Slashdot Mirror


Winamp Down for the Count

Artifex writes "BetaNews is reporting that the doors at Nullsoft have been closed: 'The last members of the original Winamp team have said goodbye to AOL and the door has all but shut on the Nullsoft era, BetaNews has learned. Only a few employees remain to prop up the once-ubiquitous digital audio player with minor updates, but no further improvements to Winamp are expected.'" The Register also has a story.

815 comments

  1. Woah! by lightdarkness · · Score: 1

    With all the sucess of Winamp 5, I am very supprised at this sudden closure. Tis a sad day indeed. DAMN YOU AOL!!!!

    1. Re:Woah! by swordboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think that this is an opportunity for Google. They could buy up companies like this, combine them with various other companies or open source software and come up with a Google OS or a "fascia" for Windows.

      - Google Winamp
      - Google OpenOffice
      - Google Firefox/Phoenix (complete with gmail integration)
      - Google Linux (BSD?)

      Now that they've sold their souls to the devil (i.e. - gone public), they've certainly got the resources to put it together with the much needed polish that the mainstream is looking for.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    2. Re:Woah! by SledgeHBK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait, yeah, then they could make a internet service, you know... google 9.0 OPTIMIZED!!!!!1111

      Wait......

    3. Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH MY GOD!!!1

    4. Re:Woah! by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You LIKED Winamp 3?

      I and everyone else I've heard from thought Winamp 3 was much worse than Winamp 2. I tried 3 and quickly went back to 2.

      Winamp 5 fixed most of the problems with Winamp 3. The stuff you have to pay for in Winamp 5 is strictly optional and for convenience, you could always use Lame and EAC to do at least as good a job with a little more work.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    5. Re:Woah! by Bzap · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'm still using the latest 2.x version, stable as hell, lightweight, does exactly what it's supposed to.

    6. Re:Woah! by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well if Google wants to stray from it's core business this could be a good idea. Buy nulsoft and turn winamp into an Itunes killer. Buy Rio and and intergrate there players into the whole Google Music Store. Or they could just keep doing what they do and making money.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Woah! by halightw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Version 2? wow... that's way up there, I still use the command line based pre-release version 0.00001 beta ;)

    8. Re:Woah! by nazh · · Score: 1

      there is still some of us that prefere winamp3. I still use it, mostly because of the playlist manager. just too bad they stopped working on it too soon, would been perfect had they removed some of the few bugs. but still even with those bugs i think its way better than the version 2

      just let us hope they will continue the work on the wasabiplayer. www.wasabidev.org one of their goals is to get it on linux aswell. a reason winamp3 had buildt names like 499a, 499b as the version 500 was supposed to work on linux.

    9. Re:Woah! by aasania · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So would that be:

      -gamp?
      -goffice?
      -gbrowser?
      -glinux?

      There's other software they could do, too! Too bad "gimp" is already taken, though...

    10. Re:Woah! by vasqzr · · Score: 1


      I'm still using the latest 2.x version, stable as hell, lightweight, does exactly what it's supposed to.

      As do I

      http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=winamp

    11. Re:Woah! by Amadodd · · Score: 1

      Ditto. Upgraded once to V3 and reverted back after 10 minutes. What did they do wong in V3 and is V5 worth the upgrade?

      --
      Freedom of speech doesn't come with bandwidth.
    12. Re:Woah! by autophile · · Score: 1
      I think that this is an opportunity for Google. They could buy up companies like this, combine them with various other companies or open source software and come up with a Google OS or a "fascia" for Windows.

      Better make sure those fascia don't turn into fascists for Windows!

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    13. Re:Woah! by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      5 eats up WAY too many resources on my machine at home. 2.X for me also.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    14. Re:Woah! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      V5 is basically a continuation of V2, but with a few features from V3. Looks like V2, acts like V2, has media support from V3. That's about it.

      Two things:

      1.) Change the skin to Classic. Whatever they are doing with skins, make them stop (the new one (modern) just eats resources and is slow as hell, why?).
      2.) V5 has crashed on me, but I think the problem is related to various third party codecs, not WinAmp. Funny how all the codecs work fine with WMP, but not WinAmp.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    15. Re:Woah! by bynary · · Score: 1

      Right, and become another AOL. See, it didn't work for AOL and it probably wouldn't work for Google.

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    16. Re:Woah! by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "I think that this is an opportunity for Google. They could buy up companies like this, combine them with various other companies or open source software and come up with a Google OS or a "fascia" for Windows."

      I think Google will become everything people expected from the AOL Time Warner merger, the ultimate power in the internet universe. Google should buy all the good parts of AOL (AIM, Winamp property, Digital Cities, Mapquest, and the stake in TiVo) since Time Warner has no stomach for the biz and smashing Microsoft...

      A Google Linux distribution or acquiring a strong stake in Apple would also be of extreme interest...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    17. Re:Woah! by sandman935 · · Score: 1

      Same here... tried 3 and went back to 2.8. Tried 5 and went back again.

      --

      Defecation occurs.
    18. Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Pre-release verion 0.00001 beta?!? I'm still humming to tunes to myself using the Winamp Vaporware.

    19. Re:Woah! by joper90 · · Score: 1

      So.. Young hacker coders get given $100 million, and then expect to work in a highly corparate enviroment... and the left? what took so long.

    20. Re:Woah! by clymere · · Score: 1

      Google buying Rio could only be a good thing for everyone else. Rio has always had some of the _worst_ software i've ever seen, not to mentioned horrendous support for it. To be honest, the only way I've found my Rio player usable is using open source software :)

      --
      once you go slack, you never go back
    21. Re:Woah! by jekewa · · Score: 1
      You mean the imp web-mail software? They already have GMail. Or you were thinking The Internet Movie Project, which is pretty cool, too.

      Just picking...glinux and gimp don't really tease the same way...

      --
      End the FUD
    22. Re:Woah! by isecore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and took ages to get out of beta

      And IIRC I first tried an alpha of Winamp5 and about three months later it popped up on their site. It shocked the hell out of me, since alpha usually is developer-speak for "yup, in another year or so we might release this, regardless of how 'finished' it is!". It's also quite stable for being such a "quick" development.

      As for the "liking" I really don't see much wrong with WA5. WA3 was not good, focus was on skins and not usability, while WA5 managed to combine these two. WA3 was full of really funky stuff (such as the hassle to get hotkeys working) while WA5 worked flawlessly and has a functional AND good-looking default interface. In fact, the default interface is so good that I'm using it, since there's no other skin/theme/hotdog that does what I want.

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    23. Re:Woah! by MsGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      For Windows, Foobar 2000 is lighter and uses less resources than WinAmp. It's also 100% free of nasty hitchhikers, aka spyware. Although WinAmp never had spyware either, some competitors do.

      XMMS under Linux is what WinAmp should have been...light footprint, does what it needs to, and nothing it does not.

      Under MacOS, SoundApp is my choice for the same reasons. Light, does what it should and nothing else.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    24. Re:Woah! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Why would you want there to be an iTunes killer? iTunes is the only thing standing in the way of Windows Media 9 and Microsoft's DRM from becoming a "standard!"

      I prefer competition, but I'd take an Apple "standard" over a Microsoft one any day!

      (I wouldn't mind Google coming out with a Windows Media killer, although I know that even Google managing to license FairPlay is a pipe dream)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    25. Re:Woah! by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --You can HUM?! Luxury! The only music I listen to these days are the random songs running thru my head!

      "Whatever happened to Mary?" - Chumbawamba

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    26. Re:Woah! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      " Why would you want there to be an iTunes killer?"
      Because iTunes is not open source and it does not run under Linux.
      Frankly I do not really want ITunes dead but it is the target for usabliliy and features.
      "I prefer competition, but I'd take an Apple "standard" over a Microsoft one any day!"

      Why? A closed standard is a closed standard. If Apple ever dominated the market the way microsoft does do you think they would be less evil?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    27. Re:Woah! by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      I'm retarded.

      In my post above, I meant to be speaking about 3 when I was talking about 5.

      Winamp 5, well, I have no clue, because I've never used it. I was thinking "Oh, Winamp 5? That's that new release that was horrible!" I was remembering my experience with 3.

      Sorry for the mis-post - kind of ruined my whole point.

    28. Re:Woah! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      If Apple ever dominated the market the way microsoft does do you think they would be less evil?
      That's a hypothetical situation. I'm talking about reality, and that reality is that Microsoft is much more dangerous right now than Apple is. Moreover, considering how Apple has acted in the past, I doubt that their "corporate culture" will ever allow them to dominate the market the way Microsoft does.

      Also, Apple is much more amenable to hacking and Open Source. Between the actual UNIX-ness of the OS (as opposed to "barely POSIX" in Windows) to the included X server to the free IDE to the great scriptability of the OS (you can use bash, Applescript, or a combination of the two, and the computer comes that way by default), almost everything about Apple is favorable to us (except for iTunes, iPod, and FairPlay).

      Yes, FairPlay is closed, and that sucks. But all the other "standards" (and Standards) Apple has come up with are open (e.g. Rendezvous/ZeroConf). Besides, HYMN is great (especially since FairKeys came out and I don't have to use Windows anymore) -- and there's no equivalent for MS's DRM.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    29. Re:Woah! by Vengie · · Score: 1

      you have SONGS in your head?! LUXURY! I don't even have MUSIC. Hell, I don't even have EARS. In my day, we had to walk, but we didn't have schools, so we didn't know where we were walking or why, but it was up hill -- both ways, they hadn't even INVENTED down hill yet. And it was always snowing, but we didn't have sun yet. And forget not having shoes, we didn't even have FEET. We just had bloody stumps and we were glad. AND THEN they invented cosmic background radiation, and THAT was the "hip" thing the youngins were "listening" to after they invented "ears."

      hooligans!

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    30. Re:Woah! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yet is this still not a reason to treat Apple as some sort of sacred cow. Aim high and try do better should be just about everyones goal. I am not a militant Apple user or a militant windows user or a militant Linux user. I am just a programmer :)

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    31. Re:Woah! by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      Parent poster - (Score: -1 Troll)

      Sorry, you're just plain wrong :-) WA 3 was an absolute dog, it was fucking horrendous. WA 5 OTOH is awesome ;-) Very nice media library and when using the old skins is very resource friendly. I'll accept that it uses about 20% CPU with the modern skins, but if you don't want that, use an old skin.

      For plain and simply greatness Winamp 5 is the best program I've ever used. It does what it's supposed to, it's quick and easy and doesn't use too many resources (with the old skins).

      I'll asume you got the 3 and the 5 the wrong way round ;-)

    32. Re:Woah! by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I did. =) Never used 5. I already replied to myself saying this, but since you figured it out, I thought I'd reply and let you know "You're right!".

    33. Re:Woah! by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. Your reply will be the one above mine... Posted 2 hours before...
      Still, it's not the /. way to read a thread through, is it?

      /Finds hole; /Crawls back in.

    34. Re:Woah! by joeyGibson · · Score: 1

      Shit! And I paid for WinAmp pro in July...

    35. Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you got it right. going public is horrible. i will from this day forth boycott all products and services from companies that went public.

    36. Re:Woah! by DaCeige · · Score: 1

      I'mma miss winamp! But... Even tho v5 was the digity, I still love my winamp 2.81. Uses no resources compared to any other player out there today, and the plugins do some bad arse stuff!

    37. Re:Woah! by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

      I prefer competition, but I'd take an Apple "standard" over a Microsoft one any day!

      I'm no Microsoft lover or anything, but I trust Apple a lot less than I do Microsoft. They are the KING of vendor lock in. Not even Microsoft is as bad as Apple.

      At least with Microsoft you know where you stand . . .

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    38. Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it lists a winamp 2.95, when did that come out, is it an official release?

    39. Re:Woah! by kai.chan · · Score: 1

      Having Google as our #1 tech leader is not so bad. However, they might need more enticing names than the ones you have supplied to attract the masses. How about:

      Google Winamp -> Googamp
      Google OpenOffice -> Goofice
      Google Firefox/Phoenix -> Goofox/Goonix (complete with gmail integration)
      Google Linux -> Goonux/GSD (Sounds like sexual transmitted dieases. And we all know how well sex sells)

    40. Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your dreams are big and your karma is bigger, shall we remind you that Nullsoft's team was win32 coders. It seems like it would be better to just write something fresh and new, or borrow some free code already out there.

      I see no point in saving a company because they were "cool" in 1999. Companies are there to compete and make profit, not to make you think fond thoughts about them. That is the job of the marketing department.

    41. Re:Woah! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not an Apple fanboy, it's just that in this particular situation they're the only ones in a position to compete. I'd happily sing the praises of Real or anybody else that doesn't want to use MS's DRM.

      I wouldn't even have a problem with Microsoft, except that they seem bent on controlling every single thing that's even slightly related to computers. I don't mind that companies want to make money, but Microsoft's "lie, cheat, and steal" philosophy is unacceptable. So anybody who competes with Microsoft is good in my book.

      Plus, Apple does make good products.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    42. Re:Woah! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, here's the difference between Microsoft and Apple: Apple wants their product to have the best usability. If that requires scacrificing compatabiliity, then so be it. Microsoft, on the other hand, actively seeks out and destroys anything that could threaten their monopoly. Apple wants control of their own products -- if you don't want to use them on their terms, you're welcome to choose something else. Microsoft wants to control everyhing, and force you to use their products -- they won't give you a choice.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    43. Re:Woah! by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      EAC+lame/ogg/FLAC/whatever would do a better job ;)

    44. Re:Woah! by MegaHyster · · Score: 1

      Think of the children!

      --
      All good things...
    45. Re:Woah! by jaylene_slide · · Score: 1



      GoofOffice.

      I'd buy it.



      slide

      --
      "Your proactive bipartisan synergy is indemnifying. Good work, carry on."
    46. Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you DO realize that you could get xmms working on there right? MacOSX that is... it IS FreeBSD 4.3 at the core... take one dose source, one dose pmake 4.4 (or earlier to your liking, if you kept archives like I did) several hefty doses of libc, glibc or whatever your compatible library is, and GCC (or anything else your *nix'ing heart desires) and after 30 minutes of compiling, making, and building the project, you can happily "make install" and scream your heart out that you forgot you needed to redownload all of your fave 'oggs, mp3's and .xits and whatever have you.

      -Paul

  2. I guess... by holzp · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess they really are Nullsoft now.

    1. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This was really just the whip that broke the llama's ass.

    2. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they always were... I think I'll fork and relabel xmms and call it Lama, it really whipped Winamp's ass..

    3. Re:I guess... by dosius · · Score: 1

      You know, I'm probably going to take a major karma hit for this, but could a possibility for an open source Winamp be achieved by hacking XMMS onto a Windows GTK1 variant? (I think it's GTK1 anyway)

      Moll.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    4. Re:I guess... by SledgeHBK · · Score: 1

      I don't get why this is funny. If someone told this to me in person...

      (Looking at shoes) "Well, gotta go eat my own crap!"

    5. Re:I guess... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's an odd thought... why bother? Quite a few Winamp clones exist because the WinAMP design is not hard to replicate. It's really not much more than a way of loading, inspecting, and playing audio files from disk, http, or streaming servers. Here's a few example clones:

      jlGUI
      JAMP
      JahSing

    6. Re:I guess... by BiggyP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you'd likely be much better off picking up something like BMP to use for the port since GTK2 is far better than 1.x on win32.

    7. Re:I guess... by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 1

      Famed Scizo Musician.

      http://www.alternativetentacles.com/bandinfo.php ?b and=wesleywillis

      "Verbal Assault!
      Verbal Assault!"

    8. Re:I guess... by SledgeHBK · · Score: 1

      Wesley Willis rules, therefore you rule.

      Too bad he's dead.

    9. Re:I guess... by Chrax · · Score: 1

      Speaking of open source, why not just open source winamp? They've never made much money on it. Though to be honest, I'm saying this mainly because I want XMMS to use the Winamp 2 randomization algorithm rather than just play the same ~10 songs.

    10. Re:I guess... by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    11. Re:I guess... by Kosgrove · · Score: 1

      Whoah... you can't be serious. Winamp's randomization is HORRIBLE in every version. v2 would play the same 1/4 of your playlist, and things only got worse from there: I use v5 currently, and it will randomly bring up tunes and then forward to another song. Then you can't go back: it's like a really annoying javascript redirect.

      That said, it was absolutely the gold standard until they released v3. Small, stable, and functional.

    12. Re:I guess... by Misanthropy · · Score: 1

      Brilliant! best comment all day

    13. Re:I guess... by dodongo · · Score: 1

      Great. The last thing I need is more NullPointerException errors :-P

    14. Re:I guess... by TarrVetus · · Score: 1
      I guess they really are Nullsoft now.
      This was really just the whip that broke the llama's ass.


      And that, my friend, was the quip that broke the llama's ass.
    15. Re:I guess... by dosius · · Score: 1

      Ideally I'd want to be able to spam in mirc with them, which only Foobar has, and I'm not sure how winamp-like it is.

      Moll.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    16. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hm? my winamp5 lets me go back to previously played songs while on shuffle ... in fact I think it even remembers tracks I played using the Jump To File plugin (which came bundled with my winamp5 installer)

    17. Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like Mercury Player, http://www.mercuryaudio.net/ but it's Windows only :-(

    18. Re:I guess... by MRKisThatKid · · Score: 1

      Are there any decent alternatives that share all these features with winamp?

      • Gapless play
      • Volume ramping when pausing/stopping
      • Crossfading when seeking
      • Supported within logitech iTouch
      • Media library

      I'm sure there must be but i've never found one. I can't do without any of them features either, otherwise i would be driven insane. It also has to look ok. Not necassarily eye candy but not depressing either.

  3. Pity by ozbon · · Score: 0

    It'll be a pity to see this go.

    Oh, and FP (to be sad)

    --
    I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
  4. OS Winamp by kdark1701 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So when are they releasing the source code?

    1. Re:OS Winamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell would anyone want the source to WinAmp?

      If there ever was a UI disaster poster child...

    2. Re:OS Winamp by RayTardo · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you could package it as closed source and sell it under a different name...

    3. Re:OS Winamp by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 1

      Or at least the source of the great viz plugin AVS. That's the only thing I miss in XMMS.

    4. Re:OS Winamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking the same thing, but I wonder if the plugins are too tied to windows to really work well on Linux (as in just take winamp plugins and use them in XMMS).

    5. Re:OS Winamp by bwy · · Score: 1

      I wonder, what about NSIS? It was OS already- but who was doing most of the work? I wonder if it will be affected?

      Lots of folks rely on NSIS for their open source and commercial products, and it is top-notch in my book. It fits a nice niche too- it just isn't practical for shareware or open source authors to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to gear up with the massive bloat known as Installshield.

    6. Re:OS Winamp by Ark42 · · Score: 1



      Just use Inno Setup instead.


    7. Re:OS Winamp by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Or, if you're packaging for Linux, just use RPM.

  5. It's successor? by romcabrera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which one do you think will likely be its successor?

    1. Re:It's successor? by Bricklets · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which one do you think will likely be its successor?

      Knowing what AOL did to their Netscape division, it'll probably be Windows Media Player.

      --
      Little Bricklets
    2. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTunes

    3. Re:It's successor? by ZioCantante · · Score: 1

      Hmmm....
      What about zinf? http://www.zinf.org/features.php
      It's derived from freeamp, and there's a linux version too !

    4. Re:It's successor? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1, Troll

      Whoever is the first to wrap a good UI over Mplayer (So far all the guis have been buggy, less than optimal, or just generally sucks.)

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    5. Re:It's successor? by nine-times · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Does anyone else feel like AOL went around buying up software developers in competition with MS products just so they could kill it as part of a deal with Microsoft?

      Really, did we ever see evidence that AOL had any intention of using Netscape or Winamp for anything, or was it just to kill the projects?

    6. Re:It's successor? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Everyone I know on Windows or Mac uses iTunes. Not that it's necessarily the best, but it's certainly becoming the next ubiquitous audio player.

      I really hope we don't see a Windows Media Player era.

    7. Re:It's successor? by Corrado · · Score: 1

      I really, really like(d) Zinf. It's small, lightweight, plays OGG format, but the media catalog managment is horrible. The real nail in their coffin is that their Windows version is lagging behind the Linux version due to lack of developers.

      Since I am forced to use Windows @ work, I choose iTunes and it is quickly becoming my favorite for the sheer ease of use of the catalog! I love it! So, maybe now some of the Winamp guys can go help Zinf and I can move back to something warm and comfy (and OSS :).

      --
      KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
    8. Re:It's successor? by mallumax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Winamp 2.9 series has every feature an mp3 player should have and plethora of plugins available. So what more do u need ? Video ?? get 5 series.Use the classic skin for more performance. I can't think of any feature that is not available (a plugin exists for any feature i can think of ) I mean doesthis really matter as long as winamp work on all windows verions.

    9. Re:It's successor? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I find it also strange that the two were bundled for a while. Installing Netscape installed winamp. Its like they tied them together so they wouldn't have to use as much gasoline.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    10. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Zinfs] media catalog managment is horrible

      "My Music" was the best part about Freeamp. Once you stopped trying to use it like Winamps extremely basic and crappy Playlist Editor and actually bothered to understand how My Music worked it was elegant, powerful and lightyears beyond anything anybody else was offering at the time. It was a mini-iTunes before MacOSX was even released.

      Like I say, so many people tried to use it like it was Winamp on steriods and understandably didn't like it when that didn't work.

    11. Re:It's successor? by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Whoever is the first to wrap a good UI over Mplayer (So far all the guis have been buggy, less than optimal, or just generally sucks.)

      True that. I've had issues even getting the gui to compile in a vanilla SuSE 9.1 load.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    12. Re:It's successor? by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      Whats this, do I smell a apple zealot farting?

