Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

188 comments

Here's hoping... (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 6 months ago | (#45959661)

Here's hoping they start by PROPERLY supporting FLAC, including 24/192 media.

The plugins currently available flat out do not work. And I hate using VLC for music.

Re:Here's hoping... (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#45959727)

I have no problem with VLC for music, but Winamp has been a favorite for years.

Yeah, its old and funky, and that's exactly why I like it.

Re:Here's hoping... (1, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45959877)

I have no problem with VLC for music

Does VLC play MOD, S3M, XM, IT, or other tracked formats? Does VLC play NSF, SGC, GBS, VGM, SPC, PSF, USF, PSF2, GSF, 2SF, or any other video game console-oriented formats? All of the above have Winamp input plug-ins.

Re:Here's hoping... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45959971)

You might notice he said "I have no problem". That does not mean it works for everyone else. all of your listed formats are rather obsure, and most people would have no need for a player supporting them. Why do people always have to put down what works for someone else just because it does not support what they want?

Value of a plug-in architecture (2)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45960119)

Different users have different needs. If one person wants obscure format A, and another person wants obscure format B, and a third person wants obscure format C, then the most efficient way to handle the different needs is to make a player with an input plug-in architecture. Or are you claiming that "most people would have no need for a player supporting" any obscure format?

Re:Value of a plug-in architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960253)

You mention yourself that Winamp supports all these formats. So you are covered. I am not saying nobody should support obscure formats, or that nobody needs them. What i said was that to icebike vlc works fine, How does your need for support for these formats change anything about that? You come off sounding like you are mad at other people for using something that works for them, just because it might not work for you - It is not like VLC is the only option (infact you mention a working option for you in you rather pointless complaint)

I fully agree a good plug-in architecture is great. But its also irrelevant to icebike's point

It's about lock-in (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45960387)

I too use VLC to watch video, but I use Winamp when playing or converting obscure audio formats. Until this purchase, it appeared that the capability to do the latter was about to disappear. So as of the article, I admit that my complaint is no longer quite as much of a complaint.

Anyway, if someone is about to lock himself into a particular tool, then he should choose a tool with room to grow. For example, if someone wants to play one obscure codec, he's likely to want to play other obscure codecs, which means a player with a means to add input plug-ins. Likewise, in computing, choosing an iPad or Surface tablet as your only computing device locks you into the applications that the tablet's maker approves of, making it more expensive once your needs grow to encompass something for which there is no iPad or Windows RT app.

Re:It's about lock-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960473)

I never disagreed with you on any of your technical points, what I took offense to was that you brought up a completely useless point in your reply to icebike. VLC works for him, that was all he said, you then asked him about the support of of formats he dont have any need for (or if he does, they are already covered). What you should have done is start your own thread with your complaints/gripes about players.

And it would not say choice of music player is a lock-in, the lock-in happens at the choice of format(s). theres simply too many alternative players (even if many are crap, they can still play various formats). so as long as you stick to common (open) file formats, the tool is irrelevant as you can simply pick a new player. Just like picking ascii .txt for your notes give you plenty of choice in editors compared to MS Word .doc.

Re:It's about lock-in (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45960697)

What you should have done is start your own thread

Starting a new thread means that few will even see it, especially with the changes to how "Get More Comments" works in mobile and beta.

the lock-in happens at the choice of format(s). [...] so as long as you stick to common (open) file formats, the tool is irrelevant as you can simply pick a new player.

Take chiptunes for example. It's not uncommon for an album to take 30 KiB in one format (which is publicly documented and unpatented, so anyone can write a player for any open platform) and 30 MiB in a more common format (render to wav and compress to m4a or ogg). In this case, the more common format requires much more storage space to store and much more Internet bandwidth to stream, especially in places where ISPs impose data caps.

Re:It's about lock-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960801)

What you should have done is start your own thread

Starting a new thread means that few will even see it, especially with the changes to how "Get More Comments" works in mobile and beta.

That is a really bad excuse for being offtopic. waah waah - not enough people wil see me if I dont break the social rules.

the lock-in happens at the choice of format(s). [...] so as long as you stick to common (open) file formats, the tool is irrelevant as you can simply pick a new player.

Take chiptunes for example. It's not uncommon for an album to take 30 KiB in one format (which is publicly documented and unpatented, so anyone can write a player for any open platform) and 30 MiB in a more common format (render to wav and compress to m4a or ogg). In this case, the more common format requires much more storage space to store and much more Internet bandwidth to stream, especially in places where ISPs impose data caps.

Again an irrelevant issue to the thread.

