Live data from Hacker News

Winamp 5.9

forums.winamp.com

101–110 of 132 posts

Re: Winamp 5.9

#101
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really an ahem apples to apples comparison? Depending on when we're talking, iTunes had many more built in features than Winamp...

I think you’ve got that backwards. iTunes had a fraction of the features Winamp did.

On the music player side yes, but it had a lot of features/bloat like the music store and iPod synchronization.

Re: Winamp 5.9

#103
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the crashes tend to be due to the parts re-used from 5.666. Also it's a preview build (aka public beta) so it can & will be unstable. As for what place it has, I'm going to still make it because I've very clearly been made unwelcome to remain as a "winamp" user plus I don't like where it's owners are taking it with all of the ntf related stuff & taking the piss out of the user base for so long. So if I want t…

Other than the crashing I'm quite pleased with it, the working upscaling is enough to replace winamp on my 4K machines You're saying its a reimplementation of part of Winamp? Cool, I thought you were splicing in new functionality to the existing binaries

I had been doing that much more early on along with replacing some of the plug-ins & dlls. After a point the reality dawned that I was replacing so much that I was on the road to making my own player. Also how things have gone with the owners I just don't want to be doing anything that uses their offerings

There's still some live patching / splicing needed for some of the plug-ins that are still re-used from 5.666 as part of the current beta builds along with WACUP having the ability to run minus EQ & modern skin without the winamp core exe. As there's a few things from that exe which the modern skin plug-in requires to work which I've yet to work out all of the interfaces to allow the plug-in to work. It's part of what's been holding up a new preview build as I just need to be as free from having to leverage bits from Winamp as possible.

-dro

Re: Winamp 5.9

#104
post #83

Is there some android "port" of winamp? I'm thinking more about the look and feel, and the support for the winamp2 skins

Well, Winamp 2 skins were basically just BMPs that were drawn directly onto the desktop. How would that work on Android? Would it show the player as a traditional window with microscopic buttons?

Re: Winamp 5.9

#105
post #4

When Winamp was popular Macs were <5% of the market. I hope they release a version for macos. I don't think the current developers own the IP to Macamp.

SoundJam MP owned the Mac side of the market back then. Until Apple bought it out and converted it into iTunes (which was surprisingly good the first few versions, back when it focused on ripping and playing back music and wasn't stuffed with stores, video content, multiple library management UIs, Podcasts, etc.).

I actually like the podcasts integration and I'm glad that on Windows iTunes hasn't (yet?) been split up the way it has been on Mac.

Not so much (with some little exceptions) for actual podcasts [1], but rather for managing my collection of various radio comedies – its handy being able to sync them over to my phone together with the rest of my music collection, but by manually setting their media type to "Podcast" [2] they don't clutter up my regular music library, I get the handy unlistened/listened visual indication, and it remembers the playback position in case I can't listen to an episode in one go [3].

[1] I was never that big a podcast listener, plus now that my mobile music player hardware has its own network connection (because it is in fact my phone) I can download episodes directly there without having to go via my computer.

[2] No longer possible on Mac in the post-iTunes age, and the successor Podcasts app apparently doesn't support manually adding files as episodes to it.

[3] Okay, so you can turn on remembering the playback position for any file in iTunes, i.e. even regular music files, but that doesn't work with my Android phone.

Re: Winamp 5.9

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I'm honestly not quite sure what kind of supercomputer would be needed to have Teams not lag. I'm kind of OK with having to wait around for a compile or other heavy "modern workload" (though I must say I don't do this all day every day). But it drives me absolutely crazy to have basic software lag when I type. This absolutely kills the experience for me.

If you just need the chats, its actually lighter and faster in MS Edge than in the app Ive found. They are using some newer Edge shit in the web thats not yet ported to the app.

Hmm, I just launched it on Edge and it does seem a lot faster than the desktop application. Hoping performance improvements are coming sooner rather than later.

Re: Winamp 5.9

#107
Does anybody know whether any of these new versions has fixed the bug whereby gapless playback didn't use to work for AAC (m4a)-files?

I know it's been fixed in one of the WACUP builds, but last time I tried I would have had to manually migrate my Winamp settings, which seemed to much of a bother given that I mostly use Winamp just for playing back one-off music files, so the partial lack of gapless playback is only slightly annoying.

Re: Winamp 5.9

#108
post #4

When Winamp was popular Macs were <5% of the market. I hope they release a version for macos. I don't think the current developers own the IP to Macamp.

Today, the mac market share is Source: https://www.geekwire.com/2021/chromebooks-outsold-macs-world...

Yeah but its even higher in the US, 15% now[0]. Globally, 2000s MacOS global share wasn't even 2%.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-qua...

Re: Winamp 5.9

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I'm honestly not quite sure what kind of supercomputer would be needed to have Teams not lag. I'm kind of OK with having to wait around for a compile or other heavy "modern workload" (though I must say I don't do this all day every day). But it drives me absolutely crazy to have basic software lag when I type. This absolutely kills the experience for me.

If you just need the chats, its actually lighter and faster in MS Edge than in the app Ive found. They are using some newer Edge shit in the web thats not yet ported to the app.

Does it support basic video calls in edge?

I don't use Windows all that often, and I've found that Outlook is much less annoying in a browser (even Firefox!) than the app. It feels less laggy.

Post reply on HN