R.I.P. Winamp?
Thursday, November 11, 2004 by Jachyra | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
See there :
http://www.betanews.com/article/Death_Knell_Sounds_for_Nullsoft_Winamp/1100111204
End of an era coming it seems.
[Message Edited]
http://www.betanews.com/article/Death_Knell_Sounds_for_Nullsoft_Winamp/1100111204
End of an era coming it seems.
[Message Edited]
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
NightTrainthedark
Reply #2 Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:00 PM
I was finally talked into downloading it 2 days ago. >
Reply #2 Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:00 PM
I was finally talked into downloading it 2 days ago. >
Lantec
Reply #3 Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:06 PM
Reply #3 Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:06 PM
Unitl someone puts out something better I'll keep using Winamp. Musicmatch is a close second but media player is a resource hog and no other player can compete when it comes to the available vizualizations. They should have never got in bed with a CRAPporation like AOL.
Just my 2cents.
Just my 2cents.
BlueDev
Reply #5 Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:36 PM
Reply #5 Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:36 PM
It is a shame to see that happening. While I no longer use Winamp (I much prefer the sound quality of foobar2000 if I want low resource usage, and WMP and iTunes if I want sound quality and media library management), it is a classic.
werewolf
Reply #7 Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:45 PM
Reply #7 Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:45 PM
I WILL NEVER GIVE UP MY WINAMP!!!!!!!!!
LONG LIVE THE LLAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!
LONG LIVE THE LLAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!
HG_Eliminator
Reply #8 Friday, November 12, 2004 12:04 AM
Reply #8 Friday, November 12, 2004 12:04 AM
man.....my fave media player and they kabashed it ...this just stinks..{whipers in stardocks ear}....***build it,and they will come****.... hmm a stardock media player???? ....(HINT)
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
joetheblow
Reply #10 Friday, November 12, 2004 2:30 AM
Reply #10 Friday, November 12, 2004 2:30 AM
you know, AOL never seemed to be able to get its media plan together. from the dead and dieing web browser netscape, to its own subscription service. everything under one roof just did not work in in a day of super mega malls (Wal-Mart Target, even Sears new Mega Mall), somehow Time-Warner just could not get it right.
Didn't TimeWarner sell AOL unit a few weeks back?
Didn't TimeWarner sell AOL unit a few weeks back?
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #11 Friday, November 12, 2004 3:24 AM
You're absolutely wrong. Windows Media Player is the most used internet application according to Neilsen/Netratings. It isn't even in the top 10. It has more skins than WMP but not the market share - not even close.
Reply #11 Friday, November 12, 2004 3:24 AM
| The fact that it's the most used/skinned mediaplayer the last many years, doesnt just change overnight |
You're absolutely wrong. Windows Media Player is the most used internet application according to Neilsen/Netratings. It isn't even in the top 10. It has more skins than WMP but not the market share - not even close.
Stumpy
Reply #12 Friday, November 12, 2004 4:17 AM
Reply #12 Friday, November 12, 2004 4:17 AM
Snowman, Warewolf - you both dissapoint me I thought you liked VB-Amp 
Stumpy walks away in a HUFF
Stumpy walks away in a HUFF
joetheblow
Reply #13 Friday, November 12, 2004 6:27 AM
Reply #13 Friday, November 12, 2004 6:27 AM
VB AMP?
never heard of the thing. I'll give it a net search.
never heard of the thing. I'll give it a net search.
Snowman
Reply #14 Friday, November 12, 2004 6:34 AM
Reply #14 Friday, November 12, 2004 6:34 AM
Dennis, VB-Amp is a great player (imo) but I use WinAmp rather than any other player for a few reasons:
- the skins
- it supports my keyboard mediaplayer hotkeys (or vice versa (+ a few other functions on my machine))
- and it has been my main player for the last 6-7 years
Stumpy
Reply #15 Friday, November 12, 2004 8:38 AM
Reply #15 Friday, November 12, 2004 8:38 AM
joetheblow, VB-Amp is a player that was made by me using Visual Basic and DirectX, any you find on the internet are not mine. Mine can only be obtained through me by Email, and it's FREE
Email me at [email protected]
[Message Edited]
Email me at [email protected]
[Message Edited]
Septimus
Reply #16 Friday, November 12, 2004 11:20 AM
Reply #16 Friday, November 12, 2004 11:20 AM
All good things come to an end.
