You guys are pathetic! Freaky funny and completely retarded!!!... LONG LIVE WINAMP!!!

I have spend about 30 minutes (i think), and read all the posts in this page! I have seen the same nasty comments, again and again, from people who hardly seem to have any serious computer/programming background.. To my humble opinion, Winamp3 is as much spyware as Winamp 2 was.. (ie. is hardly at all.. if u ask me, I like the minibrowser info feature coz brings bios of artists automatically, yes I know that it is really commercial -buy tickets, search on eBay, buy cds-, but its still good))If you don't like it deactivated. If you worry that it is slow, stick with 2, until you have a pc with more resources.
I believe that Nullsoft still recognises how "not-actually-so-final" this player is... Didnt you guys see the huge "miss winamp2???" thing on their page? Did you miss the fact that they still support Winamp2? Just give them time, or at least try to appreciate how complicated such a project may be (trying to make a new mp3 player which will take the place of the best one out there -according to my opinion-).

its like.. doh!.. "get a new computer" eh? on friday I upgraded a bit.. to a P4 2.5x Mhz.. with 1.5gb of 1066 rdram.. GF4 Ti4600 and you want me to wait till i get a FASTER computer to use winamp 3?.. its a MP3 PLAYER!! it should require a PC that can play the very hottest and latest in games just to friggin RUN!.. get a grip!

I'm suprised you can run anything on your "P4 2.5x Mhz"
After all, 2.5Mhz doesn't go far these days. It should be at least in the GHz range, especially if it's a P4!

LoL.. haha good point.. its called a TYPO.. and its 2.53Ghz.. heh but i still dont think a friggin MP3 or MEDIAPLAYER should require this bloody much power to run!

Congratulations for your new pc :P ... I think I have covered this pn my previous post. Too new, too advanced concepts, too buggy, and thus too slow. that's why previous versions exist and are still supported

and apart for this, you can't really say "hey it should be just an mp3 player". Life is dominated by the rule of evolution... since they have developed,enhanced etc winamp2 as much as they could and there's not anything more left to do, they just want to enter some new fields and experiment there as well.. if u dont like it, dont follow it. nobody forced u to do so (someone could have said when Windows 3.11 WfG was out: "hey.. we have an operating system which even supports some basic networking.. ok.. we halt the developement of windows.. it should be just a simple operating system')

Pangel what the hell is your problem. You know thats why they have user feedback sections. If we dont like stfu? People here are voicing their opinion, which of course cant all be in favour of something. You know you dont need to program to have one. Programs are designed for people who know how to program you moron. You should do well to understand what it means to have an opinion and the opportunity to voice it. I dont see a clause anywhere here saying if you dont know how to make software or have anything positive to say then sit down and keep quiet.

Let people make their own judgements and have their own views. Dont try to shove yours down everyones throats. Relax, even people from Nullsoft probably dont get worked up as much as you over their own software being beaten to a pulp.

Whats the point of wasing resources from your PC to play MP3s? Winamp 3 is a clunkey, jammed packed full of 90% useless features, and bulky program that derived from a decent predecessor, thats why people have a hard time moving towards it.

BTW, it doesnt say MISS WINAMP 2...its says LOOKING FOR WINAMP 2...learn to get your facts straight before your flame every living soul here...you tool.

Please show me the point where I said that Winamp3 is perfect... Or the point where i said that me, the unquestionable master of the universe, forbids every comment against winamp :P. I can't understand what's your problem with looking/missing thing, since even if i didn't mistook it my point would still be exactly the same. Even the "Winamp 3 is a clunkey, jammed packed full of 90% useless features, and bulky program that derived from a decent predecessor, thats why people have a hard time moving towards it" has the same almost meaning with mine: "since they have developed,enhanced etc winamp2 as much as they could and there's not anything more left to do, they just want to enter some new fields and experiment there as well..", with the difference that you are calling the programmers Morons while I don't

Show me the point where I said that Winamp3 is perfect... Or the point where i said that me, the unquestionable master of the universe, forbids every comment against winamp :P.

