Re: CHAT: Winamp versions (was Re: OT: Russian in ASCII?)
|From:||Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, January 3, 2004, 8:50|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:42:04 -0700, Muke Tever <hotblack@...> wrote:
> > Winamp 3 allows Unicode character input. Winamp 2 and Winamp 5 dont :(
> Just what exactly is the deal with Winamp version numbers? I know that 2
> lived a long time, and then they launched the horrific embolism of a
> program called 3, while continuing to maintain and update 2 (thank The
> Maker). Then, with narry a 4, out comes 5, and both 2 and 3 disappear
> without so much as a "How d'ye do?"
> 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
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.
> 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