    13. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The real killing of things started when control switched hands from AOL to Time Warner. Once that happened, the Microsoft settlement and killing of Netscape happened, now this.

      AOL seemed to have a clue, but didn't really know how to act on it. Time Warner simply sees no value in a product when there is a working Microsoft version of the same thing.

    14. Re:It's successor? by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I was just thinking that: as they once called the Ottoman Empire a prison of nations, they should call AOL a cemetary of independent software projects.

    15. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take off the bloody tinfoil hat. AOL was once a company with visions of greatness, back before the bubble went pop. Browsers and media players fit right in with their plans to take the lead in online media. Between the bubble burst and resting on their laurels, the plans went South, and with it went Netscape and Nullsoft. AOL itself is being stripped down to a more reasonable level.

    16. Re:It's successor? by grahamkg · · Score: 1
      No. They buy companies and just kill them. The list is long and distinguished. It looks more like stupidity rather than evil intent, but the result is the same.

      Here are a few shining examples: GNN; Virtual Places; Netscape; Nullsoft.

      From my perspective as a user/customer, it's frustrating. These *were* thriving concerns and cool services at the time of acquisition by AOL.

      From the perspective of an investor, I'd question the ability of AOL management to maintain a viable business. Their ability with acquisitions is almost criminal. Geez, they've even infected Time/Warner with their incompetence, though they've not killed it. Yet.

      "Oh, let's buy this for a few hundred mil."

      "Sure! What are we going to do with it?"

      "Uh, 'do?'"

      It's as if they don't even understand what they're doing.

      --
      Graham
      Linux - Fast Pane Relief
    17. Re:It's successor? by thebagel · · Score: 1

      Isn't AOL using part of Netscape now? (forgive me for my ignorance) CompuServe, at least, installs some Gecko stuff; I always thought Gecko was part of the Netscape/Mozilla code.

    18. Re:It's successor? by Number6.2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just remember: Corporate America isn't about *you*. It's about enhancing "value" to "shareholders".

      This means that if they have to make 1000 employees miserable by laying them off for a quarter (or eight) so the financials look rosy for Wall Street, they'll do it.

      And if they have to gobble up a superior technology as a bargaining chip, they'll do it.

      Corporate America is the ultimate communal reptilian brain: cold, efficient, ruthless, amoral, it WILL achieve it's goals, no matter who it has to hurt. Things are very black and white in Corporate America: profit/good loss/bad.

      Open Source, on the other hand, is very mamillian: there are others "like it", there's a *community*. Altruism actually has a place in this scheme.

      And it drives the lizards crazy. If one lizard attacks another lizard, no other lizard intervenes. If a lizard attacks a mamal, all of the mamal's kin come down on that lizard like, well, a pack of wild animals.

      Hence...the antipithy between Corporate America and Open Source.

      This is a metaphore, to be sure: some businesses "get it". These are the businesses that can plan further than a quarter ahead at a time, or are big enough that they can say "screw the Street" and take a short term hit (IBM?)

      Companies are like lizards, they are always prey to bigger lizards.

      Open Source is like a herd of (your favorite heard animal here). They can only be taken down by a BIG lizard or another pack based life form.

      enough

      cheers
      6.2

      --
      "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
    19. Re:It's successor? by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1

      I may be going out on a limb here, but AOL was a pretty shitily run crap hole of a "company". If they were planning on driving a product into the ground, that's when it would be majorly successful. They are a perfect example of a company run completely by the marketing division. Nice and shiny outside, filled with a core of gooey stinky crap nougat.

      --

      "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
    20. Re:It's successor? by XMyth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Winamp 5 came with better skin support (not a big deal I know) and the media library which is what sold me on it. If it wasn't for the media library then I'd still be using Winamp 2.9.

    21. Re:It's successor? by d3bruts1d · · Score: 1

      It's already been succeeded. :p Well, I've been using Quintessential Player for a long time. IMHO it's far superior to WinAmp though the default skin for it blows. Foobar2000 is also pretty good. Sonique had potential, but I haven't heard much from it in ages. Those of corse are for Windows.... Linux you have mplayer and XMMS.

    22. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that you shouldn't confuse conspiracy for stupidity. AOL for some time has been mismanaging all of their assets. Their a floundering company looking to write off as much as they can to keep the shareholders happy with some bottom line that just keeps going down.

      They are inneffectial in keeping up with market changes and despite their flooding the airwaves and just about every flat surface with advertising they are horrible at marketing their real strengths.

      I'm assuming that all of these changes reflect the need to stem flow of cash bleeding out of every part of the company. I'd also assume that Time/Warner wants to rely more heavily on their partner relationships and focus more on the hardware players than the software players, which are a big hit right now.

    23. Re:It's successor? by afd8856 · · Score: 3, Informative

      wxMusik. (musik.berlios.de)

      Like itunes, but open source and really really slim on resource usage. Really, I've never been so excited with a player since I've found wxMusik. It has a media library, dinamic queries,it's interface is slim, just give it a try!

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    24. Re:It's successor? by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 1

      My ass. IBM was once the big bad evil corporation you talk about as a lizard here. They just know that open source is profitable right now. If they realize it isn't , they'd stop all their contributions right away. They can't say 'screw the street' , it's actually illegal to lose the shareholders money. (Which makes sense; it's not the management's money to lose!)

      --

      Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

    25. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Open Source is like a herd of (your favorite heard animal here).


      Lemmings?

    26. Re:It's successor? by gordo3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      decent try, but real bad example. In most pack animals, the smallest and weakest are left to die when then chase is put on by the predator(your lizard if you want). There are very few mamalian species that rush to the rescue and try to fend off the attack, but their are a few(so I guess it works sometimes).

      a good example is an elephant herd, in which the elders will protect the children from attack and if a parent is killed, the young are still cared for by others. This is not the norm though.

      on the other hand, isn't everything you described what a profit maximizing business is about. take something, give it value for long enough to profit, and always reevaluate the prodcut to see if its still worth it to you. It could very well be that those employees are now out of work, but if their work wasn't profitable, there is no valid reason to keep them. Obviously AOL does not feel the work of Nullsoft to be profitable.

      Of course, you could not blame AOL for failed companies and blame the greed of the head's of those companies who sold out to AOL rather than keep doing a good thing. You know, even if bill gates walks up to me and offers me a billion dollars for something I have, there is no force on this planet that forces the sale.

    27. Re:It's successor? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      I still use WinAMP 2.91 here. I have used WinAMP 2.x for years and will continue to use it because I think it's one of the best win32 audio players out there.

      If it ain't broke, why fix it?

    28. Re:It's successor? by InsaneGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AOL actually didn't really care too much about the program or how good it was. At the time Netscape was the start page of a majority of the internet. They bought Netscape for their page views, they sold all of the programs (except for the browser) off to Sun. They kept the browser so they could keep the clicks, unrealizing that MS would end up flipping their position and that in short while adveritsement dollars wouldn't be quite the same.

    29. Re:It's successor? by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      It already got a successor in 10/03. iTunes for Windows came out and I uninstalled WinAmp -- probably was not the only person to do so.

      Let's face it -- if you want to use an iPod or the immensely popular iTunes Music Store, iTunes is your only choice, save maybe the third-party iPod software and running your iTMS music through QuickTime after you buy it. And if you're just using ripped CDs or downloaded MP3s, you can use iTunes well for those too, and have pretty easy management. And it comes on every HP box sold, not to mention all the people who download it when they get QuickTime.

      Plus you have the ubiquitous Windows Media Player, you have MusicMatch, and on the Linux front you have a plethora, including Winamp clone XMMS.

    30. Re:It's successor? by DrXym · · Score: 4, Interesting
      No it wasn't that. You give them too much credit. AOL are simply incompetant.

      At one time, Netscape, Nullsoft, Spinner etc. were considered to be 'divlets', all with their own identity, all churning out cool stuff that could be reused etc. You think about what these groups produced:

      1. Netscape made Mozilla & Gecko. Enough said. It also had a great portal until some dickheads started infesting it with popup windows, rendering it unusable.
      2. Spinner.com made a great radio system. I still play it on occasion.
      3. Nullsoft made the best, bar none damned media player for Windows, plus NSV streaming, NSIS and more.

      So what does AOL do? Drive them all into the ground and suck Microsoft's cock. Oh I think some of these things are offhandedly in the AOL client (e.g. radio) but innovation? What's that?

      The reason for all this is that AOL has a corporate culture of infighting and conservatism. If two groups compete for some work, it is the one that doesn't rock the boat, that promises the fastest results and with a vision compatible with marketing drones that wins. The AOL client feature requirements and schedule dictates what goes ahead. It doesn't matter that an inferior product will go in or that it will become a millstone in a year or two.

      Meanwhile the innovative product withers on the vine and the group responsible is shitcanned. Why? I don't know but I reckon IE & WMP are like comfort blankets to AOL marketing. If you start going all scary on them by showing them something without 'Microsoft' in the title, they get nervous. I bet even the Mac group in AOL feels like an unwanted child.

      Consider what could have been. Winamp 5.0 has streaming music, videos, a library, a CD burner, ripping, an integrated browser. With a little push it could have been iTMS. Time Warner has tens of thousands of tracks and movies to sell and AOL is (or was) the perfect outlet to sell them. The much vaunted 'synergy' they kept talking about was right under their noses. But apparantly that's not much use to a massive multi media conglomerate. Oh no, "let's sack them all".

      Or consider Gecko. It was cross-platform, standards compliant and modular. AOL could free themselves from Microsoft forever. They could develop a cross-platform and modern client. They wouldn't have to wait for MS to fix bugs, or workaround some broken implementation - they could do whatever they liked with it. So what does AOL do? It stumps for the bitrotten piece of crap from their mortal enemy. And I'm sure Microsoft is ecstatic about that, since it basically ties AOL's hands.

      It really does boil down to incompetance. Sheer bloody incompetance.

    31. Re:It's successor? by 3nuff · · Score: 1

      How about iTunes. Already has a big market share, offers the visualizations, supports Shoutcast stations, plus has the iTMS.

      It lacks some of the modularity fetures and skins. Apple has tight control of the code, but who knows...

      --
      "Give me taste, give me funk, give me fury, gimme some more."
    32. Re:It's successor? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Remember: Nullsoft and Netscape could have easily said "no" to the AOL buyout offer.

      Unfortunately, they were greedy, so they signed on the dotted line.

      This is not as much AOL's fault as it is the fault of the companies that sold out.

      -Z

    33. Re:It's successor? by neko9 · · Score: 1

      same here. 2.91 just works, super stable and fast. no need in 3.x and 5 bloatware. and on my linux box xmms is the king.

    34. Re:It's successor? by nine-times · · Score: 1
      CompuServe? ick...

      Yes, AOL is using Netscape, but barely. There's actually a 'Netscape' branded ISP, which is really just AOL trying to appeal to the bargin/dialup crowd. There have also been rumors of a Netscape revival that's been circulating recently, possibly due to the success of Firefox.

      However, the whole Netscape thing was fishy from the start. The bought Netscape and then continued to use IE for their AOL software, and when they settled the Netscape anti-trust lawsuit with Microsoft, the terms of the settlement were that AOL gets to use IE for their software for free.

      So they buy Netscape while it's still suing Microsoft for harming the profitability of Netscape Navigator, and they use the lawsuit to ensure that AOL won't use Netscape at all (thereby hurting its profitability more), and then they immediately kill development on Netscape software.

      So I'm just wondering if we're going to find out that AOL suddenly now includes a bundled version of Windows Media Player.

    35. Re:It's successor? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal to lose the shareholders money, just that they can be sued for ceertain mistakes that include criminal acts and cost the shareholder.
      Here's URLs to stories on three of the biggest shareholder lawsuits of late. In every one, you'll see words like fraud and malfeesance, and specific allegations such as the management being sued 'failed to disclose information legally required by the SEC' (usually in quarters immediately prior to period covered by the suit), or sold off their own shares at the stock's peak, while hiding the fact from the board. That's what gets a company sued with even some chance of success, not doing something legal such as disclosing source code as part of involvement in an open source project.

      http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/18941.html

      http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/8340.html
      http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/e nron/2873746

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    36. Re:It's successor? by netwiz · · Score: 1

      you do have to admit, tho, that for simply playing MP3s and managing your music collection, iTunes is pretty hard to beat.

      Now, for use w/ just about any other portable player other than th iPod, it's not great. For use with any other music service other than ITMS, well, you can't get there from here. /no zealotry here, just trying to be fair...

    37. Re:It's successor? by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      NO. It is illegal not to have a long term profitability plan. One can plan to lose money for a quarter if in the long term there is a plan to make money.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    38. Re:It's successor? by DaddyDonMynack · · Score: 1

      Mostly agreed also. I use the 2.81 "lite" version - no need for it to do anything else other than play .mp3's , I am used to the interface, the thing just plain works and I don't really see a need to change.

      I personally could care less about skins, etc.

      FYI: You can still get all the versions of winamp at oldversion.com (too lazy to link this).

    39. Re:It's successor? by nr · · Score: 1

      But you dont have streaming TV channels on iTunes right?

      These are the futures of winamp (v5) that I like most about Winamp. Easy to access and always updated directory of hundreds of TV channels and radio stations. Just tune in, no fuzz..

    40. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selling out is the American dream - you shouldn't hate on them for making shitloads of money.

    41. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well duh, all Time Warner asked was "What does it cost?" and "How much revenue does it generate".
      The answers being "A lot" and "None".

      And that was all she wrote.

    42. Re:It's successor? by jsebrech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really, did we ever see evidence that AOL had any intention of using Netscape or Winamp for anything, or was it just to kill the projects?

      Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence. I see no evidence AOL ever made any product that was truly good. Their corporate culture seems to discourage excellence. It's why nobody likes them, and why anything they try to "assimilate" ends up dead within a few years.

    43. Re:It's successor? by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Plus, it allows you to listen to a song without importing it into your library.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    44. Re:It's successor? by Himring · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was just thinking that: as they once called the Ottoman Empire a prison of nations, they should call AOL a cemetary of independent software projects.

      You hear people say, "only on slashdot" and a negative shpill follows, but in this case, I've learned a phrase regarding history and it is much appreciated. The Ottoman Empire as a "prison of nations" brings depth to the thoughts I have on that period, so....

      Only on slashdot do you read a thread about Winamp to learn a bit more about history....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    45. Re:It's successor? by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 1
      hate on them

      Shouldn't you be writing rap lyrics or hanging out on an Acura Integra forum instead of wasting your valuable time here?

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    46. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one do you think will likely be its successor?

      Come to iTunes, baby.

    47. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA! I love you.

    48. Re:It's successor? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Big words from a little man. You'd do the same in a heartbeat. I'd like to see what you've contributed.

      In terms of Nullsoft, we are talking about Justin Frankel... who has contributed plenty to open source. Creating a valid version of WinAmp to 2.x, and then selling, is hardly a sellout. You can still use 2.x. You can still add on skins to it. The community around WinAmp thrived for years. How much further could he have really gone on with it? Selling it allowed him to move on to new projects, and be financially able to do it for the rest of his life.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    49. Re:It's successor? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Netscape made Mozilla & Gecko.

      The problem was that Netscape was making Mozilla the open source world and not for their corporate masters at AOL. They five or six years dinking around writing UI toolkits and bugbases and pontificating on standards, and when they finally released something (NS 6), it was a pile of ass.

      Slash techies can see the value in Gecko, XUL, etc, but Netscape never positioned this stuff as something that the mothership would want to use. They were building "technology" for a company that could only understand packaged products. Frankly, if it wasn't for the Microsoft Antitrust lawsuit, Netscape would have been closed down long before Mozilla got usable.

      WinAmp may have been similar: Their player was designed for their hard-core traditional userbase, but never expanded to be something useful to AOL.

      Now, ultimately this was AOL's fault for having these pseudo-independent dev houses and not setting their priorities correctly. But maybe both Netscape and WinAmp should have been more conscious of who was signing their paychecks.

      The AOL client feature requirements and schedule dictates what goes ahead.

      AOL Client is a revenue stream. Netscape and Winamp never got past being Internet Freebies.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    50. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netscape made Mozilla & Gecko. Enough said. It also had a great portal until some dickheads started infesting it with popup windows, rendering it unusable.

      What most people aren't aware of is that RSS was developed especially for the My Netscape portal.

    51. Re:It's successor? by muzthe42nd · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have an "always on top" feature, which for me, is pretty much essential. I want to be able to see what song is playing without changing window.

      --
      Pfft - Sorry, what?
    52. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      media library. oh and i'd like mp3 tracks ripped from mix cd's to "mix" ie no pause....

    53. Re:It's successor? by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      I guess I'll have to wait till version .4 for linux is released. I cannot get any other player other than xmms to play flac files. I want a gtk2 based player, but bmp doesn't play flacs and rhythmbox segfaults everytime I load a list.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    54. Re:It's successor? by bynary · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is. Clicking in the little checkbox marked "Keep mini player on top of all other windows" will keep it on top as long as you use the mini player (which also displays what song is playing). It's under Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced tab. Activate the mini player by selecting "Mini player" from the Advanced menu or by pressing CTRL + M. iTunes 4.7

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    55. Re:It's successor? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      As an analogy, we could use, I don't know, people or something.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    56. Re:It's successor? by n-baxley · · Score: 1

      Those crazy Time Warner guys. Not wanting to get into a market were you give your software away for free with no tie-ins. What dunces.

    57. Re:It's successor? by drew · · Score: 1

      Well, I see two potential theories here, and neither one involves malicious intent on AOL's part.

      1) One is that there were some people at AOL that had big plans for Netscape or WinAmp, but either didn't stay long enough to see them through (turnover at AOL, even in executive positions, is stunningly high) or ended up with so many hands in the proverbial cookie jar that they never got anywhere with it. AOL is a huge organization, and has something of a reputation for one hand not knowing what the other is doing. It's possible that they bought all these software companies with good intentions, and then couldn't figuer out how to do anything productive with them. I think this is probably true in the case of WinAmp, as WMP was barely a blip on the radar when AOL acquired NullSoft.

      2) AOL wanted them as a bargaining chip to use against Microsoft. AOL got a pretty sweet deal from Microsoft a long time ago when it agreed to use IE as the browser in the AOL client. But they also know that Microsoft could turn on them. By having another browser that they (at the time) nominally controlled development on, AOL had a ready defence against any muscling that Microsoft might do in an attempt to marginalize them. If Microsoft ever tried to take over their market, AOL could threathen to take IE out of their client and replace it with Mozilla. This would almost instantly drop IE's marketshare by as much as 25%, something that Microsoft wouldn't want to risk. In this scenario, AOL would be forced to more or less support their acquisitions, even if they never used them, as killing them off would destroy their real usefulness.

      Of course it is possible that they originally purchased these and other companies for one of the two reasons above, and then found out that they could get a better deal with Microsoft by "allowing" the project to die out- A sort of one-shot bargaining tool.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    58. Re:It's successor? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Does anyone else feel like AOL went around buying up software developers in competition with MS products just so they could kill it as part of a deal with Microsoft?"

      No. AOL paid about as much for Nullsoft during the bubble economy as Time Warner received from Microsoft to settle AOL's antitrust case. AOL could've won $30 billion in damages but it would've dragged on forever in appeals and Richard Parsons has no stomach for that. People can draw their own conspiracy theories since Parsons is the most successful black Republican in corporate America and everyone knows which party Microsoft contributes the most to. And I must note that I myself am a Rep., but in the Teddy Roosevelt/John McCain tradition... :)

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    59. Re:It's successor? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "From the perspective of an investor, I'd question the ability of AOL management to maintain a viable business. Their ability with acquisitions is almost criminal. Geez, they've even infected Time/Warner with their incompetence, though they've not killed it. Yet."

      No, it is Time Warner's incompetence that has infected AOL. Remember, they have a long tradition of mismanagement. Look up Warner Communications management of Atari, Inc. circa 1981-1984. Its the same thing practically all over again. Look at 1995 when Time Warner tried to sell off New Line Pictures after buying out Turner's company. The only reason why they kept it (and the future LOTR profits) is because no other media company would pony up $1 billion for New Line. Look at Warner Bros. Pictures wasting $100 million + on "Catwoman" or the sequels to "The Matrix."

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    60. Re:It's successor? by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      Who needs it? Just run mplayer without the GUI. It works quite well that way.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    61. Re:It's successor? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "The Ottoman Empire as a "prison of nations" brings depth to the thoughts I have on that period, so...."

      The same could be said of the Austro-Hungarian Empire...good thing the Brits toppled them both! :)

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    62. Re:It's successor? by Drunken+Philosopher · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's Computer Associates, "The Place where Software Goes to Die."

      --

      "There is a diminishing return on caution."
    63. Re:It's successor? by DrXym · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The problem was that Netscape was making Mozilla the open source world and not for their corporate masters at AOL. They five or six years dinking around writing UI toolkits and bugbases and pontificating on standards, and when they finally released something (NS 6), it was a pile of ass.

      It wasn't 5 or 6 years. It was approximately 3 years to write a modern standards compliant brower from scratch to the point that AOL could have taken it up. Netscape 6 wasn't much to write home about, but even that was embeddable, as evidenced by the Compuserve 2000 client. The CS2000 client is basically an AOL client with some different DLLs, graphics and content. It was proof of concept that Gecko could run in the AOL client. By the time of Netscape 7, the performance was vastly improved and Gecko was miles better than IE - more stable, smaller footprint, better rendering. AOL could have used it and did use it in beta versions of the client. Betas running the Gecko engine actually crashed less than the IE version. The reason it never materialised in the final release was because marketing couldn't cope with the short term pain that might entail from the transition - sites running VBScript, ActiveX controls and so on. That's what it boiled down to.

