Old 16th December 2013, 12:15   #1
lordsilver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 43
Split Ramblings

If I click and hold on the song that is playing and then I fast move it through the playlist, it is not smooth enough, it doesn't move instantly, the text is left behind for a moment (on Winamp 5.666). Try it yourself and you'll see. Is there any way to fix this? (in older versions this thing it's not present, I don't know since which version this bug appeared, I have Winamp 2.91 (I think) in my computer and with it this doesn't happen.)
lordsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 14:54   #2
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
@lordsilver: I expect you are seeing the different way that the MP3 tags are being read in.

Look into the PREFERENCES, under GENERAL PREFERENCES find the TITLES section. In here check how the metadata is being read in. It is set on the default (fourth) option? Or something else?

The default for this was changed a few months back.

Also remember to allow for hard disks to wake up. I get a stall on my Winamp when I first start messing with it in a day as I have seven hard disks in this PC as well as music on a server. So Data has to come from multiple sources, and I clearly see a stall as I am hearing the hard disks waking up.


And there is no comparison that can be made with v2.xx as that is so old and has many less features than 5.666. (You also forgot to say what plugins you have, etc)
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 17:09   #3
lordsilver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 43
It doesn't matter which type of metadata reading is selected, the problem is still there (with or without any additional plugins). I just found out that the last version that works and doesn't have this problem is Winamp 5.64 lite (after that, starting with the 5.65 the bug is there)... Also, I found out that in the 5.64 version, there is no bug with jump to file "skin the window", is working great. I don't understand, when Winamp is advancing in version, more bugs are appearing?
For now everything is working great with 5.64 version.

EDIT: Or not . I remembered that in this version that thing with KMPlayer is not yet fixed. Do you know from which file that problem with the playlist is? Maybe I can use 5.666 and use a file (that includes the playlist) from 5.64.
DrO can you help me with this last question?

Yeah, I know, I tried some old versions (like 2, or another ones, and first of all the incompatibility with plugins is a problem for me).


EDIT2: I'm happy. I've installed again 5.64 and copied winampa.exe from the last version (from the 5.666) and now the problem with KMplayer is fixed and everything is working great.

Last edited by lordsilver; 16th December 2013 at 18:42.
lordsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 19:32   #4
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
because fixing other issues exposes new ones and code changes and that is why random bugs appear (and with ITFE, i did a mass of changes as part of a code cleanup so things changed more than i wanted but was needed and it's due to that and some other 'fixes' which is why things aren't correct in the last build of the plug-in). and sometimes, you have to break code to fix it and sometimes testing doesn't indicate all issues.


and the JTFE skin issue is from applying a quick work around for lite mode (as already discussed). and i've said i can patch that plug-in outside of Winamp releases so i don't get why you've gone back to 5.64 when you just need to either wait until later tonight for a fixed JTFE or use the one from the 3512 installer in place of the one shipped with 3516.

and what KMPlayer issue?

and i've got to say that using 5.64 is really not recommended as that has a blatantly broken library import handling. so if anything, you've picked the worst version of the 5.6x releases to go back to.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 19:36   #5
kzuse
Senior Member
 
kzuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: (D)
Posts: 480
Send a message via ICQ to kzuse Send a message via Skype™ to kzuse
Yep. If roll back, roll back to 5.65. It is pretty good.
kzuse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 19:40   #6
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
2.81 was better...
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 19:40   #7
lordsilver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 43
I didn't change the version because of the JTFE issue (and I'm talking about that glitch in the interface, not the new problem), I changed it more because of that playlist issue (I think it's a file from plugin folder which causes that, I don't know).
If KMPlayer is opened, you cannot open Winamp from Winamp agent (but this was fixed in the last version).
The 5.64 was the last one that didn't have that issue with the playlist, that's why I chose it. What "blatantly broken library import handling", can you explain? And in light version, I don't think I have any media library, if you're talking about that.
I will try maybe later 5.666 again (maybe with the JTFE from 5.64 because it's working correctly) and try to find out which file from the plugin folder causes that playlist issue. (or maybe do you already know that, DrO?)


EDIT: In 5.65 that playlist problem is there as in 5.666, that's why I didn't choose it.
lordsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 19:42   #8
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
/me bangs head on desk.

do whatever you want, as your mix and matching is causing more issues than i can be bothered to deal with.

and i'm not going to look into this 'playlist' issue as it's an extreme edge-case scenario, like standing on the spot, hopping and rubbing my tummy as a i pat my head.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 19:43   #9
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Why does nobody grant DrO a break? 5.666 is the most stable release we ever had, he spent tons of hours just to make it as great as it is.

