Re: CHAT: Winamp versions

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Axiem wrote:

> without having to be focused on winamp. And they left in one of my favorite
> features: the ability to "stop playback after current song".
I personally prefer XMMS's 'No playlist advance' (which is a toggle). It's
about the only thing I'm missing from Rhythmbox that I'd like.

> 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
> > 2--inspired.)</flamebait>
>
> Or switch to a Linux (which is not a Unix, but they are both POSIX-compliant
> systems...).
And so are recent versions of Windows. Linux (nor the BSDs IIUC) isn't a
UNIX(tm) but it is a unix. Or, perhaps, GNU/Linuces are unices if you're
that-way inclined. I'll admit I probably shouldn't've used a capital U
though :)

> 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>
I wasn't insulting iTunes, I was insulting Aqua. One hideous use of
pixels, though it still manages to be a damn sight better than WinXP's
default. (I will admit that OS X 10.3 is better than previous versions,
but that's not hard.)


--
Tristan