I can't understand what's your problem with looking/missing thing, since even if i didn't mistook it my point would still be exactly the same.

Even the "Winamp 3 is a clunkey, jammed packed full of 90% useless features, and bulky program that derived from a decent predecessor, thats why people have a hard time moving towards it" has almost the same meaning with mine: "since they have developed,enhanced etc winamp2 as much as they could and there's not anything more left to do, they just want to enter some new fields and experiment there as well..", with the difference that you are almost calling the Winamp's programmers Absolute Morons while I don't.

When I see posts like:
"Winamp 3 IS spyware, no doubts on that.
1) When you open it, it tries to read more than 17000 registry entries (guess why?)", yes, I think that I am allowed to comment on the computer background level,conspiracy_theorist approach of some posts.

And apart from all these, the fact that you have a different approach to the problem, or a problem with my own approach, doesn't mean that you should take advantage of the security of anonymity that this medium gives you and use offensive language in a cowards way, against a person you don't know and you won't meet.
In the end of the line, "stfu".

Aight.. You guys are just stupid and starting to piss me off! If you hate winamp just cuz its a bigger footprint, go suck some d*ck. I don't give a crap. Computers are faster and generally have more memory. Hence Winamp can use a bigger footprint. In the ratio from amount of ram to winamps footprint, it has always been the same. Back in 1998, winamp was like what, A 1 meg foot print, and people had like 16megs ram. Now its around 15megs for me, but i have 256 megs ram and not even using it all. If you hate memory usage, go back to Windows 95 and see how much u like it! Its just crap. I love windows XP. It may use more ram than other OS's, but just look at it! Winamp ain't slowing me down, so I like it. Unless you have a slowass computer with no ram, don't b**** about it. And you shouldn't be even using this program anyway. Look how much cooler Winamp is now, so i'm willing to have the bigger memory footprint. Computers always progress, faster, bigger, better. So do programs. DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT BLOATING! IT HAPPENS! You guys complain that u want a new and better version. Then you get it and you just b**** about it and say the old is better just cause the footprint is smaller. Jesus Christ. If u don't like the new stuff, go right ahead and use the old crap, but don't come here complaining about it. Grow up and get a life people. "Oh, lets b**** about a program that people worked their asses off to make." I'd rather be out macking on women, you guys do the same! Damn. AMEN!

Wow, profound essay writing skills.

Looks like using AOL for so long has already prepped you for bloated software, so it's not a prob.

Since when are you obligated to tell people what they like or do not? First of all, it's only an opinion. You sound like you loved "UPGRADING" (or so you call it) from AOL 5.0, 6.0, ....etc...etc. Maybe you need to see a psychiatrist!

mm its NOT the footprint that pisses me off... but that NICE GOOD WELL WORKING FUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED OR REPLACED WITH CRAP.. THE FACT THAT IT CRASHES 90% OF THE TIME AND THE SPYWARE FUNCTIONS.. AND ABOVE ALL.. THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CALL THIS CRAP FOR FINAL!

a menuette..!

For all you people that don't like this "new" spyware I suggest you open up Winamp 2.8 then go into preferences under the setup section you will notice an option for "Allow Winamp to report basic, anonymous program usage information". That has been in winamp for some time now.

Also, by Final they do not mean they are done with the program they mean that the next version they release will not be 3.0 but something like 3.1 or 3.01. Remember when winamp 2.0 was first released it wasn't in much better state then 3.0 is right now. Many of the features people are requested will probably be added in a later version and if not they could easily be programmed by a 3rd party; witch would be no different from a native option because of the way the Winamp 3.0's API is setup.

Also, remember that Winamp 2.8+ is still supported by the Nullsoft team and will continue to see development. All in all if you don’t like 3.0 then don’t use it, no one if forcing you to use it.