But _you_ do not have to pick the format(s) I like. All formats carry postive and negative sides, size and player availabillity being just two. But you still got "locked in" when you choose chiptunes (and anyone choosing mp3 or ogg also locks themself in) esp. if you will not accept re-encoding to another format.

But none of this have anything to do with icebike's comment that VLC works for him. And bringing up yet another unrelated (even if valid) issue will not change that.

Re:It's about lock-in (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961421)

I too use VLC to watch video, but I use Winamp when playing or converting obscure audio formats. Until this purchase, it appeared that the capability to do the latter was about to disappear.

Why do you believe you were about to lose the ability to play or convert the other formats? The Winamp 5.666 installer doesn't require a connection to a mothership in order to run, nor does the Winamp executable.

There's a lesson in there for kids brought up on the app/ecosystem business model. Once upon a time, if you downloaded software, it was yours to keep regardless of what happened to the company that wrote it, which is yet another reason why Winamp still really whips the llama's ass.

Re:VLC media player not an OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960793)

It supports real world formats!

Re:Value of a plug-in architecture (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 6 months ago | (#45960841)

Different users have different needs. If one person wants obscure format A, and another person wants obscure format B, and a third person wants obscure format C, then the most efficient way to handle the different needs is to make a player with an input plug-in architecture. Or are you claiming that "most people would have no need for a player supporting" any obscure format?

True, but I'd hardly call FLAC obscure.

Re:Value of a plug-in architecture (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 6 months ago | (#45961027)

OTOH, one of the nice things about VLC is the lack of plugins. At least I've never had to hunt them down. I'm not sure some of the older avi codecs can even be installed (if you can even find them) on modern Windows.

Re:Value of a plug-in architecture (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961531)

OTOH, one of the nice things about VLC is the lack of plugins. At least I've never had to hunt them down. I'm not sure some of the older avi codecs can even be installed (if you can even find them) on modern Windows.

Warning: found some ancient hand-scribbled notes and I've had a few beers.

Finding at least one requires digging it out of an old Win9x system. Others are basically a matter of realizing that Win7 32-bit looks here in the registry for 'em (HKLM\software\microsoft\windows nt\currentversion\drivers32) but if you run 64-bit, you need to register the 32-bit drivers in (HKLM\software\wow6432node\microsoft\windows nt\currentversion\drivers32) and copy the appropriate DLLs into \windows\SysWOW64 so Windows-on-Windows can find them.

# This reg file, if this is the syntax for a reg file:
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[hkey_local_machine\software\wow6432node\microsoft\windows nt\currentversion\drivers32]
"vidc.iv31"="ir32_32.dll"
"vidc.iv32"="ir32_32.dll"
"vidc.iv41"="ir41_32.ax"
"vidc.iv50"="ir50_32.dll"
"vidc.i263"="i263_32.drv"
"msacm.imc"="imc32.acm"

So now you've got an ir32_32, ir41_32, ir50_32 and others in SysWOW64, but they didn't get registered.

These work and cover the IV50 and IV41 codecs:
regsvr32 c:\windows\syswow64\ir50_32.dll
regsvr32 c:\windows\syswow64\ir41_32.ax

This doesnt work, but for some weird reason I was able to play an IV32 video, so I said screw it, I don't need to know why it works even though registering the DLL doesn't:
regsvr32 c:\windows\syswow64\ir32_32.dll

To get Intel Music Coder working, I dug out IMC32.ACM from a Win9x image, copied it into SysWOW64, and added an "msacm.imc"="imc32.acm" string value to the drivers32 keys in the above-cut-and-pasted .reg file.

I don't think I went far enough back to dig out CVID or some of the older variants of *.RM RealVideo crap. But that might get you on your way, assuming you still have some ancient AVIs floating around with which to test. Good luck, you'll probably need it!

Re:Value of a plug-in architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961351)

Different users have different needs.

Congratulations; he just said that.

Re:Value of a plug-in architecture (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961461)

I am the "he" (surprisingly you got my gender right :-). And most of his answers seem to be rather unrelated to the posts he reply to for some reason. Every new followup adds a new unrelated point (at least in this thread) So I think we should at least acknowledge that he kept this one answer on topic of the post he replied to :-)

(and im likely out of AC posts now so I wont be able to continue. but thats life (or lack of life))

Re:Value of a plug-in architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961559)

"most people would have no need for a player supporting" any obscure format?

I actually think so yes. the wast majority of users only need a handfull of popular formats. Rarely if ever would they need to play obcsure formats.
Your formats are in the minority - and almost nobody (compared to the number of computer users) needs to play them, those who do will likely also be able to find dedicated players - or players with plug-in support for the formats) They are called obscure for a reason - and that has nothing to do with their actual merrit, but simply that most people do not use them.

