CHAT: Winamp versions
|Date:||Saturday, January 3, 2004, 9:38|
Some people said:
> > So, is 5 a follow-on from 2, or from 3, or what? I've been incredibly
> > unwilling to upgrade from 2 until I know whether I'm better off not
> > bothering.
> Winamp 5 contains aspects of Winamp 2 and Winamp3. 2 + 3 = 5. Also, Winamp
> 4 would've implied a progression of Winamp 2, Winamp3, Winamp 4, whereas
> it's more like Winamp 2, Winamp 5 (and Winamp3, Winamp 5), IIUC.
Basically, yes. To sum up: I highly recommend upgrading.
Geek talk: Winamp 2 rocked the house. It was fairly powerful, and very
widespread. It was a great goodness. However, the developers weren't
completely satisfied; there were a lot of things Winamp 2 couldn't do. So
they created Winamp 3. Winamp 3 was horrid, and most people hated it. But
they did have a couple cool features. The best one (IMNSHO) was the
ubercoolnew skin ability. As I recall, they also integrated the Media
Library, but don't quote me there. But, as I said, Winamp 3 was not much
liked, and they still developed Winamp 2.
Then they came out with Winamp 5. Basically, they took Winamp 2 and added
all the cool stuff of Winamp 3. 2+3=5, as has been noted. I myself was
doubtful, until I took it for a spin. It operates almost exactly like Winamp
2.9x, except the skinning engine is muchly improved. As well, the Media
Library operates almost seemlessly, and is ubernifty. Theoretically, it can
play video, but I haven't messed with that. They also have a universal
hotkeys plugin native (instead of having to download one), which basically
means you can control Winamp by your keyboard from anywhere in Windows,
without having to be focused on winamp. And they left in one of my favorite
features: the ability to "stop playback after current song".
So yes. I highly recommend 5. My only complaint is that it lags a bit,
skin-wise, if I've been doing a whole lot. However, I'm using a Winamp 3
skin ("Modern" skin, they call it). And since I do most of my control by the
keyboard, it doesn't bother me much.
> > Any opinions/advice?
> Switch to a Unix and run Rhythmbox. :P (I switched to Linux on a
> more-or-less complete basis around the time that Winamp3's first versions
> were released I think. I have no idea what's happened in the Winamp world
> since then. Rhythmbox is iTunes-inspired (except that unlike iTunes, it
> isn't based on Aqua [MacOS X's UI], and therefore is capable of looking
> something other than garish); my previous media player, XMMS, is Winamp
Or switch to a Linux (which is not a Unix, but they are both POSIX-compliant
systems...). However, I liked XMMS when I used it, but I was a long-time
Winamp 2 junkie.
And how dare you insult iTunes! It's pretty! </rabid flamebait>
Sorry, I just can't help but geek out from time to time. :)