W Y
NZ
No favorite files added yet
3.0 Final (Build #488) (Aug 8, 2002)
Winamp has been the primary mp3 player on all of my systems since the early 1.xx versions. I'm somewhat disappointed that WA3 Final loads up slowly, despite being a fresh installation, and on a system that is well within spec (despite being over an year old). Playback is good, the playlist enhancements are great, the skinning is just eye candy, I haven't tried out any new plugins or skins that take advantage of the claimed flexibility of the new WA3. Yes, WA3 takes up a lot more memory than WA2.xx, somewhere upwards of 8MB, but that's hardly an issue these days, what with RAM being so cheap. I'd like this version a lot more if it simply loaded up FASTER. I can't just double-click on an mp3, and have WA load up and playing all in a second... WA3 makes me wait a wee bit north of 5secs, not a good user-experience. I'd much prefer not having to have WA constantly loaded just so that it gives me that responsiveness I'm used to.
3.0 Beta 10 (May 10, 2002)
beta 10 is better than beta 9, given that my experience in using beta 9 was WinMX constantly crashing, or locking up, or causing numerous other problems. So it's a good thing that beta 9 only lasted a day. The multisource downloading is the main reason why I now use the 3.0 betas rather than 2.6. If everyone switches over to 3.0 when it goes gold, the amount you can download will increase significantly, AND you'll have a much better chance of finishing something. Most probably better for dial-up users than broadband, but still a huge plus. The interface is not much improved over 2.6, but slightly better. Autocomplete (auto-retry) of downloads works better than Grokster/Kazaa, at least in my experience.
4.01 (Nov 11, 2001)
A powerful email client, with a different UI admittedly. To the person below who said that Pegasus has a proprietary storage system which only Pegasus can use, this is only partly true. It has its own storage system, yes; but it also supports the same storage system which Eudora uses (and many other email clients, of which Outlook Express does only a partial and broken implementation), and therefore if you so wish to move to Eudora or something else, then the transition is eased. The email filtering system covers most of what most people will ever need. The HTML rendering is much better compared to v3.xx but still has its quirks. This said, it is not vulnerable to embedded script viruses in HTML emails like other email clients. An upcoming point release will add extra features including encrypted email storage, although this is a mostly moot point when using it under an operating system like 2000/XP with the correct security settings. Overall, a great program, but not quite a 5 star due to some small UI quirks which I haven't found a setting or workaround for.
4.01 (Jun 9, 2005 - 6:17 AM)
Wouldn't it have just been better if Microsoft had standard ways of integrating media players into the OS instead? That way it wouldn't matter in the slightest if it was WMP or MPC or (insert your favourite software) getting installed. Maybe I'm just way too idealistic...
4.01 (Apr 7, 2005 - 1:00 PM)
MSN Plus! by Patchou has had _OPTIONAL_ adware for ages now.
Too many people appear to be unaware of this, and I would hope that the "new" information replaces the current paranoia and misinformation still being persisted :)
4.01 (Feb 4, 2005 - 1:36 PM)
I have often thought the same thing about different variations in open source.
What Mr. Gates is probably also implying is that open standards is a better route, not necessarily open source.
4.01 (May 2, 2003 - 11:44 PM)
I have to agree with nate. Perception IS everything. For the vast majority of people that buy things, the technical superiority of something pales in comparison to the wow-factor. People, as a rough general rule, like things that are simple, easy to understand, and make them look good. I think that Apple is onto something here. And that's coming from an all-Windows user.
4.01 (Apr 9, 2003 - 11:17 AM)
So if you were trying to distribute sell something on the 'net, you wouldn't care one bit about securing your rights to how it should be distributed? Is DRM so bad if it means maintaining a channel of income, or restricting access to the content to only those you intend? DRM is only there for that reason, not to magically take away your ability to do what you want with anything else.Feel free to correct my interpretation of DRM as you see fit.