Re:Here's hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45959997)

The first list - definitely yes, I have listened to some old electronic music in those formats myself using VLC. The second list I don't know about.

Re:Here's hoping... (2)

rwa2 (4391) | about 6 months ago | (#45960215)

But it feels so, so wrong to listen to mod / xm / it files without a FastTracker or at least openCubicPlayer -like interface to visualize the individual channels :P

Even nectarine [scenemusic.net] streams their demoscene music in aac/mp3/ogg format :P

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

donaldm (919619) | about 6 months ago | (#45960237)

I have no problem with VLC for music

Does VLC play MOD, S3M, XM, IT, or other tracked formats? Does VLC play NSF, SGC, GBS, VGM, SPC, PSF, USF, PSF2, GSF, 2SF, or any other video game console-oriented formats? All of the above have Winamp input plug-ins.

You do know you can convert those formats to ones that VLC supports although why you would want a video player to play music is beyond me. A good search engine is your friend here :)

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45960251)

You do know you can convert those formats to ones that VLC supports

At an often severe cost in file size, I've found. And doing so often requires using Winamp anyway in disk writer mode, as the reference player is a Winamp input plug-in.

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

trytoguess (875793) | about 6 months ago | (#45960901)

For a reason I can't fathom VLC actually can play a fair amount of old video game music files. Surprised me when I learned about it. https://wiki.videolan.org/Gme/ [videolan.org] But yea, it doesn't cover all the file types you listed.

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | about 6 months ago | (#45961261)

You do know that the complete works of Purple Motion are available in other formats [valtone.com] , right? If you have that, you don't need S3M support.

(What's a Skaven?)

Re:Here's hoping... (2)

Sigma 7 (266129) | about 6 months ago | (#45961441)

Does VLC play MOD, S3M, XM, IT, or other tracked formats?

If you want to rate VLC on which obscure music tracks it can support, you should include .MIDI in the list. You have to download a soundfont to play those files, which is no different than downloading a plugin to play the other tracker formats.

VLC plays the tracker formats, but not Midi. This may have changed since 2.0.8 with some FAQ claiming that nobody listens to tracker formats anymore.

Still, using a video player to listen to music is using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961869)

>

Still, using a video player to listen to music is using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

I do not see why? if someone is using a certain video player for their videos and it also plays their sound files - why not use that? Theres something to be said for only learning to use one program to do different several things - assuming it does it well.

I can see the issue if the video player is dogslow or huge in memory (esp. if you are on a mobile device) but wihout checking on it, pulling this out of my ass, id say that video players and music players are pretty much the same beasts in that regard (unless you pick a dedicated player for a few formats)

Really, for the most part, these players are "multimedia"-players and does video and sound equally well.

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

game kid (805301) | about 6 months ago | (#45959977)

I liked Winamp because it looped audio (when playing a single track on repeat, of course, and if the file was made to loop in the first place) quite nicely (even certain mp3s, I think...this was back in my old ytmnd days so I may just be lying entirely; I know WAVs looped like a charm). Neither VLC nor Windows Media Player really bother to try to loop.* Also for playing around with the various visualizers (AVS, Milkdrop and such).

Granted, I actually got into the player pretty late, and some prefer the older versions for various reasons (less bloat, not AOL, the old skin, etcetcetc). But I liked it and its little about box 3D credits thinger [youtube.com] .

*Sometimes I could actually hear the audio loop back for juuuuust so long in WiMP, but then the audio cuts to zero for about as long and the file starts over for real. :/

Re:Here's hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960609)

XMPlay loops perfectly and is both smaller and faster than Winamp. Give it a try. (On mobile, so no link handy)

Re:Here's hoping... (3, Interesting)

rwa2 (4391) | about 6 months ago | (#45960183)

I have no problem with VLC for music, but Winamp has been a favorite for years.

Yeah, its old and funky, and that's exactly why I like it.

Same here... Actually Winamp is my favourite player for Android and probably the only Android app I've plopped somewhat serious money for (including the lyric and album-art download plugin)

Though if you like VLC for music, check out http://www.clementine-player.org/ [clementine-player.org] , which is cross platform, still uses VLC code for the backend, and adds a pretty nice frontend interface with crossfading between tracks and streams. My only complaint is that the interface doesn't shrink down to as small as Winamp / Audacious can.

Re:Here's hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961401)

WinAmp helps fill a gap on Android. I've found that one of the biggest weaknesses is music management. Even clunky old iTunes does this well, allowing one to sync with a machine to see how many times a song was played, move stuff not worth listening too off, etc. I've yet to find anything decent for mass music copying for Android. DoubleTwist works spotty at best (works well with some devices, not well on others.)

