Old 15th June 2003, 03:16   #81
UltraZelda64
Senior Member
 
UltraZelda64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alliance, Ohio
Posts: 390
DJ Egg, you brought up some good points. But the hybrid is nowhere near complete right now... who knows when that will be released. Nullsoft could have at least waited until closer to its release, and then add support for extra features like this, which at least half of its users probably will continue using an external program for. But until then, the current Winamp is what I'm sure most people want. So why not just add the more useful features first, and as you run out of ideas and the future version is released you can add this stuff. And who knows, maybe by then it could have been in development for long enough to be a good ripper with extra options (like secure mode). Plus, by that time Winamp will also have CD burning capabilities.
UltraZelda64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 03:19   #82
Reaper
Forum King
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,928
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
The dude in this thread said he got it from neowin.net
Yup, Neowin posted this article about 2.92. I left a comment with a link to steve's post.

ml_iPod - [Homepage] | [Forums] | [Wiki]
Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 03:23   #83
Canar
Junior Member
 
Canar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 20
Send a message via ICQ to Canar Send a message via AIM to Canar
Quote:
Originally posted by Calrobowiz
Well why don't you guys go off and make something better than Winamp. Good Luck!
Already done.
Canar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 03:34   #84
UltraZelda64
Senior Member
 
UltraZelda64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alliance, Ohio
Posts: 390
How is Fubar2000 better than Winamp? I don't get it. Hell, Winamp, Sonique, WA3, QCD... anything I've tried is better than that. Maybe I just can't stand the plain Windows look (especially for an audio player). I'd really like to know what exactly makes this better than Winamp.
UltraZelda64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 04:26   #85
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,614
Quote:
Originally posted by Canar
Already done.
Nice try...
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 05:31   #86
isnoop
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5
Bummer. They didn't fix the problem where it always plays the first song on the playlist when the player start up, even if set on random.

Owell, I'm still grateful. Thanks, Winamp team!
isnoop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 07:28   #87
Calrobowiz
Senior Member
 
Calrobowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 449
It only does that when you load a different play list ..... on Winamp 2 at least.

Calrobowiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 07:50   #88
anza
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Land of Booze and Polar Bears - Finland
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally posted by UltraZelda64
Maybe I just can't stand the plain Windows look (especially for an audio player).
Audio quality is not skinnable. But if you really want skins for fb2k, just head for www.foobarlooks.tk
anza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 09:25   #89
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Re: Winamp 2.92 Leak.

Quote:
Originally posted by steve
There has been a rash of leaks of beta versions of Winamp as of late. Please do not download or distribute leaked copies. These releases are only weeks away, you can all learn to be a little patient and get it when it's ready.

Also, to the person who keeps leaking these copies, if you keep this up, we WILL stop posting versions of the player and subsequently punish the entire beta team for your actions. I suggest that you start respecting the trust you earned to get on the beta team and keep builds to yourself.

Thank you,

-s
As steve and the rest of the beta list now knows, this leak had nothing to do with us

oh, and the cd ripper may well become a plugin. Personally, i think the cd ripping rocks, as a plugin or otherwise.

And all you people calling bloat for 21k, i think you should get out more.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 10:28   #90
Calrobowiz
Senior Member
 
Calrobowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 449
Yea and I'm sure that the beta versions have an incredible amount of bugs in them anyway. Well at first at least. I used to be a beta tester for AOL and their software was full of bugs.

Calrobowiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 11:16   #91
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Re: Re: Winamp 2.92 Leak.

Quote:
Originally posted by will
And all you people calling bloat for 21k, i think you should get out more.
21k ain't bloat, completely agreed . Though, the way the cd ripper component is embedded in the media library files just bugs me, as there is no way to have it removed completely.

But since the v2.92 obviously is a leaked beta, I'm not complaining anymore at all .

*waits for v2.91 final*


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 11:39   #92
Dr Satan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England
Posts: 128
Send a message via ICQ to Dr Satan
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
Says who? You?
Yes, strangely enough, I'm the one to voice my opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Quote:
The fact is - it's a multimedia player. Like it or lump it my friend.
You've hit the nail on the head there. It's now a multimedia player, and it only became that recently with the introduction of video. I quote from http://web.archive.org/web/199811111...://winamp.com/...