I'm sure sure, he will fix his JTFE plugin, but people only can pester, pester and pester. They think that their bug is the most important glitch in the world and want a fix for all right now.

That's the only impression i get when i read most of the bug related postings.

And all of these postings with the 'I go back to 5.65' etc are just a hit in the face for all people who worked so hard on latest release.

Compared to the bugs in 5.666, 5.65 and below had much more bugs, but people tend to see the negative only.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 19:47   #10
lordsilver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koopa View Post
And all of these postings with the 'I go back to 5.65' etc are just a hit in the face for all people who worked so hard on latest release.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean it. I'm just annoyed about the playlist issue and that's why I installed a previous version. I will try later to find out which plugin causes that issue... and maybe install back the last version and change only that plugin.
lordsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 20:49   #11
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koopa View Post
Why does nobody grant DrO a break?
Because everyone wants to throw their toys out the the pram.... and scream "waaaaaaaaaaah"

Many of them also don't want to read the forum and find out the question has been answered before. (i.e. it is a plugins issue) Or that sticky which states what info to hand over. We all know how difficult it is to get a list of plugins... if only there was some kind of Information Tool to assist us...

(Where is the sarcasm font when it's needed? And lordsilver don't think we are picking on you as this happens a LOT!)


DrO is going to deserve his Xmas break. I prescribe a hide away in the woods where there is no electricity, no phone coverage and most certainly no internet. Just a large crate of beer. Loads of food. And some serving wenches.
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 21:01   #12
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
I have always used the latest release and I have never understood the people who don't. how crucial is such and such a feature? why not report it and get it fixed? I very rarely, if ever, hear legitimate reasons to use anything but the latest.

why use 2.x when you can use 5.666 lite? WHY? it makes no sense to me at all.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 21:24   #13
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
because of prejudice against versions because of what Winamp3 and some 5.x releases have been like. and why install anything newer if there's nothing to appeal to someone if what they have does what they want - yes 5.x will likely do it better but for many, it's too much of a risk and they don't want to deal with that crap.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 21:44   #14
lordsilver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 43
Ok.. so, I installed again Winamp 5.666 and I finally found out from which plugin was the problem with the playlist lag. It seems it was, also, because of Jump to File Extra. So, I copied the one from Winamp 5.64 (JTFE v.1.2.6 Build 1165) and not it doesn't lag anymore and the glich from the skinned JTF is not there anymore. So my problems were resolved with this older version of JTFE.

Are you wondering why some people are using versions of Winamp such like 2.95? Because that version does everything that he wants... it plays songs, with some plugins can play also FLAC and APE. So, why install a more complex version when that one works great. That is what they are thinking (I used 2.95 since a couple of years ago, until I found out that Winamp has a Lite version (yeah, too late )) and then I used a more recent version. Most people don't use features like video play, cd ripping, cd burning, flac to wav converting, minibrowser (yeah, it was in older version), station info, and a lot of un-usefull things... That's why a lot of people ran away from Winamp, because it had to much things that they don't use... Everybody that I know wanted Winamp only to play music and that's all, nothing else. Maybe add the modern skin (but it uses more resources). AOL had the idea to add so much things in it, and from the most simple player it became one of the most complicated and most resource eater. (don't forget about additional ads, songs advertising and stuff like that)
But you can find another reasons, too. I know a person that uses Winamp 2.91 because is portable, it is saving all the settings in Winamp folder... and he want to easily install it everywhere in a second. (Yeah, I know about the backup tool, but this is even faster than that)
lordsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 21:50   #15
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
oh well, you're probably better off removing JTFE completely then from your install.

and all of the 2.x points you've made, every single part of that is achievable with the lite or manually configuring things as that's part of Winamp's issue in that it's too configurable at times for it's own good. as it's _very_ simple to make it use the same folder and run in 'portable' mode. just have to change 'paths.ini'

either way, it's not at all surprising that Winamp is being killed if people want to keep using v2.x clients, as there's no need to keep people working on something that the majority of the user base don't want (irrespective of them being exposed to security issues).
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 21:58   #16
lordsilver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
oh well, you're probably better off removing JTFE completely then from your install.

and all of the 2.x points you've made, every single part of that is achievable with the lite or manually configuring things as that's part of Winamp's issue in that it's too configurable at times for it's own good. as it's _very_ simple to make it use the same folder and run in 'portable' mode.

