Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Software

Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 = Winamp 5! 896

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the next-generation-of-a-classic dept.
An anonymous coward writes: Having been a loyal iTunes user for quite some time, after seeing the report on Ars Technica about the newly released Winamp 5 Final, I simply had to try it out. It's pretty amazing, rivaling iTunes in many ways on Windows (mainly, speed). Ripping, library, etc: They're all there. Plus it comes with a slew of of new scriptable features. Simply put, it's dead sexy. Get your copy now! Note, last link requires some other OS.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 = Winamp 5!

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:47AM (#7733891)
    You know.. the one that hardly anyone uses.. I think its called Windows or something.

    Obscure thing. :)
    • Winamp 5 on Wine (Score:4, Informative)

      by arunkv (116142) <`moc.77tnemele' `ta' `todhsals'> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @01:16PM (#7736059) Homepage
      What's interesting is that with minimal trouble Winamp 5 installs and runs on Wine! (I'm using Wine 20031212.) That should open up Winamp 5 to a lot of people. I haven't done much experimentation but the player works (including Shoutcast streams), so does the equalizer. The visualization plugins however cause Wine to crash.
  • Link Broken (Score:5, Informative)

    by Flounder (42112) * on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:47AM (#7733893)
    Get your copy now! [nullsoft.com] Note, last link requires some other OS.

    Also note, the link does appear to look at the referrer. Able to get to the file from WinAmp.com [winamp.com], but not from the direct link.

    • Noted! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That really licked the llama's ass.
    • Re:Link Broken (Score:2, Informative)

      by admbws (600017)
      Seems to work well enough from here, but on a slightly offtopic note, should anyone actually honour the referer header anymore? It's a horrendous privacy flaw. Mozilla/Firebird users can add this to their user.js to disable it:

      user_pref("network.http.sendRefererHeader", 0);
      • Re:Link Broken (Score:4, Informative)

        by AntiOrganic (650691) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:57AM (#7733977) Homepage
        I'd imagine they're using sessions of some kind to keep track of your IP address, since I visited the site before and the direct link from Slashdot works fine for me.
        • Re:Link Broken (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Evil Adrian (253301)
          Ultimately, who cares if they track the referrer or not? This has nothing to do with anything...
        • Re:Link Broken (Score:4, Informative)

          by admbws (600017) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:01AM (#7734018) Homepage Journal
          $ wget http://download.nullsoft.com/winamp/client/winamp5 0_full.exe
          --14:00:00-- http://download.nullsoft.com/winamp/client/winamp5 0_full.exe
          => `winamp50_full.exe'
          Resolving download.nullsoft.com... done.
          Connecting to download.nullsoft.com[64.12.168.244]:80... connected.
          HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
          Length: 4,207,711 [application/octet-stream]

          Blah blah blah (Lameness filter encountered)..

          14:00:36 (114.79 KB/s) - `winamp50_full.exe' saved [4207711/4207711]

          No problems for me!
      • Re:Link Broken (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ChaosDiscord (4913) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @12:11PM (#7735396) Homepage Journal
        Seems to work well enough from here, but on a slightly offtopic note, should anyone actually honour the referer header anymore? It's a horrendous privacy flaw.

        Horrendous privacy flaw? The heck? The only potential privacy flaw is that some stupid web site might encode private data using a GET request (a Bad Idea), and you might move from there to another untrustworthy site. But in the vast majority of cases all the web site learns is where you came from. Is that such a terrible secret? Getting a general sense of where people are coming from can be quite helpful for improving your web pages, understanding your audience, and reacting to changing circumstances (Am I under a DDOS attack, or did Slashdot link to me?).

        On a related note, if you're concerned about it, feel free to switch it off. A few people doing so really isn't a big deal. And if everyone actively choses to do it, so be it, but I think the web will be worse for it. If you run into problems accessing some poorly designed sites, I'm willing to yield that perhaps you should automatically set the referrer to the page you're retreiving (but I'd suggest visiting less brain-dead sites). But please don't change the referrer to something arbitrary like "Field protected by Outpost (http://www.RETARD-SOFTWARE-VENDER-NAME-HERE.com/) " You're just making a nuisance for the guy examining the logs. Don't be rude. The standard makes the field optional, if it bothers you, just don't send it.