Winamp is a fast, flexible, high-fidelity music player for Windows 95/98/NT

Quote:
Personally, I like it . . . no, make that "love it"!
But hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Just don't flog it to death.
You've flogged your opinion that you love winamp just as much if not more than I've voiced mine. Naturally, you will believe your opinion is right and needs voiced more, that is the nature of opinions. Just consider that others' opinions may differ and they have as much right to voice them as you.
Dr Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 11:41   #93
sanosuke
Major Dude
 
sanosuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Satan
Winamp is a fast, flexible, high-fidelity music player for Windows 95/98/NT
but of course...thats what LITE is for.

Big-assed signature deleted by errr.. whats his name again??
sanosuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 11:49   #94
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,878
Dr Satan
Winamp is developing. It cannot stay static.
If you don't want to use the latest Winamp
stick with your older version
or post in the bitchlist.

That is all!
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 11:57   #95
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Agreed .

But do we really need video support in Winamp v2.x? Don't we have other/better players for that ([shameless plug] Zoomplayer [/shameless plug]). I don't think we need it. Oh ok, I can still do a custom install and choose not to install the video support .

As long as these components stay modular with seperate plugins each, easy to customize, I frankly don't care if Winamp comes with video support, cd ripping, or whatever. As long as I can choose not to install these and not having one single trace of these unwanted plugins on my computer. All I need is a damn good audio player, and that's what Winamp v2.x is to me .

When v2.92 final is there, who knows, maybe the cd ripper component might have its own seperate plugin, and not embedded in the media library as it is in the leaked betas. Well, a beta, what do I expect at all?


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 12:07   #96
sanosuke
Major Dude
 
sanosuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,891
ok need to clear something out. Is the version on www.winampheaven.net a leaked or not?

Big-assed signature deleted by errr.. whats his name again??
sanosuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 12:09   #97
Russ
Mostly Harmless
(Alumni)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,319
It is leaked. It is not final.

For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave.
|Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
Russ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 12:26   #98
nierke
Senior Member
 
nierke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 295
And it suck's

...:::nierke:::...
nierke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 12:30   #99
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
Originally posted by Budgie
Agreed .

But do we really need video support in Winamp v2.x? Don't we have other/better players for that ([shameless plug] Zoomplayer [/shameless plug]). I don't think we need it. Oh ok, I can still do a custom install and choose not to install the video support .
better players for video support? I use the video in winamp 2.9x a lot, and i think it is up there with the best video players that there is. Plus i love the way i can use the media library to organise my divx collection.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 14:27   #100
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Then you haven't tried Zoomplayer yet .


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 14:39   #101
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,878
If CD Ripper support is provided by in_cdda.dll
(note: in the installer, it says "support for cd playback and extraction")
then uncheck this in the installer, so you'll keep the 2.91 version.

If it's to be made optional, keeping in the true modular style, then it shouldn't be too difficult to include two different in_cdda.dll's in the installer . . . where it renames version 2 to in_cdda.dll if you uncheck "cd extraction/ripper" !?!?
in_cdda.dll is ~57k, which should compress to ~20k
(or would an extra 20k make Winamp bloatware?) j/k


Re: Leak
Looks like Artoo misunderstood Justin.
The files were supposed to be for his own personal use, not to be made public.
Oops.


This whole thread is starting to remind me of an old John Cooper Clarke poem.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 14:51   #102
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
Re: Leak
Looks like Artoo misunderstood Justin.
The files were supposed to be for his own personal use, not to be made public.
Oops.
Obviously . Other sites, eg. this german computer page www.chip.de is advertising the leaked beta already as "FULL" ... .

Everyone taking it as final I guess. I can see all the complaints in the Winamp 2 bug report forums already ...


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 15:00   #103
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,878
Doh!
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 15:15   #104
matthewtwood
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Satan
This is not the problem... let's see if I can explain.

Basically, the less stuff a program does, the better it is at doing what it does. Or at least the quicker it develops.

If I want to use a .txt editor that does way more than I need it to, I'd delete notepad and use wordpad. If I wanted an audio player to do way more than I need it to, I'd delete winamp and use realplayer.
I see your point .. but at the end of the day the last thing Nullsoft wants is to hear 'RealPlayer's better than Winamp, it does this and this and this...' and believe it or not there are people who would say that!

I'm still optimistic that Winamp can match the bloated players on feature set and kick their ass on usability and reliability! If that means that the next WA takes a few months extra to develop, I'm all for it.