      They could have used XUL too, for example when AOL Communicator was being written, but they didn't. Netscape demonstrated a standalone AOL mail app written entirely in XUL. For reasons unfathomable, they chose to write an almost identical UI entirely in C++ instead. Gecko did make an appearance - providing HTML mail rendering support, but it's hardly an impressive use of the technology. Making apps like AOL Communicator is what XUL was designed for and it was ignored.

      XUL could also have been used to replace the really ancient AOL format (whose name escapes me) used for the start page and elsewhere. Partners had been bitching about it forever. XUL would have been the perfect tool to replace it with.

      In fact Netscape bent over backwards to get AOL to use Gecko in a lot of places, but there was a lot of infighting, inertia and conservatism that ultimately 'won'. I say 'won' because the result is that the AOL client is even more arcane looking than it was then. You can only polish a turd for so long. It's no wonder users are deserting in droves when their product is so ancient and monolithic.

      As for WinAmp, basically AOL could have told the guys in Nullsoft to work up a music store and they would have done it. I'm sure they would have jumped at it. In fact I am certain that Nullsoft have pitched the idea of just such an idea on numerous occasions. Again, it would not surprise me if they were beaten down by the same conservatism and marketing stupidity that did in Netscape.

      AOL Client is a revenue stream. Netscape and Winamp never got past being Internet Freebies.

      Netscape was a revenue stream too. And clearly it still is since AOL recently paid Mozilla.org to produce Netscape 7.2.

      And so were Winamp & Spinner. They all generated revenue. Of course if AOL were serious about generating revenue, they wouldn't have sidelined them the way they did.

    64. Re:It's successor? by The+Raven · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that makes sense. What spawned from Netscape? Mozilla... and Mozilla and its progeny are gaining marketshare steadily. I'm not saying AOL didn't fumble the ball... but it's obvious that Netscape is not a dead property.

      Now, if they'd only do to WinAMP what they did for the Netscape browser... whaddya think they should call it? OpenAMP? Winzilla? MozAMP? :-)

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    65. Re:It's successor? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      Thats how I do it, even on windows. But to truely replace winamp, you're going to need to make it much easier to use, as it is it can't even generate its own playlists (that I know of -- And no, mplayer *.mp3 doesnt count, because anyone with thousands of mp3s will tell you that theres a limit to cmdline args.)

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    66. Re:It's successor? by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      I know, only today I found that they have an updated version that plays flac files, I've used Winamp for those until now. But today I've completely replaced Winamp. Fortunately (?) for me, I'm using Windows right now, so I can enjoy the .4 release.

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    67. Re:It's successor? by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Sure, Mozilla is great, but it's not Netscape. It's not the same commercial venture that Netscape was, and Mozilla doesn't belong to AOL.

      And Netscape is pretty much dead. Not quite. There's enough left for a resurrection, but it's not quite kicking.

    68. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eh, I wouldn't blame Time Warner for sucking, tho.

      AOL wandered clulesssly through unprofitability. If some cool stuff managed to take advantage of the geysers of money AOL flung out (Justin Frankel) then more power to 'em. But it's no way to run a company.

      Nullsoft was a counter-culture 5th colum who's days were numbered from the start.

    69. Re:It's successor? by G00F · · Score: 1

      AmpZila
      Winzilla should be reserved for an OS.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    70. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good thing the Brits toppled them both!

      Why? What was wrong with the Ottoman Empire? An empire based on putting your feet up is a good thing.

    71. Re:It's successor? by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      iTunes is non-standard, and impossible to properly configure.

      I stopped using it after frustrations with its id3 tools (tags don't show up in other programs) and the inability to import with the LAME encoder.

    72. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOL bought Time Warner, not the other way around.

    73. Re:It's successor? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Ah, after a quick look, I discovered that the most famous use of the phrase was by Marx, referring to the Russian Empire. The first time I saw it was in reference to the Ottoman Empire.

    74. Re:It's successor? by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Just curious... ever read anything by David Icke?

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    75. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOL didn't like anything that wasn't invented or coded at their campus in Virginia. They all had poles so far up their rears because of the massive stock options they had.

      At the time before the merger, and during - they thought they were gods (everyone, even the admins) and were infallible.

      Most of them are out on their asses now, because they couldn't get their heads out of the clouds.

      That's why Gecko failed and was put out to the Open Source world.

    76. Re:It's successor? by Tojo-Mojo · · Score: 1

      That doesn't match the element + animal theme. Maybe something like "Rockllama". But then it would probably get renamed 5 times and in the end you'd be stuck with "Puddlebunny". So maybe that isn't such a great theme.

    77. Re:It's successor? by kayen_telva · · Score: 1

      I have moved to a server model. No ipod can hold a 100gigs, so I use slimserver to catalog and stream. I can be in the yard with my pda, or at work on my workstation, doesnt matter. I can stream any part of my collection. it does bitrate conversion on the fly, and is managed through a nobrainer web interface. makes itunes look like a model T.

    78. Re:It's successor? by chgros · · Score: 1

      Open Source is like a herd of (your favorite herd animal here)
      gnus I imagine...

    79. Re:It's successor? by muzthe42nd · · Score: 0

      Wow, thank you. Maybe it does have everything.

      --
      Pfft - Sorry, what?
    80. Re:It's successor? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Your absolutely right on a technical level, but remember that in this timeperiod Mozilla was eating up 50MB of memory and crashing left and right even though it was years over schedule. I can understand any reluctance to include that in the AOL client just because it was buzzword-compliant. I suppose if they'd only given them another year or two...

      Politics surely played a big role, but Netscape was still churning out technology that had huge potential but poor product packaging. Had XUL come from Sun or Microsoft, I'm sure it would have been a huge hit. But instead it was a side OSS project from AOL, and thus lack[s|ed] the GUI designer support, the documentation, the marketing, etc.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    81. Re:It's successor? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Mozilla didn't crash left and right though. NS6 for all it's immaturity was actually very stable since it had been beaten upon for months and months in the QA labs. That's why Mozilla was already up to something like .8 when NS 6 was .7 I believe. People griped about that but it was because NS 6 was thrashed to shake out all the crash bugs. Of course the time Gecko was being tested in the AOL client, it was up to about 1.2 or so and most if not all the issues had gone.

      By then the memory consumption was lower, it was faster, leaner and actually consumed less memory when embedded than IE.

      You're right that XUL is still a pain to program when you start, but it is miles better that AOLs own layout engine. And once you get over the learning curve it's actually pretty cool since you can develop content and test it by loading it into the browser. But the technical dificulties were irrelevant. As I mentioned, Netscape already had a working email client written for XUL. It had even been deployed to AOL China or Japan I believe. It had already proven itself. It was obvious then to anybody in the know that XUL was the right choice then and is the right choice now. Thunderbird is the direct successor of that early work. I believe the reason it wasn't chosen was simply because the group who got it in the end were based in Dulles whereas Netscape (or AOL West as it was by then) were still 'outsiders' and perhaps perceived as threatening in some way. There were lame excuses for the decision, concerning multiple processes using a single profile, but they weren't insurmountable by any means.

      To give you an idea of the mentality (since it should be obvious I was working for AOL at the time). I attended a meeting about putting Gecko into AOL. It was some technical guys and the marketing people in a room in DC. We explained the technical issues (and how to solve them), the benefits and so on. I swear their eyes glazed over. They either didn't care or simply couldn't comprehend. The rest of the meeting was spent by them discussing what colour a fucking button should be in the client or something equally banal.

      That's the divide that existed between marketing and the technical people. A button was a feature to them. The fact that they were using their mortal enemy's browser engine or the major bother they had getting MS to fix it or the tens of millions that tier 1 support cost didn't even seem to register as a problem for them.

      Netscape really, really tried to get them to listen but it was just impossible. Netscape even forced everyone to get an aol.com address in a bid to seem more part of AOL. So fredblogs@netscape became fredb0734@aol.com. It didn't do any good, especially seeing as AOL mail was utter garbage even with AOL communicator installed.

      The funny thing is I hear rumours that AOL want to try again with Gecko. It's too bad they sacked everyone who knew anything about it. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has bolted!

    82. Re:It's successor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not gnus... lamas.

  6. gee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was it something they did/said ??

  7. Time to open it up! by dogas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Much like Netscape did when it was in its death throes, I think it would be great if they could open up the source and allow an online community to develop for it.

    Just think, in a year or so it could be the next iTunes killer..

    --
    'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
    1. Re:Time to open it up! by TomTraynor · · Score: 1

      It would really be nice. Look what came out of the Netscape product. Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird. I liked Winamp on my Windows boxes as it did something well and it worked.

      --
      Panic now, beat the rush!
    2. Re:Time to open it up! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just think, in a year or so it could be the next iTunes killer..

      Nah. Nullsoft/AOL would have had to have a music store from the getgo in order to compete with the vast library that iTMS has amassed. iTunes is now synonomous with cheap music with a decent interface.

      Nullsoft/AOL would just not be able to compete at this late stage in the game. Others have tried but it seems that Apple is continuing to win that battle.

      Is this good? Maybe not. We certainly don't want a single viable option for music playing/purchasing but I really don't think that an open source project from Nullsoft/AOL will be able to compete *now*.

    3. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's already a whole bunch of players out there. XMMS and especially Freeamp to name two. Why do you want to hack on Winamp especially?

      Freeamp could have been the best MP3 player bar none had the current Zinf developers had the slighest ability and at least the slighest clue.

    4. Re:Time to open it up! by LooseChanj · · Score: 1

      Yeah, god knows it really put mozilla development into overdrive.

      --
      Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
    5. Re:Time to open it up! by martingunnarsson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, there might be licensed stuff in the Winamp source, codecs for different fileformats or whatnot.
      Second, iTunes is one if the good guys, we don't wanna kill that!

      --
      Martin
    6. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they try to be the iTunes killer, when they're already in bed with iTunes?

    7. Re:Time to open it up! by urmensch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Please explain to me why iTunes is one of the good guys? Is it because it's difficult to play iTunes files with other players and platforms?

    8. Re:Time to open it up! by MartinG · · Score: 1

      Two points:

      1) There was "licensed stuff" in netscape. That was only a problem until those parts were rewritten.

      2) I don't think you mean what you think you mean when you say "licensed stuff"

      Almost all software requires a license because it is covered by copyright, but that doesn't mean you cant redistribute it. The GNU GPL is an example of a common license which allows redistribution. It is still "licensed stuff"

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    9. Re:Time to open it up! by Bequita · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Second, iTunes is one if the good guys, we don't wanna kill that!"

      Competition will be good for iTunes. If iTunes is one of the good guys, competition should help it stay that way. If it's not a good guy, well... the last thing we need is for iTunes to become the next IE.

      --
      Yes, there are women on Slashdot. Deal with it.
    10. Re:Time to open it up! by Tom7 · · Score: 1

      Why is iTunes one of the good guys? Because it has a nice user interface?

    11. Re:Time to open it up! by xnot · · Score: 1, Informative

      Winamp has the features, but iTunes has the interface. Winamp always felt like a "hack" app: throw everything in a can and maybe what you get out of it is your music. It worked because it does everything and there weren't any good alternatives. What iTunes did was focus on the essential features and provided a killer UI with which to work with them.

      With most people, UI and "ease of use" usually beats features. The Slashdot crowd is the exception, not the rule.

    12. Re:Time to open it up! by Mr_CFG · · Score: 1

      Did you say iTunes is cheap? Dude, you have way too much money.

    13. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each file format is handled by an io dll, so if they didn't want to release that part, they could just not release the dll.

    14. Re:Time to open it up! by TexasDex · · Score: 1
      First of all, licensed stuff can be rewritten, just like netscape.

      Second of all, iTunes isn't a "good guy" until it runs on *nix (crossover doesn't count). And even then it's still a closed-source app. If we develop WinAmp into LinAmp (instead of a clone like XMMS) then we have a powerful, multi-platform player that isn't controlled by some other company that could turn evil.

      --
      The Cheese Stands Alone.
    15. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "iTunes is one if the good guys, we don't wanna kill that!"

      iTunes uses proprietary codecs and DDRM standards (AAC, Apple Losless Codec). How is iTunes one of the good guys, exactly?

    16. Re:Time to open it up! by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

      cheap music

      I'd rather listen to quality music, but hey, that's just me...

      --
      I don't feel like it...
    17. Re:Time to open it up! by SubtleNuance · · Score: 0

      Second, iTunes is one if the good guys, we don't wanna kill that!

      Why is apple 'one of the good guys'? Closed hardware? the fact that they have a closed interface ontop of a community-supported BSD?

      i cannot fathom why apple fan-boys feel they are cheering for anything other than a corporate monolith. silly.

    18. Re:Time to open it up! by mog007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps in three years we'll have Mozzila SoundSiren, which will spark a lawsuit threat, so the name will be changed to PhonicPhoenix, which will cause ANOTHER lawsuit, making the offical product AcusticAvian.

    19. Re:Time to open it up! by revscat · · Score: 1
      Because it's good software, of which having a nice user interface is a part.

      However, I have to say that I'm skeptical about dividing music players into "good guy/bad guy" camps. Seems silly and oversimplified.

    20. Re:Time to open it up! by damiam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      iTunes the program != iTMS.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    21. Re:Time to open it up! by BuhSnarf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd say the complete opposite. WinAmp has (IMHO - obviously) *the* best UI of any music player around. It has the playlist, the buttons, a scrolly text bit to show the song and that was it. Everything else was hidden away. It felt like a little side app, which is how I like my media players, something in the background, not a full blown full screen app. And it hid away neatly.

      And the best thing? It had keyboard shortcuts. For someone that rarely uses the mouse that's what got it for me.

      I've no need for a successor. Winamp 2.9 or 5 is fine for me.

    22. Re:Time to open it up! by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      First, there might be licensed stuff in the Winamp source, codecs for different fileformats or whatnot.

      So did Netscape when they first released the code. They had to take all of that out before releasing the source.

      Second, iTunes is one if the good guys, we don't wanna kill that!

      iTunes may be OK for most people, but it is useless for me because it does not play at least one of the common lossless compression formats. This is a showstopper for me, and it sucks because there is no decent music player for the Mac. I know little about windows, and what I do know I don't like, but I have been considering for some time now to buy a cheap windows based box for one reason -- Winamp.

      Winamp and its plugin base, IMHO, is hands down the best music player I have ever seen. I wish it was available for other platforms.

    23. Re:Time to open it up! by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Well that's the thing isn't it. The Nullsoft developers, had the ability, and had a clue. That's why Winamp is good.
      [disclaimer]I haven't used Freeamp in a while now..[/disclaimer] ..but last time I used it, I ended up going back to winamp again (2.8 as it was). Since then, winamp has just gotten better, more polished, and they even fixed all the crap that came with version 3. So how would it be a bad idea to continue on a seriously good player? Why would it be a better idea to choose something which is not yet at the stage that winamp has achieved? Hell, in it's current state, you could just re-create the plugins in open source, plonk the original binary in an emulator, and there you go.. already close! (at least in simple terms)

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    24. Re:Time to open it up! by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      Isn't XMMS's original code based on the code from Winamp? For a while even the skins were interchangable. Of course this was long before AOL got involved.

    25. Re:Time to open it up! by Zeever · · Score: 1

      Competition is good. People like to have choices.

      I guess that an alternative source of music would encourage Apple to lower their prices, offer additional value or something like that. Wouldn't that be nice?

      --
      -- Who, you?
    26. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      there is no decent music player for the Mac.
      What about Audion?
    27. Re:Time to open it up! by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Nullsoft/AOL would have had to have a music store from the getgo

      AOL is part of Time Warner. It has tens of thousands of music tracks for sale. And films. And TV / Radio channels already experienced in negotiating broadcast rights. Plus close contacts with the rest of the music industry. Plus a huge marketing department. Plus 27 million AOL users held captive to sell them to. Plus anyone else who wants to buy them (e.g. Winamp users).

      They could have made it work back when they were bleating about 'synergies' way back during the merger. Hell, they could even do it now. I expect that if AOL Broadband tossed in some free tracks, a free movie or two in as part of their service every month, it would be a major selling point.

    28. Re:Time to open it up! by urmensch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oops, strike that last comment. Don't know where that came from... Maybe one too many Apple/Bonhead commercials have burned my brain.

    29. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest Mozilla Songbird. Unless that's too obvious.

    30. Re:Time to open it up! by Bastian · · Score: 1

      Well, I think that Nullsoft/AOL could compete in the standalone player market. I personally don't think it would be very difficult at all to create a WMP-killer, for example.

      But yeah, Nullsoft isn't going to even start competing directly with iTunes until they are also competing directly with iTMS and (much more importantly) the iPod.

    31. Re:Time to open it up! by fishdan · · Score: 3, Informative
      iTunes isn't even CLOSE to cheap. These places are cheap.

      Some places are cheaper still

      --
      Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
    32. Re:Time to open it up! by ricotest · · Score: 1

      Thirdly, Winamp still makes them money. Although open source commercial software is possible, it's undesirable. There simply isn't any incentive for AOL to release the source.

    33. Re:Time to open it up! by njfuzzy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "iTunes files"?

      Do you mean MP3, MP4, or AAC? All of the many file formats supported by iTunes are playable on a variety of hardware and software.

      Or are you confusing the player (which competes with WinAmp) with the iTunes store?

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    34. Re:Time to open it up! by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      iTunes is just as free as Winamp is, perhaps more - Apple isn't charging for Windows Media support. :)

      Sadly though, Winamp would win not because it's a better program but because iTunes is a slow, buggy, steaming pile of poo on Windows. On the mac, it's slick and the features it provides are hard to argue with when you factor it's speed into the picture.

      It always amazed me when I told people how elated I was with iTunes and they would disagree with me, and then I tried it out on Windows, and it all made sense. Things like "smart playlists" combined with ratings and numerous amounts of little things really make it worthwhile, and I don't have an iPod or use iTMS.

      I don't think this is anyone's fault but Apple, to be honest.

    35. Re:Time to open it up! by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      What about Audion?

      It would be great if it met my original requirements that I said were wrong with iTunes. It does not play any common lossless formats.

    36. Re:Time to open it up! by Todesmetall · · Score: 1
      iTunes may be OK for most people, but it is useless for me because it does not play at least one of the common lossless compression formats.
      And it is useless for me because AFAIK it won't run on my PC because it doesn't meet the system requirements. So - no iPod for me...

      On the other hand, WinAmp and xmms run just fine.

    37. Re:Time to open it up! by eMartin · · Score: 1

      He probably meant .m4p files, but you probably knew that.

    38. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla, you idiot! With all the news about Mozilla these days, you still can't spell it. Bloody hell, you moron.

    39. Re:Time to open it up! by LuxFX · · Score: 1

      Just think, in a year or so it could be the next iTunes killer..

      Sorry, the role of "iTunes killer" has already been filled.... Media Monkey replaced Winamp for me a long time ago.

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    40. Re:Time to open it up! by drew · · Score: 1

      Just think, in a year or so it could be the next iTunes killer..

      Yeah, because the netscape soucre code really turned into an Internet Explorer killer in a year or so.... (or six)

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    41. Re:Time to open it up! by loquacious+d · · Score: 1

      I am sick of people equating iTunes the jukebox with iTunes the music store. iTunes is a great jukebox (whose 'files' may be any of a dozen different, open formats) with an excellent, consistent interface, and (for me, at least) blows any WinAmp release entirely out of the water.
      'iTunes files'... don't you feel stupid saying that? iTMS files, please.

    42. Re:Time to open it up! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Just think, in a year or so it could be the next iTunes killer..

      What are you talking about? It already is an iTunes killer. Unless you are talking about porting Winamp over to OSX so it can kill iTunes there.

    43. Re:Time to open it up! by mattgreen · · Score: 1

      Because the Slashdot hivemind doesn't hate Apple yet. It is only a matter of time before Apple slips up and becomes another evil corporation out to...gasp...make money!

    44. Re:Time to open it up! by angle_slam · · Score: 1
      I used WinAmp almost exclusively at home. And it is adequate for what it is--a player of MP3 files. But finding a file is terrible. I finally have a computer that I can install iTunes on. You know what? Much easier to use. The fact that it indexes every MP3 file on my hard drive means finding a song or album is a piece of cake.

      With Winamp, if I wanted to listen to a Rolling Stones song, I had to load the Stones directory into my playlist and then find the song or album I want to play. I want to switch to another artist, repeat the same process again.

      With iTunes, I browse for the artist or use the search function, and I instantly have all their songs listed.

      The biggest problem was really my fault--it uses ID3 tags exclusively, so if your ID3 tags aren't correct, it will be nearly impossible for iTunes to find a particular song. But that just forced me to do something that I always should have done--make sure id3 is correct.

    45. Re:Time to open it up! by thpdg · · Score: 1

      Compared to buying physical CDs in the brick and mortar store, it can be cheaper. Why pay for materials that are not critical to your enjoyment of the IP?

      --

      -Patrick

      "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

    46. Re:Time to open it up! by TheDukePatio · · Score: 0
      Most of the people I know use iTunes for playing their mp3s. Doesn't seem to difficult to me.

      At work there's usually at least a dozen people on iTunes so if you're in the mood for a little Ella, go play it from their shared list. Want some SRV,
      chances are someone's got it as well. In the workplace, iTunes rocks. Everyone has their own songs and shares them for everyone else listening pleasure.
      You're never short on genres to listen to.

      I doubt it would be difficult to create a cross-platform version of something similar (call it gnuTunes) where you can share your playlists, allow other to
      listen to your songs w/o being able to download them (yeah you could hack something to download the stream, but you get the idea).
      Software advances have mostly come from one basic precept:

      I don't like what's out there. It doesn't do what I want. I think I'll write it myself.

      Allow me to translate that last statement into something /.'ers can understand:

      1. Become disenchanted with current software offerings
      2. Pick up programming book
      3. Write Code
      4. Profit!
      --
      To Alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
    47. Re:Time to open it up! by slug359 · · Score: 1

      Winamp 3/5 have a media library with all the features you said, you type your artist/song name into the search box and as you're typing it finds the matching songs, or use the lists with the artist names in, it also indexes your files in the background and updates its database every so often in the background.
      You can also configure whether you want it to use ID3 tags or parse the filename.