      • Re:Link Broken (Score:3, Informative)

        by Echnin (607099)
        And Opera users can do this by pressing "F12" and "f"...
    • Re:Link Broken (Score:3, Informative)

      by Earlybird (56426)
      The download pages do not work with Mozilla Firebird 0.7 -- I get the 404 after going to the pages and asking to download. It works fine with IE, so they're obviously checking the User-Agent header. Stupid, stupid admin (or is it AOL exec?) creatures!
    • Well, providing that freecache has a chance to cache it in the first place this link [freecache.org] should always work, without ip or referrer tracking :)
    • Re:Link Broken (Score:3, Informative)

      by jasondlee (70657)
      This link (from download.com) works:

      WinAmp 5.0 Full [com.com]

  • by benito27uk (646600) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:48AM (#7733904)
    Will it be winamp 10?
  • by corebreech (469871) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:49AM (#7733905) Journal
    See? [winamp.com]

    Also, if you're going to compare it to iTunes, mention the fact that you can't do a lot of things (like ripping to MP3) unless you pay for the Pro version.

    iTunes is free, right?

    So maybe somebody should mention this.
    • by interactive_civilian (205158) <mamoru@gma i l . com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:58AM (#7733982) Homepage Journal
      corebreech said:
      So maybe somebody should mention this.
      Don't worry. I'll take care of this.

      Hey everyone! I just wanted to let you know that while iTunes allows you to rip to .mp3 or AAC as well as other things (like run on a Macintosh) for FREE, you have to pay for the pro-version of WinAmp to do the same things (well...accept for the AAC and MacOS support).

      Just wanted to mention this...

      ;-p

      heh...oh well...I have some karma to burn.

      • by m3rr (669531) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:46AM (#7734438) Homepage
        If I remember correctly, there was a plugin available for Winamp 3 that allowed Ripping and I thought it worked quite well. Of course, it's not packaged with the software... You have to scour Winamp.com for a while to find it.
        • Winamp 5 usings the Winamp 2 plugin architecture rather than the Winamp 3. Which is good for me, but crappy if you have a Winamp 3 plugin you like.
    • by Liselle (684663) * <slashdot.liselle@net> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:00AM (#7734001) Journal
      I don't find them mutually exclusive. I use iTunes to organize portions of my music library... the portions that go on my iPod. I might be missing something, but I don't find iTunes terribly useful for listening to single one-shot tracks.

      I use Winamp for playing files with weird extensions, because there are so many nifty plugins that let me listen to PSFs, NSFs, etc. There's no reason to have a one-size-fits-all music player. I have Winamp 2, Winamp 3, and I use them both. Downloading Winamp 5 now, and we'll see how I like it.
      • Foobar 2000 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mitchell Mebane (594797) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @11:24AM (#7734859) Homepage Journal
        I use Winamp for playing files with weird extensions, because there are so many nifty plugins that let me listen to PSFs, NSFs, etc.

        I used to use Winamp for that, but now I use Foobar 2000 [foobar2000.org]. While not as polished as Winamp, it's an amazing piece of software.
    • by watzinaneihm (627119) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:01AM (#7734016) Journal
      Nothing big there methinks.Their help page, which is available by clicking on the help in winamp is also not available see! [winamp.com]
      I just downloaded it before the /. effect (got the link from ars) , and it does look dfferent. Equaliser is no longer a seperate panel, it is part of the main panel (I am calling each seperate piece in winamp 2.x a panel, eg. main player, equaliser, playlist , visualistation etc.) .
      The preferences menu is back to what it was in 2.x almost.The player appears bigger than 2.x or 3.x on my screen, I suppose it is designed for some huge resolution monitors.
      Maybe some internal changes too, turning on equaliser to maximum somehow doesnt seem to cause the cracking sound on my speakers anymore, Im not sure but it does seem to do software amplification better.
    • MP3 patent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:09AM (#7734086) Homepage Journal

      you can't do a lot of things [in Winamp] (like ripping to MP3) unless you pay for the Pro version.

      MP3 is patented, and the patent holder is not willing to license encoders on royalty-free terms.

      iTunes is free, right?

      The iTunes client is proprietary, and the no-charge version's MP3 encoder licensing fees are presumably subsidized by QuickTime Pro revenue and Macintosh hardware revenue.

      • Re:MP3 patent (Score:3, Insightful)

        "The iTunes client is proprietary"

        And just what the fuck is that supposed to mean in this context? How is it more proprietary than WinAmp?

        Sure, Apple subsidises iTunes with the iPod - Apple probably consider iTunes to be nothing more than promotional software FOR the iPod, but that doesn't stop iTunes being FREE AS IN BEER, does it?
        • by kylef (196302) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @02:27PM (#7736893)
          And just what the fuck is that supposed to mean in this context? How is it more proprietary than WinAmp?