LOL! I only used AOL once in my life, and that was for a 1 month trial. Definatly not worth what, $22 a month.

And by the way, when you said "wow, profound essay writing skills.", were you being sarcastic, or really complimenting, I'd like to know. And if you were sarcastic, what do I need to work on. Thanks

And on a side note, I'm sorry for blowing up on you guys. I must've had a bad day. hehe..

yes... but it also ASKS when u install it to enable or disable this.. W3 does not!

I do share your opinion, I really do but what kind of a damn ultra fast machine are you using, and how much memory. The truth is that Windows XP is a memory intensive OS, and it runs OK on machines that have processors above 1.2 GHz installed, and if you are using a PIII or older AMD processors like I am (and most of the people I know) Windows XP does not show its full potential. I have PIII, 866MHz machine with 512 SDRam memory installed and I use XP because I am a progressive fool I'd say, and I love the new interface (so easy to use). I know people who have XP installed on PII celeron processor machines, but I also know that that is far from good. I do agree with one more thing that I think you have not said, and that is: when Winanp 2.0 came it was also slugish like Winamp 3.0 now, so let's give the Nullsoft guys some time to figure some things out and let's expect the 3.0.1 version of Winamp that is sure to come, to have some improvements. Mind your thongue and...
P.S. Winamp is spyware by default + I do not believe that you have no problems with 3.0. No offence, I use Windows XP and I love winamp and have used it since its beginings but I deinstalled 3.0 because my ears and eyes do not seem to respond quite well to it yet. I got back to nice old 2.79. Wait and don't be hasty and take what ever is offered to u as Winamp. Good things take time to achieve their best.

It's getting some folks come to see that the true meaning of the word upgrade is much more than a higher version number. Some folks in here think that Winamp 3 is an upgrade to Winamp 2 because 3 > 2 and the higher memory usage. If you think healthy, you'll have to admit that this is, overall, a serious downgrade. End of Story.

ok, so why is the top advert in the icq window advertising RealONE the week Winamp3 comes out?! Bit silly one AOL product advertising a rivals competitor to another AOL product isnt it!?

Its called competeting against yourself. A win win situation. Your not a wiz to do with business are you...

They look like they're working too...how much has their stock fell in the past year? With any luck they'll be out of business soon....

Hahahahah. You are a funny guy. Yeah. AOL $38 Billion revenue AOL is going to go out of business. Man, I didn't expect to get a good laugh here today.

That sounds almost as silly and far fetched as saying a company like Enron could go out of business.

Enron didn't go out of business, they just filed for chapter 11. Just like WorldCom is still providing telephone service and the Internet is still functioning.

However, Enron also didn't file chapter 11 just because their stock dropped a lot. They filed because they broke the law and were caught on it. If AOL was in the same boat, I'm sure the SEC would not have let them buy Time Warner.

errrrrrr wasnt the whole point of their recent .... accounting issues... that have just been uncovered to kinda inflate themselves and make themselves look big enough to carry out the TimeWarner deal and its only now we find out they werent doing so well afterall.

Did you guys ever wonder (think) that 15% of that $38billion revenue (which is just online service(AOL)) (not counting TimeWarner, etc). is earned due to the "lamers" that actually use AOL?
Just a funny suggestion to this stupid genre.

Uh nate, in case you didn't notice AOL *IS* being investigated by the SEC for the exact same type of accouting fraud as Enron and Worldcom

From Friday's New York Times "AOL admitted late on Wednesday that questionable accounting practices continued well after the internet company merged with Time Warner in early 2001."

Questionable practices doesn't mean $7 billion in fraudulent accounting. So they fudged a few deals and will pay a few million in penalties to the SEC. If it was anything major and the SEC didn't catch it the first time around, then something is wrong with the SEC.

Im not american so dont totally understand SEC and how companies have to submit accounts etc, but hasnt worldcom alone proved there is something wrong with SEC? I think you are trying to say there is one rule for worldcom and another for AOL - why?