If I just wanted to download/stream similar to iCloud Music, things get easier due to Amazon's offering. However, managing one's music collection other than just streaming is pretty much completely impossible on Android. Good luck maintaining a library and restoring it if one moves phones.

Re:Here's hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45959871)

try foobar.

Re:Here's hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45959915)

Use foobar 2000 for music...

Re:Here's hoping... (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 6 months ago | (#45960097)

That's funny, I just played a flac with winamp an hour ago.

Re:Here's hoping... (3, Informative)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 6 months ago | (#45960223)

My version is using the Nullsoft FLAC Decoder v3.03 and I haven't had any trouble with playing FLAC either. Maybe GP will elaborate...

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 6 months ago | (#45961651)

The plugin plays 16/44.1 FLAC just fine, but it chokes on 24/192.

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

n3r0.m4dski11z (447312) | about 6 months ago | (#45961899)

My version is using the Nullsoft FLAC Decoder v3.03 and I haven't had any trouble with playing FLAC either. Maybe GP will elaborate...

I'm sure it just doesnt have enough harmonic waveletude or cool-toned intangible warbles, so he deemed it inferior.

Back on topic, the only thing to hope for is that they don't fuck up a perfect product

Re:Here's hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960169)

If you're on Windows, you use Foobar2000 if you want the "modern" equivalent of Winamp. It has FLAC support.

Re:Here's hoping... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960239)

Foobar2000.

I used to use winamp for years before I switched to foobar2000, plays flac 24bit 192Khz out of the box no problem (I just confirmed this by googling for a test file to try). It has a wealth of plugins, although maybe not quite as much as winamp; you may still need to keep winamp handy for obscure formats. Very little bloat, just to compare the latest version of each (windows install executable), winamp - 16.4MB, foobar - 3.6MB. It's not pretty like winamp, its just functional.

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960335)

The interface for VLC is pretty terrible. That's the reason I use WinAmp: It's very easy to use, on top of supporting just about anything I want to play.

Re:Here's hoping... (2)

Benski (12045) | about 6 months ago | (#45960477)

Winamp supports FLAC out of the box, and has for about 6 years now. Perhaps you have an outdated version.

Re:Here's hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960753)

It's a regularly occuring issue I've seen when it comes to complaints about software - a LOT of people complain about some software, saying that it doesn't support a particular feature set, when it turns out that it DOES support said feature set and the user just hadn't bothered to try the latest version, and assumed nothing had improved from the version they tried several years ago.

Heck I still see people complain about VLC's lack of 10-bit decoding which is popular for Anime... despite the fact VLC's had 10-bit support for about 2 years now and users prefer to work on outdated knowledge rather than actually waste 10 seconds downloading and installing something. Fuckers, every single last one of them.

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about 6 months ago | (#45960561)

This [winamp.com] FLAC plugin works for me with Winamp 5.24 (admittedly an old release), though I can't vouch for 24/192 files.

Re:Here's hoping... (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 6 months ago | (#45961677)

The plugins work for 16/44.1 media, but not 24/192.

Re:Here's hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961689)

Foobar. WinAmp sound quality is and has been garbage.

What about the Llama (5, Funny)

Chad Smith (3448823) | about 6 months ago | (#45959675)

Does the 12% include the Llama Ass?

Winamp (0)

pcwhalen (230935) | about 6 months ago | (#45959967)

It really whips the llama's ass.

Oh wait. Too late for this comment.

And too late to make any money off Winamp. Is Napster next? Let it die.

Re:Winamp (1)

davidhoude (1868300) | about 6 months ago | (#45961139)

It seems like AOL did let it die. I am glad someone is picking this up, too much history to go the way of the dodo

A music player app in 2014? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45959779)

Some OCD people will care since their music has to sound just right

99.9999% will just listen with their iPhone or galaxy phone

There's nothing that makes winamp great or unique (5, Insightful)

t0qer (230538) | about 6 months ago | (#45959855)

I hang out with the old nullsoft guys in IRC. General consensus for most of them is "We've moved on" The other concensus is, "There are so many good media players these days"

There was a time when Winamp mattered. There was no decent media players (in some regards, it was a new concept) Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed.

Funny that they mention Songbird today. One Nullsofter went there after the AOL buyout. He's now at google.

As far as Frankel, he started working on a DAW called Reaper. It's a swiss army knife for audio.

Re:There's nothing that makes winamp great or uniq (1, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 6 months ago | (#45960035)

There was no decent media players (in some regards, it was a new concept) Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed.