    48. Re:Time to open it up! by Surreaberal · · Score: 0

      Oh, didn't you get the memo from the recent meeting?

      Everything mac is better than everything else...

      and we should all drive hybrid cars...and, and global warming...

    49. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good price, fairly unobtrusive DRM, and the iPod is good enough that it doesn't matter that you can't play it using other hardware players.

    50. Re:Time to open it up! by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1
      I really hate this "good guys" (opensource) vs. "Bad guys" (closed source) defining of the software industry. There are good opensource apps, and a hell of a lot of crapola. There are good closed source apps and lots of crapola. This whole duelist approach of opensource = good and closed source = bad mentality stinks. If its anything I learned from philosophy classes it was to red flag anything duelistic.

      For the on topic part: iTunes intrensically is neither good nor evil. What happened was Apple created an easy to use interface and a common sense balanced approach to DRMed-digital music. The iPod also happens to be the most prevelent digital music player on the market as well. Not because Apple is "evil" or "good", but because they created a gadget that's easy to use. You don't have to be a nerd to use an iPod. Then they made iTunes and the iPod work together extremely well on both Mac as well as Windows. kudos to Apple for creating what the market wanted: keep easy downloadable music and what the industry wanted: some form of DRM. IMHO fair use by downloaders and copyright protection is well served by the iTunes store.

      I know this is slahdot where there is a vocal minority that loves to scream that everything should be free as in speach and/or beer. But Apple made a program that is easy to use by the masses along with a music player that is easy to use by the masses along with music with a fair comprimise between DRM and fair use. And that was exactly what people wanted.

      I still hate to break this to Linux users outside of a server room: but Linux is still in the vast minority of desktop users. Then within the sub-set of Linux users you get people clammering for Ogg Vorbis or this or that and that, oh and that too.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    51. Re:Time to open it up! by magefile · · Score: 1

      It is slow and crash-prone ... but it is far better than anything I've ever used on Windows. Agreed, though, the Mac version is far superior (I'm a recent convert to Mac - now if only I could afford one).

    52. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's because Apple are the good guys. You're being short-sighted, and it's hard to believe that with your somewhat low user ID you haven't seen what kind of company Apple is.

    53. Re:Time to open it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's precisely my somewhat low user id that makes me tread cautiously when it comes to Apple. I spent too many years watching Mac's crash while seeing Think Different adverts. Please excuse me if I'm cynical. Furthermore, since we're talking about iTunes specifically, maybe I'll give it another chance when I can play my ogg files on it.

      So what am I missing long term? Is Apple going to promote open source on the desktop using it's ever dwindling marketshare, on it's over priced, tres chic boxes? Who cares. I don't consider Apple bad, but they sure aren't the good guys.

    54. Re:Time to open it up! by mr+i+want+to+go+home · · Score: 1
      You might not get this, now the threads a bit old....

      You posted this as AC below: Furthermore, since we're talking about iTunes specifically, maybe I'll give it another chance when I can play my ogg files on it.

      Lo and Behold!:

      http://www.illadvised.com/~jordy/

      Mac only though I'm afraid, heh heh heh.

    55. Re:Time to open it up! by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      The reason could be that every time there's a discussion about iPod, iTMS or iTunes a bunch of Apple fans chimes in that the really cool thing about iPod, iTMS and iTunes is that it's groovy synchronized vibes mean that it's mostly the same thing.

      I'm sad about the end of Winamp, I like iTunes but I prefer a persistent "current playlist". If there's additionally a playlist management like iTunes all the better. Winamp 5 offered both so IMHO it was a great player (not as good as amaroK though, brilliant piece of work).

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  8. Don't panic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would have been a big deal... if everyone wasn't using Foobar 2000 instead.

  9. No worries here... by mfh · · Score: 1

    Now that these guys are done with AOL maybe they can get on with their careers. For future reference: have an exit event next time guys so you don't get tied up with AOL or whoever buys it out from under you. Then we all profit because we get cool new toys and you get a pile of dough, AND no responsibility for 9-5 crap.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  10. Expected Outcome. by data1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This has been the expected outcome of Nullsoft's assimilation into the corporate giant that is AOL.
    Read more here: http://p2pnet.net/story/2965

    1. Re:Expected Outcome. by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Just in time for longhorn... Microsoft could easily break winamp5 so the 3 staffers left could never get it to run on longhorn, so now it looks like winamp5 will be a legacy windows xp app, that will never run right on longhorn, and never be replaced...

  11. Winamp 5 by jamesjw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Finally they got something right and theyre cut down in their prime :(

    Hopefully the programmers will leave and start some free Winamp like project in the Firefox vein..

    Open Amp, here we come :)

    -- Jim.

    --
    -- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
    1. Re:Winamp 5 by rahlquist · · Score: 1

      I doubt AOL forgot to include a noncompete agreement during the purchase of NullSoft.

      --
      Sick of stupidity? http://www.patentlystupid.com
    2. Re:Winamp 5 by phrasebook · · Score: 1

      theyre cut down in their prime

      Their prime was in version 2 and that was quite a while ago.

      start some free Winamp like project in the Firefox vein

      Tried foobar?

    3. Re:Winamp 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    4. Re:Winamp 5 by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Huh? Who cares?

      IIRC, Nullsoft's offices were in Silicon Valley. Noncompete agreements aren't enforcable in California.

      It's only in stupid east-coast and other pro-business anti-employee states where noncompetes are actually enforcable.

    5. Re:Winamp 5 by jdew · · Score: 2, Informative

      www.foobar2000.org

      One of the guys who left a while ago started making foobar2000. The interface isn't anything close to winamp's, but the player itself is BSD licensed.

  12. Winamp IS music. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    Justin Frankel made one of the best little out of the way bits of software ever. :)

    Still use it, never had a problem with it, it just works.

    Exactly how software should be.

    Now, onto the serious stuff:

    The dupe google story - its gone, whats happened to any moderation - do ppl get their points back, does karma get restored etc. I ask because my comment history still shows comments with scores, but no comment linked in background.

    I think we need to know ;)

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Winamp IS music. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      The dupe google story - its gone, whats happened to any moderation - do ppl get their points back, does karma get restored etc.

      I think Michael's pulling of the dupe is unprecedented. At least when the other editors dupe, they don't throw a hissy fit and tear down the story. I was expecting Michael to just update the article with a small dupe note. Sadly, he'd rather take the fascist route and change history.

  13. pours some beer on the ground.. by loconet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here is to the greatest mp3 player ...

    --
    [alk]
    1. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Here is to the greatest mp3 player ..."

      What does iTunes have to do with WinAmp taking a dirtnap?

    2. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      You mean Ogg player.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    3. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by mplex · · Score: 1

      And to the greatest plugin for winamp, milkdrop...

    4. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by pebs · · Score: 1

      Here is to the greatest mp3 player ...

      Despite all the people who think iTunes is the best player.. Winamp 5 really is a great player and is the best of the media library based players. It's interface, especially the media library, make it extremely useful for the power user. iTunes is overrated in my opinion; its interface is too simple and doesn't give you the same kind of power that Winamp 5 does.

      I really hope that Winamp 5 continues to progress or (ideally) gets open-sourced. Or hopefully some media player out there emerges that is better than Winamp 5 (hasn't happened yet).

      --
      #!/
    5. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by revscat · · Score: 1

      iTunes is overrated in my opinion; its interface is too simple and doesn't give you the same kind of power that Winamp 5 does.

      After initially trying WA5 when it was first released, I wound up going to iTunes and haven't been able to find any reasons to prefer WA to iTunes. Why has your experience been different? What can you do with WA5 that you can't with iTunes?

    6. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Here is to the greatest mp3 player ...

      With the worst interface!

      Which MP3/CD players are SlashDot readers currently using (on XP)? Preferably one with a standard (windows) interface.

    7. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by Pleione · · Score: 1

      I think Geiss still works on MilkDrop. It also works beautifully under foobar2000.

    8. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What can you do with WA5 that you can't with iTunes?

      I can't remember what song I wanted to hear by the time that iTunes finally loads.

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    9. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does the bloated itunes have to do with Winamp?

    10. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by moultano · · Score: 1

      www.foobar2000.org

    11. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by morgue-ann · · Score: 1

      iTunes doesn't show you the actual bitrate as it plays through a VBR MP3 file. I use EncSpot if I want to know the gory details, but if I just want to confirm that a VBR starts out at 32kbps (fade-in from silence), a quick play in WinAmp is great.

      I also don't want iTunes adding test files to its dang library.

      Now for listening to music instead of testing it, iTunes is pretty cool.

    12. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      What do I use on XP? Winamp. How is it's interface terrible? True, the majority of the skins for it do simply suck, but the default skin is fine. If that annoys you, surely someone has make a Windows-default like skin for Winamp 5 by now.

      But the real beauty of Winamp's interface is all the keyboard shortcuts, plus global hotkeys - which has to be one of the best things yet in Winamp.

    13. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      A capable, easy to use, video player with powerful playlist capabilities and dual head support. Global hotkeys. Ability to play just about any format of audio (via plugins). Ability to play just any video format that you can get a windows codec for. Milkdrop. Fast, snappy, familar, easy to use interface.

      In comparison to Winamp, iTunes is a steaming pile of bloated crap.

    14. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by chachob · · Score: 1

      well said.

    15. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cheers to that!

      Cheers to my first download and introduction to the internet!

    16. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by Threni · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the one that doesn't have a volume control?

    17. Re:pours some beer on the ground.. by Threni · · Score: 1

      Not what it looks like, just the fact that it's not a regular windows app. I *like* the fact that all apps work in the same way. With winamp I had to try clicking on things which weren't buttons to get the help up. I think it was right click i'm talking about. Also, I upgraded in a hope that they fixed it, but it made it stop playing CDs - I could only play MP3s.

      If it used regular windows menus etc then you could do keyboard `accelerator` shortcuts.

      Also, I'd like to use my mobile phone, via bluetooth, to control winamp. I want some free software to do it, and ideally no software on the PC - just a java app for my phone. Is this possible yet, using any PC software? Or do I have to wait for Microsoft to do it? Is it really that difficult?

  14. Foobar is better anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Winamp had a good run but they lost out due to lack of innovation.

  15. tis a sad day by kc0re · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a sad day in free software history. Screw you AOL. (I know this will be redundant)... Winamp is one of the better free programs out there, I guess the few remaining will have to migrate to xmms.

    1. Re:tis a sad day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I won't migrate anywhere. The project is dead, and indeed that is sad. However, myself and most people I know will continue to use our now "antiquated" Winamp (I run 2.8) until rapture. ...until someone else designs a slim, bloat-free music player that does exactly what it should, no more, no less.

    2. Re:tis a sad day by wertarbyte · · Score: 1

      I guess he was talking about free beer, not free speech. Hm, where can I get my beer now? I'm not in the mood for talking anyway...

      --
      Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
    3. Re:tis a sad day by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      Bloat? I use mpg123!

      --
      stuff
    4. Re:tis a sad day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this have to do with free software?

      Nothing. It's free as in beer dumbass

    5. Re:tis a sad day by XMyth · · Score: 1

      I'll admit that Winamp5 is more bloated than 2.x, but it's a very good player. Have you tried it? Don't let Winamp3 turn you off to it...I think that's why most people haven't tried Winamp5. Winamp5 is a VERY nice player. Great media catalog, skinning, and not buggy like 3 was.

  16. Owned by AOL? by mOoZik · · Score: 1

    Count me among the people who did not know they were owned by AOL. I guess this is the usual fate of buyouts.

  17. Re:sweet by yoyhed · · Score: 1

    I like xmms and all, but it's exactly the same as Winamp 2.. My point being that Winamp 5 is even better than that, so I don't see how Winamp sucks.

    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  18. That's not so good by leo_llew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I have just moved my whole music library from iTunes to Winamp, took me hours, if not days.

    I was really amazed of the power, that lasts in winamp.

    I hope this great project will nevertheless live on.

    1. Re:That's not so good by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      Because of Winamp 3, I thought the same thing and stuck with 2.91 for about two years before finally checking out 5. It turns out the basic version has a memory footprint very close to 2.91 (6-7 MB with few extra plugins) as well as all the options the old one had. I was kinda pissed that you couldn't tweak the classic visualization settings like the refresh rate of the spectrum analyzer (I prefer 70 fps) until I realized they're all consilidated under the Classic Skins page.

      Oh yeah, and I don't recall any spyware in this release. Maybe I have a subconcious urge to uncheck boxes on installers, but I haven't seen anything and the Nullsoft web page listed pretty explicitly what comes in each package.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    2. Re:That's not so good by Dr.Opveter · · Score: 0

      I think all it does is try to load a webpage or whatever. No spyware, adware.. if you're paranoid just block winamp connecting to any internet service in your firewall.

      --
      Sample this!
  19. /dev/nullsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    cat employees.txt >/dev/nullsoft

  20. Now all we will get is bloatware by spikexyz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like winamp since it doesn't suck up many more processor cycles or bytes of memory than necessary to play MP3s, at least relative to the other bloatware out there. It also doesn't have a million features I don't need, just a few that I never use. RIP

    1. Re:Now all we will get is bloatware by aetherspoon · · Score: 1

      You are talking about WinAMP and not some other program, right? The same WinAMP that produced v3 that had more bloatware than most major word processing programs? (exaggeration)

      If you want an audio player that isn't bloated, hit up foobar - just don't give me this crap that WinAMP isn't bloated. Even 5.x is. 2.x you might be able to argue about, but not the others.

      --
      --- Ãther SPOON!
    2. Re:Now all we will get is bloatware by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, the memory usage for Winamp 5 is the same as it ever was for 2.91 (6-7 MB). Be careful about loading plugins. Peercast, for example, adds 10 MB to the memory load.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    3. Re:Now all we will get is bloatware by aetherspoon · · Score: 1

      With how many files in your playlist though?
      Sure, I have a buttload of plugins for my foobar, and it is eating up a huge amount of RAM... but I have 11 tabs open of playlists, one of which is over 20,000 songs long.
      WinAMP tends to twitch and die at that point, especially 3.x and 5.x from what I've seen of other people. I personally don't run that program since I keep my machine AOL free.

      --
      --- Ãther SPOON!
    4. Re:Now all we will get is bloatware by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      I have 1,170 songs on the list at the moment. I think they tried working around the huge playlist tag-reading problem by having it populate the list at the rate of about 4 files/second. Check and make sure the names of the files aren't too long.

      I had a few songs by DJ Ghost Dad (alter ego of the famous TAOC TEH WODNER DOG from somethingawful.com) that had ridiculously long file names that didn't even conform to FAT32 standards. I was in Windows 98 at the time and it let me write files to the hard drive like that. When I finally moved to XP, not only did it not want to let me rename the offending files, Winamp would crash whenever it tries to read it.

      If this is the case, try to pinpoint the file on which it crashes so you can rename it (I had to boot to Linux to do that).

      As for being AOL free, Winamp didn't pile on AOL Free for 999E2000 months icons last time I installed it or anything blatantly AOL for that matter - unless you have a philosophy similar to what vegans have about where they get their food.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  21. Well... What else is out there? by lightdarkness · · Score: 1

    Now that Winamp 5 will only have minor updates, what other MP3 players out there have the same functionality as winamp, and perhaps some new functions?

    1. Re:Well... What else is out there? by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Informative
      what other MP3 players out there have the same functionality as winamp

      Well, there is XMMS... Zinf... to name a couple... Zinf has a windows version...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:Well... What else is out there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Well... What else is out there? by Lucifage · · Score: 1

      I recently went through a "must get rid of winamp" phase due to it's library's inability to properly read WMA tags (some excuse about licensing was provided). I ended up stopping and working with MediaMonkey. It is a "pay to unlock bonus features", but the free version doesn't leave much out.

    4. Re:Well... What else is out there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a fan of Quintessential Player

    5. Re:Well... What else is out there? by powermung · · Score: 1

      my favorite's quintessential player.

    6. Re:Well... What else is out there? by Pleione · · Score: 1

      Go here. You can also find a working Winamp reg code there.

    7. Re:Well... What else is out there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would definitely recommend Quintessential Player http://www.quinnware.com/ It supports MP3, Ogg, WAV, skins and has support for CD ripping/MP3 encoding etc... It can even use existing Winamp DSP and input plugins. Best of all it's free. :)

  22. Any major security issues?? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    So, are there any badnesses associated with WinAmp that people might want to know about?

    I currently use it as my main player on my work machine.

    Any reasons I should be planning on ditching it?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Any major security issues?? by syntap · · Score: 1

      Well, if the company goes away a program mutates into a virus and you have to delete it or it will erase your screen.

    2. Re:Any major security issues?? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Well, if the company goes away a program mutates into a virus and you have to delete it or it will erase your screen.


      Oooh, I hate it when that happens. Does that mean I'll need to re-polarize my coffer-cup holder and re-frobulate the power supply again?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  23. Winamp is dead.... by voyager42 · · Score: 0, Troll

    long live xmms!

    --
    Ek is 'n hekker
  24. So Why? by cyngus · · Score: 1

    Being primarily a Mac user my experience with Winamp was brief, but I had many friends who swore by it. So, what was the cause of Winamp's demise? Is it that Windows Media Player got better? Is it that people just don't care much what play's their MP3's? Did it lose its cool factor or geek appeal?

    1. Re:So Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand, almost everyone who listens to mp3s still uses winamp. The demise is the demise of the company which made winamp.

    2. Re:So Why? by bhima · · Score: 1

      I would suspect because there a billions of other MP3 software players out there now.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    3. Re:So Why? by micromoog · · Score: 4, Funny
      1. AOL
      2. iTunes
      3. no more llamas to kick
    4. Re:So Why? by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      don't you mean whip?

      "Winamp, it really whips the llamas ass."

    5. Re:So Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think winamp got to the best a music player can get. There's nowhere to improve without becoming an do-it-all-and-in-a-buggy-way monstruosity. It's just a music player...

    6. Re:So Why? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      No idea, but I assume it just wasn't making enough money to be worth the cost developiing it. Quality is nice, but why take a loss?

    7. Re:So Why? by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      The 2.x version was it's glory. Extremely small, very fast, and could run like a pro on a 386. The downside was that it had no library management system, just the ability to make and save playlists. Then 3.x came along and added missing features... so many that you neded at least 256MB of memory and a 1GHz machine at minimum to get anything decent out of it. 5.x was pure AOL, and pure crap. Not to mention about a year after AOL bought them, installing winamp also installed several (and I mean several) links to "Try AOL for free" all over your machine. I'd still be using 2.x right now if it had support for OGG media, but since it was built into 3.x nobody took the time to make a plugin.

    8. Re:So Why? by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      There is no point to having a killer-app if you can't profit from it. No one would ever be willing to pay for something like winamp.

      Besides, how much more development does winamp need? As far as I'm concerned, it was fine at 2.0. Is there some new market that it could have moved into had its staff not been reduced?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    9. Re:So Why? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      5.x was pure AOL, and pure crap.

      Huh? Maybe elaborate? :-)

      I think 5.x in 2.x mode is great :-) You get a lot of useful features not existing in 2.x with a still reasonably low footprint, compared to many other players. It's not like it keeps opening AOL popups or something...

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    10. Re:So Why? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1
      I'd still be using 2.x right now if it had support for OGG media, but since it was built into 3.x nobody took the time to make a plugin.
      Huh? Then what the hell am I hosting on my website??

      http://cbservices.dyndns.org/Music/ogg_plugin.html
      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    11. Re:So Why? by neko9 · · Score: 1

      I'd still be using 2.x right now if it had support for OGG media, but since it was built into 3.x nobody took the time to make a plugin.

      huh?? 2.91 supports ogg natively. no external plugins needed.

    12. Re:So Why? by drew · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of people are greatly exaggerating winamp's "demise" all that has happened is that the last programmer that worked for NullSoft before AOL aquired it has quit AOL. To be honest, I expected it would have happened years sooner. They probably won't be making any more major releases, but 5.x is pretty solid, and should last for a long time to come. And it seems there is still a very active community around WinAmp as well.

      I will agree that WinAmp has declined significantly from where it used to be. I think there are a few major reasons for this.
      1) AOL corporate culture didn't agree with the NullSoft programmers, which slowed down new development.
      2) WinAmp 3.x really turned off a lot of people. They quickly turned around and came out with WinAmp 5.x, but not quickly enough to regain a lot of people that they lost.
      3) Windows Media Player got good enough that people who aren't that picky about the features and just want something that plays music are content to use the software bundled with windows, rather than downloading a separate program (the rule of defaults, which contributed greatly to the demise of netscape and may other companies competing against Microsoft: If the software that comes with the operating system is "good enough" 80+% of users will never bother to change it even if there is something substantially better available.)

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    13. Re:So Why? by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      This is not true. I used an ogg plugin for winamp the last time I used it and that was in 2002.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
  25. foobar by maskedbishounen · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
    1. Re:foobar by Ruediger · · Score: 1

      foobar is really amazing there are so many useful components. The only problem with it is the default interface, which is kind ugly but with a little configuration it can look quite nice. If anyone is intrested there are some cool configs here. You'll need Column UI component to use those configs.

      btw, if anyone knows a site with more Column UI configurations share with us.

      --
      "...personality goes a long way."
    2. Re:foobar by Mr.Radar · · Score: 1

      If a means becomes available to use Winamp 5's skinning system with Foobar (as an alternative to the lightweight default GUI, of course) I think that Foobar2000 could quickly become the audio player.

      --
      What if this signature were clever?
    3. Re:foobar by Pleione · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I was thinking. I've been using fb2k for quite some time now and, honestly, I could not see myself ever going back to Winamp.