I tried out the First beta of Winamp 3 and everything made me sick. Then after seeing all of the negative comments about the final I had no desire to download it, but I gave it a shot. Surprisingly it was not that bad.

Barely took any system resources up, the skins were awesome. But there were a few bugs..nothing that made me cry over.

I don't like the setup of the playlist..I can't make it into this certian shape I used to with 2.X so it would look like a lil bar on teh bottom of my screen and I could maxamize it to see my list, not anymore. It doesn't load my skin when I open it each time. I had a problem withe my logitech keyboard buttons, but the forum helped me out and easy quick fix.

I know it runs ALOT different on other machines, but the only way you are going to find out if it works good on yours is to download it and try it your self.

I have been playing with Winamp3 for quite a while now, and though I'm happy to see that the media library finally works PROPERLY now in the final release and this release is much more polished and works better, I'm still severely disappointed and don't use it for ONE reason -- why the hell didn't they make it backwards compatible with Winamp2 plugins?

To me, this is the stupidest thing ever. I can understand them wanting to change how it's all done and introduce a new/better format, but why don't they encourage this new format while still allowing Winamp2 plugins to work? I mean there's thousands of Winamp2 plugins, from input to dsp to vis...I flat out won't use Winamp3 now because I can't get the Winamp2 mp3PRO plugin to work with it and my entire library is in mp3PRO.

Recoculous. I don't get it. HUGE mistake, I think, on their part. Good product, but the user base for Winamp2 is already so huge...I think that they're going to be losing a lot of users/customers if they keep it this way.

Just my 2¢

My understanding of the way WA3 has now been coded is that if someone so desperately wanted to use WA2.xx plugins with it, they could write a WA3 plugin to do all the translation, and allow the old functionality. This being possible because the new architecture in WA3 allows pretty much all the behaviour to be changed or extended from a plugin.

By all means, flame me if I interpret wrongly. However, if I'm right, then it may still be possible to use the old plugins.

On an unrelated note, I don't remember getting any AOL links anywhere on my desktop when I installed WA3. But then I don't really mind that too much. Fact of the matter is that WA is still free, and it doesn't throw ads in your face when it's running.

I still haven't had any problems with the EQ or buttons, or whatever. If using another player seems to be your only recourse, then that's your choice. For the record, I still have WA2.80 installed concurrently. I haven't found enough reason to uninstall it yet. (It only takes up a few megs on the HDD)

That's funny... The Media Library seems to be the single most unstable/buggy feature on my system (Athlon 1.4GHz, Win98SE, 512MB RAM).

The video playback seems to work fine(1), and I haven't had any problems with the EQ or the control buttons (play, pause, etc.). Crossfading works real nice.

"Playlist 001" just won't go away, though. Maybe it's not supposed to, but that kind of annoys me. :o/

The real turnoff for me is the little things from previous versions that Nullsoft apparently felt were unimportant in this new version. Just a reminder guys: it's the little things that matter!

(1) To be quite honest, video playback doesn't belong in Winamp3. For Christ's sake, they make a not-so-subtle reference to the pride of having "mp3" in the title, but... I got this creepy feeling that they're being a bit two-faced with Winamp3. I'd be much more impressed if Nullsoft removed video playback from Winamp3 and developed it into it's own, individual player.

Have you tried the WinAmp2 Plugin Manager Component for WinAmp3?

http://members.telocity....n/wa3/wa2mgr/index.html
It's written by Nick Schweitzer.

Whilst you won't have much luck with mp3PRO since that it an output plugin, that component supports quite a lot of the WinAmp 2.x general (gen*.dll), DSP (dsp*.dll) and external control plugins. It is by no means perfect but definetely worth giving a go if there's a must-have plugin out there.

Because of the nature of how WinAMP 3 operates, you can simply delete the .wac files associated with the video component, and it will go away. I don't think that Nullsoft decided "Hey, a movie player is exactly what our audio player needs!" Rather, the movie player was designed to push Wasabi and MAKI to their limits. Hell, if you don't like the audio component, and want to use video all the time, you could probibly delete the .wac associated with that.