It's funny that you mention those. In a way, we've come full circle. I get the feeling that most people don't really care about whether or not they can skin their music player anymore (the more out of the way it is, the better.. it's something for the background, not to show off to friends), nevermind visualizations (I don't see much demand for visualizations for Pandora on any of the platforms that have a Pandora app). Maybe that still sees some use with some (self-proclaimed) DJs, but I can't say I've seen it used in a very long time. Plugins are similarly dying a slow death. Think of video players.. how many have plugins to support some manner of format? Most of them either read them out of the box (think VLC) or rely on a 'codec pack' (with FFDShow or LAV) being installed to read everything.. and let practically any other media player read them as well.

Codec pack == input plug-ins (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45960153)

Plugins are similarly dying a slow death. Think of video players.. how many have plugins to support some manner of format? Most of them either read them out of the box (think VLC) or rely on a 'codec pack' (with FFDShow or LAV) being installed

What do you think the "codec pack" is? As I understand it, a codec pack is just a curated set of input plug-ins.

Re:There's nothing that makes winamp great or uniq (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about 6 months ago | (#45960057)

"There was a time when Winamp mattered. There was no decent media players (in some regards, it was a new concept) Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed."

That's not quite true. Amiga and Atari at least had media players that worked quite well, and supported plugins etc, before WinAMP even existed. What made WinAMP hit its stride was the fact that Win95 came out, sound cards had become standard on PC's, and MP3 hit the scene in the same timeframe. And for Windows, WinAMP was the first player that supported MP3 to gain attention.

In many ways, WinAMP took a lot of inspiration from the Amiga players, such as HippoPlayer.

Sonique! (0)

Cattrance (1537577) | about 6 months ago | (#45960257)

Why does no-one ever remember Sonique? How I loved that player that I could never close because it always crashed when I did...

I do hope that Radionomy don't murder Winamp but keep the winamp dream alive. Nonetheless, the old files will always remain somewhere

Re:Sonique! (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 6 months ago | (#45960543)

Sonique had very nifty scaling skins, I don't know why it did so poorly

Re:Sonique! (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 6 months ago | (#45960613)

I loved that player, too. In fact, you sparked a moment of nostalgia. If you have one as well, download here: http://www.glop.org/sonique/ [glop.org]

It still works, even on Windows 8 x64. Now I will say that it doesn't work WELL...and by that, I mean that you have to run the installer in compatibility mode for Win95, and batch-adding songs into a playlist is an excercise in patience. Also, the default visualization plug-ins don't look so hot on modern displays since they don't scale much past 640x480 I don't think...but they get stupid fast framerates. All of that said, I'm pleasantly surprised that a program designed to work on Windows 95 was coded sufficiently well to still work on Windows 8; there are relatively few that do.

As for why it did poorly (answering one of the other responses), I think that my nostalgia trip answers that, too: The program was originally designed in an era where a 200MHz processor and 32MB of RAM was a generous complement of hardware. The program, on a 3.2GHz Core i7 with 12GB of RAM *still* took nearly ten seconds to start. You don't win people's hearts when a music player takes as much time to load as Photoshop, especially when Winamp was able to be up and running in 3 seconds or less on similar hardware.

I was, however, a huge fan of Lightmagick and a few other plug-ins, and the skin gallery was most definitely the DeviantArt of its day, much more so than Winamp, whose skin library during the 2.x days was much more formulaic.

Re:Sonique! (1)

Cattrance (1537577) | about 6 months ago | (#45961087)

I hear you, whenever I think about Sonique I always go on a nostalgia trip. Wow, impressive that it on 8, however, I did run it on XP for a long time without having to run it in compatibility mode. I suspect it worked on 7 too, but I can't remember if I attempted to use it on 7.

I think a nice new re-make of the skin would look great, I always liked how it just looked different, almost like a funny little console on your screen (keeping in mind I was pretty young at that time).

Yes it was astronomically slow, it made up for this with great playlist management and good looks and it never demanded to "import a library". I largely got around it by never re-starting my computer and leaving it in standby, that way I never had to open again. On the other hand, for me Winamp wasn't exactly the epitome of speed

The monster that was Sonique 2 probably killed it off though.

Re:Sonique! (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#45961147)

I used Sonique briefly when it first came out. This was in the ICQ chat service days too IIRC.

I switched back to winamp fairly quickly usually. I didn't stop using winamp until i got a mac & ipod.

Re:There's nothing that makes winamp great or uniq (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960937)

Actually there were several MP3 players for windows prior to winamp, but most of them used a LOT of CPU cycles. Winamp was like 5-10% on my pentium 100 and it supported mmx & amd's extension (i forget now.. on the k6-2 anyway) that brought CPU usage down to practically 0 on a 300Mhz processor. I ran it because it had little impact.

The early MP3 players would consume all CPU on a 486 33Mhz and that wasn't even at full quality (stereo, 44000, 128Kbps)

winamp was also one of the first 32bit mp3 players.