          Good lord, man. If you don't stop being so defensive, you're going to combust spontaneously.

          I call what you have "Apple Defensiveness Syndrome" (ADS) and it isn't healthy. I've lost many friends to the (dis)order. Suddenly, all Apple jokes and/or criticisms (or even mention of rivals) become lightning rods that threaten to ignite flamewars of gigantic proportions.

          Try repeating this to yourself every time you get upset: "It's only a computer, it does not reflect my self worth."

    • mention the fact that you can't do a lot of things (like ripping to MP3) unless you pay for the Pro version.

      Why would I want to use ripping software that doesn't detect read errors? I use Exact Audio Copy [exactaudiocopy.de] because I don't want to rip a CD and then discover, by ear, that the rip had errors. So who the hell cares if iTunes, Audiograbber, Zlurp!, Musicmatch Jukebox, etc. all have ripping features that might or might not properly rip any given CD?
  • by hyperherod (574576) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:51AM (#7733915)
    Looks like you have to pay $15 [winamp.com] to get MP3 encoding and CD burning functionality. Considering a lot of people want to rip and burn to save money (read: nicking songs!), this seems a pretty stupid idea if they want to go better than iTunes, and any other software which will do it for free.
  • 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Da Fokka (94074) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:51AM (#7733919) Homepage
    I'm still using 2.whatever because it's faster than the newer versions, which have no additional features worth the speed decrease.
    • Re:2.0 (Score:5, Informative)

      by dschuetz (10924) <slash@daDALIvid.dasnet.org minus painter> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:56AM (#7733960) Homepage
      Actually, from what I understand 5.0 is the 2.x engine with the interface controls of 3.x. So it's the best of both worlds.

      I've been using a beta of 5.0 for about a month now, and it's very nice. Definitely worth checking out.
    • Re:2.0 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bish.dk (547663) <haas@@@itu...dk> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:56AM (#7733970) Homepage
      the newer versions, which have no additional features worth the speed decrease.

      It took me about 0.5 nanosecond to fall utterly in love with "global hotkeys". Never again will I need to use mouse or ALT+TAB to find Winamp, just to change the song. Everything can be controlled from whatever program I'm currently using.

      That's definately worth the increased startup-times (which, by the way, seems to only exist if you're using a "modern skin").
    • Re:2.0 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Down8 (223459) <Down8.yahoo@com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:57AM (#7733974) Homepage
      You are the reason for WinAmp5!

      I avoided 3.x like the plague, as well, b/c it was a resource hog. WA5 has taken the goodness from WA2 (speed), the goodness from WA3 (awesome skins), and maintained the general WinAmp greatness (play anything, cool vis, etc.), and brought them to WA5.

      Seriously, unless you're only looking ot be 31337, WA5 is worth a try. I would caution you again installing both and not expecting problems between the two though.

      -bZj
    • I used to use Winamp all the time, so when 5.0 was released, I jumped and downloaded it.

      Only to find out it doesn't seem to play WMA lossless.

      I have 60GB of free space and a pretty darn good 7.1 speaker system on this computer. I don't need to compress the music I listen to into a lossy format, so I went with WMA lossless when I re-encoded my collection.

      So, unless I've found a bug, Winamp 5 is out for now. (But it does stay installed, just in case)
  • Yes CmdrTaco... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nos. (179609) <andrew@theker r s . ca> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:51AM (#7733921) Homepage
    Note, last link requires some other OS.
    Imagine that a product called Winamp requires windows.
  • by StickMang (568987) * on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:52AM (#7733927)
    Moments after this story was posted, the download links were unavailable. Glory be the power that is slashdot!
  • by Crypto Gnome (651401) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:52AM (#7733937) Homepage Journal
    http://download.nullsoft.com/winamp/client/winamp5 0_full.exe brings up 404.

    Looks like someone at Nullsoft saw the HUGE load [slashdot.org] and pulled the file.

    anyone got a Mirror?
  • by ooby (729259) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:53AM (#7733939)
    I've been watching videos in winamp 2 for a while. It even runs better than Windows Media Player, though sometimes it's upside-down. I don't think the reviewer ever tried to run video in winamp.