Remember what happened last time we moaned about the development time for a Nullsoft product? We ended up with a final which many people thought should have been released as a beta version! We should be getting behind Nullsoft!
matthewtwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 15:47   #105
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,614
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
Re: Leak
Looks like Artoo misunderstood Justin.
The files were supposed to be for his own personal use, not to be made public.
Oops.
Guess Artoo never got that message yesterday.

papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 15:51   #106
net-cruizer
Senior Member
 
net-cruizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: BC, CANADA
Posts: 367
This version is just awsome. Some excellent fixes. And the CD ripping works awsome.
I was happy to see that Winamp starts playing a random song on a playlist change again instead of always the first song.
And I've tried quite a few cd rippers, and the one in Winamp is incredible. Damb it's fast. Blows WMP9 away for ripping that's for sure.
Although it would be nice if the CDDB thing worked, as it never ever has for me on any version.
I really like how all the new stuff added to Winamp hasn't even increased resource usage, seems to use less and less even and start up even faster. Though it always has been easy on the resources and start super fast.
net-cruizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 16:13   #107
Dr Satan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England
Posts: 128
Send a message via ICQ to Dr Satan
Quote:
Originally posted by Budgie
Then you haven't tried Zoomplayer yet .
Zoomplayer used to be my player of choice before I started using Media Player Classic (http://www.gabest.org/mpc.php). It plays Real Player files (which have some damn good codecs) as long as real player's installed - gets rid of the slow and nasty real player interface.

@DJEgg:

Things do not develop by simply adding new stuff. For example, a child does not develop by growing new body parts all over the place, it's about developing what's already there, and replacing the teeth which fall out (which I'm sure fits into this metaphor in more ways than one).

Quote:
Originally posted by net-cruizer
And I've tried quite a few cd rippers, and the one in Winamp is incredible. Damb it's fast. Blows WMP9 away for ripping that's for sure.
Exactly which CD Rippers have you tried? Any actual CD rippers or just ones built into things like winamp and WMP9? It's not all about speed, it's about accuracy.

Too many people look for the simplest program rather than the one which does the job best. This doesn't happen as much in the real world, look at automatic transmission cars for example - much less popular.

Dr Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 16:26   #108
amano
Major Dude
 
amano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: where the llamas come from!
Posts: 952
damn. I was advertising this news on hydrogenaudio.org. NOT knowing this was a leaked beta. shame on me. shame on me.

EDIT: well, fixed my post on hydrogenaudio.org . now it states that this was a leaked beta.

eeeee eeeeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88
8eee8 8e 8 8 8eee8 8e 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8eee8
amano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 16:31   #109
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
It was hard to tell if that v2.92 was final or a leaked beta anyway, as there is no single hint inside the program, like an uberlarge scrolling text saying "WARNING - BETA VERSION INSIDE, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!" .

The "about" screen just says v2.92 built June 2nd 2003. Sounds final to me, and prolly a lot of other software sites making reviews and supplying download links for v2.92 beta, without knowing it is a beta. Damn .


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 16:36   #110
Russ
Mostly Harmless
(Alumni)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,319
It wasn't *meant* to be leaked. Winamp 2 betas are recorded only by build date, because everyone who should have it already knows if it's a beta or not, because they're on the beta list. What's the point of clearly marking the betas for the benefit of the general public when the general public aren't meant to have it?

For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave.
|Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
Russ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 16:41   #111
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Quote:
Originally posted by Russ
It wasn't *meant* to be leaked. Winamp 2 betas are recorded only by build date, because everyone who should have it already knows if it's a beta or not, because they're on the beta list. What's the point of clearly marking the betas for the benefit of the general public when the general public aren't meant to have it?
Duh, no shit, dude . We all get the point here, but as a matter of fact, other (professional ) big software sites don't / maybe can't know that the leaked beta is a beta, thus advertising it as final, and even supplying download links for it. If some betatester misunderstood the rules and put the beta on his/her personal website for public access, people would think it's final, as the program has no hint inside. Get it?

So shit happens . We all can be sure when v2.92 goes final when it appears on http://classic.winamp.com .


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 16:45   #112
sanosuke
Major Dude
 
sanosuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,891
i think that Dr satan u need to learn one very important thing:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T USE IT!!!

Big-assed signature deleted by errr.. whats his name again??
sanosuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 17:10   #113
AtiUser
Member
 
AtiUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 90
Send a message via ICQ to AtiUser
Quote:
Originally posted by sanosuke
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T USE IT!!!
Damn right
AtiUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 17:17   #114
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,614
If it's not meant for the general public,
why is it still on WinampHeaven today,
with no message that it's a beta version?
Maybe I'm missing something here...

Last edited by papadoc; 15th June 2003 at 17:58.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 17:58   #115
matthewtwood
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Satan
Exactly which CD Rippers have you tried? Any actual CD rippers or just ones built into things like winamp and WMP9? It's not all about speed, it's about accuracy.