The bottom line is don't belittle WinAMP3 as an audio player because you don't like the video player that comes with it. Just don't use it, and reset your associations to whatever program you do want to use.

Yeah, I had seen that, but the fact remains that backwards compatibility should have been included in the release. They shouldn't leave it up to some programmer with some spare time to make a plugin for them that adds this functionality. If they wanted to do it via a plugin, THEY (nullsoft) should have included the .wac with the Winamp3 distribution.

You wrote about the little things that matter... I made up my mind to uninstall winamp3 when I couldn't stop the damn song title autoscroll off. Why isn't it possible to stop the thing in winamp3???

Maybe they will in the future. If they simply repackaged that plugin and rebranded it Nullsoft, would that make it official enough for you? Honestly, if it works, use it. It really shouldn't matter what the source of it is.

After having installed and used Winamp 3, I just don't know what to say. It has tons of new features, (most of which I could care less about being in there). It just feels a lot more like corporate bloatware now I guess.

I'd gladly pay for a rock solid MP3 player program without tons of features that maybe 2 or 3 percent of people will ever use, (of all the new features in version 3, I've yet to see many people saying how they've been dying to use them).

I guess I'm of the opinion that WA3 got too big too fast and tried to be a lot of things it didn't need to be in order to be popular and widely used. Even in today's society, there is still something to be said for the Keep It Simple Stupid principle.

In my opinion, to make WA3 better like Steve says they will, they'd need to gut about half the stuff they added and put back in the ability to stop song names from scrolling back and forth all the time, unless it's buried in there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find a way to make it stop.

Nate: "Besides, Winamp has been adding AOL icons on new installs for a while now, get used to it."

Me: Ok then, using your "logic", Microsoft has been a monoply for a while now, get used to it.

What are you talking about? Adding icons to a free product to keep it free is not illegal or harmful. Being a monopoly is.

A monopoly is not illegal, it is illegal what you do with your monopolistic powers.

Correct. Though in Microsoft's case, that is what they were found guilty of doing so I figured it did not need an explanation. And again I reiterate that adding icons to Winamp has no similarity with creating a monopoly though tactics that exclude others from the marketplace.

Actually unless you've been given special privlages (e.g. major leauge teams such as the NBA) a monopoly is in fact illegal. It is illegal to hold a monopoly, at least in the United States.

You're not seeing the forrest from the trees. My point was not to compare adding Icons to a Monopoly, it was two things that people are sick of, and your profound advice of "get used to it" just can't apply.

Actually, it's not illegal to hold a monopoly.

You're taking my advice for a small annoyance and placing at the completely opposite end of the spectrum where it makes no sense. I never said get used to a monopoly. Just like I would never say get used to terrorist attacks.

However, you should be willing to get used to deleting 3 icons from your system in return for a FREE constantly updated program which you use every single day. Just like I'm sure you are used to paying for gas that you put into your car.

It seems a bit disgusting to me that some people are so determined to like Winamp primarily because it was good in the past they shun those of us who clearly see W3 is not ready for 1.0 status.

Winamp was great when it was a hobby project. Now it has project managers and a medium sized development team. Now there are deadlines for releases and things of that nature that tend to ruin a lot of software.

Instead of saying how much people like to complain, or how they're just whiners when they have problems, try and see that obviously some problem exists otherwise they wouldn't take the time to come and post about it. If that many problems exists, obviously the software has NOT been testes thoroughly.

I suspect AOL shoved it out the door just like they do with their own crappy client software. In the mean time, I'll just use xmms on my linux laptop to listen to my tunes. Slick, lean, and free of ads.

*tested rather, heh

I think the problem was simply that winamp3 was such a huge project they kinda didnt know where to stop. I remember brennan having a .plan entry maybe even a year ago now saying that the project was going well and they might even get some of the features implemented that were intended for later versions - like the scripting. So why wasnt the scripting left for a later version?