    4. Re:foobar by Pleione · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a freeform skin plugin for foobar. I forget the name of it since I like my custom formatting strings. Check around on Hydrogen Audio.

    5. Re:foobar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, foobar just got slashdotted, you insensitive clod. ;)

    6. Re:foobar by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was actually about to suggest foobar2000 myself. I use it all the time, I love it.

      Why? Because it doesn't use a stupid ass interface. I hate winamp's interface. Yeah, let's waste space mimicing a fricking physical player. And while we're at it, why don't we draw a big pencil around the screen to write?

      foobar2000 sits in the taskbar, and has global hotkeys to flip around with. If I want to do something the hotkeys can't handle, I can bring it up...it's just one window, a tabbed playlist window, where adding and deleting files is very intuitive. It actually maximizes logically, so I can see everything. I can have dozens of playlists on the top, all nice in a row. All the buttons on Winamp's main window take up a good 15x300 block in the menubar.

      Winamp, in contrast, wants you to bring up extra windows to manage your song list, when that is, in fact, the only reason you need a media player in the first place. And, of course, the list is this tiny thing...hey, windows already has a perfectly good list control, with columns and everything.

      I don't give a rat's ass about how pretty it looks, because 99.9999% of the time, I can't see the damn thing anyway. Do people really sit around and have winamp cover up a third of their screen while using their computer? Somehow I doubt it.

      The only thing foobar2000 is lacking is easy access to the EQ. I'm sure there's a plugin somewhere for that.

      That said, foobar2000 does apparently have some skins plugin you can use.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    7. Re:foobar by aconbere · · Score: 1

      best audio player for windows EVER

      I love it, I hope this prompts more people to adopt it.

      Anders

    8. Re:foobar by jack_csk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Winamp always need write access to the program's directory, and there is always single environment setting. That makes a secure multi-user system difficult. I ended up using foobar2000.

    9. Re:foobar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear god no!

  26. Might as well... by nordicfrost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Winamp was one of those Must Have Apps for Windows, and heralded much of the MP3 success. After that half-yearly re-install of Windows, WA was one of the first apps to go back in. So you could play MP3s while reinstalling Office etc.

    But after it went to version2, things became less rosy. Version 1.x worked a charm on my old 266/512mb peecee, but the 2.x series was dog slow and ridden with feature creep. I wonder if all the dumbass features in 2.x was something AOL mandated in the app. Rest of story: I went Linux, the Mac and never looked back.

    Kudos to the original Nullsoft team, you did a great job!

    1. Re:Might as well... by julesh · · Score: 1

      Huh? I've never had any trouble with 2.x on my 350MHz/256Mb box. And 1.x seems to have trouble playing anything with a bitrate higher than about 160, probably due to inefficient design or something.

      And what feature creep? OK, I'll buy the 'minibrowser', so you switch that window off and never have to see it again. Anything else?

    2. Re:Might as well... by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

      And what feature creep? OK, I'll buy the 'minibrowser', so you switch that window off and never have to see it again. Anything else?

      Well, it's a long time sinceI used it, but it had a mini browser and a video player + some badly structured features.

      I loved the original Winamp, it did a kickass job on my 30 GB MP3 collection (All legal, since they were all copied from borrowed CDs). But the 2.x was sloooooooow to start up and crashed a lot more. The 1.x was snap, snap, snappy and rock stable.

      I hope Justin et al does something equally cool now, maybe the next killer app for video-on-demand?

      Now, I use iTunes on Mac.

    3. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I loved the original Winamp, it did a kickass job on my 30 GB MP3 collection (All legal, since they were all copied from borrowed CDs).

      Hmmmm. I'm not entirely certain about the validity of your legal reasoning, but you and the RIAA can hash it out among yourselves.

    4. Re:Might as well... by Cili · · Score: 1
      But after it went to version2, things became less rosy. Version 1.x worked a charm on my old 266/512mb peecee, but the 2.x series was dog slow and ridden with feature creep. I wonder if all the dumbass features in 2.x was something AOL mandated in the app. Rest of story: I went Linux, the Mac and never looked back.
      I don't know about version 2 vs. version1, but I was a happy winamp2.9 user on a Pentium 200 with 64Mb. It would just play mp3s in the background...
    5. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      If he's in Canada, it is legal.

      The RIAA can choke on some great northern cock for all we care.

    6. Re:Might as well... by TapioNuut · · Score: 1
      I totally agree with the Must Have part.

      But about the other part... I am still using latest WA 2.x on my 90 MHz Pentium laptop vith 40 megabytes of memory and Windows 98 in it. I don't think it as bloated or dog slow.

      And I just had to check:
      the Winamp Browser (as it apparently was known back then; later known as Winamp Mini-browser) came with the second 2.x version, 2.10 released on 3/24/99. (http://www.sonicspot.com/winamp/history.html)
      AOL bought Nullsoft a few months after this, on 4th of June 1999. (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/1999/0 6/07/story2.html) I know you didn't say AOL brought the stupid browser, but I really wanted to say it did not :-)

      Anyway, this truly is bad news for many Windows and Winamp users around the world.

      --
      Tapio 'itn' Nuutinen
    7. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But after it went to version2, things became less rosy. Version 1.x worked a charm on my old 266/512mb peecee, but the 2.x series was dog slow and ridden with feature creep."

      For fucks sake, why didn't you just keep version 1? Someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to upgrade?

    8. Re:Might as well... by BuhSnarf · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you mean version 3 was the dog ugly, slow and bloat version?

      Versions 2 and 5 are the best versions ever released.

      Version 2 if you have an old computer or just want pure music playing.

      Version 5 if you want the Winamp library and new skin support.

    9. Re:Might as well... by toolio · · Score: 1

      half-yearly

      every heard of biannually?

    10. Re:Might as well... by julesh · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a long time sinceI used it, but it had a mini browser and a video player + some badly structured features.

      My 2.8 doesn't have a video player. The minibrowser can be switched off & doesn't seem to load any code into RAM if you don't use it.

      But the 2.x was sloooooooow to start up and crashed a lot more.

      I have 4 seconds startup here, on a system that's got heavy memory and CPU usage right now (many Mozilla windows, doing MPEG encoding in the background). Winamp has _never_ crashed on me, and I use it heavily. I have a machine whose windows 2000 sound driver sometimes causes a lock up, but that's not winamp's fault as other programs can trigger the same behaviour.

      I think you must have had some kind of strange problem with your system to have such trouble with winamp 2. Winamp 3, though, _was_ a nightmare.

    11. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ive got 2.9 running on an old amd k5-75mhz (w/ 32mb ram)

      it does fine so long as you dont ask it to do ANYTHING else :D

    12. Re:Might as well... by Mattintosh · · Score: 1, Troll

      You probably mean semi-annually.

      Bi means two. Biannually means every two years. Semi means half. Semi-annually means every half year or, as you were thinking of it, twice a year.

      Now back to your usual grammar-nazi-free programming...

    13. Re:Might as well... by myyrk · · Score: 1

      Nope he meant biannually. Biannual and semiannual mean the same thing, twice a year. Every 2 years is biennial.

    14. Re:Might as well... by doodlelogic · · Score: 1

      Nope, nopester.

      Biannual (adj.) means every 2 years.

      Biennial (n.) is something that happens every two years.

    15. Re:Might as well... by shadow303 · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to dictionary.com, biannual can either mean semiannual (twice a year) or biennial (once every two year). English is such a fun language.

      --
      I've got a mind like a steel trap - it's got an animal's foot stuck in it.
    16. Re:Might as well... by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      You must be thinking of WA3. That's when the vieo player was added. My old 450MHZ K6-2 with 352MB RAM couldn't handle it.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    17. Re:Might as well... by neko9 · · Score: 1

      hmm... 1.x was and is buggy and unstable. 2.91 on my 350/128mb box works like charm. best audio player ever... for windows.

    18. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Biannual" and "biennial" are two different words, so "can either mean this or that" doesn't work here.

    19. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Version 2.95 has the same library support. It's questionable if the new skins are reason enough to get the bloat of 3 bundled along with v.5

      Check out http://www.oldversion.com/

    20. Re:Might as well... by pangloss · · Score: 1

      Biannually means every two years

      The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition:
      biannual
      biannual b/pld/icons/ipa322.gifi,æ;niua/pld/icons/breve.gif l, a. and sb. [f. bi- pref.2 4, 4 b + annual. ]

      A. adj. Used as = Half-yearly.

      B. sb. = biennial sb. Hence bi'annually adv.

      * 1877 Ouida Puck xii. 123 Every half-year his lawyers transmitted him..the biannual rental.

      * 1884 Illustr. Sydney News 26 Aug. 15/1 Plant out..annuals and bi-annuals.

      * 1882 Century Mag. XXIII. 647 A change in the fashion of her clothes bi-annually at least.

      Also see WordNet

    21. Re:Might as well... by yic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that Winamp 5 is awesome ... I love it. Winamp 2 was great, but Winamp 5 is better, and I don't even use the skins. I like the library system, with their SQL-like language for you to specify things like "newly added items that haven't been played yet" etc. The UI is great for organizing media, and I need it cuz I have so much music. Since getting the version 5 I realise I don't need to categorize my music anymore ... just type "rock" and it gives you everything associated with rock, or type musician name, or whatever. And it's really nice the way the UI integrates the bookmarks, playlists, streaming TV and radio. The "rescan Watch folders" button is nice. The whole thing is a lot, lot better than Windows Media Player by far.

      So I'm really sad there will be no more extensions :(

    22. Re:Might as well... by Figbash · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with half-yearly, I understood it fine :)

    23. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pardon my Swahilii, but if you have to install Windows twice a year to keep your computer running, you're fucking retarded. Learn to uninstall programs CORRECTLY and don't install crap you don't need.

  27. Shoutcast by Vermyndax · · Score: 1

    Argh... now I'll have to rely on Windows Media Player to develop a plugin for Shoutcast so I can listen to those net radio stations.

    Oh, wait... there's still XMMS in Linux... ;)

    1. Re:Shoutcast by dmomo · · Score: 1


      You can still stream. There are plenty of tools available. Shoutcast (is|was) a really handy directory! But, Nullsoft own(s|ed) both Winamp AND Shoutcast. Hopefully someone else will come up with a service aping theirs!

    2. Re:Shoutcast by apanap · · Score: 1

      Well, there's already icecast. Works great, and has for the last few years.

      --
      Give me a job. Please?
  28. What's a good alternative for people stuck with... by caluml · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Windows?
    If anyone wanted to listen to my Icecast streams, or the ogg recordings I made, I always pointed them at Winamp, as it worked, and was free. And I couldn't be bothered answering lots of questions about codecs, and stuff.
    What's the best thing now?

  29. Don't really need more updates by millwall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm still using v.1 and it still "Kicks the Llama's Ass".

    1. Re:Don't really need more updates by ShaunDon · · Score: 0

      Whips, baby. It really whips the llama's ass. ;-)

  30. Open Source Replacements? by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

    Are there any open source replacements for this for Windows? iTunes, while closed source, is a possible replacement, if a bit bloated.

    --
    You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    1. Re:Open Source Replacements? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Zinf is a nice open source Winamp-like player, but it is updated even less often than Winamp.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  31. ob simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ha-ha!

  32. Blaming AOL? by sbergstrom · · Score: 1

    I don't think AOL is much to blame for this; they can't be faulted for the fact that Microsoft provides a powerful media player (also free) and that Media Player is quite hard to keep up with. So blame Microsoft - isn't that easier anyway?

    --

    Love, Stu
    1. Re:Blaming AOL? by freshman_a · · Score: 1


      I think AOL is to blame. After AOL acquired Nullsoft, the developers seemed to have been put on a nice short leash. Where as they were once able to freely develop without having to answer to anyone but themselves, they now had to get things OKed through AOL (at least it sure seemed that way). AOL axed both Gnutella and WASTE. I'm sure that had to be frustrating for the Nullsoft guys. As far as WMP goes, in the initial glory days of Winamp, WMP didn't have MP3 support (IIRC). WMP seemed to play catch-up to Winamp, with respect to MP3s, visual plug-ins, etc. In the late '90s and early '00s, when the MP3 format was really starting to gain momentum (the Napster days), Winamp was pretty much the defacto MP3 player. So, in my opinion, I think AOL is to blame, not so much MS. But hey, that's my opinion, I could be wrong as my memory isn't always the greatest...

  33. Oh no! by harrkev · · Score: 1

    Is today April 1st (please please). Winamp is my favorite player.

    Can anybody recommend a good alternative? I am a Windows user (I can't get my nVidia chipset ethernet to work under Linux). The replacement should be capable, and free (no "register for only $39 for bonus features").

    And before anybody mentions it, Real Player and Windows Media Plaer are NOT viable alternatives for me (but I think that Real's "Annabelle the sheep" is hilarious -- sheep are funny, just watch "A Close Shave").

    I don't suppose that XMMS is available for Windows, is it?

    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    1. Re:Oh no! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Here you go.

      Zinf is what was called FREEAMP.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Oh no! by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Can anybody recommend a good alternative?


      Why do you need an alternative? Is Winamp going to mysteriously vanish from your hard-drive now that Nullsoft has closed their doors?
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    3. Re:Oh no! by mopslik · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Oh no! by lumpenprole · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Foobar 2000.

      Tried it once, never looked back. And I was a huge Winamp fan.

      http://www.foobar2000.org/

      --
      Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
    5. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zinf is what was once a well thought out, professionally developed and innovative application. Now it is an application which is apparently developed by 14 year old kiddies with a copy of Sams Teach Yourself C in 24hours by their side and a Seven of Nine poster on their wall. At least that's the only way I can see how they could possibly have fucked up Freeamp so much in such short a time.

    6. Re:Oh no! by John_Booty · · Score: 2, Informative

      The alternative I like best is iTunes. I wouldn't run it on an older machine but it was decent on my 1.2ghz Athlon and perfectly okay on my AthlonXP 2500 and AthlonXP 3200...

      +free
      +excellent for LARGE (40GB+) music collections. their playlist and library features blow everybody else away. this is the "killer feature" for me. absolutely.
      +iTunes music store if you're into that (I'm not)
      +iPod support (I liked it even before I got an iPod)
      +easy to add artwork to albums
      +nice support for tagging multiple files
      +if anybody else on your LAN is running iTunes, you can play their music (although not copy it)... this even works if they're on a Mac and you're on Windows

      -not Free in the GNU sense, obviously
      -uses like 50MB of RAM for my really huge collection (80GB); but I don't care because I have 1GB. sorry. :P
      -Mac+PC only, no linux
      -doesn't work with other portable players
      -no built-in "windowshade" mode like Winamp, but there are plugins that accomplish this

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    7. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy on the Last Rites there.

      Your Winamp didn't explode, just development ceased. It's a great little player and will continue to be a great little player for some time. By the time you need an upgrade, the player market will have changed again. No point looking right now.

    8. Re:Oh no! by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 1

      Why switch at all? Winamp still works doesn't it?

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    9. Re:Oh no! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      it works with all rio players.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    10. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice tagline arsehat. A fetus is not a child... but nice try.

    11. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Cute sig, jackass. Think you could get any more over-dramatic about it?

      You're the type that gives pro-lifers a bad name.

    12. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winamp has every single one of those +'s that you listed, whether natively or through plug-in support. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

    13. Re:Oh no! by keeleysam · · Score: 1

      vut with iTunes you dont need to go through the hassle of installing those plugins.... AND the GUI in iTunes really whips the llamas ass

      --
      Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
  34. Interesting .. by stevey · · Score: 1

    I wonder what this means for people who paid for it?

    In the beginning winamp was free, but you could pay for extras or support. Then it went completely freely distributable.

    Now I notice that there is the Winamp 5 Pro which again becomes a paid piece of software.

    I've not bought it, but I wonder what people paid for. More features? Upgrades? Support?

    I'm still using Winamp 2.x which works well on my work desktop - at home I'm xmms all the way - even if there are a few irritations.

    1. Re:Interesting .. by qwerty75 · · Score: 1

      Winamp 5 is still FREE. There is a paid version that allows faster ripping times from CD to MP3. Just click on the FREE.

      BTW, I made a donation to Winamp early on when it was a Free product but they had no backing. I was happy to do so because it was and still is the best MP3 software out there. Windows Media Player and Music Match Suck.

  35. Honestly, I stopped using it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stopped using it at version 3, when it stopped supporting "drag n drop" playback (which previous versions supported). That killed its usefulness right there. I don't know if subsequent versions fixed that, cuz Winamp fell off the radar for me.

    Just goes to show how important every detail of a user interface / user experience is.

    1. Re:Honestly, I stopped using it... by julesh · · Score: 1

      The rest of us just kept using version 2.

      (I uninstalled v3 because it didn't have an "output to .wav file" option).

    2. Re:Honestly, I stopped using it... by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

      It was fixed in version 5. A nice thing about v5 is the way you can make it look exactly like v2! :D

    3. Re:Honestly, I stopped using it... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Well, call me stupid, but why did you stop using it just because you didn't like the latest version? Did somebody put a gun to your head and force you to stop using the older versions?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  36. Re:sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt about Winamp being a pill of crap. You could see this comming a mile off when they released Winamp 3. Yet Another Application Framework No One Needs; great. Someone must have forget to mention to the Nullsoft guys that Winamp was supposed to be an MP3 player. They caught the Netscape Malody of writing frameworks instead of writing applications.

    Now Freeamp, there was a damn fine player. The My Music playlist editor was fantastic. It's a shame though; the moment it became Zinf it turned into a complete joke. The Zinf developers shouldn't be allowed near a text editor, let alone a cross-platform media player like Freeamp. Bah.

    These days I rarely listen to music on my computer anyway, and when I do I use XMMS. It plays the music, what else do I need?

  37. Why the programmers left. by fireboy1919 · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, it wasn't AOL, or commercial business.

    It was because the Llama really whipped Winamp's ass a couple of weeks ago.

    I'm sure it surprised everyone when it happened.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:Why the programmers left. by chendo · · Score: 1

      Was it in Russia?

      --
      Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
  38. What am I going to tell people now? by WWWWolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "What's this ogg thing?" "Open it in Winamp! You have the full version, right?" "Uh, what are these s3m/mod/it files?" "Just open them in Winamp."

    Okay, so Winamp will still exist as a reanimated corpse, but the question remains - what am I going to tell people to use now to open these obscure geek music formats? It's not like iTunes would particularly help here, and Microsoft definitely won't care either...

    1. Re:What am I going to tell people now? by julesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just tell 'em to use winamp. It's not like it'll need any new features to continue doing its job. And it has a well defined plugin interface, just in case any are required.

    2. Re:What am I going to tell people now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  39. Try Sonique by RandoX · · Score: 1

    I never really liked WinAmp myself and always preferred Sonique and now Sonique 2. It's always unfortunate to see a company close up when so many people obviously enjoyed their product, even if I'm not one of them.

    1. Re:Try Sonique by general_re · · Score: 1
      If "no more updates" is a reason to switch away from Winamp, then Sonique is hardly a solution either - Sonique hasn't been formally updated in years, since 1.96 was released, and S2 has been locked in perpetual beta for just about as long.

      If Winamp is unofficially dead, Sonique has pretty much been unofficially dead for some time now as well.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  40. Foobar2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Will more people be using foobar2000 now?

    1. Re:Foobar2000 by Mister_IQ · · Score: 1

      It's all I use now.

      Winamp is (was) a study in poor interface design.

      Foobar doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but it plays my music and is clear and easy to use.

    2. Re:Foobar2000 by eddy · · Score: 1

      Foobar doesn't have all the bells and whistles

      With emphasis on all.

      It's got the ones that matter.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    3. Re:Foobar2000 by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      honest question,
      ever since I got my hands on winamp, its all I used(except for version 3, which I dropped and thanked god I kept my install files for 2.9).

      What didn't you like about it? I can't seem to get to the foobar page now to see what its like, but what about winamp's interface annoyed you? I personally dislike hte size of the buttoms sometimes but I've used it for so many years it doesn't matter to me anymore.

    4. Re:Foobar2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      The lead programer for Foobar2000 is an ass. Don't expect him to be Ogg friendly in the slightest--he takes perverse pleasure in promoting AAC over OGG at every opportunity.

    5. Re:Foobar2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dumbass,
      Foobar2000 supports ogg and streaming ogg out of the frigging box. His personal dislikes are not going to cause him to drop ogg support.

      JAAC

  41. ARG! by JLSigman · · Score: 1

    I LIKE WinAMP... it beats the pants off of MusicMatch's Jukebox and Windows Media Player. I'll have to make sure I burn my 5.0 install to a CD and put it in a safe, secure location.

    --
    -jls
    Techno-pagan
    1. Re:ARG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't much point in burning it on a CD, it certainly isn't going to disappear off the face of the earth. I used to have a bunch of games from the 80's on 5.25 inch disks that were taking up lots of space, I finially decided to sell them all on Ebay because there is always SOMEWHERE to download this stuff, anyway...

    2. Re:ARG! by PhrostED · · Score: 1

      "I LIKE WinAMP... it beats the pants off of MusicMatch's Jukebox and Windows Media Player. I'll have to make sure I burn my 5.0 install to a CD and put it in a safe, secure location."

      Bittorrent? ;)

  42. Ver 3 by Shadow_139 · · Score: 0

    Was one the first MP3 players I ever used, you started to suck after ver 3. Crappy video support, with it did not need. And other crap they added on, just slowed it down, and do nothing usefull in a everyday player "Clutch my testes, bloody squirrel humpers!!" -Happy Noodle Boy

  43. terrible by re-Verse · · Score: 1

    I remember when Nullsoft got picked up by AOL: a mix of happiness in the community that they would finally be paid, and fear of what AOL would do to screw things up. This is worse than I think most had suspected.

