Why does winamp3 suck?

[bsr]

Why do people choose winamp 2.91 over 3 ?? I dont see anything wrong with 3

 

[Confused]

3 uses more resources, takes longer to start up, many people use a different program for videos etc.

I tried to use 2.91, but it wouldn't play any of the music i'd ripped to Ogg Vorbis, whereas 2.81 does, so I'm sticking with that, as I don't need the playlist/video features that 2.91, or even 3 offers


Confused

 

[moriakaice]

Winamp 3 is too big !!
the earlier version works much better... that's why i have WINAMP 2.9...

BTW. anyone finds a cool skin for WinAMP 2.9 ??

 

[funow48103]

winamp 2.8 is much much better

i'm sticking with it

as far as watching videos, i usually use windows media player

 

[Commish]

Three letters will sum that question up.


A.O.L.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: bsr
Why do people choose winamp 2.91 over 3 ?? I dont see anything wrong with 3

I'm using 3 myself but I totally see why people would stick with 2. It's lightweight, simple and JUST does what you want - play a song.

3 isn't too bad but if you jump over to windows media player, real player or something you're into some serious bloatware.

Plus you have to do some wierd crap to get Geiss to run on winamp3

 

[Sid59]

a. AOL wanted them to release a new product, and they had to rush it.
b. Justin wasn't coding for winamp3 and so it sucked balls.

 

[RoseZalutations]

Myself and I don't like WinAMP at all, and definetaly not Winam3..
I used to use a program called 'Soniqe' and am using WMP at the moment, I gonna install Soniqe again soon..
yes, too many resources unfortunelly :-{}

 

[sandorski]

I used W3 for quite awhile, but chose to revert back to 2.8x after 6ish months. I wish they'd hurry up and fix 3, I loved Corner Amp, but I had too many lockups and what not for what seemed to be pressing too many buttons too fast, err something. Besides, I've never found an AmpTime(using WinAmp as Alarm) type app for WinAmp 3, gotta wake up to tunes!

Rose: I used to use Sonique all the time too. It's too bad it was abandoned.

 

[calpha]

It's just buggy. I think it has the potential to be solid, but just needs a lot of work.

yah, it's big, but it's got a big feature set too. But, I don't use any Winamp stuff anymore...as I don't need graphic frills, I stick with Foobar.

 

[clicknext]

3 takes a long time to start up for a music player, takes a lot more memory than 2 (though it doesn't really take THAT much), and has some bugs. I switched to Windows Media Player recently and so far am enjoying it.

 

[jst0ney]

I just pray the next version is better.

 

[starwarsdad]

I don't like it because it is a resource hog and beacause of AOL's involvement. I run WinAmp 2.8x all day on my production machine and can't afford the hit from v3.

I do a lot of processor, disk, and memory intensive work. Can't spare much but got to have tunes

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: jst0ney
I just pray the next version is better.

which next version? winamp5?

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Sid59

Originally posted by: jst0ney
I just pray the next version is better.

which next version? winamp5?

Nope, actually its winamp 2.923

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: Sid59

Originally posted by: jst0ney
I just pray the next version is better.

which next version? winamp5?

Nope, actually its winamp 2.923

lol ... im waiting for 5. I pretty much stopped using winamp. So, ill check back when it gets to 5.

 

[YaKuZa]

Still using 2.81 here.

 

[bsr]

I doubt there going to get rid of winamp3, they've been waiting for 3 for awhile to have "mp3" in there name. They will probly just come out with different revisions of 3, hopfully one that will speed it up, main version number probly wont change for a long time. For me I prefer winamp3, but it does take alot longer to start then 2.9, SPECIALLY with skin it takes like a whole 3 - 5 seconds .@ 1.7Ghz

 

[VTrider]

another vote for 2.81 (couldn't get Ver 3.0 off my system fast enough)

 

[fwtong]

I like the Skins for WinAmp 3. The only problem is that I usually use Winamp on my laptop, when I'm studying or typing stuff, so I usually have winamp minimized. Since I don't really look at skins, and Winamp 2 is faster, i just use winamp 2.

 

[Mallow]

I use winamp 2.61... I never saw a need to upgrade. Used wa3 for like a month and hated it

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Mallow
I use winamp 2.61... I never saw a need to upgrade. Used wa3 for like a month and hated it

the mp3 decoder and outputs are much better in the newer winamp (ever since PP was contracted to fix them).

 

[larciel]

digging up old post.

i think i have winamp 1.2x exe file somewhere in my cd collection, winamp has been great, until they were promoting the 'ALPHA' release of winamp3.. i've tried it, hated it, and when w3 was officially released, it was worse than beta....

it's been about 5 months since last w3 was released, i don't think they're getting any better,, (same thing happened to a prog called Netscape, since they were damm noisy about release of Netscape 6.0 .. (aol skipped 5.0 right? )

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: larciel
(same thing happened to a prog called Netscape, since they were damm noisy about release of Netscape 6.0 .. (aol skipped 5.0 right? )

I don't know why anyone would use Netscape over Mozilla - Netscape now IS Mozilla, just with some AOL junk added on and the source closed.