Its almost like TOO much went into this version. They worked on too many features at once. Maybe if they had implemented fewer features for the initial release of wa3 then more of it would have worked flawlessly. Just looking at the SDK shows just how huge the project was.

If they are going to produce such complex software, then I think they need to look at their beta testing methods in the future.

I suspect part of the problem (especially from what steve says down the page) is that lots of people are complaining about bugs (err yeah I know im on of them!) but not many of those people are actually submitting useful bug reports.

I have tried to submit a few bug reports in the past, but I forgot the bugzilla password and it refuses to email me it for some reason, and to be honest, I really cant be bothered to re-register - its just easier to stick with winamp2.1 (since I re-descovered nitrane!)

I think thats a fair analysis and overloading a team with too many features to implement can definitely ruin a release.

Honestly speaking, I don't have time to beta test Winamp. It's 1.0 now, and I shouldn't need to. The thing is, why isn't AOL allocating beta testers? They want to be able to put all their adverts in the install, but they don't want to shell out some cash for hiring beta testers? Lame.

In any case, I found a copy of FreeAmp for Windows lying around the attics of the web :) It gets the job done and no "GET AOL TODAY!!" crap.

I guess I haven't fully joined the "cruise-control generation" here (and i'm 23 for God's sake), but if you consider three... small... effing... icons adverts, and think it's too much effort to delete them, go the hell home...

It's a shame you've gotten used to being used as a marketing vehicle for companies like AOL. Frankly I dont like people screwing with my desktop. It's like if AOL came and slapped bumper stickers on your car. Would you like it? Probably not. How about if they add ads to W3? It's just a small banner ad, right?

A pity.

Let's try and keep things in perspective... your scenario of putting stickers on your car is completely irrelevant! But we'll make it relevant for the sake of things:

Let's say AOL gives you a car for FREE. They own it but you basically rent it from them for free. After all when you download WinAmp you don't own the player, you just own the right to use it. Now AOL comes up to you and says, in exchange for giving you this car for free we want to put a bumper sticker on it. Would you like it? Probably not, but you have a choice... tell AOL where they can stick their bumper sticker or live with the bumper stick because you're getting the car for free.

Furthermore, in the WinAmp3 example you can go through and delete the icons - this is the same as you saying "sure, stick the bumper sticker on", driving around the corner and ripping it off.

Hmm, I think thats not quite right. If AOL let me rent a car from them, putting bumper stickers *on* the car which they own is one thing. It's another thing if after renting said car, they put stickers all over my garage.

Point is, they're not constraining their advertising to something they own - they don't own my desktop.

I totally removed W3 and previous version and reinstalled. Nowhere did it ask me if I wanted AOL icons installed. It asks if I want icons added which appears to mean Winamp icons, but thats it.

Fair point! When you pick up your car an AOL representative sticks a few stickers on your garage which you are free to remove at any time. It that a big price to pay given that you're renting a car from them for free? Obviously it would be ideal if you didn't get any stickers to start with.

Maybe a better analogy is that AOL offer you are free stereo for your car, a lot better than the one you already have.

But as part of the deal, they can put a few stickers on your car - though these are easily removed and you won't get in trouble for it.

Would you complain?? Not likely. And if you do, don't get the free stereo.

I'd certainly comment about it - especially if I wasnt asked about it first.

Couldnt justin accidentally leak the old nitrane source code out please? - so someone could make an winamp3 component from it. Yes I know why nitrane disappeared... but after downloading a few old versions of winamp yesterday, I have to say nitrane (to me at least) sounds a LOT better than the decoder currently in winamp2 or 3. Please someone somehow resurect nitrane!

Hmm...

http://privatewww.essex....ecoders_winamp2_62.html

"Version 2.62 uses the Nitrane mp3 decoder. It's fast. It handles MPEG-1 layer 2 as well as layer 3 (mp3). IT'S INNACURATE! It fails almost every test here..."