    And another thing: 4MB?
    Winamp 2 is 1MB. No, thanks. I'll stick with my winamp 2.
    • Yeah! Since when are good programs larger than 1MB?!? ;)
    • Video in Winamp 2.91 is quite cool actually, more over it's fast at loading, unlike Winblows Media PLayer. Yeah, I've stuck with 2.91 for months now, and I don't want to upgrade to do the same stuff, but with "modern skins". Sorry, but Justin leaving has corrupted Winamp. I can see why he left. AOL's presence can be felt. I mean why should I pay 10 ($14.95) for a media player? Come on! Chances are, Winamp 5 has DRM and everything too... And it probably abuses third world children... No wait, that's another
    • And another thing: 4MB?
      Winamp 2 is 1MB. No, thanks. I'll stick with my winamp 2.

      Why don't you just follow the link and get the 655k Lite version, then?
    • wow what an excellent bit of logic there.

      its you who is missing out, and you have only that logic to blame. winamp 5 kicks ass (kicks the llama's ass) and don't just take my word for it, read the thousands of other e-pinions out there.

      have fun in winamp2 land.

      (for those of you that don't know, you can choose the classic skin and the behavior/performance of winamp is EXACTLY like the unreleased winamp 2.99. - there really is no reason not to upgrade)
    • to fix video problems in winamp install ffdshow
  • by 1000101 (584896) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:54AM (#7733952)
    When I go to http://winamp.com [winamp.com] it looks different than when I go to http://www.winamp.com [winamp.com] Why?
    • Someone forgot to update where the winamp.com virtual host points too?
    • by Down8 (223459)
      You know, when I heard WA5 dropped (this morning), I went to winamp.com and just figured the new build got leaked early. Then I later ended up at www.winamp.com and figured they had just updated it. Wouldn't have noticed had you not pointed it out. Weird. Guess they were saving the old in case the new site borked or soemthign.

      -bZj
    • by (trb001) (224998) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @11:00AM (#7734604) Homepage
      Technically, they're separate websites. In reality, they're typically set to the same thing. If you want to get technical, when you set up your DNS file, you are supposed to declare www as a CNAME of your domain (in this case, winamp.com). You don't have to...in fact, a lot of places don't. Try removing the www from some websites and note that they don't go anywhere...those are people that haven't set a resolution for their domain, only for www.domain.com.

      I believe it became a 'standard' early in the web's (note: not the *Internet's* life, the web's life) life. I remember in high school (Thomas Jefferson HS for Sci/Tech, near Washington, D.C.), we had the first high school web server (hell, before most colleges) back in the early 90's, and it was http://thor.tjhsst.edu. We switched over around 1995 because www was more 'normal'. These days, people take it for granted.

      --trb
    • DNS Entries (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical.gmail@com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @11:02AM (#7734617) Homepage
      I don't know how much you know about DNS, but here goes:

      When you request a URL, you make a request to your ISPs DNS server. It, in turn, makes a request back to (eventually) the rood DNS servers. Those point you to the DNS server of the domain you are trying to reach.

      ftp.winamp.com
      www.winamp.com
      mail.winamp.com
      download.winamp.com

      Are all resolved to IP addresses by the DNS server sitting in the winamp campus.

      So, when someone made the entries in their DNS, www.winamp.com and winamp.com were pointed to different IP addresses. One should have been an a-record (I think) and the other should have been an alias (or cname) to the first. But that didn't happen.

      At some point, someone changed the IP address of the http server and only one DNS entry was updated.

      winamp.com resolves to 205.188.245.120
      www.winamp.com resolves to 205.188.244.138

      So it looks as if Winamp has two servers sitting on two seperate class C address spaces in their NOC.

      In short, bad DNS management and oversight lead to two DNS entries for two webservers on seperate address spaces.
      • Re:DNS Entries (Score:3, Insightful)

        Not at all. First of all, both addresses could be pointing to different interfaces on the same machine. Second, I can almost guarantee that one of the IP addresses/hostnames is tied to an SSL certificate (for online registration/payment, perhaps?) Or possibly firewall rules based on the destination class C.
  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @09:56AM (#7733965)
    I'm still using Winamp 2 because they later started to degrade the project with bloating. Is this one really good, and is there any whiff of "DRM" to tell me what I cannot do with my own content on my own machine?
  • I have used WinAmp in the past, and like most apps with "skins", it flashes, blinks, doesn't quite work right, and is generally retarded on Windows machines. Does this version finally work OK? Does anyone else have these problems?
  • Installing.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by MikeDX (560598) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:00AM (#7734005) Journal
    Remember to untick "Add AOL shortcut to desktop"
  • by 3Suns (250606) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:01AM (#7734014) Homepage
    2+3=5

    Is Nullsoft adopting a Fibonacci versioning system?