Always Foobar. QCD. That and I'm very suprised by iTunes 4.7. Resource usage is better and it doesn't del your files any more when you clear the playlist. (Used to even with 'don't let iTunes manage anything due to it sucks' setting on).
AOL kills everything in the end, but if it wasn't doing well for them I can understand it.
Always Foobar. QCD. That and I'm very suprised by iTunes 4.7. Resource usage is better and it doesn't del your files any more when you clear the playlist. (Used to even with 'don't let iTunes manage anything due to it sucks' setting on).
AOL kills everything in the end, but if it wasn't doing well for them I can understand it.
PurrBall
Reply #17 Friday, November 12, 2004 3:42 PM
Reply #17 Friday, November 12, 2004 3:42 PM
I've always thought Winamp was crap. At least WMP, my favorite, will never die! (LIFEtime warrantee!!!)
At least WMP, my favorite, will never die! (LIFEtime warrantee!!!)
kona0197
Reply #18 Friday, November 12, 2004 3:48 PM
Reply #18 Friday, November 12, 2004 3:48 PM
I will have to agree with Meowy. I have always thought Winamp was crap as well. I use WMP and think it is a bit easier to use personally.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
4D
Reply #19 Friday, November 12, 2004 8:08 PM
Reply #19 Friday, November 12, 2004 8:08 PM
The thing about Winamp is it seriously kicked ASS back in the day when resource usage was so important that it could be the difference between smooth playback of audio files and jitters. Winamp had such a small footprint and was so compact and straightforward (it did the job. Period) that it was the best media player handsdown.
I think the significance between mediaplayers has shrunk to little in the last few years. The difference mainly being in the amount of visualisations/skins and the usability. the codecs in use by mediaplayers are either the same, or so close in quality that the difference is negligible. I think winamp lost out in this environment. They tried with Winamp 3 and 5 to slot in and compete, but I think that except for the loyal following from earlier years, they failed to capture the interest of the broader market who no longer care so much about small resource usage. To much easily available competition of too higher quality. Plus winamp to me even feels awkward and clunky to use now.
I don't think winamp is crap. It certainly used to be Gold... I just think that like all good things it's maybe had it's prime days, birthed a whole bunch of succesors who all look like it, talk like it, and even run better than it now. It's being retired, and yes that sucks that it has to happen, but I can understand it.
I think the significance between mediaplayers has shrunk to little in the last few years. The difference mainly being in the amount of visualisations/skins and the usability. the codecs in use by mediaplayers are either the same, or so close in quality that the difference is negligible. I think winamp lost out in this environment. They tried with Winamp 3 and 5 to slot in and compete, but I think that except for the loyal following from earlier years, they failed to capture the interest of the broader market who no longer care so much about small resource usage. To much easily available competition of too higher quality. Plus winamp to me even feels awkward and clunky to use now.
I don't think winamp is crap. It certainly used to be Gold... I just think that like all good things it's maybe had it's prime days, birthed a whole bunch of succesors who all look like it, talk like it, and even run better than it now. It's being retired, and yes that sucks that it has to happen, but I can understand it.
Jafo
Reply #20 Saturday, November 13, 2004 7:53 AM
Reply #20 Saturday, November 13, 2004 7:53 AM
WinAMP lost the plot when it went to V3 and beyond.
It forgot about its roots.....before it tried to be a Sonique and/or KJofol clone.
Winamp should have stayed with the 2x restrictive skin format....and concentrated on what it did best....played music....
Still....no dramas....I for one will just stick with 2.91.....until Windows evolves to no longer support the animal at all....then I'll move on....
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Thursday, November 11, 2004 3:46 PM
It may be discontinued but WinAmp will never die
The fact that it's the most used/skinned mediaplayer the last many years, doesnt just change overnight
Ok.... WinAmp 3 was a disaster for most people but WinAmp 5 sorted that out!
And personally I will stick with WinAmp, both as my main mediaplayer and skinning tool, for years to come - even if an equally good player becomes available.