winamp 2-3-5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

viveleroi0 · 09-05-2003, 11:04 AM

I currently have a seperate network computer with 20 gigs of music etc. I have a playlist that randomly plays the songs like a radio.

I use winamp 3. I've heard a lot from techies that winamp 2 is better, but they never detail as to why?

Does anyone know what is better?

Plus there is a winamp 5 alpha available... is that worth looking into?

SiN · 09-05-2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by viveleroi0

I use winamp 3. I've heard a lot from techies that winamp 2 is better, but they never detail as to why?

bloat.

and a bunch of other random annoyances i've heard people complain of.

as far as 5 alpha goes..dunno. heard of it, but i don't do alpha's so i've not paid much attention.

my 2¢ - stick with 2.x for now, see what happens with 5.

GreasyP · 09-05-2003, 03:34 PM

Winamp 3 got really bloated. It uses more memory, more CPU, it takes longer to load. If you use the new features, use 3, otherwise there's no reason not to trim the fat and use 2 instead.

Halx · 09-05-2003, 03:40 PM

also the playlist dragging and arranging is so much easier in 2 for some reason

Lebell · 09-05-2003, 03:48 PM

I had Winamp 3 for awhile and just got so annoyed with it, I went back to 2.9.2.

As stated, it was bloated and to me, seemed more unstable than 2.

mrcraptastic · 09-05-2003, 06:02 PM

i'd have to say the only thing i liked about winamp 3 is the queueing option when you rightclick a song.. i'd queue up a few songs i wanted to hear - much quicker than dragging them all together or anything.. i'll have to look, maybe there's a plug-in for winamp2 that does the same.. but yeah, too bloated, too many little glitches that pissed me off.. also had a real hard time getting it to work with my itouch software, but winamp 2 is working great with it.

Mondak · 09-06-2003, 07:48 AM

to add to what has already been said, Winamp 3 took up LOTS of memory and processor time. I just noticed by process of elimination. I like to listen to songs and stuff while I work. It got really difficult to do ANYTHING and use winamp 3 at the same time. Despite my 1.7ghz, 512 of RAM and a decent ssound card, I found it intolerable.

09-05-2003, 11:04 AM	#1 (permalink)
viveleroi0 Psycho Location: Oregon	winamp 2-3-5 I currently have a seperate network computer with 20 gigs of music etc. I have a playlist that randomly plays the songs like a radio. I use winamp 3. I've heard a lot from techies that winamp 2 is better, but they never detail as to why? Does anyone know what is better? Plus there is a winamp 5 alpha available... is that worth looking into? __________________ "It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't care" - Homer Simpson

09-05-2003, 03:34 PM	#3 (permalink)
GreasyP Crazy Location: Salt Lake City	Winamp 3 got really bloated. It uses more memory, more CPU, it takes longer to load. If you use the new features, use 3, otherwise there's no reason not to trim the fat and use 2 instead. __________________ ---<>---^^---<>---^^---<>--- ---^^---<>---^^---<>---^^--- ---<>---^^---<>---^^---><---

09-05-2003, 03:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	also the playlist dragging and arranging is so much easier in 2 for some reason __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

09-05-2003, 03:48 PM	#5 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I had Winamp 3 for awhile and just got so annoyed with it, I went back to 2.9.2. As stated, it was bloated and to me, seemed more unstable than 2. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-06-2003, 07:48 AM	#7 (permalink)
Mondak Industrialist Location: Southern California	to add to what has already been said, Winamp 3 took up LOTS of memory and processor time. I just noticed by process of elimination. I like to listen to songs and stuff while I work. It got really difficult to do ANYTHING and use winamp 3 at the same time. Despite my 1.7ghz, 512 of RAM and a decent ssound card, I found it intolerable. __________________ All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed Second, it is violently opposed and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

09-05-2003, 06:02 PM	#6 (permalink)
mrcraptastic Tilted	i'd have to say the only thing i liked about winamp 3 is the queueing option when you rightclick a song.. i'd queue up a few songs i wanted to hear - much quicker than dragging them all together or anything.. i'll have to look, maybe there's a plug-in for winamp2 that does the same.. but yeah, too bloated, too many little glitches that pissed me off.. also had a real hard time getting it to work with my itouch software, but winamp 2 is working great with it.