    'cause that would be awesome.
    • Um, that should be 21, not 19 in the subject... I can't add this morning.
      • That still makes more sense than intel's chip versioning.

        Back in the early 90's, the original Pentium was called "P5." 5th generation, I believe, whereas the 80386 and 80486 were 3rd and 4th gen.

        For example, Gateway had model numbers like "P5-120" for 120MHz Pentiums.

        Pentium Pro became P6.

        Then came the Pentium 2. This became abbreviated as P2. Or sometimes P-II.
        Pentium 3 = P3. Or sometimes P-III.
        Pentium 4 = P4.

        I sure hope they never come out with anything called "Pentium 5" or somebody will get pun
    • by American AC in Paris (230456) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:25AM (#7734233) Homepage
      Is Nullsoft adopting a Fibonacci versioning system?

      'cause that would be awesome.

      ...I dunno. Fibonacci versioning sounds cool and all, but tech support would be a nightmare:

      Tech: "Okay, sir, which version of our software are you running?"
      Customer: "Version 1."
      Tech: "OK...which version 1 are you running?"
      Customer: "Huh?"
      Tech: "Are you running the first version 1 or the second version 1?"
      Customer: "Ummmm..."

  • Does it still (Score:3, Informative)

    by LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:02AM (#7734027) Homepage Journal
    hijack your bookmarks and change your video preferences to open everything in Winamp regardless if you specifically denied it that right during setup?
    After Winamp3 did that to me, that was it.
  • For me, iTunes sets the bar here, as far as anything I've tried on Windows. It's so easy in iTunes to drag songs to other playlists. Why does iTunes get this SO right, and nobody else comes close?

    What I like to do is listen to my entire collection on shuffle, most of the time. Occaisionally I'll hear a song that I'd like to add to one of my playlists (coding music playlist, one for my next roadtrip, etc). In iTunes this is easy. In Winamp it's possible but kind of a mess, and you can't drag from the playlist window to the list of playlists in the Media Library window. And I diskike the "let's have a different window for everything" interface concept of Winamp in general.

    Those are nitpicky concerns, but for a music player they're pretty vital. It's got to be easy to use, since I have it open, off to the side, while coding... if I have to devote a lot of thought to futzing around with somebody's kludgy interface, it's a big distraction.

    Not that iTunes is perfect. Chugs like a mofo when you've got 50-60GB of music imported...
  • Mirror. (Score:3, Informative)

    by themassiah (80330) <scooper@coopster.net> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:05AM (#7734055) Homepage Journal
    Hopefully my local RoadRunner's NOC can handle this. I know they just laid a new buttload of fiber, we'll see if we can get them to light it up. *crosses fingers*

    http://home.twcny.rr.com/scooper2/winamp50_full.ex e [rr.com]
  • "Its dead sexy."

    Great, now everytime I run Winamp, I'm going to think about fat bastard! "I'm Soooo Sexxxxxxxxy". Thanks for the mental vision!
  • long time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Down8 (223459) <Down8.yahoo@com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:09AM (#7734089) Homepage
    Didn't iTunes for Windows only drop a month or two ago? How does one count a month as being a "long time" user?

    -bZj
  • Note, last link requires some other OS.

    I can't find the link off hand, but I seem to recollect CmdrTaco revealed in an IRC log that over half of /. hits were from Windows.

  • It's actually was named Winamp3, not Winamp 3. Supposedly Nullsoft really wanted to have mp3 in the product name...
  • Lite Version (Score:5, Informative)

    by RussGarrett (90459) <russNO@SPAMgarrett.co.uk> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:18AM (#7734160) Homepage
    There is a lite version available here [nullsoft.com], which doesn't include freeform skinning, or video, and is basically "old school" winamp2. And it's only 650kB.
  • ... for some time?

    How long has that service been around that one can make it sound like they've been a subscriber to iTunes from way back when it was just a local band?
  • Some mirrors: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Vellmont (569020) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:20AM (#7734185) Homepage
    Canada Mirror [ctech.ca]
    mirror 2 [clubic.com]
  • by angstorm (683103) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:34AM (#7734305)
    I've used Winamp 5 pre-releases for a month, here's my observations:

    * FAST: As snappy as 2.x even on old machines using the "classic" skin.
    * STABLE: In a month of use, no crashes or uncouth behavior.
    * 2.x FEATURES: "Jump" and "Physically Delete" have been re-introduced.
    * SKINS: Works with version 2 and 3 skins. New default skin is user-friendly and purdy.
    * RIPPING: Making good MP3s from your CDs is fast and easy.
    * Global hotkeys: Control all program features through global hotkeys, e.g. press CTRL-ALT-5 to activate pause/play, even when Winamp is not focused as the active app.
    * Media library: Quickly find songs based on title, album, and artist.