"The EQ in Winamp/Nitrane is terrible - it removes high frequencies, irrespective of the EQ settings!"

I repeat: "to me at least"

I'd rather see a more stable version of the MAD decoder used. MAD sounds AMAZING.

http://www.mars.org/home/rob/proj/mpeg/

There's a plugin for Winamp (2 of course.. won't work with 3.. BAH!! Getting back to my previous post.. just plain stupid, I think, to not make Winamp3 backwards compatible).

Check it out -- it CAN be buggy (though it is very stable) and it sounds awesome. I recommend it. Check it out.

I know, I just thought you might want to reconsider your stance. :)

nope, this is like the CD vs vinyl argument. Some people just like the sound from one over the other even if it is less accurate.

I guess so.

I'll admit up front that I still don't like the load time for WA3, but that didn't stop me from rating it a 4 star here. Something that I can't understand with some of the posters here, is that they complain about spyware, non-functioning buttons, different behaviour, bloat, etc... I will admit that WA3 has bloated up quite considerably (in terms of memory usage) from 2.xx, but the overall impression is that it is still a worthwhile upgrade. Granted, I haven't tried using it under Win9x/ME, nor tried it on a P100, or some similarly old hardware, but if the new version doesn't do what you want, nor what you expect, and you can't handle the changes, then DON'T upgrade. This seems to be a simpel principle that people don't seem to understand these days....

People complain about spyware cause it is nobodies damn business what my habits are, and they have no right using MY hard drive space to store data about ME through MY internet connection to bombard ME with advertising popups and spam that EVERYONE tries to avoid.

and i don't give a damn about the "they gotta make money somehow" schpiel...if they respect their customers, they will respect their right to privacy and the desire to not be harassed. There are always means to make money and selling personal information should NOT be one of them.

speaking of adds... is anyone else getting extremely peed off with the incredibly annoying noisey IBM adds on this page? One good way to stop people visiting this site is to use adds with sound on so that everyones boss looks and frowns in a "you arent doing any work are you" kinda way every time the add starts.

Cant you at least store a cookie so we only have to put up with the stupid music once please betanews?

I really dont understand how advertisers think annoying the users will make them click the adds!?

i remember there was another free player called kjofol which was as light as can be, it ran on even a 486 win95 machine without hiccups.

oh and if memory serves me right it was the first player to have free form skinning. it supported mp3, winamp type playlists, and VQF. i don't know about you people but i like it because it was a small clean, efficient and fast player which could play a file format half the size and equal in quality to mp3, the VQF standard.

but even for all its advantages, it faded away into the obscurity, if i am not mistaken it is no longer available, both kjofol.com and kjofol.org are down.

lesson from this is that we complain about everything good or bad, so hopefully developers aren't too dishearted from reading the other posts.

I believe it was developed mainly by one guy, who was convinced to go and work for nullsoft/aol instead.

if i am not mistaken there were 2 guys who programmed it and a few other freelancers who helped out now and then :)
granted the limited resources they had, the player was more than decent, it was good only problem was that it wasn't winamp, it was new tech, no tons of skins and plun-ins. the same problems plaguing winamp3 now.

seems funny that the same guys who did kjofol and winamp made such a resource hog media player. but to me the only thing which made it slow during startup is that it reads my cd, cdrw and dvd drive everytime if there is a cd/dvd in the drive.

At some beta winamp3 used mozilla's engine for it's own browser. Then they removed this feature. How can I reenable it?

Let's see.

Most of the version 3 skins do not work, it is slow, uses to much memory, and is unstable. Gee and it only took them 2.5 years to do this. Forget AOL I think these guys must be working for Microsoft.

Not to mention that when you try to rate a skin on their site (to mention that it does not work) you can't even login.

Thank God I still have 2.8.

Many of those skins are based on previous builds, and are not yet ready for prime time themselves. There are people working on them, and what a skin can do in WA3 is very impressive. Just give it some time.

