Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Winamp source code leak

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 338 posts

Re: Winamp source code leak

#71

Post by geocrasher »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #61
geocrasher wrote: post #49

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.

After years of listening to Adlib MIDI soundtracks on the computer, I was absolutely blown away to be hearing “Yesterday” by the Beatles coming out of the speakers. I played that tiny little file (not a whole CD!) countless times on repeat. Just unbelievable that such a thing could be coming from a tiny (relatively) little file.

Yes, I remember feeling that awe as well. For giggles, I just went to YouTube and listened to "Higher" again, and man... that really took me back. Haven't listened to it in years. Still one of my favorite heavy metal songs of all time.

I also remember being so thrilled to be able to store several MP3's on my 64mb Sharp Zaurus SL-5600.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#72

Post by ConceptJunkie »

nebula8804 wrote: post #64
spicybright wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I guess we are replicating this today with vinyl.

Some people are. Probably not folks who actually came up in the age of vinyl. The only plans I ever have for using my turntable again is to digitize some obscure stuff that I'll probably never find on more modern media.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#73

Post by sli »

cyber_kinetist wrote: post #35
firekvz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The browser on my pixel 6 crashed, haven't seen a site lag a phone for like 2 years

Yeah, the site also freezes my Firefox for 5 seconds, and this is from a gaming PC. Absolutely horrendous... How hard you would actually have to try to make a website as horrible as this, this thing is just a meme.

For all that lag, I was expecting a lot more than some simple animations. And that scrolljacking is by far the worst I've ever experienced. I have to scroll three times to switch to the next section. Can't even manually drag the little scrollspy thing. Atrocious.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#74

Post by Svperstar »

zerr wrote: post #52
5040 wrote: post #27

Winamp was still my music player of choice until a little over a year ago when I finally made the switch to MusicBee.

What are the reasons to switch from Winamp to something else?

I also switched to MusicBee. It has a very modern UI that "just works" as they say. Everything included out of the box no need to bother with plugins for me.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#75

Post by thedoctor_o »

0des wrote: post #39
caddywompus wrote: post #12

Interestingly enough, there has been a community project dedicated to keeping the last Winamp version alive (last version from the original creators), and it really great to use. https://getwacup.com/ It includes a skin that allows it to work on modern display resolutions. It's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor. Edi…

Somewhat worrying that I can't seem to find the source code for WACUP listed anywhere, checked their website, discord, and github. I'd feel a lot better about using it if I could see the source code. Currently using Audacious with a Winamp Classic skin.

Then don't use it if you only want to use 100% OSS.

I'm making something that I want to use (essentially a compatible implementation for my plug-ins to run under) & if it's of use to others then that's a bonus.

At no point has WACUP claimed to be 100% OSS nor should I be expected to do that when I'm the only one working on my Winamp reimplementation. Aspects that need to be done that way are done so accordingly.

-dro

Re: Winamp source code leak

#76

Post by ziml77 »

totetsu wrote: post #54
0des wrote: post #23

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

Thank you. This is what it took for me to realize why version 4 might be an issue. If I just saw "4 skin" I certainly would have gotten it. Somehow adding Winamp in front made it hard for me to interpret it the alternative way.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#77

Post by eitland »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #43
kingsloi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

This is my pet peeve. Browsers should not allow any websites to hijack all computing cycles. This was already clear a few years ago during the Monero hype. The fact that most adblockers will detect such attempts today doesn't change the fact that any website can almost prevent you from doing other work just because you opened it. The current strategy of dealing with this problem ("this tab has become unresponsive") i…

There is another thread going on about bringing back web 1, but here is something I have been advocating for a while, make 2 different new web profiles, along the lines of:

1.) A subset of modern HTML / CSS, custom Javascript. Remove anything that isn't needed and especially anything that affects rendering negatively for no good reason.

1.1.) Possibly: Provide versioned, vendor neutral versions of js to allow for autocomplete.

2.) Same as 1, but with custom JS. All js must complete in a specified number of cycles. User interaction gives extra cycles.

The point of 1 is to:

- for companies: massively lower the barriers for new browsers (remove lots of backwards compatibility and the huge problem of JS)

- for security conscious users: provide a safer way to browse the web

- for users generally: provide a way to browse the web faster and more comfortably

- the point of 2.) is to provide an approximation of what we have today but in a way that automatically limits developers from abusing JS.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#78

Post by ale42 »

Sosh101 wrote: post #6
opless wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not check 'code -> download zip' ?

Doesn't work

Just worked for me after the redirection, but it's super slow. Still downloading, I am at 210 MB, at a rate of around 190 kB/s... Direct ZIP download link = https://web.archive.org/web/20210418214109if_/https://codelo...

Re: Winamp source code leak

#79

Post by [deleted] »

ConceptJunkie wrote: post #68
lelandfe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So I can't imagine that the clowns that made that awful new Winamp site would be cool enough to call the new one Winamp 8. Or release a version that anyone actually wants, for that matter.

[deleted]

Re: Winamp source code leak

#80

Post by thedoctor_o »

ConceptJunkie wrote: post #68
lelandfe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So I can't imagine that the clowns that made that awful new Winamp site would be cool enough to call the new one Winamp 8. Or release a version that anyone actually wants, for that matter.

Supposedly they're still going to call it Winamp v6 assuming it happens. They've lied a number of times over the past 8yrs so don't hold your breathe but the new site is somewhat indicative of their disregard about why those still using Winamp (or clones of it) do so.

-dro

Post reply on HN