    Although, on the bright side, winamp has reached near perfection. Either 2.9x for the minimal side of things, or 5.x for the complete package. The sad thing is, every time we'd think that winamp had reached the status of the perfect audio player, Nullsoft would release an update and make perfection even better.

    I guess we can be sure that team Nullsoft won't have any access to the Winamp codebase now, and if they do try to go about making the perfect audio player, they'll have to start from scratch :(

  44. Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So maybe now my winamp 2.80 will stop nagging me that "I MUST UPGRADE TO BLOATWARE VERSION 5"

    retep.

  45. I won't stop using winamp by Dr.Opveter · · Score: 0

    I think winamp 2 was great, at the time only sonique once lured me over to switch but stability issues made me go back. winamp 3 was a mistake but winamp 5 is pretty slick. It runs great on a modern machine and has all the features i'd like in a player so i don't see any reason for changing players anyway.

    --
    Sample this!
  46. Re:sweet by maskedbishounen · · Score: 1

    XMMS suffers from identity crisis, just like all other WinAMP 2.x clones. It gets boring, quickly. Free form skinning was WinAMP's attempt to curve this in 3.x and 5.x, but so far XMMS really, really lacks here.

    The point being, so matter how you skin it up, it looks the same. It's a great little music player, and like WinAMP, needs to move forward, instead of just remaining a silly looking box forever.

    ...or is it just me?

    --
    "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
  47. someone needs to start the ground by hsmith · · Score: 1

    for a petition to open up the source that way it can continue w/o the assistance of anyone else. if it is going the way of the dodo, then lets try to get something out of it

  48. iTunes (for Windows) by kriegsman · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know several people who are happy converts from WinAmp to iTunes.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, Apple makes some really good software -- even for Windows.

    -Mark

    1. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by Wanderer2 · · Score: 1

      (I have the same question as the grandparent poster) my version of iTunes doesn't play the ogg streams generated by my Linux server (running Icecast). Is there a plug-in I need or something? Winamp 5 just works when I give it a link to the stream (as does xmms...)

      --
      I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
    2. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Looking back, I don't know how I got along with WinAmp's retarded playlist system. It was literally just a list of however many hundreds or thousands of MP3's you had. iTunes was much better in terms of organizing your music.

    3. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by SamSim · · Score: 1

      How about those of us who've resisted Windows 2000/XP so far?

    4. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      iTunes can play anything that QuickTime can play. There is an Ogg Vorbis QuickTime plugin, but (last time I looked) it didn't support streams. iTunes will play MP3, AAC and Apple Lossless streams happily, and so you could try transcoding to one of these formats (although that will probably leave you with a lot of artefacts). A better solution, if you plan on using iTunes, is to re-rip your music as AAC and stream that, since AAC is supported by most media players (including XMMS).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Try Winamp5...much better media cataloging.

      I still catalog my music in WMP though, because it will download the ablum art automatically.

    6. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTunes is much too bulky for me. I'll stick with my ol' fashioned Winamp v 2.91. No extra services forceably installing themselves, trying to see if I'll ever plug in an iPod that I can't afford.

      Fuck that, keep a sound playing program simple.

      Wanna buy shit from the ITMS? Then use iTunes.

    7. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by Wanderer2 · · Score: 1

      I got iTunes for my laptop to buy the odd track from the Music Store, and it has this habit of grabbing the .m3u extension off Winamp whenever I use it. It'd be nice if it could play my .ogg.m3u streams.

      As I use my linux box as a LAN radio station, it no longer matters so much how pretty or well-organised the client software is. All I really want is one player that plays all the audio formats. *Sigh* I currently have WMP, Winamp 5, Foobar2000 and iTunes all fighting over extensions...

      --
      I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
    8. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Perhaps unsurprisingly, Apple makes some really good software -- even for Windows."

      yea? can you name an example?? & dont say itunes, thats not an mp3 player, its a browser that happens to have mp3 capabilities (& rather poor ones at that)

      quicktime player is a classic example of how not to build a GUI, and MacOS would be great if itd stop trying to wow me & just get the hell out of the way.

      ive never installed any apple software that didnt get uninstalled the same day.

    9. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Mmmm, vendor lock-in. All for the want of a few plugins that probably amount to about 100k of code (or it would if QT's plugin system wasn't so hideous).

    10. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by cens0r · · Score: 1

      I love the winamp playlist format. It makes it easy to autogenerate with a script while I'm converting from flac to mp3, or ripping to flac.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    11. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by drew · · Score: 1

      the ogg plugin is pretty much useless, and as far as i can tell is completely unsupported (as of the last time i looked). it took on the order of 5-10 seconds per file just to read the the metadata when i tried to load my ogg library. after about 10 minutes, i gave up waiting and uninstalled itunes. i would say just keep using winamp. the existing versions aren't going away anytime soon, they are still being maintained, and it seems there is still a thriving community around it. the only thing that has changed is that all of the original developers have stopped working on it, so there are not likely to be anymore significant advances. i've also come across a lot of people like foobar2000 (i personally don't)

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    12. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by Chemical · · Score: 1

      I've always just used my filesystem to organize my MP3s. It creates a nice hiearchy structure the way I wanted: Genre->Artist->Album. So Winamp's lack of media library support never bothered me. Even when they added it I never used it.

    13. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by superstick58 · · Score: 1
      With winamp and any media player I would use, the media library is a usless feature. The one defining aspect of winamp that I cannot live without is the "jump" command. I can drag a folder containing all my music into the playlist and while it may not be organized, I just have to press J then type the name of the song, artist, or album I want to hear. The list gets narrowed down instantly and if you don't know the whole title, it will list all songs containing the word you searched for. Now, with Winamp5, the queue feature has been added so quickly setting up 10 min. or 30 min. of music is easier than I have ever been able to accomplish in the other player, (WMP and iTunes).

      This feature is so important, I will not likely use another player until I can set up my song queues and search my files just as easily.

    14. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by toddestan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps unsurprisingly, Apple makes some really good software -- even for Windows.

      You mean like Quicktime for Windows?

      My experience with Apple software for Windows is that it's slow, bloated, and lacks features. Why anyone would choose iTunes over Winamp (or even Windows Media player) is beyond me.

    15. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, I won't use any player without a jump / find command. While Foobar2000 thankfully has find, it lacks Winamp's queue. (as far as I know) It's also is not quite as seamless as Winamp's global hotkey of ctrl+alt+J. I do, however, like Foobar2000's ability to keep playlists in tabs and easily swap titles between the lists. Makes it easy to keep a quick list, without keeping a title list of favorites somewhere.

    16. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by tepples · · Score: 1

      For people who don't want to use Windows XP, there is teh KNOPPIX.

    17. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I've always just used my filesystem to organize my MP3s. It creates a nice hiearchy structure the way I wanted: Genre->Artist->Album. So Winamp's lack of media library support never bothered me. Even when they added it I never used it.

      Same here. You have to do it that way if you use multiple systems to play your audio tracks ($DIETY bless M3U files!).

      Every app I've ever seen that lets you "categorize" tracks makes the assumption that you only ever use a single machine to play those tracks.

      What I do wish for is a music player that would analyze tempo and other musical characteristics and allow you to sort by beats-per-minute, dynamic range.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    18. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by Lotunggim+Ginsawat · · Score: 1

      iTunes for Windows is more bloated than even Windows Media Player 10. No way I will touch that player again. I'll manage my iPod playlist in Winamp thank you.

      2 media players that should be avoided at all cost:-

      1. iTunes for Windows.
      2. RealPlayer 10.

    19. Re:iTunes (for Windows) by drunknjew · · Score: 0

      initialy, i was a happy WA->iTunes convert. Then, i found some things about iTunes that bothered me. namely, the inability to copy files and playlists from my iPod to my library. so when i used my iPod at work and at home, i was having trouble syncing in 2 places. luckily, i found an iPod plugin for winamp...which honestly, with some tweaking, is really freaking sweet. its sync functions are two way between the media library in winamp 5...the ONLY thing that i still occasionally use iTunes for is making config changes to the iPods internal software, as well as renaming large batches of ID3 tags. winamp's id3 tag editor still leaves some things to be desired...iTunes is fantastic at it.

  49. Buying it from AOL by LegendOfLink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anybody out there in Slashdot land think we might be able to put together an initiative, gather donations for funds, and buy the source from AOL?

    1. Re:Buying it from AOL by Zemrec · · Score: 1

      When has anything like that ever worked?

      BTW, what was with the llama thing anyway?

    2. Re:Buying it from AOL by The+Barking+Dog · · Score: 1

      BTW, what was with the llama thing anyway? The developers watched too much Jimmy Neutron?

    3. Re:Buying it from AOL by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      When has anything like that ever worked?

      It has worked before. For reference, please see the History of the Blender Foundation.

      If you're too lazy to read the history, here's a synopsis: in 2001, when the company developing Blender folded, Ton Roosendaal gathered a core of volunteers, collected 100,000 euros in seven weeks, bought the rights to the source of Blender, and released it to the public under the GPL. To this day, Blender is an extremely active, successful 3D animation and rendering program, and it is starting to rival many of its commercial competitors, such as 3DSMax and Maya.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    4. Re:Buying it from AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    5. Re:Buying it from AOL by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      Anybody out there in Slashdot land think we might be able to put together an initiative, gather donations for funds, and buy the source from AOL?

      I think it's quite feasible, depending on how much AOL is asking for the source. How much can we realistically raise? $10,000? $100,000? $1,000,000?

      It would be worth looking into. I, for one, would welcome our new volunteer overlo-- I mean, uh, I'd love to help out.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    6. Re:Buying it from AOL by Jerf · · Score: 1

      For any price AOL would take, it would be more efficient, as in "probably costing orders of magnitude less", to use it to hire someone to add the missing desired features to an already-existing open source project.

      Someone further down the thread mentions Blender, but Winamp is no Blender. Blender was a unique innovative product that would have been years to adequately (let alone "completely") replace. MP3 players are a dime a dozen, now. Port XMMS and put a WinAmp skin on it and you're most of the way there, just needing a few features and maybe a bit of cleanup. Hmmm... don't see a Windows version of XMMS (no surprise), but it isn't the only open source MP3 player, either.

    7. Re:Buying it from AOL by digime · · Score: 2, Interesting

      XMMS is almost an exact duplicate of WinAmp (if not completely identical) for Linux. You have the XMMS source, no money involved. Get porting.

    8. Re:Buying it from AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how much did it cost to *advertise* FireFox in NYT when other advertising media (or newspapers) may have been more effective.

      Anyway goes to show FOSS has a bottomless pit of finances at its disposal with the right donation drive!

    9. Re:Buying it from AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read this mssg and thought:

      "Heh. Nice idea, but it'll never happen."

      But I _DID_ look to see what all the replies were.

      Some thoughts:
      - I'd totally pay $20 for a shirt that said "WinAmp 0wnz0rd!" & had some code on the back or something. Anything to prove I'm tech literati!
      - A good version of winamp.com could come out with better support for winamp 2.x ... it's not like I've downloaded a new version since 2.9 anyway.
      - We could jack out the code that brings up the upgrade nag on my wa2.9 when I load it. Damn that thing sucks.

    10. Re:Buying it from AOL by mikael_j · · Score: 1
      Obviously it's been a while since you used WinAmp, the latest XMMS really only sort-of looks like WinAmp 2.x (and earlier), and it's not available for Windows (and some of us are stuck on Windows machines at work so no "you can switch to Linux and run Visual Studio with Wine" crap please...)

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    11. Re:Buying it from AOL by digime · · Score: 1

      I said "get porting". It was plainly visible right on the end of my very short post. As to the differences - "sort of looks like" isn't worth paying AOL 10 cents much less $100,000 or more. XMMS already has all of the core functionality plus. Core functionality that doesn't necessarily even need changing to compile on Windows. But, you know what they say about fools and their money - they're soon parted.

  50. lol dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    lol google dupe story did wtc lol google dupe story

  51. Resource allocation by yoyhed · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, AOL continues its plan to weed out all the good software under its corporate roof, and employ more people to "optimize" (9.0) America Online software. Maybe AOL's feeling a little bloated , and it's time for them to unbutton the proverbial pants (whatever that means).

    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  52. The Nullsoft Team by LeoNomis · · Score: 1

    It's sad to see such senseless conflict. Here's to hoping the Nullsoft team gets to work on a new project soon enough now that they've mostly ditched AOL.

  53. A Sad Day... by canfirman · · Score: 1

    Winamp was the first media player I ever downloaded, and it was the beginning of my introduction to digital media. It really did whip the laama's ass! But now, an era has come to an end, and I for one am a little sad to see it go. Where it goes from here, I don't know, but it will never be the same. I take my hat off for the Nullsoft programmers for an excellent program and a job well done. Thanks for the memories.

    --
    It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
  54. Jesus, that's messed up. by SledgeHBK · · Score: 1

    In 1997-1998(?) I remember quite vividly a friend of mine in computer class in high school playing a song on the computer. He explained that it was an mp3, and that it was playing on winamp.

    He then said the file size for the song was three megs. Jesus God, I thought. NOBODY's gonna download that much for one damn song.

  55. Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Informative

    I strongly suggest trying FooBar2000 http://foobar2000.com/
    I have loaded up the playlist with 15,000 songs, and it only used 2MB of RAM!!!

    There are extensive plugin's available, it is compatable with shoutcast.

    FooBar takes a very minimalistic approach to it's UI. You can add bell's & whistle's & visualizations if you want.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by skadus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By 'minimalist' you mean 'huge and clunky and not like a good unobtrusive audio player at all', right? There must be a better word for describing a low usage of resources... :p

      I mean, it looks like CDex, only CDex isn't meant to be my media player.

      Is there a plugin/interface that will make it look like Winamp/XMMS? Or even better, a XMMS port for Windows?

    2. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by B5_geek · · Score: 1

      I am not sure what you are looking at, but I have foorbar running on my box right now. (v.82) and it is as small as as the title bar and about 2" long.

      Perhaps you are just looking at the playlist.

      Remember how you could set WinAmp in Window-shade mode? As big as the title bar, but only showing the play/stop/FF/Rew buttons?

      That is how mine is setup. That is my definition of minimalistic.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    3. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by B5_geek · · Score: 1

      # Audio formats supported "out-of-the-box": WAV, AIFF, VOC, AU, SND, Ogg Vorbis, MPC, MP2, MP3, MPEG-4 AAC
      # Audio formats supported through official addons: FLAC, OggFLAC, Monkey's Audio, WavPack, Speex, CDDA, TFMX, SPC, various MOD types; extraction on-the-fly from RAR, 7-ZIP & ZIP archives

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    4. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I'm actually _offended_ by these guys cheapening the the (well known to geeks) word 'foobar'. Who died and made these guys kings? Why do they get to decide that our beloved word now has to have a connotation as a media player?

      If they copyright the name, suddenly we're going to have a problem where millions of source files around the world infringe on the use of the copyrighted word foobar. Personally I use it as a variable name in every project.

      Hmm. Perhaps these guys should expect a call from McBride any day now...

      In A.D. 2004
      War was beginning.
      Team_Lead: What happen ?
      Programmer: Somebody set up us the lawsuit.
      Intern: We get mp3.
      Team_Lead: What !
      Intern: Main amp turn on.
      Team_Lead: It's You !!
      Darl: How are you gentlemen !!
      Darl: All your copyright are belong to us.
      Darl: You are on the way to destruction.
      Team_Lead: What you say !!
      Darl: You have no chance to survive make your time.
      Darl: HA HA HA HA ....
      Team_Lead: Take off every 'foo' !!
      Team_Lead: You know what you doing.
      Team_Lead: Move 'bar'.
      Team_Lead: For great justice.
    5. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by ricotest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow? Only 2MB! I have a gig of ram, so I'm quite happy to load iTunes up instead. It might take up 38 MB of ram (!) but it's a hell of a lot nicer to use.

    6. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by SenorCitizen · · Score: 1
      Yes, it's nicer to use if "nice to use" is to you what it is to Apple. At least with foobar2k you have almost complete control over how the UI works. There are fancy gfx packs for it too, if you want them.

      I wouldn't go back to Winamp after a few weeks of foobar2k. And iTunes isn't an option either.

    7. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Funny
      You can add bell's & whistle's & visualizations if you want.

      Your forgot the apostrophe in "visualization's". :)

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    8. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by B5_geek · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know. I do use iTunes too,(but only for sync'ing my iPod.

      I do see your point. I would rather have 1Gig of free ram doing nothing, then being maxed out when I do want it. I guess I just like the idea of getting the most efficient package I can find.

      I am not a programmer, but I do admire the work/effort required to make quality code small and efficient. IMHO it seems like to many programs have a lot of bloat.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    9. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but I tend to play music in the background while I'm doing other things. And then I also tend to do other things in the background while I'm doing other things.

      If you're not using your gig of ram without loading an audio player, you're not using it properly. My total commit charge is up to 753 MB, and I'm not really doing all that much. (No visual studio open, usually have a couple of those for starters.)

    10. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by Pleione · · Score: 1
      No way. fb2k rocks iTunes.

      If you like fancy skins, you can get thsoe. If you like nice formatting, you can get that too. All fully customizable.

      The fb2k formatting language is _extremely_ powerful.

    11. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by ricotest · · Score: 1

      I've seen it briefly. Does it have smart playlists or the powerful searching speed of iTunes (let's say > 4k songs)? If so, it would be quite suitable for me, and I might consider it. As much as the 38 MB 'doesn't matter' if foobar2k does the same job with less resources, it seems like it's be universally a better program.

    12. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by Fancia · · Score: 1

      Try foo_looks. I've not tried it myself, but it has Winamp skin emulator, aeroAMP, which can apparently load any Winamp 2.x skins.

      --

      Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
    13. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by Pleione · · Score: 1

      The search speed is very fast (I have playlists with up to 6,000 songs). What do you mean by "smart playlists"?

    14. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by Suzuran · · Score: 1

      This comment needs a "+1 Evil"...

    15. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      Yeah no shit. Without an apostrophe to warn me that an s was approaching I really freaked out.

    16. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 1
      Yes! I switched from WinAMP to foobar2000 after finding that newer versions of WinAMP simply weren't working properly with Vern. If you want a music player that is made to make playing and listening to music easy, a player that does not create "beautiful new impediments to understanding", a player that is function, simple, and behaves like a normal Windows application (in the "good" sense, if you can accept such a thing), foobar2000 is for you!

      There seems to be a very active development community and a corresponding wealth of plugins. Plugins aimed at making playing music on a computer a better experience, not ones aimed at making your music player more eye-catching or fun to use.

      If you share my feelings but are on linux instead, check out mpd and mpc.

      --
      Steven N. Severinghaus
    17. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by dickrichardv8 · · Score: 1

      No, take out the apostrophe in bell's and whistle's. Plural is just a "s" possessive is "'s". :)

    18. Re:Looking for a good WinAmp replacement? by ricotest · · Score: 1

      It's iTunes-specific I think, but very useful. You can make filters such as 'all 5-star rated rock songs', '30 random songs from the 1960s' or specific part or all of album/artist names. The results of that filter are your playlist and update themselves as required.

      That said, a simple search box somewhere would be enough (as long as it's not like Winamp's jump function)

  56. Re:sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it's just you. What the hell does that even mean, it needs to move forward? It plays music files, it lets you choose them and fast forward them. What the hell else do you need? A built-in web browser and tax advisor?
    Ridiculous. Or, in /. speak, rediculous.

  57. Plugins by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    It's a shame most users only listen to the lame "music" the recording industry puts out, encoded in compressed but still large formats like MP3 or WMAudio. Lots of great music was created that run on chips, the so called chiptunes, ranging from the simple MIDI formats, going to MODs, videogame sound chips and other synthethizers.

    And that was the real force behind Winamp and its very huge list of emulated sound chips in the form of plugins: relive the astounding Amiga games music, MOD tracks, NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, PSX game music, it's all there, you name it. Windows Media Player has got none of that and never likely will since the plugins development was driven by an enthusiastic crowd of developers and WMP doesn't exactly inspire that.

    --
    I don't feel like it...
    1. Re:Plugins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be a "shame", but all the popular formats are supported by Foobar 2K, so Winamp is quite irrelevant as far as the ability to listen to MODs go.

      Not to mention those formats are "dead" so the old winamp will continue to work until the platform dies.

    2. Re:Plugins by Pleione · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? XM and IT are still used for both video games and electronic music composers. MIDI will never die and is used in many "amateur" and "professional" scenarios.

  58. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  59. Very sad.. by stateofmind · · Score: 1

    Winamp is the one app that has always stayed with me through-out the years, a very good app.

    Damn it, this sucks.

    Will Justin be able to retain the rights to Winamp? Will the source be possibly relesaed? Crappin' AOl is going to bury it? It's like my dog just died or something...

    Josh

  60. Goodbye old pal. by lumpenprole · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A couple years ago I was tired of Winamp seeming to eat a crapload of system resources and switched to Foobar 2000 and never looked back.

    But Winamp was the first free gui audio player that I ever really enjoyed. I remember sending playlists to friends as a way to encourage them to download it. Thanks for helping to make computers cool, Nullsoft. You were great.

    --
    Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
  61. Damn! by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    I paid money for WinAmp 5!

    Just kidding. I still like WinAmp. It really kicks the llama's ass.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whips damn it!

  62. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Evangelion · · Score: 2, Informative

    QCD is what I use.

  63. This is a good thing... by DiS[EnDeR] · · Score: 1

    Nullsoft was an awesome company. I use the word "WAS" because it "WAS" a company known for innovation. That is, until AOL bought them out. More significantly, until TIME WARNER / AOL bought them out.

    Do you all remember GNUTELLA? Released online for 2 days before TIME WARNER shut them down (through AOL). I think that was a firm message to the NULLSOFT team that their heyday as innovators was over.

    "WORK ON WINAMP" was the message they got, and we havent seen anything ground breaking from them since.

