Winamp 5.0 Beta. - Page 2

Verto · October 18, 2003, 17:28

Here's the WMP 9 Series default skin, w/ playlist.

Here's what I normally use.

Adagio · October 18, 2003, 17:37

Thx... and there you see why I don't use it... I always wants my playlist visible, and it doesn't look good how that playlist is looking...

Verto · October 18, 2003, 17:52

Here's one that not only looks cool, but has a 'contained' playlist.

Anyone who wants it can get it here.

Ari Rahikkala · October 18, 2003, 18:13

2+3=5? Has some Winamp developer read the Illuminatus! series?

Asher · October 18, 2003, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by geeslaka
Skins? WTH are those, how it looks?

It's not just how it looks, it's how it works. Skins in WMP8/9 and Winamp 3/5 are "freeform" in that skins can totally and completely change the interface. People like different functionality in their interfaces, it is entirely possible to replicate the iTunes functionality with a Winamp 5 skin, for example.

Quote:

Why does it matter how it looks? Oh wait, you people don't have unlimited desktop space, nevermind.

Firstly, for the life of me I can't see how this applies to skinning media players.
Secondly, for the life of me I can't see why you'd need "unlimited desktop space" -- and I also can't see how that can be remotely easier to use than having, say, 1, 2, 4, or 8 desktops.

Quote:

(For Asher: Can Windows handle 3x10x10 and bind keys to change between them?)

3x10x10?

Asher · October 18, 2003, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
With great ease. What does WinAmp have over WMP9? If it is has some kind of superiority over WMP9 in audio playback, let me know so I can switch over.

Besides, WMP9 has far superior skins. Just compare the two.

Winamp has more skin variety, and arguably better skins to choose from. Both can do skins like the cookieman in your example.

Q Classic · October 18, 2003, 18:21

this new winamp isn't half bad. i do have a few stability problems switching skins.

classic > modern > classic = crash.
in any case, i don't like the modern skin. the windowshade mode is too big.

SlowwHand · October 18, 2003, 18:29

I've been sticking with WinAmp 2.91 because 3 was rumored to suck.
This is good though?

geeslaka · October 18, 2003, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

It's not just how it looks, it's how it works. Skins in WMP8/9 and Winamp 3/5 are "freeform" in that skins can totally and completely change the interface. People like different functionality in their interfaces, it is entirely possible to replicate the iTunes functionality with a Winamp 5 skin, for example.

Oh, okay, I wasn't sure of the exact effect of changing skins.

Quote:

Firstly, for the life of me I can't see how this applies to skinning media players.

It only matters how something looks if you have to look at it.

Quote:

Secondly, for the life of me I can't see why you'd need "unlimited desktop space" -- and I also can't see how that can be remotely easier to use than having, say, 1, 2, 4, or 8 desktops.

I tend to run lots of fullscreen apps, for instance, right now I have a 17MB jpg of Venus spread across my entire second workspace.

Quote:

3x10x10?

3 workspaces, each containing 10 rows of 10 viewports.

Q Classic · October 18, 2003, 18:58

Quote:

I've been sticking with WinAmp 2.91 because 3 was rumored to suck.
This is good though?

how's this: on classic skin mode, its' just as responsive as winamp 2.91. actually, i can't tell a difference when it's running between winamp5 and winamp2--especially since winamp5 supports winamp2 plugins natively, like geiss visualization and dfx audio. it also supports winamp2 skins natively.

it's got a much smaller footprint than winamp3 ever had. even in the ass-ugly modern skin mode, it's just as responsive as winamp2 classic.

video playback is the same as it is in winamp2. smooth, good, but you're better off with a different player.

there are stability problems when switching between skins, and mine also doesn't seem to remember that i always want it on top whenever i switch between skins.

SlowwHand · October 18, 2003, 19:07

I'm going for it.

Adagio · October 18, 2003, 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I've been sticking with WinAmp 2.91 because 3 was rumored to suck.
This is good though?

Yes, it sucks... though it's prettier, but still missing lots of features, and contains lots of bugs...

In the short time I have tried it, I have found these problems:

- When starting Winamp 3 by opening a playlist file it (sometimes) plays the songs in the playlist, but most of the times it doesn't show the playlist in the playlist window
- When changing song (automatic) it doesn't update the playlist view (It doesn't mark which song it's playing)
- You can't change the icon of the files
- You can't make the song title scroll in the task window
- It doesn't save when I make the change to "fade between songs"
- Impossible to minimize
- I loaded a skin, loaded another skin, tried to reload the first skin, got the error the skin was not supported in Winamp 3... after lots of tries, I finally managed to reload the skin
- By pressing some wrong places on the skin, some weird things can happen:
-- Some empty menu opens, and the playlist gets cleared (No, I didn't press the clear playlist button... wasn't even near the playlist)
-- The program crashes

But apart from those few errors... no, the app works perfect

SlowwHand · October 18, 2003, 19:13

Q Classic · October 18, 2003, 19:41

huh. funny, isn't it? i loved sonique when it was king. then i switched to winamp/xmms. i've never looked into winamp's library feature, or its minibrowser, or a lot of the other specials.

playlist, player, equalizer, that's all i need.

this is how i usually use it.

the image is ultra-lossy 'cause i'm on dialup for another two weeks or so.

