Winamp 5 pwnz.
 

I love this new winamp player - The functionality of 3 and the stability of 2 and you get winamp 5. Much improved over 3 and the default modern skin comes with like 20 color themes, supports mp3 ripping and burning (pro version.) Pre-configured hotkeys and multiple playlists and audio library. I love it!

www.winamp.com

cool, i will install it immidiately once i got home from work.

i'll stay with winamp 5 rc 666, i just like it ^^
and i use my old w2 skin.

so yes it'S a good product :)
much better than winamp3

It is far better than terrible 3, but I'm still sticking with my 2. Speedy, does what I need and nothing much more, and I have a good skin for it.

Hmm well it is finally "officially released" - time to give it a whirl :)

I prefer Winamp 2 to all the other Winamps released since, but personally, I didn't find Winamp 3 to be as slow as you all appear to think of it as...

It was fast enough for me;)

The major annoyance with the previous versions of Winamp were that my "Start/Pause" "Stop" "Next" "Previous" keyboard buttons didn't work with Winamp - Now they do, so I'm keeping it and using it instead of Media Player 9;)

Satan

I've been using Winamp 5 RC for a long while, and think it's great. Before that I was using Winamp 2, and 3 was just horrid.

I think within 6 months or so winamp 5 will be as speedy as 2.... remember winamp 2 wasnt as speedy as it is now ;)

winamp 5 is alright but untill they fix a few more issues im not upgrading

Nope - i'm sticking to wa2 - still the fastest ;)

WA5 wasnt much more intensive but my hot keys wont work. so there for no upgrady for me

On my MS Multimedia keyboard, the normal play/pause/prev/next keys work fine :confused:

its an issue that is being discussed on their forums it only seems to effect the XP platform

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=159976

Whats the difference between Windows media player and winamp? And no i dont mean how it looks :p

WMP is a full blown everything and theres not much of a way to disable specifc things.

for someone who just wants to see purdy things and browse the internet while WMP takes 50% cpu processes :) fine

winamp rarely takes above 3-4%

also you can disable lots of the features or enable even more

with WMP you can really only turn the things they deem arnt needed

I installed it on 5 pcs today at work, and it just crashes :\
Back to Winamp 2 we go

Well all i want is a nice list of the songs, organised by album like in windows media player.
And something that streams music faster, Oh and radio :p

wa5 should do this :)

Great ill go download now then. Im guessing its not free?

the pro version isnt but all it can do is burn and rip music :) which msot ppl dont need and if you REALLY want to get the pro version its only 15 bucks

hmm downloaded and installed, doesnt give a list like media player does though so im finding it more annoying than media player

Get the mmd3 skin - that will persuade you to stay with winamp at least ;)

works fine for me *shrug*

you should give itunes a whirl...

I did.... and I hate it.

what do you hate about it?

Uhm its just that songs get scrambled and stuff when listening to the radio... winamp doesnt do that. Plus its way too big and really no skins to choose from... doesnt do dock mode llike winamp does.

A list?

Click on the PL button:p

Satan

wa5 is great :) runs faster than wa2 for me

I just hate Itunes...... period.

ok well let see ..

first off why this whole speed thing with winamp 2 maybe im ignorant but the fact that on most modern pcs it takes about 2 seconds to load a music file is that not fast enuff?

If it was the apps loading time then yeah i could understand but again winamp 3 probs had min spec of of pentium 166 or above so again im confused.

windows media player, well i think we all know that thats a pile of bees knickers and well lets just not talk about it.

itunes, well its mac stylish, but i had a lot of probs with it on a 1.5ghz p4, it either wouldnt run, did run then quit for no reason, ate upto 50% cpu and a huge amount of ram. its also a huge file with little features 20mb no thnks not on 56k.

im gonna stick with my winamp 5, but as u can tell im not worried about speed, as long as its ok to look at and does what im asking then fine, i dont care about a second or 2 here or there :p

I don't get why everyone badmouths Windows Media Player. Personally i've have WMP over Winamp anyday, but iTunes is a damn good program

Cause both of em blow

WMP is an ok to watch a movie on but nothing more

exactly

You seem to forget that a lot of people are still running 1.66ghz desktops - so you notice the speed... it takes around 15 seconds for winamp5 to load on my machine so yes... speed is everything...

a pentium 166 isnt 1.66ghz mate its 166 megahertz. LOL and if ur running 1.6ghz of pentium 4 or amd then 15 seconds is a bit upsetting, ive never had more than 2-3 for a song on a 1.5ghz p4, on this 2.1ghz amd im on at mo its about 1-2 if that :p

and unless winamp 3 takes up a huge lump of ram then im still lost, i mean it would need to be doing something to cause 15 seconds of load time on a 1.6ghz machine

Because it's cool to hate Microsoft. They are a big corporation, and big corporations are all evil, and therefore they too are evil and anything they produce sucks.

Only about 1 out of 100 people who say "Microsoft suckz!!1!" can actually back it up with a real reason why. The rest just jump on the bandwagon.

Microsoft makes some damn fine software, and, like most large companies, they also make some pretty shoddy stuff that is rushed to market full of bugs and holes. In the case of Windows Media Player, it is a bit of a resource hog, but it integrates very well with Windows and in a Windows environment, I see no reason not to use it. I get better sound quality out of WMP than I do with Winamp 2 or 3 (haven't tried 5 yet) although I suspect it's a conflict between Winamp and my Soundblaster Audigy 2 card.

Microsoft makes excellent hardware. They make average to piss-poor software. They refuse to follow any documented user interface guidelines, can't figure out how to avoid buffer overflows to save their lives, and have antipiracy measures that hinder more legitimate users than pirates.

Apple has to-the-letter documentation on user interface guidelines and they follow them perfectly (except, recently for using the Metal look in a non-device-metaphor window). They do not require product keys for the US, and do not have critical updates daily.

Apple also costs an arm and leg to own.
The reason they don't follow any guidelines is because they make them up as they go along. 90% of the people in the world run Windows. If it was that bad do you think 90% would run it?
Don't give me the BS there isn't any other alternatives because there is and always was. Windows is easy to use and that's why they are number one. Every OS has problems. Every OS doesn't release security fixes with hours of having one reported. Last I checked there were more security alerts for Linux this month than Windows, but, I didn't see you on here bashing Linux for having a buffer overflow problem. Even the great Apple released a patch for a vulnerability that was found last month. One month to fix a problem.

On on WPA. If a person can't click a couple buttons to activate the product then they shouldn't have a computer. MS should have done this long ago. The price of software would be much less if they did. Apple doesn't have activation because, lets face it, not many people can afford the hardware to run OSX and last I checked you couldn't build an Apple by buying seperate components or buy a barebones system.