61–70 of 338 posts
I listened to my first MP3 ever (Creed's "Higher") in 1999 on Winamp. It really whipped the South American camelid's posterior. Dang. I'm old.
I'm afraid that, at one point in time, a DMCA takedown might backfire at the archive. I mean, it has been taken down on Github, but it's of course available at archive.org - it would hurt the internet as a whole if the archive needs to close it's doors. Hopefully that will never happen.
We should have infrastructure for sharing things like this without putting a centralized entity like archive.org in the crosshairs. Bittorrent comes to mind, but it could only be part of the solution.
However, the goals of Filecoin seem to be right up this alley. Distribute file storage among billions of users where the more you host and help the swarm, the more coins you earn.
Last I checked (about a month ago) there was still no way to "help the swarm" without having a ridiculous set up but I imagine someone with more experience will correct me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The older code was all C based and very simple. I wasn’t fan of the new direction. Pretty sure the original author hung out in #winprog (EFnet IRC), I wasn't a great Windows programmer but I remember him showing off how he created the skinnable interface and everything. I also remember spending a half hour downloading a Rob Zombie MP3, using Winamp to play it, and wondering what the big deal was :)
There's something special about how limited media availability was back then. Made every track you could manage to get your hands on really special!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should have infrastructure for sharing things like this without putting a centralized entity like archive.org in the crosshairs. Bittorrent comes to mind, but it could only be part of the solution.
IPFS is perfect for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My memory is fuzzy on this but didn’t most consider Winamp 2.x the best. Winamp 3.x was considered bloated. So to help rectify the problems of 3.x, Winamp release version 5.x (the best of 2 + 3). Though I recall many still used version 2.x even after the 5.x release. Question: so when you say folks are trying to keep the "last version" alive, which version are you referring too since later versions weren’t loved.
Winamp 2 was generally preferred. If I recall correctly, it skipped version 4 not because v2 + v3 = v5 but because nobody would want to download a Winamp 4 skin. Not kidding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For context, here's the new revamped(!) Winamp coming up soon: https://www.winamp.com/ It's just... the complete opposite of what Winamp was all about, and it's horrible and leaves a bad taste in your mouth (-100 points for the atrocious "modern" website which loads MBs of Javascript, screams BIG TEXT at you, hijacks your scroll wheel, and still tells you nothing about the actual software other than it will probably…
Wow, that's a first. Clicking the URL hung Brave, completely unresponsive for 2-3 mins, now it's loaded but shows nothing but a dark blue background. Same for every refresh, too!
It really whips your browser's ass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Winamp 2 was generally preferred. If I recall correctly, it skipped version 4 not because v2 + v3 = v5 but because nobody would want to download a Winamp 4 skin. Not kidding.
You're both right! https://web.archive.org/web/20131219003849/http://www.winamp... > What happened to Winamp 4? You're not imagining things. Yes, we skipped a version number for the following reasons: a) Winamp 5 combines the best aspects of Winamp 2 and Winamp 3 into one player. Hence Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 = Winamp 5! b) Who the hell wants to see a Winamp 4 Skin :P c) We think that a Fibonacci sequence for versioning…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Winamp 2 was generally preferred. If I recall correctly, it skipped version 4 not because v2 + v3 = v5 but because nobody would want to download a Winamp 4 skin. Not kidding.
NB four and fore are sound the same in some accents
I nearly got a job with them back around 2001. At the time they were revamping their development group. I had written some plug-ins for Winamp so I familiar with the plug-in structure. It looks like the new lead developer wanted to rewrite everything. Using all kinds of object-oriented methodologies. The older code was all C based and very simple. I wasn’t fan of the new direction.
> The older code was all C based and very simple. I wasn’t fan of the new direction. Pretty sure the original author hung out in #winprog (EFnet IRC), I wasn't a great Windows programmer but I remember him showing off how he created the skinnable interface and everything. I also remember spending a half hour downloading a Rob Zombie MP3, using Winamp to play it, and wondering what the big deal was :)