either way, it's not at all surprising that Winamp is being killed if people want to keep using v2.x clients, as there's no need to keep people working on something that the majority of the user base don't want (irrespective of them being exposed to security issues).
I know that you can manually configure install, but a lot of people know only to install an app like full, not select every thing in it... or they are too comfortable to select every item. I talked about majority.
Sincerely, people wanted the same simple Winamp, people don't want so much things from Winamp, most of the people use winamp as a MUSIC player only, not a media player. In my opinion Winamp needed to remain simple, maybe update the skin (it's a paradox how the classic skin is the same from 1999, not any update since then, that's weird), update all the music decoders, add some useful plugins in it (like APE decoder, not "669" file decoder or another one like that), update Milkdrop (yeah, this was done... and very good)... Besides this it could have a more advanced version that included Shoutcast and maybe Media Library. That's all! And all the other stuff (like cd ripping) should have been only in plugins, separately from the installer itself. And not any AOL stuff included in it, like ads.


And I repeat, most of the people that are still using version 2.xx or they are using another media player, did that because Winamp become too much like itunes, I mean with a lot of things included in it. (I talked with a lot of people that changed music player) And besides that, everyone uses it for music, because there are a lot more great video players out there, like kmplayer, vlc or other ones.

And why remove JTFE? I use this older version because it works with no problems, the last one have problems. Maybe if you will fix it (sometime, I don't rush you or something), I will change to the new one.
lordsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 22:09   #17
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Agorima: fixed in what way? as i'd appreciate a copy of one of the files which was causing the issue for you to see if it helps with

lordsilver: there is little that can be done with the 'classic' skin as it's fixed in too many ways and is why time went on the 'modern' skins as they can be a lot more flexible (yes i know they use more resources but customisation does that).

and it is a more advanced version of what came in 2.x, just no one bothers to pay attention to what they're installing, go bat shit crazy because things were installed (that they agreed to) and then bitch about it go back to 2.x or whatever.

and i said to remove it as i do not support that version, i cannot replicate the issue and if you want Winamp to be lite, then the plug-n needs to be removed as it's one of the key 'bloat' areas of Winamp.

either way, it doesn't matter as Winamp is basically dead now anyway, the users have spoken and that's the end of that.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 22:12   #18
lordsilver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 43
Most of them are going to another player, not to 2.x . That's the sad part.
It could be done some things with the classic skin, make it look more modern, not like in the '90s... yeah, with classic pattern, but look more actual. (I suggested you a skin that looks modern and looks a lot like the classic Winamp skin... something like that should have be done)
PS: And not forget about the notification area icons that are the same from Winamp 2. That should have been updated, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
either way, it doesn't matter as Winamp is basically dead now anyway, the users have spoken and that's the end of that.
Sadly, yes . And I really do believe that most of the reasons which made this happen are in what I have said before... and that's why a lot of people changed the audio player.

And AOL have spoken, not the users. I still hope for a miracle.
lordsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 22:20   #19
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
@lordsilver... you do realise you are repeating the same old boring conversation that has been had on this forum a million times? Same old arguments? Same out of date knowledge? Same odd assumption that every one has identical needs? And you are showing yourself as part of the iTunes generation as someone who doesn't really want new features and would rather just be railroaded into a boring old zero choice application?

Many of us use features that are just not in v2.xx builds. And we like what Winamp has become. Though we also take a bit more thought about which plugins we make use of. A classic area that finds people randomly throwing any old plugin into Winamp and not bothering to check if it is actually compatible.

So much gossip and rumour runs around about "bloat" and "adverts" that are clearly mis-leading and plain out of date.

And yes - there are many of us who want to convert FLAC files into MP3 or WAV or burning CDs of my FLACs. Just because you don't like to hear quality audio doesn't mean everyone is the same as you.

I can't think of many other products like Winamp that give you choice. Real choice. Real ability to decide what you want the player to be and what it does. And when you don't like that choice and just want "the old 2.xx version" then there has always been Winamp Lite installs.

I also can't think of many other software products that have gone beyond a 15th birthday.

But hey - it is impossible to keep everyone happy all of the time. Enjoy your configuration, but don't get upset that there are people out here who like to do things different to the way you do. (Oh - and this discussion is wider than just you... it is a discussion as old as the hills... so much of the frustration you are seeing here is from having this same discussion again and again...)

Love n Peace man. Enjoy your programs in your way in the configuration that you want to run them.
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 22:28   #20
lordsilver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 43
iTunes generation? I hate that player. Yeah, sincerely, I don't need new features from a music player. I want it to play music, look simple and nice and that's all. Maybe I'm "outdated", too. That's why I'm using Winamp Lite and not Winamp full.