Are we talking about MP3? WA uses the LAME encoder. CDex uses the LAME encoder. I don't see where speed and accuracy should come into it! Correct me if I'm wrong.
matthewtwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 18:07   #116
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
No. Accurancy with CD rippers = ripping quality. EAC and lately CDex have a secure ripping mode, which eleminates all ripping problems if used with newer drives, ie. trackquality = 100%. I always use secure ripping with EAC, still rips at ~8x speed for me. I rather have an 100%-ly accurate rip that takes ~8x speed, than have a speed rip at ~30x speed containing pops and clicks.

Winamp's CD ripper doesn't use any secure ripping mode, just plain CDDAE, which does not produce 100% error free rips. So why bother with it at all?

A CD ripper as goodie inside Winamp is nice, but why using it if it has slim to none functions, no secure ripping and no offset correction? And a fully featured ripper inside Winamp = bloat. So just leave it out .


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 18:08   #117
amano
Major Dude
 
amano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: where the llamas come from!
Posts: 952
it's ripping speed, not encoding speed. cdex is a ripper, but uses lame as mp3 encoder. best choice to rip is EAC anyway.

EDIT: budgie was a little bit faster.

eeeee eeeeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88
8eee8 8e 8 8 8eee8 8e 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8eee8
amano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 18:54   #118
matthewtwood
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 60
Ohh, I knew I must have missed something I have to say, I fail to see the point in including a CD ripper in WA if it isn't a patch on dedicated ripping programs. But other people may find the ripper useful! At only 21K I can't complain, so I suggest that if you don't find it useful, follow the earlier advice and don't use it! Whether this kind of feature will detract attention from developing the more important elements of WA, only time will tell I guess.
matthewtwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 20:03   #119
Reverend Ike
Evangelical Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,533
I think it's safe to assume that a large number (most likely the majority) of Winamp users are less astute than most users who post here. They are the type of users who may not understand CD ripper quality differences, and who like the simplicity of not having to select a standalone CD ripper. The new built-in CD ripper is obviously for them, not for the diehard Winamp fanatic. It sounds like the developers have done a good job of creating an adequate CD ripper with a very small footprint. They have now eliminated one more excuse for someone to choose a player other than Winamp, while compromising very little. The masses can use the built-in ripper, the afficionados can continue to use their high-quality ripper of choice.

So what's the problem? I fail to understand the protracted, sometimes heated, debate on this. And 21KB is nothing. It adds a fraction of a second to the download and how much to the loading time - nothing? 1 second? This kneejerk wailing about "bloat" every time Winamp adds the tiniest item has been going on for years now and it's truly ridiculous, given the specs of most of today's boxes. With my old Win98/P2/13gigHD box, I think I'll be the first to know when Winamp becomes "bloated". The moaners who have XP, 1+GHz CPUs and 100+GB hard drives can stuff a sock in it.

Elsewhere ... I know nothing about beta tracking, but it seems that a few minor things might help lessen the confusion about "new" Winamps popping up all over the internet. Something like assigning a descriptive filename (if that's not already done) to each build - for example, wa292build46std - would clearly denote a work-in-progress unless the filename was purposely changed. And a read-only sticky at the top of this forum (perhaps only updateable by Craig), reiterating that "v2.9x is currently in alpha/beta/whatever stage" and listing the latest build filenames and installer filesizes, might make it a tiny bit easier to discredit "final" files posted elsewhere. Just some dumb thoughts.

Ah, for the good old days, when Justin would occasionally post the later betas of a new version in this forum (sometimes several new betas within a single day) and anyone who cared could test for bugs. And people were smart enough to know that "unofficial" Winamps posted elsewhere on the web were never final versions ...
Reverend Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2003, 21:18   #120
Dr Satan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England
Posts: 128
Send a message via ICQ to Dr Satan
Quote:
Originally posted by sanosuke
i think that Dr satan u need to learn one very important thing:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T USE IT!!!
Obviously you've replied to my posts without reading them. Somewhat like reading a headline and assuming the rest of the article.

The main point I've been making is I don't like the way winamp is going, not what it has become. I'm quite happy with winamp at the moment, I'd just hate to see my favourite audio player go down the pan. If users have opinions about the software, I'm sure the team would rather hear about it rather than users just leaving and the developers not knowing why.

The term "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T USE IT!!!" is merely a cop out term for people without any valid point to make, yet can't resist making a post. Like when someone comes back from an insult saying "Oh ha ha" sarcasticly.
Dr Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

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