77

By cons the location on the desktop is not memorized
I place Winamp at the bottom left of the desktop, and when I open it, it is at the top left (no problem with the 5.666)

well... newer isn't always better, and given it's a 2 year old beta, I doubt any of the bugs will be fixed.

[tistou77]

Originally Posted by musicf8

well... newer isn't always better, and given it's a 2 year old beta, I doubt any of the bugs will be fixed.

I'll wait for the final version, if it's the same I'll stay with 5.666 or another software

[musicf8]

There's doubts that the final version will ever get released, considering they don't even have development team. Best to stick with 5.666, that most likely will be the final version

[tistou77]

Arf ok... Thanks

[Benski]

Originally Posted by musicf8

I can finally strip out the stuff I don't want like video and the web bbrowser

What would you think if Winamp had removed video support altogether? Winamp's video pipeline was already pretty primitive 10 years ago, but it's hopelessly out of date now.

A stripped down version without any sort of browser, video or CD support would be much easier to maintain, that's for sure.

[Benski]

Originally Posted by musicf8

There's doubts that the final version will ever get released, considering they don't even have development team. Best to stick with 5.666, that most likely will be the final version

I had been doing some work in limited spare-time to help them get it ready, alongside a few other community members. When Vivendi bought Radionomy, it created a huge conflict-of-interest for me.

[Victhor]

Originally Posted by Benski

I had been doing some work in limited spare-time to help them get it ready, alongside a few other community members. When Vivendi bought Radionomy, it created a huge conflict-of-interest for me.

Interesting.. wish you could say more =)

[MrSinatra]

glad to see Benski back posting again!

i don't think anyone serious uses winamp for video, but they might use winamp to play video files not to watch them, but to listen to them, like concert clips or music DVD files, etc. if the audio playback can be maintained when the video is dropped, that would be fine with me. i also don't need CD ripping or CD playback, but i do want to see FreeDB or MusicBrainz / some kind of audio fingerprinting back in, like mp3tag but better. i realize it won't be gracenote, b/c that costs money.

Ben, i wish you could get that R128 RG support in there!

i wonder if anyone else using 5.8 can confirm the window placement bug? i would be surprised to find out that 5.8 for some reason just doesn't remember the size and position last closed, when reopened.

i'm also not surpised that JTFE still works in 5.8, but i do wonder what, if anything is buggy about using it in vers later than 5.666 (and i don't rule out it might have 5.666 bugs as well, but it at least was designed for it. still, unless i hit a bad bug, i would use it in later vers if i needed something from it)

[tistou77]

Originally Posted by musicf8

There's doubts that the final version will ever get released, considering they don't even have development team. Best to stick with 5.666, that most likely will be the final version

New version in 2 days ?

https://www.neowin.net/news/winamp-t...h-a-mobile-app

[musicf8]

Originally Posted by tistou77

New version in 2 days ?

https://www.neowin.net/news/winamp-t...h-a-mobile-app

That was a shock to everyone, but again... 5.8 is more stripped down than 5.666 and it sounds like 5.8 IS the last true winamp, which is insulting.. if you really want new, then start using winamp community update pack (wacup). Its more winamp than 5.8 imo

[tistou77]

Originally Posted by musicf8

That was a shock to everyone, but again... 5.8 is more stripped down than 5.666 and it sounds like 5.8 IS the last true winamp, which is insulting.. if you really want new, then start using winamp community update pack (wacup). Its more winamp than 5.8 imo

I'll see if in 2 days a version 6.0 will be available
And big update planned in 2019

There are update pack for Winamp 5.666 ?

Thanks

[xmuzack]

Originally Posted by MrSinatra

glad to see Benski back posting again!

i don't think anyone serious uses winamp for video

One of the reasons why I love Winamp is it's ability to play both video and music files from my playlists seamlessly. And yes, that includes watching videos.

[cybersaga]

Originally Posted by Benski

What would you think if Winamp had removed video support altogether? Winamp's video pipeline was already pretty primitive 10 years ago, but it's hopelessly out of date now.

A stripped down version without any sort of browser, video or CD support would be much easier to maintain, that's for sure.

Back in the day I used to use Winamp for all media - audio and video. I liked the idea of one app playing everything. But then the video support was more and more lacking, so I stopped doing that. I use VLC for video and Winamp for everything audio.

Maybe split the unnecessaries into plugins. Or yeah, get rid of 'em. I never did care for browser support.

[musicf8]

Originally Posted by tistou77

I'll see if in 2 days a version 6.0 will be available
And big update planned in 2019

There are update pack for Winamp 5.666 ?