Most of my music (like 99.5%) it's FLAC, APE and WAV. So yes, I want quality music.
If I want to rip a CD I use a dedicated software like EAC. If I want to convert some music I use a converter like dBpoweramp. If I want to burn a CD I use a dedicated software like Nero Burning Rom. If I want to play movies, I use a dedicated video player like KMPlayer.

I'm not upset, I'm happy there still is the Lite version, but as I said... I talked to a lot of people and the main reason that they changed the software with another one it's because it became too "full" of stuff.

The sad part it's that Winamp Lite didn't evolve too much. The skin is the same as 14 years ago, the icons are the same, the 70fps visualization is the same, and a lot more. They should have updated a bit more the Winamp Lite Edition.
Happily for me, I can change the icons by myself. I can change the skin by myself. But it should have been updated a bit.
lordsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 22:40   #21
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
NERO? And you talk of bloat? Now if ever there was a product that went from quality to bloat it is Nero. I ran away from that back in the days of v6 or so. Which is when I swapped to Winamp to burn my music disks (and CDBurnerXP Pro for everything else burn related)

Ripping with EAC here too... but why install yet more software like dbPoweramp when Winamp's conversion works so well. Direct from the media library or playlists. Especially when the cost of Winamp was a single one-off fee. And IIRC the conversion of FLAC to most other formats was free anyway.

(Just looked at the dbPoweramp page for first time ever... and laughed at the "upgrade will be the standard $12 fee...")

The point is, we are all different. I am glad that Winamp didn't dumb down to the lowest common denominator that your friends crave. And it is frustrating to me that products which allow choice now die in this modern age. (I also use Opera Browser, Blackberry Phone, and too many other products that died because of allowing the users to make choice...)
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 22:43   #22
Agorima
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsilver View Post
iTunes generation? I hate that player. Yeah, sincerely, I don't need new features from a music player. I want it to play music, look simple and nice and that's all. Maybe I'm "outdated", too. That's why I'm using Winamp Lite and not Winamp full.

Most of my music (like 99.5%) it's FLAC, APE and WAV. So yes, I want quality music.
If I want to rip a CD I use a dedicated software like EAC. If I want to convert some music I use a converter like dBpoweramp. If I want to burn a CD I use a dedicated software like Nero Burning Rom. If I want to play movies, I use a dedicated video player like KMPlayer.

I'm not upset, I'm happy there still is the Lite version, but as I said... I talked to a lot of people and the main reason that they changed the software with another one it's because it became too "full" of stuff.

The sad part it's that Winamp Lite didn't evolve too much. The skin is the same as 14 years ago, the icons are the same, the 70fps visualization is the same, and a lot more. They should have updated a bit more the Winamp Lite Edition.
Happily for me, I can change the icons by myself. I can change the skin by myself. But it should have been updated a bit.
I don't have the same taste as you, I like the classic skin as it is and the features that Winamp has.
I don't want to choose another player.
iTunes? It's like using Photoshop.
AIMP? Foobar 2000? They aren't so good as Winamp.
Windows Media Player? I don't like it.
Agorima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2013, 22:45   #23
lordsilver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batter Pudding View Post
NERO? And you talk of bloat? Now if ever there was a product that went from quality to bloat it is Nero. I ran away from that back in the days of v6 or so. Which is when I swapped to Winamp to burn my music disks (and CDBurnerXP Pro for everything else burn related)

Ripping with EAC here too... but why install yet more software like dbPoweramp when Winamp's conversion works so well. Direct from the media library or playlists. Especially when the cost of Winamp was a single one-off fee. And IIRC the conversion of FLAC to most other formats was free anyway.

(Just looked at the dbPoweramp page for first time ever... and laughed at the "upgrade will be the standard $12 fee...")

The point is, we are all different. I am glad that Winamp didn't dumb down to the lowest common denominator that your friends crave. And it is frustrating to me that products which allow choice now die in this modern age. (I also use Opera Browser, Blackberry Phone, and too many other products that died because of allowing the users to make choice...)