SlowwHand · October 18, 2003, 19:46

Why is the slide control for volume properties on wave balance slide back down in volume after each song?
Did that in the past and somehow or someway it stopped.

St Leo · October 18, 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Why is the slide control for volume properties on wave balance slide back down in volume after each song?
Did that in the past and somehow or someway it stopped.

Because the winamp volume controller resets the windows volume controller.

Quote:

- Impossible to minimize

My Winamp3 minimizes quite nicely to either the taskbar, the systray, or both.

Sarxis · October 19, 2003, 01:04

What's wrong with WinAmp2? Nothing.. that's why I still use it.

Grrr · October 19, 2003, 01:32

Have they fixed the bug that winamp 3 has when you put more then 16384 songs in the media library?

geeslaka · October 19, 2003, 01:42

They should have.
Given the number, it sounds like a number range problem. Few programs work well at the edge of their number range.

Method · October 19, 2003, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala
2+3=5? Has some Winamp developer read the Illuminatus! series?

stop being so damn cultured

geeslaka · October 19, 2003, 02:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala
2+3=5? Has some Winamp developer read the Illuminatus! series?

No, they just couldn't figure out the normal versioning system, so they're spewing random but increasing numbers for their versions.

Asher · October 19, 2003, 04:43

I just discovered some new things with Winamp 5. On the Modern skin, things get added when you drag the box bigger (either in window shade mode or in standard mode).

Like when you make the standard box bigger, a beat-sensing thing comes up (2nd picture).

The first picture is how I use Winamp in Windowshade mode.

Asher · October 19, 2003, 04:44

And it would help to attach it

geeslaka · October 19, 2003, 04:54

Well Asher? Can Windows provide 300 desktops arranged 3x10x10?
[url=http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?action=showpost&postid=2418234#post2418234]Here{/url] is the clarification you asked for, in case you missed it.

Asher · October 19, 2003, 04:58

Probably not, frankly I've never tried.

It's like bragging about how you're able to set your monitor in 1x1 ASCII character mode -- what's the point and what kind of masochist uses it?

Do you really have such a lack of organizational skills that you can't deal with 4 desktops at once? That's incredible, really.

To me it's another example of where Linux excels at stupid, useless, and trivial things and has yet to provide useful things like a responsive UI and decent font anti-aliasing.

Beware geeks with free time.

geeslaka · October 19, 2003, 05:06

Quote:

Do you really have such a lack of organizational skills that you can't deal with 4 desktops at once? That's incredible, really.

Lack of? Did you even read the post I linked to? I keep my windows well organized and seperate.

Quote:

To me it's another example of where Linux excels at stupid, useless, and trivial things...

To me, it's another example of a place where Windows has a limit and Linux does not.

Asher · October 19, 2003, 05:09

Quote:

Lack of? Did you even read the post I linked to? I keep my windows well organized and seperate.

If you need 300 active desktops on one computer, you do have some major organizational problems. 99% of users make do with one, others with two or more, but mostly on dual monitors.

Using multiple desktops to the tune of hundreds per machine is simply and unquestionably retarded and time wasted developing such capabilities.

Who said Windows has the limit? Linux uses third party programs to do it, why don't you do the same for Windows if you really want it?

It's certainly possible in Windows, it's just that to my knowledge no one has ever tried.

Most people are too smart to actually need 300 desktops on a single machine, running at once...

To me, it's another example of just how f*cked up Linux users really are, and why it'll never get anywhere on the desktop until they get their priorities straight.

Asher · October 19, 2003, 05:15

I can only have 9 virtual desktops running at once with the software I currently have installed, and that's a limit I'll have to live with.

How about some usability questions:
1) Do you still need to worry about library versions and incompatibily constantly in Linux while "installing" programs? (Yes)
2) Is it still impossible in most distros to change the screen resolution on the fly without rebooting XWindows? (Yes)
3) Is there complete and adequate support for mousewheels and 3rd, 4th, and 5th mouse buttons? (No)
4) Does the text still look like **** compared to WinXP and OS X? (Yes)

But wait! It supports 300 virtual desktops. None of the above matters, we know our priorities.

geeslaka · October 19, 2003, 05:59

Quote:

3) Is there complete and adequate support for mousewheels and 3rd, 4th, and 5th mouse buttons? (No)

There is for the 3rd button.

Quote:

4) Does the text still look like **** compared to WinXP and OS X? (Yes)

I haven't taken a close look at XP or OS X's text, so I won't comment on this one.

Quote:

But wait! It supports 300 virtual desktops. None of the above matters, we know our priorities.

And being able to use your 3d nav skills in your computer should be low priority?

And it would be 3x4x4, except I want to examine that pic of Venus without having to use scrollbars(yes, it is faster to switch viewports).

St Leo · October 19, 2003, 13:39

I think that we can all agree that the Microsoft distribution of Windows is unspeakably horrible and that someone should fork it and start distributing an improved one.