WinAmp (a.k.a. studio in WinNT Task Manager) is too buggy still, and is missing several features from the product that it is supposed to replace. So it may be nice to have a few new features, but they are useless if nobody is going to use the product to begin with. Don't try to complete directly with WMP or the like. If that's what I wanted I'd have used WMP. After all, it only comes with every version of Windows (for free), so it's not like I have to do something to get it.

It's a shame, the features that made Winamp 2 the best player have been removed in Winamp3. As a result, Winamp 2 is still the best player. Perhaps Winamp3.1 or Winamp 4 ...

I used Winamp 3 for 5 minutes, and found 4 things that just don't work. Makes you wonder if they even tested it.

Things that don't work:
Equalizer doesn't work at all. Doesn't even remember its settings

Next song button only moves the playlist selector. Doesn't actually skip to the next song.

Play button skips to the next song?

Video is just crap. Sound doesn't work at all.

Countless betas and 5 Release Candidates... yeah, they tested it. They fixed a *lot* before Final, too, but... there's still stuff that doesn't work quite right.

I haven't had a problem with the next song or play buttons, and I haven't tried the video playback. most of my problems occur with the Media Library.

I guess I was just spoiled by the 2.x series... :)

You know what? I dont think you're actually making this up. We've spent about 2 months of QA testing on this product. We've been working with the community. Users have submitted comments and bugs.

I'm starting to think that some of the posts that are being placed here are actually somebody trying to spread some negative propaganda. I don't know why you're specifically trying to scare users away, but there are comments being made that simply don't make any sense. If infact what you claim is true, why don't you provide a detailed explanation as to what you're doing that's exposing your problems.

It's one thing to say a product sucks, it's another to explain why you think it sucks. Don't spend your time trying to ruin the reputation of a good product just cause you have some other hidden agenda.

Actually I´ve had the same problem with the PLAY button going to the next song on the playlists. The performance is also another problem, makes you feel like running Mozilla before version 1.0. The equalizer has also given me a problem and it does take a LOT of CPU time to load. I´ll stick to 2.8 for the time being.

Do you mind being more specific? What is the problem that you're having with the "play" button going from one track to the next? Is it clipping, do you hear a loud noise, nothing? what?

What about the player is slow? load time? redraw? what? you gotta give us specific answers, not just vague complaints...

Also, what's this about the EQ? What do you mean it takes a lot of CPU to load? to open the window? to actually make the audio effects? you people can't just b**** and moan and then expect s*** to get better without actually saying exactly what the problem is.

Steve, while you're here (and to save me having to remember my winamp.com password again!) can you tell me if the db for winamp3 is kept in memory? Iv seen a lot of people say that winamp3 uses around 20mb RAM on their systems, but on mine the lowest Iv seen it use is 30mb (highest around 40mb so far - which for a mp3 is getting a bit silly). 30Mb is ok (not wonderful though!), Im just wondering if thats why my mem usage seems higher than most peoples?

i agree with the equalizer to a dregree...it works, presets don't. Stability is also an issue as far as I'm concerned. As is the memory footprint.

Ditch the crap nobody really needs: browser, gfx, skins etc...make a basic frickin' player!! Make all the other stuff available as plugins. Don't make me install all the crap cause YOU want me to have it. Let ME decide what is good for ME and if I want more give me the option to install those features on my own. Maybe then you might be able to decide which little bit of crap cope causes problems for people if they can 1 by 1 add/remove.

Dude,

First off, the installer gives you the option to choose what you want to install and what you don't. Check out the "optional components" subtree in the second screen of the installer.

Second, within the installer there are configurations for Full, Lite, and Custom.

Third, we're going to offer a standard, full, and lite installer on the site just like we do with Winamp2.

All this ranting and raving about bloat is completely ridiculous. Seriously, why don't you just see what options we provide you in the installer before you b**** about not having any options? Seriously.

Not sure, I'll check up on this one...