Winamp 5 pwnz.

[colicab-d]

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

[ULTIMATESSJ]

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

[MaDCaT75]

Originally Posted by ULTIMATESSJ

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

[Zachery]

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

[MaDCaT75]

Originally Posted by Faranth

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

exactly

[Dean C]

Originally Posted by colicab-d

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

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...

[colicab-d]

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

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

[futureal]

Originally Posted by ULTIMATESSJ

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

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.

[filburt1]

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.

[AWS]

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.