I have a lite version of Nero, also ). But I didn't burn a disc for a long time.
I use Chrome and HTC Phone (with Android) ).
Usually, dedicated software for only one thing is doing a better job than one software that does everything. There are free applications out there, also, to use instead of dBpoweramp and Nero. Most of my friends are using Winamp or are using online cloud music services, so no software on PC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agorima View Post
I don't have the same taste as you, I like the classic skin as it is and the features that Winamp has.
I don't want to choose another player.
iTunes? It's like using Photoshop.
AIMP? Foobar 2000? They aren't so good as Winamp.
Windows Media Player? I don't like it.
I said that I like Winamp Lite (since I used it for so many years) but it could evolve more in terms of looks. I use a classic skin (neoclassic 1.2).
Foobar is pretty good, I tested it, but for me is not as simple, fast, intuitive as Winamp Lite is.
AIMP is like a clone of Winamp 5 Modern (the first one), but with some interesting features (that I wouldn't use) like tabbed playlists and is a bit more actual.
iTunes it's just stupid. It's too much!
lordsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2013, 01:49   #24
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsilver View Post
... but as I said... I talked to a lot of people and the main reason that they changed the software with another one it's because it became too "full" of stuff.
...
The sad part it's that Winamp Lite didn't evolve too much.
The sad part is that too many of the younger spoiled generations can't handle "too much stuff". They can't be bothered with reading a little bit and thinking a little bit. It's too much of an effort to use the custom mode of the Winamp installer and simply not select the stuff they don't want to use.

Then you turn around and complain that the lite version didn't evolve enough!

Sounds lazy and schizophrenic to me.

Winamp Pro v5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen v1.0 by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit v1809 desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2013, 02:34   #25
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsilver View Post
Are you wondering why some people are using versions of Winamp such like 2.95?
Because they are idiots. Some of them are just happy if they can troll in other forums.

I have installed 2.9x a couple of days ago to fix a bug in info tool and it was terrible.
No Unicode, no 24Bit playback, no gapless playback, no replay gain, a crappy media library, terrible ugly preferences and tons of bugs and security issues.

Quote:
Most people don't use features like video play, cd ripping, cd burning, flac to wav converting, minibrowser (yeah, it was in older version), station info, and a lot of un-usefull things... That's why a lot of people ran away from Winamp, because it had to much things that they don't use
You know what 'most' people want?

The userbase changed during the years, people wanted features like cd ripping, cd buring etc. They even requested MP3 data disc burning again and again.

Furthermore, some of them want an iTunes clone, labeled as Winamp.

Quote:
... Everybody that I know wanted Winamp only to play music and that's all, nothing else. Maybe add the modern skin (but it uses more resources).
You still can do this. And yeah, if your Pentium 2 with 16MB RAM cannot handle modern skins...

Quote:
AOL had the idea to add so much things in it, and from the most simple player it became one of the most complicated and most resource eater.
Winamp doesn't eat much resources, if you say things like this I want to see some statistics, which show that Winamp is on top of the ressource eating programs.

And all things in that player are optional, you don't want feature xy? just uncheck it during installation.

And even your beloved 2.x version shipped crap like AOD.

Quote:
But you can find another reasons, too. I know a person that uses Winamp 2.91 because is portable, it is saving all the settings in Winamp folder... and he want to easily install it everywhere in a second. (Yeah, I know about the backup tool, but this is even faster than that)
That's just wrong, a lot of the 2.x plugins (e.g. in_mod, in_midi, out_ds, out_wave etc) saved their settings in the registry.
Nothing portable.

Since Windows Vista it is wrong to write config data to the program dir, like 2.x did. With UAC enable or with limited user accounts it can produces trouble. hence, that's why multi user support was introduced in 5.2x.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsilver View Post
I know that you can manually configure install, but a lot of people know only to install an app like full, not select every thing in it... or they are too comfortable to select every item.
People which are not able to uncheck unwanted stuff during installation simply shouldn't use Winamp - or better PCs in general.

Quote:
I talked about majority.
I bet you are the choosen one, who is speaking for the people

Quote:
Sincerely, people wanted the same simple Winamp, people don't want so much things from Winamp, most of the people use winamp as a MUSIC player only, not a media player.
They still can have it.

Quote:
In my opinion Winamp needed to remain simple, maybe update the skin (it's a paradox how the classic skin is the same from 1999, not any update since then, that's weird),
The skin was updated for 2.91 in 2003. Stop spreading wrong information.

And if they would replace the deafult skin, people like you would be the first who talk about 'bloatware' again

Quote:
update Milkdrop (yeah, this was done... and very good)...
I wonder that you like it, I mean it uses more ressources than v1.x did.

Quote:
Most of my music (like 99.5%) it's FLAC, APE and WAV. So yes, I want quality music.
If I want to rip a CD I use a dedicated software like EAC. If I want to convert some music I use a converter like dBpoweramp. If I want to burn a CD I use a dedicated software like Nero Burning Rom.
Yeah, makes sense, nero handles the digital data probably better than another burning solution would handle the identical digital data.

Quote:
The sad part it's that Winamp Lite didn't evolve too much. The skin is the same as 14 years ago, the icons are the same, the 70fps visualization is the same, and a lot more.
Are you really requesting bloat updates for 2.9x?
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Bug Reports

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