Re:There's nothing that makes winamp great or uniq (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about 6 months ago | (#45961953)

If you read carefully, what I wrote was not that WinAMP was the first. But the first to catch attention.

Re:There's nothing that makes winamp great or uniq (4, Interesting)

toejam13 (958243) | about 6 months ago | (#45960175)

There was a time when Winamp mattered. There was no decent media players

And now there are dozens, with some that focus on audio, some that focus on video, some that handle both: Foobar2000, Songbird, VLC, Media Player Classic, XBMC, Windows Media Center, etc... You even have image viewers like XnView turning into video players. The lines have completely blurred as viewers and players have turned into multimedia centers.

The question is, which niche would Winamp try to fill? How could they differentiate themselves? The interface? Cataloging? Container support? Codec support? Streaming support? Subtitle support? Time shifting? Post processing? Song recognition? Speed? Size? Cross-platform support?

Re:There's nothing that makes winamp great or uniq (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 6 months ago | (#45960669)

The question is, which niche would Winamp try to fill? How could they differentiate themselves? The interface? Cataloging? Container support? Codec support? Streaming support? Subtitle support? Time shifting? Post processing? Song recognition? Speed? Size? Cross-platform support?

Even more lamely ad-ridden with ride-along crapware in the installer than it was when AOL owned it?

Just guessing.

Re:There's nothing that makes winamp great or uniq (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961587)

The question is, which niche would Winamp try to fill? How could they differentiate themselves? The interface? Cataloging? Container support? Codec support? Streaming support? Subtitle support? Time shifting? Post processing? Song recognition? Speed? Size? Cross-platform support?

Incredibly huge playlist support.

My current "everything" Winamp playlist is 2000 hours long and covers about 20000 tracks. The process consumes a mere 38MB of RAM and is as responsive as it is with 10 songs.

Scrolling is a little odd - a single-pixel on the scrollbar, on a 1080-pixel-high playlist, translates into about half a screen's worth of movement.

Okay, then. Winamp needs one UI change: if focus is on the playlist window, pressing keystrokes should highlight the track. (e.g. "M" - goes to ten remixes of "M - Pop Muzik", "e" if pressed within a few milliseconds should take me to "Meat Beat Manifesto", and "t" if pressed within a few more milliseconds should take me to several pages of "Metallica", just to piss off Lars.) Because a binary search through "M" with a scrollbar can get awkward :)

Seriously, Winamp, if that's the worst criticism I can come up with, thank you for 15+ years of awesome, and for knowing when your product was complete, and for not fucking up the UX in the way that everybody else has over the past few years. Your UI (not UX!) is clean, functional, and scales to hardware that didn't even exist when you designed it. Others would do well to follow your lead.

'moved on' (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#45961171)

well I would want to 'move on' too if I had done what these guys did back when they did it...same goes for the guy who made napster Shawn Fanning.

remember when releasing software like this could get you sued for millions?

a lot of idiots with a lot of money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45959861)

...but that's what you get in the windows world. Good thing they didn't port xmms to windows...

Re:a lot of idiots with a lot of money... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45959883)

better than the oss world, which is a bunch of retards working their asses off for no money because they cant write anything worth selling

Re:ChromeOS Winning (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960879)

Yet Google sold a lot of chromebooks 2013 Holiday Season!

Re:ChromeOS Winning (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#45961817)

That works exactly because they have an army of properly paid engineers developing Chrome OS.

Re:a lot of idiots with a lot of money... (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#45961119)

No they make for free the things that people know aren't worth any money.

Anyone know anything about Radionomy? (3, Insightful)

Bo'Bob'O (95398) | about 6 months ago | (#45959919)

Anyone know anything about Radionomy? I still use win-amp at work, despite the bloat. I like the small 'strip' interface I can put up at the top of my window and I really haven't found a replacement, so I'd like to know if I can expect things to get better.. or worse.

Re:Anyone know anything about Radionomy? (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 6 months ago | (#45960867)

I like the small 'strip' interface I can put up at the top of my window and I really haven't found a replacement

you can do that with QMMP [ylsoftware.com]

Re:Anyone know anything about Radionomy? (1)

davidhoude (1868300) | about 6 months ago | (#45961165)

I agree with you 100% but it has become much less used in the recent years as I have been using Chrome. It seems the minimized always on top interface that worked to well for XP doesn't quite feel the same for Win7 + Chrome. I would love to hear if anyone has any suggestions for me to fix this

Re:Anyone know anything about Radionomy? (1)

palemantle (1007299) | about 6 months ago | (#45961735)

Audacious has a 'winamp mode' and can do the 'strip' interface just fine. Pretty nice little player overall.