    If you liked Winamp2 but not 3, you should give this a try.
    • Just curious. How good is the mp3-encoder it uses and has it got error correcting cd-ripping?
      If it's not as good or better than the Exact Audio Copy / Lame combination, the cd-rip feature is not worth paying for. (I read that you had to pay for the cd-rip version.)
      EAC/Lame is fast, easy and makes good mp3's for free. =)

      But the global hotkey does seem interesting...
  • wasabi (Score:4, Informative)

    by nazh (604234) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:42AM (#7734378) Homepage Journal
    for those of you that prefere winamp3,
    it will continue as wasabi-player. http://www.wasabidev.org/ [wasabidev.org],
    with they call a mostly opensource licence [wasabidev.org]. but they do mention crossplatform :)
  • A Skeptic's View (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Apreche (239272) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:42AM (#7734386) Homepage Journal
    Ok. I'm a winamp2 nut. I refused winamp3. So naturally my first reaction when I heard about 5 was, screw that! winamp2 forevar!

    But I couldn't resist trying it. So I downloaded the free winamp5. I must say that this is an appropriate analogy.

    windows2000:windowsXP::winamp2:winamp5

    winamp 5 can be turned into winamp2 with a few mouse clicks
    windows xp can be turned into windows2000 in a few mouse clicks

    winamp 5 can run every plugin, skin and visualization from winamp 2
    windows xp can do everything windows 2000 can do

    winamp 5 has more options and more features than winamp 2
    windows xp has some stuff in it that win2k don't got

    The audio quality is identical. On my fast pc the speed is identical. I don't need cd burning or ripping because I have CDex and Nero, so I don't need to pay for the pro version, which only costs 15$.

    My faith in nullsoft has been restored. I'll try winamp 5 a week and see if I find a reason not to use it.

    Oh, the minibrowser is gone (yay!) but it is present in the media library (boo!), but you can click one button and it will go away (yay!). So it's all good.
  • shoutcast video (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SubtleNuance (184325) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:46AM (#7734441) Journal
    Another, very interesting feature is NSV streaming video. [winamp.com]
    Like the 'internet radio' stations streamed by shoutcast, there are a few internet TV stations. This my friends, is truely significant. Winamp becomes a digital-tv tuner (....i dont mean HDTV). People will be able to stream out any video they'd like -- the other day I watched a few episodes of aqua teen hunger force, some pr0n, and the movie Phone Booth.
    Imagine a million streams of public access tv, mixed up with random bits of quality niche movies/shows....

    THAT is what makes winamp5 cool. Now, i might just be ignorant, but is there another app that puts a selection of streaming video stations together for you to surf?
  • Idiots (Score:5, Informative)

    by elohim (512193) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:48AM (#7734456)
    Those idiots should have torrented this. Here's a working link though:
    http://64.12.168.244/winamp/client/winamp 50_full.e xe
  • Ah Nullsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phildog (650210) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @12:08PM (#7735371) Homepage
    The company that AOL wants you to forget they own... Nullsoft releases cool software called Waste, AOL pulls plug almost instantly. Nullsoft releases cool software called AIMazing, AOL pulls plug almost instantly.

    I still use WinAmp, but this company no longer whips the llama's ass.

  • by Keick (252453) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @01:08PM (#7735984)
    ... us early adopters who actually paid for WinAmp back in the day?

    If I'm not mistaken, you could purchase WinAmp back then with free upgrades for life. 2 monthes later, they honored that contract by making it free. Now that the Pro version isn't, I want my free upgrade :)
    • by NullPhi (567952) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @02:10PM (#7736652) Homepage Journal
      Unfortunately, no.

      NullSoft is being really stupid on this issues. They have stated you paid for "WinAmp" and that this new product is "WinAmp Pro". You still have the ability to receive "WinAmp" for free, but not "WinAmp Pro".

      This is quite a poor decision -- especially since it will only affect a handful of users (and would not really put a dent in their sales).

      Yay for being greedy!

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Working...