    Im glad the front-line team has left the company. It means some very smart guys/girls are going to be out there, away from the umbrella of a major music label; hopefully free to "create" again.

    GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE.

    --

    Harder.. Better.. Faster.. Stronger
  64. What else can play Amiga MOD files? by BillGodfrey · · Score: 1

    Anyone?

    1. Re:What else can play Amiga MOD files? by Marauder2 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I use ModPlug Player http://www.modplug.com/modplug/player.php3

      It's not been updated since 2001, but can perfectly play just about every MOD, XM, S3M, IT, UMX, etc. I throw at it. It even plays zip encapsulated files without having to decompress them.

    2. Re:What else can play Amiga MOD files? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XMplay, and it does it much better than Winamp ever could.

    3. Re:What else can play Amiga MOD files? by rubberbando · · Score: 1

      Irfanview can with the appropriate plug-in. :-)

      It can view those old IFF files you might have laying around as well.

      --
      DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
    4. Re:What else can play Amiga MOD files? by SenorCitizen · · Score: 1
      Foobar2000!!!

      It can also play anything else you throw at it, except for DRM'd files. AND it's customisable as hell.

    5. Re:What else can play Amiga MOD files? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XMPlay by Ian Luck:

      http://www.un4seen.com

    6. Re:What else can play Amiga MOD files? by Fancia · · Score: 1

      Deliplayer is your best choice. It actually uses an emulated Amiga sound chip for accuracy, and can play a large number of exotic sound formats that no other Windows player supports.

      --

      Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
  65. Re:sweet by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think skinning and eye-candy is that important. Winamp2 interface is good enough. There are other more important fields to advance. I would like to have a MPlayer backend to play all the media files in XMMS. (There is also a plugin for video files, but why not a plugin to play *every* file through MPlayer?)

  66. Winamp Unlimited, for Teh Win by lotsofno · · Score: 5, Informative

    .

    The BetaNews article is a bit off, as is the story it spawned over at The Register (whose headline for the piece was just ridiculous.).

    As usual, Winamp Unlimited sets it straight with not only details on an upcoming 5.06 version of Winamp, but details on what the former Nullsoft-ees are doing now and a naked picture of their ex-Product Manager.

    "Winamp Unlimited is your #1 source for Winamp news, rumors,forum highlights, and general propoganda. Awesome!"

    .

    1. Re:Winamp Unlimited, for Teh Win by mick129 · · Score: 1

      They took down the link to their ex-manager's butt.
      Here's the google cache and the picture.

      --
      Move along, no sig to see here.
  67. Shoutcast dying too? by AmishSlayer · · Score: 1

    I figure their open source programs like NSIS will stay open, but what about programs like shoutcast?
    And please tell me that someone will be maintaining BEEP

  68. List of alternatives by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to name a few alternatives that are out there. Personaly, I've been using the basic version of winamp since ... wow... forever it seems. And eventhough the fact that there will not be more updates does not really bothers me, I think it's a good occasion to review other similar (better?) programs and maybe switch for something else.

    So, what else have you been using?

    --
    You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
    1. Re:List of alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switched to Foobar 2000 a long time ago. Never looked back.

  69. But But... by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

    Winamp is the best media player on Windows, bar none*. :'(

    * IMHO

  70. Flamebait, WTF? by leo_llew · · Score: 0

    Hey Mods, at least READ TFC before you mod it down!

  71. Re:Microsoft paid me for this post! by itchy92 · · Score: 1

    Well, it's unfortunate to hear this. Winamp was hands-down my favorite audio player; clean, simple interface, good quality (in terms of the EQ), and the Media Library was nice in the newer versions.

    In truth, I started writing this post to say WMP wasn't all that bad, but the more I think about it, the more I remember why I never use it except for video playback: increasingly bloated (built-in "Shop Online" stuff that you can't disable), all the "Album Info" stuff assumes you don't already legitimately own the music ("Buy NOW!" all over the place), the Equalizer is subpar, and most annoyingly, the playlist control SUCKS! Loading up about 2000 tracks and setting it to random play seems to make WMP's head asplode; if you manually move forward a track or two, it either picks a completely new order for the songs, or will repeat a portion of the playlist that it's already played.

    I guess I'm glad the Nullsoft team left us with a solid release before they left (actually, Winamp craps out on me on occasion, but not too often), and I wish them the best in their future ventures.

    --
    Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
  72. Nooooooooo! by jon_oner · · Score: 1

    Is there any way it can be open-sourced? Or is AOL holding on to their source code, even though nullsoft is dead?

  73. It died a long time ago. by TheRealFixer · · Score: 1

    I mourn the original couple of versions of Winamp. Back when it was simple, sleek, and had low-overhead. It did one thing, and it did it exceptionally well.

    That was before the dark times. Before AOL. Now, it's just like every other feautre-bloated media app. Which is unfortunate.

    1. Re:It died a long time ago. by IPFreely · · Score: 1

      I still have WinAmp 2 on my machine, and I faithfully copy it around whenever I move or upgrade. It will stay with me long after NullSoft is gone. Long Live WinAmp.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  74. This gets worse day by day... by kennycoder · · Score: 1

    First of all im quite shocked. Winamp is one of the best players out there. Ok I admit that 3rd version was crap (@ performance and stability) but new 5.0x is an excellent product. It beats iTunes by many factors, especially performance and usability. Media library is very well organized, video support is good, internet tv / radio is also usefull (even for those who want to watch free pr0n). All this comes for free. And if you pay couple of euros you can even rip cds and burn mp3 just as Nero does, but all this in one program.
    Anyway... i'm very disaponited, especially with AOL. God damn hippies.

    --
    Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
  75. Foobar can. Don't you read the comments here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  76. Comment toAOL Corporate by stateofmind · · Score: 1

    Not that it will matter or be noticed, I sent this to AOL corp.

    ---

    What will become of Winamp now? Please release it to the community or give it's rights back to Justin Frankel.
    AOL does not have the passion or the correct mind-set to continue it's development. The application, is the Mercedes of music players out there, and also is held very close to a lot of peoples hearts. It is not an app that will grow well in a corporate environment.

    Joshua

    ---

    This really bothers me. AOL will butcher it. And I want the source before they do.

    Josh

  77. Good riddance by er_col · · Score: 1

    Winamp brought us the shittiest interface a media player ever had. Tiny unreadable fonts, with no way to resize any part of it (don't tell me about that double size crap). No decent menu, no decent playlist, no nothing. Too bad so many FOSS programs are still trying to imitate it.

  78. Winamp property by Zorilla · · Score: 1

    What does this mean as far as ownership of Winamp? Does AOL get to keep it to ruin it for certain or do the rights go to the original authors?

    That being said, I hope this at least lives on in open source so it can stay in active development. We could even see better plugins hypothetically since the authors will have more to look at than the SDK.

    For the longest time, I stuck with Winamp 2.91 because I thought they went south with the program beyond that (which was true for v3). I was kind of conflicted about using a piece of software that was out of development for so long. Then I got version 5 and was relieved to find out the lite version had changed very little, memory footprint at all. The only thing I saw changed was that the menu widgets were updated to the 2000/XP type. (Much nicer looking). Now I'm faced with using software that could once again potentially see no new development for a while. (A dilemma I face with other software such as emulators often)

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    1. Re:Winamp property by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      Oh, damn, I hate to reply to my own post (I don't need karma) but I managed to leave out another thing I find important. What happens now to the tons of Winamp plugins that have been made? These aren't exactly the things you would see in WMP or iTunes and are unmatched in quantity and quality.

      Whenever I find an odd format, or at least something I don't want to have to get an entirely new player for, there's usually a plugin for it. This has been extremely helpful, as few programs will play SID (C64 music), NSF (NES music), raw dumps of Adlib music, and pretty important, Ogg Vorbis.

      I should probably also mention that this is once of the very rare modern media players that will still load in under one second. I'd hate to see something like that go away.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  79. XMMS by !Xabbu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Time to start begging the folks over at xmms.org to make a windows port. :(

    --

    - Jimbob
    1. Re:XMMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please no. XMMS is just a nasty poor imitation of Winamp.

    2. Re:XMMS by nandhp · · Score: 1

      Another thing XMMS needs is a new version: 2.0. Even though I've switched to Rhythmbox for it's music library and upcoming iPod support, it would be nice if XMMS had some of these features too.

    3. Re:XMMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh. I've been through the code (I added a "stop after this song" key once).

      As I recall, it was fscking ugly in there. Nonetheless, it does what it's supposed to, is compatible with Winamp's skins, has plugins if you want to add more stuff to it, and is open source.

      Hope you were trolling.

    4. Re:XMMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they could just get the Linux version to quit crashing I'd be happy.

  80. It's not a conspiracy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the natural course of evolution when a Don Quixote comes to terms with a market full of very real windmills.

    The AOL guys were better evangelists and had about 20 BS if not IQ points on Andressen. (I would argue both) So they live on, half way between reality and absurdity, by swallowing a real company, but Netscape withered and died, drowned in a sea of riches.

  81. No Surprise to those in the know. by Gonzotek · · Score: 1

    I blogged this last week.

  82. R.I.P. by jnguy · · Score: 1

    R.I.P. You will be missed. Nobody ever expects things like this to happen, when they do, they're a surprise to everyone... me at least.

  83. GOOGLE DUPE STORY HIDDEN, BUT STILL THERE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    By way of Google News, I was able to find Michael's dupe!

  84. Never. by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So when are they releasing the source code?

    The same time they release the source code to Netscape.

    1. Re:Never. by Dizzle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't they... do that already? ie (no, not IE), Mozilla?

      --
      -Dizzle
      "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
    2. Re:Never. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1998? wow.

    3. Re:Never. by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I remember there always being source versions of Netscape for some more exotic OSes. I had an IRIX box at work and remember having to compile it myself, and needing all sorts of nasty proprietary libraries and compilers to do so. This was circa early IRIX 6.4. Not that it was open source, because of the required proprietary libs, but I do remember there being source code.

    4. Re:Never. by elemental23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Netscape released the Mozilla source, not AOL. It was already open source by the time they bought it, so they don't get credit for releasing it.

      On the other hand, they did open source AOLserver, so they're actually somewhat friendly to the idea (surprisingly).

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
  85. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by B5_geek · · Score: 1

    Foobar....

    I have been using it for a very long time.

    15000+ songs in the playlist, and it only used 2MB of ram.

    I stopped using WinAmp at v1.8

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  86. Winamp 86'ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really do enjoy Winamp 5, if for no other reason that once the Winamp agent is disabled from the system tray in Window$, it has such a small footprint that I can accomplish just about anything I want on an old Duron 1.3 system that I still use frequently.

    on the other hand, the flaming llama visualization ruined the entire concept of the Winamp visualization plugin, IMHO. (groan).

  87. This isnt a big deal. by nullvector · · Score: 1

    This isn't a big deal, the versions of Winamp over the last few years have sucked anyway. Most people I know stuck with older versions, and have no need for 5.xx

    I've been using 2.91 since it was released, and never upgraded since then. 3 was a joke, and 5 is a bloated mess.

    I wish they just left it an mp3 player, it was perfect as a plain mp3 player, instead of some media-player alternative.

  88. Forget Winamp, Shoutcast was the gem by GojiraDeMonstah · · Score: 1

    If MP3 jukeboxes are a dime a dozen, then MP3 servers are probably a quarter a dozen. However, in my own humble little quest to set up an Intranet radio station for my fellow workers, I found Nullsoft's Shoutcast to be MUCH better than the alternatives I tried.

    I especially like the fact that it has a .conf file similar to Apache for all of the options. Compared to Windows Media Services for example, which has to sit on top of IIS (gack!) and is not very straightfoward (IMHO) to configure, Shoutcast was a dream.

    --
    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
    1. Re:Forget Winamp, Shoutcast was the gem by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

      I discovered many a band by listening to Shoutcast radio.

      Of course, Clearchannel only wants you to "discover" the bands on their radiostations so Shoutcast is evil.

  89. Sad but good. by Puchku · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For many of us, Winamp has always been THE music player. I remember using winamp years ago and being impressed with it. I have gone from a 486 DX at 90 Mhz to an Athlon at 2 Ghz, and Winamp is one of the very few programs that have stayed with me. And I don't mean the monstrosity that was ver 3 or the new bells and whistles ver 5. I still use 2.9 and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Winamp/Nullsoft has always been a product/company that has been different. Concentrating more on ease of use and quality, rather than marketing, the original winamp grew to such a size that Justin's dad left his job as a lawyer just to keep up with the success his son's program. Like many of you guys, I was saddened the day AOL bought Nullsoft/Winamp. Just like the purchase of Hotmail by Microsoft, it somehow semmed to become less acessible. Like the next door garage band becoming big stars, both winamp and hotmail started to lose their identity and be subsumed into the corporate identities of their respective parents. Winamp did manage to keep a separate identity to some extent ( unlike Hotmail..) but it was the beginning of the end. A few hiccups along the road, like Gnutella and WASTE, but it was clearly doomed. However, the flip side is that a lot of smart coders are free to code again, the way THEY want... Unfortunately, they aren't 16 anymore, and the world no longer seems like a place that can be conquered... I hope that some of them retain the enthusiasm and freshness of the early years of winamp.. so to end.. Alas, poor Winamp, I knew him well.. (Unlike Shakespear, whom I obvously don't know well!!)

  90. I'll still use it by arhar · · Score: 1

    I use the latest version (5.03a) and I find it to be flawless. It's one of those apps that shows rare attention to detail - for example, it has 'smart dragging' - when you drag it closer to the window border, it "sticks" to it. Why don't more window-mode applications have that?

    Just because it's been declared dead doesn't mean I'll stop using it... not until it won't be able to play some format I'm very insterested in. Here's to hoping it'll go open source!

    1. Re:I'll still use it by a24061 · · Score: 1
      when you drag it closer to the window border, it "sticks" to it. Why don't more window-mode applications have that?

      You can configure a number of open-source desktops to do this for all applications.

  91. Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by motown · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, they have already released most of the Winamp 3 sourcecode (without any of the DRM stuff) under the Wasabi project.

    Furthermore, the Nullsoft-guys already brought us the open Gnutella protocol.

    All of this would indicate that the good people at Nullsoft are pretty cool with open source. So if the Winamp 5 source code is not going to be released, then I think we should blame AOL for that, not Nullsoft.

    --
    "Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
    1. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by LiENUS · · Score: 5, Informative

      Furthermore, the Nullsoft-guys already brought us the open Gnutella protocol.

      Might want to check yourself on this, Nullsoft brought us the Gnutella protocol but they did not make it open. Other talented individuals reverse-engineered the Gnutella protocol. Nullsoft never released any source-code or specs.

      All of this would indicate that the good people at Nullsoft are pretty cool with open source

      Might want to check the license on wasabi http://www.wasabidev.org/license.php you can't even distribute the closed source wasabi.dll with what you write using that sdk, ie it is useless and windows only. It is most certainly NOT open source./p

    2. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by arudloff · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, the Nullsoft-guys already brought us the open Gnutella protocol

      Don't forget WASTE, also.

    3. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by lonedfx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Might want to check the license on wasabi http://www.wasabidev.org/license.php you can't even distribute the closed source wasabi.dll with what you write using that sdk, ie it is useless and windows only.

      That (old) SDK was meant to build extentions to Winamp3 and 5, which is why it was windows-only and one of the reason you couldn't redistribute the DLL (it was a part of winamp). Although some have used it to build full apps, that wasn't really what it was intended for.

      Since then, wasabi has forked into a portable, fully open source effort (http://wasabi.t0x.org), whose license is zlib-like. That stuff has none of the skinning/scripting of Winamp3/5 (the DLL you talk about), that is proprietary to AOL. It will have its own in the future in a non proprietary way, leveraging other open source projects.

      It is most certainly NOT open source

      It was mostly open source, as the page you point to explains. Sure, those parts not in the DLL were not open source, but noone ever claimed they were. Open source does not mean compilable into standalone apps, it means the source is open : you could have taken any cpp/h file out of the open source sdk, changed it (or not), then used it in your own project (I certainly did), and you would even have had the liberty to open your modifications or not. That was legal, because the sdk was open source (zlib-like).

      Anyway, the fork made that point moot.

    4. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude glearn your history .. thats wrongh they released the source and all .. but AOL pulled it almost within a day .. luckily it had gotten posted on slashdot and all so some people got copies .. the source couldnt be used cause it was unauthorized .. thats all.

    5. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 4, Informative

      IIRC (and please correct me if I'm wrong, just this is how I remember it panning out)

      Nullsoft released the initial Gnutella client with the intention of Open Sourcing it.

      Within a day of release, AOL put a stop to that. You might be able to find all this in the /. archives.

      Those who had copies of the clients started producing hacks of it and documenting the current protocol, and that's what lead to Gnutella 2, which is what most clients use today.

    6. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of WASTE, there never was an official Gnutella source release.

    7. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by KZigurs · · Score: 0

      v3 OS or not, I don't care. The real value of winamp still holds in version 2.81.

      A real gem. Small, fast, efficient and works. No thanks, no video stuff for me.

    8. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by IBeatUpNerds · · Score: 1

      All of this would indicate that the good people at Nullsoft are pretty cool with open source. So if the Winamp 5 source code is not going to be released, then I think we should blame AOL for that, not Nullsoft.

      I think we should just blame Microsoft instead.

    9. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by masklinn · · Score: 1

      AOL never did, but for example Justin released Waste's source code

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    10. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "All of this would indicate that the good people at Nullsoft are pretty cool with open source. So if the Winamp 5 source code is not going to be released, then I think we should blame AOL for that, not Nullsoft."

      You mean Time Warner.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    11. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      i've met the original nullsoft guys. they are about as cool, talented, and as interested in open source as it comes.

      AOL lacks all of these attributes, hence the closed-source, closed-door, closed-down-operation.

      glad to know that the spirits behind winamp are not dead.

    12. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "that's what lead to Gnutella 2, which is what most clients use today."

      No, no it's not. Please do not imply that it is the same as Gnutella or some kind of improvement over it.
      The protocol Mike Stokes released for use with Shareaza is NOT Gnutella 2, as it has not been released open source and has not been OK'ed by the rest of the Gnutella community. It is just a hacked up version of Gnutella. It is NOT in use by "most clients" at all. It is in use by Shareaza. Gnutella2.com was registered without conference and many other key issues were not communicated. "Gnutella2" remains a closed protocol, a situation many feel defeats the Gnutella name. Gnutella community members refer to it as "Mike's Protocol",or MP for short. Now the good developers of Gnutella can't release something under the Gnutella2 name, because it has been hijacked by ONE developer with his own personal agenda. For good or ill, Gnutella2 is not Gnutella.

      For more information, check out Wikipedia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnutella2/
      and
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnutella
      or for a bit of discussion about it:
      http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/gnutella2. html

      Thanks. /rant

      -Jude T. Seth

    13. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      i hate to say it, but in this case you're stating something the article clearly proves wrong, so... RTFA... at least the register article says that he open sourced the gnutella protocol, but AOL put an axe on that one...

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    14. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Those who had copies of the clients started producing hacks of it and documenting the current protocol, and that's what lead to Gnutella 2, which is what most clients use today.

      This is wrong. The hacks lead to what is called "Gnutella", though with many improvements. Gnutella2 is a separate but similar network by Shareaza (and now a few other clients). It has nowhere near the same amount of users.

    15. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While gnutella was developed by a community of open source developers, the gnutella2 name was hijacked by an individual who decided to call his own protocol by that name. that's not how open source development works. his protocol was rejected by the majority.

    16. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Open source does not mean compilable into standalone apps...

      That's why I like the GPL: you must distribute source in the form it is normally edited, and you must distribute everything it relies on, precisely to prevent the sort of situation you describe: a free shell around a proprietary core (or a proprietary shell around a free core).

    17. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Those who had copies of the clients started producing hacks of it and documenting the current protocol,

      Yes.

      and that's what lead to Gnutella 2, which is what most clients use today.

      No. Not true at all. The spec is named "Gnutella 0.65" IIRC, after the final program version released by Nullsoft. It's been updated and extended for quite some time.

      "Gnutella 2" is just an arbitrarily chosen name. You could manufacture a car, and call it "The Gnutella 2", but that wouldn't mean it's related to the original even slightly.

      "Gnutella 2" is a completely new protocol, written by the maker of Sharezza, and used by VIRTUALLY NO GNUTELLA SERVANTS currently, and for the forseeable future. It's not even a particularly good protocol.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by lonedfx · · Score: 1

      precisely to prevent the sort of situation you describe: a free shell around a proprietary core (or a proprietary shell around a free core).

      I get the point you're trying to make, but this is not what I describe : the open source part can't be described away as a shell to a proprietary core, ie, the forked version does not need such a "core".

      That's why I like the GPL

      I prefer less restrictions than more, I prefer zlib (or the like). I know this is debatable and that it's not the topic being discussed, so I won't go into that any further :)

      Cheers.

    19. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Pity the moders missed your post it is far more accurate than the parent. Also, regarding Nullsoft open source, don't forget the Nullsoft installer!!

    20. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said:
      as it has not been released open source...

      and
      "Gnutella2" remains a closed protocol, a situation many feel defeats the Gnutella name...

      You are right on everything else you said but this is untrue. Gnutella2 has been an open protocol for some time as the specs were released on gnutella2.com a long time ago (seems like over a year and half ago IIRC). And the protocol and the shareaza client itself have been released open source under the GPL, you can go to shareaza.com or the related Sourceforge project and get the code. In other words, stop whining ;)

    21. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      He never open sourced gnutella, he open sourced WASTE BIIIG difference between the two, thats a misprint in the article sayin that gnutella source was leaked. I personally asked one of the Nullsoft guys to leak the source code and he refused for fear of his job

    22. Re:Open Source Winamp 3 = Wasabi by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      Ah, cool! Thanks.

  92. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by meax · · Score: 2, Informative

    foobar2000 maybe?