Thanks

https://getwacup.com/

[MrSinatra]

it seems like this 5.8 would be a better starting point for DrO's fork than 5.666, i'll be interested to see if he uses it or shuns it for some reason, and if that reason is logical or personal.

he seems to think 5.8 is just a kinda precursor to a mobile ver. this would then mean the death of the desktop app, but meant to whet the appetite for a new offering.

idk... i never really liked the winamp mobile app. and i don't really need or want a winamp mobile app. i think if the powers that be want winamp to be used, they should keep developing winamp as is. the desktop/laptop is where i want to run winamp. its just crazy to me some company would buy it only to let it die, esp with how popular shoutcast is.

but what would be cool, would be to see a Winamp64 ver that is platform agnostic, in that it at least works on win, mac, and linux/unix. so same base code, but 64bit, in wrapper specific for whatever its used on. Kodi does this, and for damn near every platform. i would get winamp 5.8 out officially, then put a 6.0 out that puts a neat bow on it, (basically add metadata lookup, and a few small things like that), and then cease 32bit development completely and work towards a Kodi style (meaning, as many platforms as sensible) Winamp64 with one key difference: make the plugins be "in app" purchases that the free core app has a store built in for. this would provide the revenue for the core app, and 3rd party developers.

[musicf8]

I would assume moving to 64bit w/ a wrapper would add tremendous size and overhead compared to what it is now (and without adding anything beneficial on the windows side), and people already complain about 5.666's footprint vs 2.x

[Benski]

I had 64bit builds of Winamp a long, long time ago. The main reason it never went anywhere was plugin support. Because of how plugins work, it would extremely difficult to get 32bit plugins working in 64bit Winamp.

A 64bit Winamp really means the end of third-party plugins.

[ryerman]

Originally Posted by MrSinatra

it seems like this 5.8 would be a better starting point for DrO's fork than 5.666, i'll be interested to see if he uses it or shuns it for some reason, and if that reason is logical or personal.

Here's a clue: https://getwacup.com/community/index...4.html#msg2944

[Juanus]

Originally Posted by Benski

I had 64bit builds of Winamp a long, long time ago. The main reason it never went anywhere was plugin support. Because of how plugins work, it would extremely difficult to get 32bit plugins working in 64bit Winamp.

A 64bit Winamp really means the end of third-party plugins.

Would it be the end of third party plugins? Or would Third Party plugins need to be updated to 64-bit? I can count on one hand how many third party plug-in developers have done anything in the last 10 years. I am not sure it would be a huge loss.

[musicf8]

Originally Posted by Juanus

I can count on one hand how many third party plug-in developers have done anything in the last 10 years. I am not sure it would be a huge loss.

regardless of the last decade plug-in production, losing old plug-ins would be a huge loss because so many developers wouldn't update ones that work just fine now.

[MrSinatra]

Originally Posted by musicf8

I would assume moving to 64bit w/ a wrapper would add tremendous size and overhead compared to what it is now (and without adding anything beneficial on the windows side), and people already complain about 5.666's footprint vs 2.x

imo, those who complain about the footprint of winamp are barking at the moon. i mean come on, winamp is nothing compared to other apps. yes, it should be size efficient. make the core app as small as possible and make as much of it plugin optional as possible. but please, lets not stop progress b/c we don't like change, and or be silly about size on disk. this is no longer 1998.

[musicf8]

Originally Posted by MrSinatra

imo, those who complain about the footprint of winamp are barking at the moon. i mean come on, winamp is nothing compared to other apps. yes, it should be size efficient. make the core app as small as possible and make as much of it plugin optional as possible. but please, lets not stop progress b/c we don't like change, and or be silly about size on disk. this is no longer 1998.

Agreed, but making is 64bit for the sake of making it 64bit without any added benefit is pointless, especially if it takes away what the player can do now

[MrSinatra]

lets be realistic here...

winamp is and has been dead for a few years now. yes, some unofficial 5.8 is available now, (the leak of the work done years ago, after 5.666, but b4 development was stopped imo); and yes something nebulous and undefined seems to be on the horizon, but is it going to be anything like the winamp we use now? i doubt it. i am thinking a crappy mobile app i don't want or need. i hope i'm wrong.

the fact is windows will eventually drop 32bit. that will mean the true death of winamp and all current plugins. can we not agree on that? b/c if there is to be a future for winamp long term, that truth must be recognized and 64 bit must be embraced.

if there was a Winamp64, it could be made platform agnostic. that would be amazing. and the way it could actually be possible is if it had in app purchases inside it. that would provide the revenue necessary for both the core app and 3rd party devs. design it such that people couldn't get around authorizing and paying for plugins in the app. (just like how a lot of mobile apps work now)

so you have the core app, and it playbacks most audio formats and includes the ML. want video support? pay one time for a plugin. want podcast support? ditto. you get the idea. you could have a pay gracenote plugin. you could have ratings natively supported, but an enhanced plugin (pay) to read and write half stars. you could include one free visualization, but make installing others a pay.

plugins could also be free if the dev wants them to be. and / or a dev could make it so their plugin does some stuff free, but other features are pay. the main thing is all the plugins are verified by the core app winamp store. so if the store says u never paid, they don't work.

[MrSinatra]

Originally Posted by musicf8

Agreed, but making is 64bit for the sake of making it 64bit without any added benefit is pointless, especially if it takes away what the player can do now

you make it 64bit b/c that allows it on other platforms, and b/c windows is going to drop 32bit eventually.

don't stop progress b/c u don't like change!

(just as an example, Nvidia is dropping 32bit video drivers, and they are one of only two major video card makers for windows, unless u include intel)