I don't know if xmms is still around but that's another one that can give you the winamp look.

but you can still download it... (0)

issicus (2031176) | about 6 months ago | (#45960001)

"Winamp.com and associated web services will no longer be available past December 20, 2013. Additionally, Winamp Media players will no longer be available for download. Please download the latest version before that date. See release notes for latest improvements to this last release. Thanks for supporting the Winamp community for over 15 years."

Re:but you can still download it... (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 6 months ago | (#45960967)

Probably because they figured if there is a chance of them selling the brand/company and they were really serious about it, they would rather not shoot themselves in the foot by killing Winamp before a potential deal goes through.

Good investment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960029)

After all, in 2014, there are no free music or video players that can be used on desktops, mobiles or in cars (have they also heard of tablets? Good market opportunity there as none of then play music files at the moment....)

Good luck anyway, I suppose the astronomical prices paid recently for nonsense like Snapchat and Instagram persuaded you that this was an absolte bargain, and issuing soundbites like "we want to rebuild the story" persuaded enough venture capital guys to splash the cash........

Goodbye Winamp, I fondly remember the days back in about 1999 when you were the only decent way to listen to MP3s on my PC at work, and nice move in getting a load of cash from clueless idiots who didn't realise you are now virtually worthless.

Transcoding makes audio files much bigger (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45960217)

Audio player software included on mobile devices requires audio to first be transcoded to MP3, MP4, or (in the case of Android) Vorbis. That sort of hurts if you have a big collection of files in sequenced formats, such as NSF, MIDI, or MOD. Transcode an NSF to MP3, for instance, and you've ballooned the file size by a factor of 100. Winamp solved this problem through an input plug-in architecture, but mobile device manufacturers seem to require the transcoding in order to get users to buy devices with larger flash memories at inflated prices.

Re:Transcoding makes audio files much bigger (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 6 months ago | (#45960585)

older versions of blackberry OS (4? 5, 6?) had midi support in the music player, sadly BB10 does not support midi anymore

Re:Transcoding makes audio files much bigger (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#45961861)

That sort of hurts if you have a big collection of files in sequenced formats, such as NSF, MIDI, or MOD.

Who will write the plugins for all those exotic formats anyway? There might not exist a reasonable business case to support that kind of niche formats.

Storage is cheap, just convert everything to MP3, that's my practical recommendation.

I'm still using version 5 (4, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about 6 months ago | (#45960071)

As far as I'm concerned, Winamp is still the best music player on Windows. With the Moon Glade skin, mine lives as an always-on-top bar at the top-center of my screen and expands into a playlist when I hover over it. The plugin system decodes every music file I know of and - this is huge for me - it can apply VST filters to the audio output. This is important to me because I play my music through Bose 901 (v6) speakers, which are designed to require a custom Bose equalizer to sound decent. Because I'm running audio into my receiver digitally, I can't use this analog equalizer, so I rely on a chain of VST plugins to mimic (and actually improve on) its functionality. I don't know of another media player that can use VST plugins for sound shaping. Then again, I haven't been looking, because I'm pretty satisfied with Winamp. If anyone knows other media players with VST functionality I would appreciate the info.

Re:I'm still using version 5 (1)

islisis (589694) | about 6 months ago | (#45961811)

I agree the plugin system has made Winamp versatile enough to have lived without major updates.

I would like to know how you are implementing the playlist autoexpand on hover, unless you mean docking... could not seem to find info on the Moon Glade skin

12% Stake In AOL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960121)

Isn't that like a 12% stake in a dead horse? Was it just thrown in there in hopes someone on the team had the other 15 shares to take control of the company and finally finish the job?

Re:12% Stake In AOL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960941)

Isn't that like a 12% stake in a dead horse? Was it just thrown in there in hopes someone on the team had the other 15 shares to take control of the company and finally finish the job?

Other way around. AOL has a 12% stake in the Winamp buyer.

Supposedly AOL is doing okay these days. The story is their current line of business of basically just buying out blogs and operating them is panning out. Or at least that's the narrative, maybe it just hasn't imploded yet, but for the moment they seem to be convincing people that they're getting their money's worth out of their dealings.

They should have bought.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960127)

Pointcast instead!

DSP Plugins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960293)

Winamp + Pacemaker = 3 cups of coffee if you set the tempo to +25. changing pitch, not so much, but setting the temp to -20 allows you to learn the hard portions of songs to sing/play along with. Would love if I found any other player that had the same functionality. Can even do that to online streams, if they prebuffer correctly.

Lies, I bought it last year. (2, Interesting)

Brama (80257) | about 6 months ago | (#45960423)

http://mp3blaster.sourceforge.net/

Winamp is still the best player around! (3, Interesting)

Squallop (3500093) | about 6 months ago | (#45960425)

I don't understand all of this talk about the Winamp developers stating that there are plenty of good audio players out there now... There really isn't! There's iTunes and a majority of people use that because they don't realise that their computers can have non Apple software installed on them too :O. I've recently been trying out many of the top rated audio players, e.g. foobar2000, MusicBee, iTunes.. none of them come even close to being as good as Winamp. Some of Winamp's features that I'm yet to see in other players are, - Excellent Media Library, with the ability to play straight from the library... - Toast Notifications of playing tracks - Great plugin integration - Modular and modern design If anyone knows of any players that can really compare, please let me know. I'd love to see them.

Re:Winamp is still the best player around! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960917)

Audacious, Tried them all and Audacious is the best. http://audacious-media-player.org/

Re:Winamp is still the best player around! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960997)

Audacious also supports using Winamp skins. And runs on Linux and Windows.

Re:Winamp is still the best player around! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960955)

I've grown fond of AIMP3 which does most, if not all of those things, i think.

Re:Winamp is still the best player around! (1)

Peganthyrus (713645) | about 6 months ago | (#45961265)

I think iTunes has all of those things you want nowadays, actually. At least for me on my Mac. It seems to kinda suck on other platforms because it has to drag a whole lot of the Quicktime infrastructure it relies on for playing music along with it, and becomes kind of big and unwieldy.

I get system notifications of playing tracks if I want 'em.

It's got plugins. I don't know how extensive they are, mostly I just have a handful of visualizers, and I think I've got a couple music format plugins somewhere in there too. (I've spent like $100 on various visualizers over the years, right now I'm really liking Aeon.)

I'm not sure what "excellent media library" or "the ability to play straight from the library" entails. I can double-click on a track in the iTunes window and it plays it, it manages all my folders and tags for me and makes it easy to dig out the actual files when I want to, I can sort in all kinds of ways.

Does Winamp do "smart playlists"? Because that's iTunes' killer feature, IMHO. It spends the vast majority of its time in a playlist of "stuff I haven't played in the last 5 weeks, or skipped in the last 10". Keeps my vast collection constantly rotating.

If it works and shows a library, I don't care. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961309)

That's the mindset of the majority, not "OMG, they're so used to sucking the cock of zombie Jobs."

iTunes shows my music library as a fucking song list, I click what I want and poof, it plays.
iTunes lets me setup custom playlists.
iTunes will come up with playlists for me.

For the vast majority out there, this is all we really want. I used to be glued to Winamp as well, from I think about '98 up until around '07. Since then, meh. I never used any of the plugins. Personal computers now are so insanely powerful compared to what they were at Winamp's start that even on the cheapest bargain basement laptop the inefficiencies of applications like iTunes generally aren't noticeable at all.

Aside from it being resource friendly I only liked Winamp because I could have it sit on top of everything as a tiny bar and its implementation of playlists wasn't as space consuming as, and more accessible than, VLC's. Thing is, iTunes can sit on top of everything as well as a tiny bar.

So meh I say, meh.

Re:Winamp is still the best player around! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961471)

It has been a while, a couple years actually since i switched from the player being on my computer to a NAS streaming solution. FTIW, The last I used and was happy with, was media monkey.

AiMP3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45960889)

I was a winamp user for many years then it got to the point where every release was more ad-infested bloat
AiMP 3 (AiMP.ru) is a suitable clone of winamp based on LibBASS (http://www.un4seen.com/ ) it supports most winamp DSP plugins and a few of the general plugins

Why WinAmp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961037)

StreamRipper of course...... Silly Wabbit...

No (1)

Dunge (922521) | about 6 months ago | (#45961257)

I love WinAmp, and it's a Windows application. I hate seeing the world "mobile" and "much more" in the buyers sentence. Sound like they will turn this of adware or bloated service application.

Antic Music Processor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961381)

I have not used AMP for a while. Is it too late to send songs in for the Antic Song challenge?

I've used Winamp for years... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961455)

Dunno about any alternatives, but Winamp does what I need it to - mainly having a comprehensive media library, that I can keep open along side the playlist so I can select/drag and drop between them extremely quickly and easily, based on artist/album or individual tracks etc..

fascinating! (2)

pyrrho (167252) | about 6 months ago | (#45961593)

fascinating news... I had no idea AOL was still in business. I worked at spinner.com (which streamed music and was not a blog) when AOL bought us and Winamp... I left almost immediately, somewhat as a result.

Why people use winamp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45961879)

I bet people at radionomy dont know why people use winamp and will ruin it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...