    Quote from their site:

    Features:
    * Audio formats supported "out-of-the-box": WAV, AIFF, VOC, AU, SND, Ogg Vorbis, MPC, MP2, MP3, MPEG-4 AAC
    * Audio formats supported through official addons: FLAC, OggFLAC, Monkey's Audio, WavPack, Speex, CDDA, TFMX, SPC, various MOD types; extraction on-the-fly from RAR, 7-ZIP & ZIP archives
    * Full Unicode support on Windows NT
    * ReplayGain support
    * Low memory footprint, efficient handling of really large playlists
    * Advanced file info processing capabilities (generic file info box and masstagger)
    * Highly customizable playlist display
    * Customizable keyboard shortcuts
    * Most of standard components are opensourced under BSD license (source included with the SDK)

    --
    Entertainment for Nerds. Stuff that matters, ...sometimes.
  93. NOOOO!!!!!! by CosmicDreams · · Score: 1

    nuff said

    --
    Go Gusties
  94. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by simong_oz · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've tried lots, but none have been as satisfying as winamp. I wouldn't pretend to be an audiophile, but from a purely user perspective the best (windows) alternatives I found were

    iTunes - great, I love the library/sorting features. It just works and works well. Uses a lot of memory though and not the most responsive app in the world. Ogg support through an experimental quiktime codec extension (I think).

    Foobar2000 seemed very powerful and very customiseable, but I didn't really have the time to invest to get it set up like I wanted. The interface style sheets were very powerful, but it lacked volume control at the time - which was just a pain. Seemed to support every codec I've ever heard of (and lots I haven't).

    everything else seemed to be a wmp/realplayer/jukebox ripoff.

    --
    "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
  95. still using it by vivehosting · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm still going to continue using winamp even if there will be no more innovation... to be honest, what else do I need in a media player other than what winamp already offers me?

  96. The Internet lets out a collective cry... by PimpStavros · · Score: 1

    Today is a sad day. I knew this was coming when Winamp 3.0 came out and was just completely bloated with ugliness and features I didn't use. What I loved about Winamp was it was small, quick and effective. If you ever needed anything to work right everytime, you went with Winamp. No need to take 10 minutes to load up your playlists, libraries and sailor moon skins. It worked like a standalone cd player, you press play, it worked. Sad day indeed :(

  97. Re:sweet by TravisWatkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because then you might as well just use MPlayer?

    --

    "But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
  98. A Little Less Freedom by campaign_bug · · Score: 1

    Hmmm. If you put it in a certain light, this is the massive AOL Time Warner corporation killing off one of the few major media players that doesn't support DRM particularly well, and does support mp3 and Ogg. Co-incidence, or well-planned strategy from a corporation with links to the MPAA?

  99. Alternatives by EvilNutSack · · Score: 1

    What alternatives are there to Winamp? I mean good alternatives and not just any old crap.
    The best one I've seen for Windows is QCD

    --
    --
    1. Re:Alternatives by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      whats wrong with the copy of winamp you have now, is it going to stop working? Im still using 3 and quite happy with it

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    2. Re:Alternatives by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      eeee, make that version 2.80... that tells you how long I havent looked at the version #

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  100. AOL brings us Winampella by DeadBugs · · Score: 1

    AOL bought Netscape and we got Mozilla.
    AOL bought Nullsoft and we got Gnutella.
    AOL Shuts down Nullsoft.....will we get another nice present? Will WinAmp become Winampella (or something with a better name)?

    --
    http://www.kubuntu.org/
  101. will they open it up??? by michaelbuddy · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know, or genuinely think they can open it up?

    Also, does anyone else think this is a conspiracy by the RIAA to kill piracy. I think that if they can, they'll kill any non-DRM tool.

    --

    ...::----::...

    I am in no way affiliated with this sig.

  102. NSV by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1

    Damn... damn them to AOL. With Shoutcast I got rid of my radio (literaly) and my TV time has been cut waaay back in favor of NSV (Nullsoft Video, think shoutcast for video) and sold the TV in my computer room in favor of NSV.

    I'm thinking its a good time to build an OSS replacement for ShoutCast/NSV. Based on Matroska mabey.


    Open Source, being necessary to security and innovation of a free system, the right of the people to alter and copy shall not be infringed.

    1. Re:NSV by wed128 · · Score: 1

      There is icecast, a shoutcast compatable server for linux (maybe there's a windows port? not sure). streaming media will live on, mark my words.

    2. Re:NSV by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 0, Troll
      I'm thinking its a good time to build an OSS replacement for ShoutCast/NSV. Based on Matroska mabey.

      Great idea! Let me know when you're done.

      Oh, you meant someone else should do it, didn't you? From someone advocating open source, why am I not surprised?

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    3. Re:NSV by nuggetman · · Score: 1

      I love how you open source touters automatically assume that also means everyone is capable of programming. Do you think that every member of a paid/closed software development team writes lines of code? You need more than coders to make an idea work, part of that team is coming up with ideas.

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    4. Re:NSV by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 1

      1) I am not an OSS touter. In fact, I think it's a stupid and hilariously unsound business practice.
      2) There are presently 999,995 OSS "idea" men and about 5 coders expected to make it happen. This is part of the reason why I think OSS is such a waste of time as anything but a hobby -- any moron can (and does) discuss what "someone should do".

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
  103. Where's that leave 8,000+ Shoutcast Broadcasters?? by infofreako · · Score: 1

    Or Shoutcast.com for that matter...

  104. Asinine On-Line (AOL) by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    Crap! I just picked up vs 5 and dumped Music Match Jukebox

    It finally was pretty cool, fast, and had the features I wanted, now it's going byby!

    YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!

  105. Winamp is Dead, Long Live Winamp! by WillDraven · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It deeply saddens me to learn of WinAmp's demise, having been an avid fan of the software for several years, I've used it since I was first introduced to Mp3's and digital audio (and filesharing). When version three first came out I was turned off by its annoying tendency to crash and thus have stayed behind at version 2.80 (oddly the most stable for my computer.) which conveniently interfaces with StarBar, Another piece of free software I have grown fondly attached to when in a windows envitonment. I hope somebody has the sense to open the source so winamp may continue to thrive in a bazzaar instead of dying in the dungeons of the dark cathedral known as AOL.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Winamp is Dead, Long Live Winamp! by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      I've said the same thing in this discussion a few times, so I'll provide a link to one of my past posts that relates to this.

      Basically, I was surprised to find out 5.05 Lite was actually pretty good.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    2. Re:Winamp is Dead, Long Live Winamp! by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      I tried version 5 briefly but while by itself it was a relatively stable release, unfortunately StatBar has yet to be update to work with it, resulting in my fall back to 2.80.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  106. Why bother crying over bloatware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XMplay does such a better job of playing audio files, and at a tiny fraction of the size, space, and CPU time. Fuck Winamp.

  107. What next? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    So if winamp will no longer be devloped, what is the next choice for windows users that dont want to deal with WMP?

    Sure i can google, but that doesnt give a good account of what is preferred..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:What next? by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      well you can always KEEP USING WINAMP... I dont think its going to automatically going to be deleted off of your Hard Drive

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  108. ICQ Next? by d3bruts1d · · Score: 1

    I'm taking bets that the next program killed by AOL is ICQ.

    They've did kill Netcape and almost killed Mozilla. Now we're seeing that WinAmp/Nullsoft *MAY* be dead. It's only logical that ICQ is killed next. Or worse, merged with AIM (which would be a death blow as well).

    1. Re:ICQ Next? by Antony.S · · Score: 1

      In all the time I've been online, I can never remember ICQ (or AIM) being decent compared to either Yahoo! or now MSN. Might just be a Euro thing :/

  109. It's the end of an era for me, too. by NoOnesMessiah · · Score: 1

    As one of the guys who helped foster WinAmp's growth, I feel the loss more than most. Gone are the nights fighting off the script kiddies, rebooting servers, watching Tom fsck around... The web site moved from a Lotus Notes box to Apple network server 500s and finally to FreeBSD as it grew. AOL threw it up on Sun hardware when they bought it in '99. What a great deal: $100M for the property then kill it 5 years later. AOL, release the source. Release your head from your *.

  110. The Llama Bit Back by bgumm · · Score: 1

    I guess the Llama got sick of getting it's ass whipped.

    --
    honnold.org - sometimes-rock band, all the time awesome forum
  111. AOL Keyword... by FilterCash · · Score: 1
    You Suck
    Great work AOL on ruining a fine product. I hope you don't consider running Winamp out of town as one of the ways your "fixing" the internet.

    Hats off to the original NullSoft team. I'll miss the pre-installed audio of "Winamp, it really whips the lama's ass". Winamp was/is one the first downloads after rebuilding any machine.

  112. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by TooLazyToLogon · · Score: 1

    I'll be using Winamp for a long long time. What can be added? Digital Rights Restrictions? No Thanks. I'll be listening to your shoutcast on Winamp whenever I'm running windows.

  113. Open it up... by Capt_Troy · · Score: 1

    I mean, if you're giving it away for free, and you don't feel like working on it anymore, why not just open the source and allow it to continue to grow?

  114. Why is this a big deal? by Alphi1 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I know I'm going to be fighting the current on this one, but here goes anyways.

    Why is this a big deal? Don't get me wrong, I've been a WinAmp user for years, and I love the program for playing my MP3s. But just because it's not going to get any more updates, why is that a big deal?


    I mean, we're talking about a program designed for little more than playing audio (and later video) files. Once that is accomplished, and once the bugs have been relatively shaken out, anything else is just the beginnings of bloatware.


    WinAmp has seemed to be relatively bug free to me, and works for what it was designed (audio/video) files. Why do we *NEED* more updates (other than if more bugs are found, of course)?

    1. Re:Why is this a big deal? by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      new codecs, new network streaming protocols, new graphic API's (more effiecient or whatever).

    2. Re:Why is this a big deal? by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      There's always a "Next Big Thing" and for a long, long time WinAmp's been on top of it, promptly keeping up with the times while staying stable and free-as-in-beer.

      Pushed aside into maintenance mode, it will not incorporate the next Next Big Thing. New will be mired in windows media player instead, later than we would have wanted it (if ever). Free alternatives will have to essentially rewrite winamp from scratch in order to do the cool new things.

  115. Couple reasons not to switch.. by robpoe · · Score: 1

    Ok .. I lied...Not a couple reasons to switch FROM winamp..Just one thing..

    WowThing from SRSLabs (Yes, you can still find it out there).

    It takes the llama, turns him sideways and shoves him straight up .. oh wait..

    It IS cool though..

    --
    = Grow a brain...
  116. pcp much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is so wrong it's not even funny.

    (and as for your question. Yes, there is. But no one sane would touch it. So maybe you should have a look?)

    1. Re:pcp much? by skadus · · Score: 1

      Eh. What I meant was the *default UI* isn't minimalist, regardless of the minimalist *usage of resources*. I guess I didn't say that right before.

      I would call Winamp with the default skin (2.x, or 5's classic skin) minimalist, because it doesn't take up much real estate at all, even with the playlist editor, and I can collapse it and still keep it on the screen. If foobar does that (apart from the systray icon) they hide the option spectacularly well.

      That's why I asked if anyone knew of a UI plugin to foobar. :p

    2. Re:pcp much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to check the dictionary. "Minimalist" doesn't mean what you think it does.

  117. Wait, what?? by GojiraDeMonstah · · Score: 1

    I think you are confusing Shoutcast with something else.

    Shoutcast is just an MP3 server. You can play whatever you want on it. I use it to stream my personal collection of MP3s. So I play EXACTLY what I want to play, 100% of the time.

    Clearchannel (which is of course evil as you have noted) has nothing to do with how you use the software.

    --
    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
    1. Re:Wait, what?? by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

      I was speaking of Shoutcast radio (which used Shoutcast.) Listening to Shoutcast "stations" is an alternative to listening to Clear Channel broadcasted stations. One is an alternative for the other.

      I thought it was Clear Channel that started to try to silence some internet radio stations a few years back... maybe I'm wrong though.

  118. Good! by bumbobway · · Score: 1

    Justin Frankel sold out to evil AOL. I was thoroughly disappointed after having giving a $10 shareware donation and submitting bug reports.

    1. Re:Good! by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Justin should have continued living on $10 every 3 or 4 months!

  119. Geez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just when I ponied up money for StationRipper..

  120. Steve Gedikian's farewell post... by Silvercloud · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...off of the winamp forums:

    To all of my friends and loyal users of Winamp,

    I regret to inform you all that I have quit Nullsoft. To many of you, this news may come as quite a surprise, while those who know me best, it's no surprise at all.

    It's hard to describe the experiences of the last year. Nearly a year ago, we released Winamp 5.0 and finally reclaimed our user's hearts. It was a very proud moment for our entire team.

    Since then, for varying circumstances, much of the team has left the company. It's been tremendously difficult to recover from the losses of such core team members and close friends.

    Those of us left behind have tried our best to pick up the pieces and keep moving forward. Unfortunately, given our current environment, continuing to move forward has become tremendously difficult and frustrating, to say the least.

    That said; I was recently presented a wonderful opportunity to work at Apple with the iTunes team. I hope to bring much of my experience from Nullsoft to Apple with the hopes of making a tremendous difference there.

    The fact is; there's never a good time to leave something that you love so much. Given the state of things today it was appropriate for me start planning a life after Nullsoft.

    I want to thank you for how much you've all contributed to making Winamp such a huge success. I'd like to appreciate the efforts of all the volunteers who've poured their heart and soul into this place, all the skinners and developers who helped the rest of us customize Winamp to our hearts content, and all my friends at Nullsoft who made working here more than a job, but a family.

    I ask that all of you who work so hard, please, keep working hard. There are still a few of us left at Nullsoft and they're doing their best to keep this ship afloat. You're the only thing that can help them do it.

    For those of you who would like to keep in touch with me, feel free to reach me at 'steve at gedikian dot com'. You can also keep tabs on what I'm up to by going to my homepage at http://www.gedikian.com.

    I love you all and I can't thank you enough for making this chapter of my life so wonderful.

    Peace.

    -s


    I would say the emotional overtone of his post is well understandable, Winamp certainly did build itself up an immense fanbase with it's great (and free) software, it's climb to the top of the proverbial heap of MP3 players showing dedication of the programmers that built and maintained it.

    Farewell, last of the true Nullsoft team, and good luck in future ventures!

  121. Obligatory by xnot · · Score: 1

    "Here you are sushi... and wasabi..."

    "Hehe, 'wasabi'"

    "Yea, wasabi"

    "Wassssaaaabi!!"

    http://trevc.net/whassup/cparodies/wasabi.mov

  122. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would the closing of a record label spell the end of music in the world?

    1. Re:No. by Bohemoth2 · · Score: 1

      No improvements are needed therefore no programmers are needed. we have all the playback capabilities we need. How many different ways can you play mp3's and ogg vorbis files anyway?

  123. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Freggy · · Score: 1

    JetAudio: http://www.jetaudio.com . Has a free version, with support for MP3, WMA and free formats like Ogg, FLAC and several others. And it can play Real and Quicktime too if you install the codecs.

  124. Best Version? by Poleris · · Score: 1

    So what do you guys think the best version of Winamp is and why? Version 1? 2? 3? 5?

    1. Re:Best Version? by octaene · · Score: 1

      Well, I've been using 2.93 for many years now. Over time I've upgraded to version 3, then later to version 5. The bloat factor was just too much to handle, even with the modified support for skins and the other eye candy. So, I'm back to 2.93. Good thing I burned that bad boy to a CD for later use!

    2. Re:Best Version? by slcdb · · Score: 1

      In my opinion? Version 2.x.

      I tried to use version 3, but it sucked the llamas ass sooo badly that I just couldn't stand to use it anymore. I actually started using Windows Media Player for a while, for god's sake!! Windows Media Player!!! That speaks volumes for how bad version 3 was.

      After that, I never went back to WinAmp, so I can't speak about version 5.

      For a while, I stopped listening to MP3s on my computer altogether (still listened to them in my car though -- thank you Kenwood!). Now I have iTunes running all the time. Thank you Apple -- 'tis a godsend.

      --
      Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
    3. Re:Best Version? by neko9 · · Score: 1

      2.91. because it is small, fast and stable.

  125. This isn't very good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AOL's assimilated programs tend to become heavily bloated with nonsensical/useless features and ads after a while... take a look at ICQ/AIM.

    I can see this happening with Winamp now that the original developers are gone. I suggest hoarding whatever software Nullsoft has before it's AOLified ;]

  126. What?? Winamp is dying? by ESqVIP · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bullshit. I won't believe it until Netcraft confirms so.

  127. what will become of Shoutcast now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sad to say, but it was always easier for me to set up a shoutcast server in a few clicks than to beat up on XMMS and IceCast plugins on Linux back in the day...

    i wonder what will happen to all of those spur-of-the-moment radio streams on shoutcast?

    there's quite a few out there relying on running winamp/shoutcast off of a win32 platform to broadcast amateur radio and police radio...probably has something to do with all the radio control software being written for win32 still...

  128. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 3, Informative

    I recently did an Ask Slashdot on this same question.

    Had really good luck with jOrbis from www.jcraft.com. I just added the applet to my Shame of the 80's site. It seems to work everywhere, unlike most java applets... could be that it does exactly one thing: plays ogg streams. :-)

  129. No great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently switched to Foobar2000. It uses less system resources and is much simpler to use. Foobar only plays music and I found Winamp 5 to be way too overloaded. If I want to watch movies, then I'll use a dedicated movie player and so forth.

    Probably the best thing would be to release the source code for Winamp 2.9x, most people seem to like that. :-)

  130. beep-media-player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could also mention beep-media-player, more or less a GTK2 port of XMMS. I've been successfully running it for some time with an LCD screen and antialiased fonts :) I'm not sure about windows version though...

    Link here

    P.S. Homepage seems down at the moment :-/

  131. Sell Out by shoptroll · · Score: 1

    This is very sad news, but then again...

    They did sell out to AOL, and then made life hell for them (Gnutella anyone?). By they, I'm refering to their founder (can't remember his name right now)

    I'm disheartened, but at least they're going out at the top of their game. Winamp 5 is a very nice piece of software, and I don't know what else they could add to it.

    --
    Insert Sig Here
    1. Re:Sell Out by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      You can hardly blame them for selling out to AOL : they sold for $100 million, for god's sake. That's what - one or two *millenia* on a developer's salary.
      I mean, I have open source principles, but if somebody offered me more money than I was going to earn in the next thousand years then it's "Screw you Stallman, I'm going to Hawai".

  132. Not only Shoutcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens to StationRipper?

  133. Why do you need an alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last I checked, Winamp wasn't going to magically disappear from your computers. If its working great, so what if the devs are leaving? Why would that stop you from still using it??

  134. Open Source it by DigiitalWiz · · Score: 0, Redundant


    Just open source it. Let the rest ofthe world improve it.

  135. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Mojojojo+Monkey+Inc. · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hmm... how about Winamp? You can continue to download Winamp 5.05 from their website, and the announcement said they will continue to release minor updates, such as security patches and plugin support. Unless you change to a brand-new streaming format that only a new player supports, why should people switch away from Winamp? Just because AOL is letting the rest of the Nullsoft team go, it doesn't mean that you have to stop using a program that really whips the llama's ass.

  136. WinAmp Replacements? by neuraljazz · · Score: 1

    For a near complete replacement of an WinAmp replacement, I recommend Quintessential. It's got everything WinAmp did except video channels, and it does OGG.
    http://www.quinware.com

    1. Re:WinAmp Replacements? by octaene · · Score: 1

      Hey, tried to visit your link for Quintessential, but it seems not be registered due to a misspelling. The proper URL is http://www.quinnware.com/

  137. Cui bono? by revscat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why would Google do any of those things? WA never made a dime for AOL, and in that respect was a poor investment. I'd say the same thing if Google were to do what you suggested. Unless they can make money off of it, it wouldn't be worth their time.

    Open sourcing it would be much better.

    1. Re:Cui bono? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want to make the privacy advocates panic... The player will report back your music prefrences to Google, who will put it into your marketing profile attached to the Immortal Cookie. The OpenOffice version would be integrated with their existing desktop search. The browser would be trivially easy (rebranding Firefox is not hard) and ensure search traffic (and send them a list of every URL you visit, I'm sure =b)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Cui bono? by FCAdcock · · Score: 5, Funny

      Open Sourcing Winamp? What would they call it, XMMS?

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    3. Re:Cui bono? by blowdart · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Why would Google do any of those things?"

      You have searched for "U2 leaked CD vertigo.mp3

      Would you like to purchase it for your gplayer?

      Or more worryingly

      You have searched for "Paris Hilton sex video"

      Would you like a new packet of gTissues sent to your home?

    4. Re:Cui bono? by ebresie · · Score: 1

      With Time Warner - AOL, I would have figured with a little support, guidances, and push from AOL to push music delivery services to take advantage of WinAmp as the player, this should have been a perfect venture, but I guess as was stated, the independent nature of the WinAmp folks didn't seem to quite feel the same way. And with so many links to M$, this also may have been a factor in AOLs mind.

      --

      Eric B
      ebresie@gmail.com
    5. Re:Cui bono? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      WA never made a dime for AOL, and in that respect was a poor investment.

      That's debatable. When AOL bought WinAmp, WinAmp was about to get disappeared. They were losing a lawsuit with Freunhoffer (sp?).

      How many people got internet access so that they could download MP3s and play them on WinAmp?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    6. Re:Cui bono? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      WA never made a dime for AOL, and in that respect was a poor investment.
      Compeltely untrue. AOL gets a lot of mileage out of Shoutcast/NSV. Plus, the NS team developed their internal media player, Unagi. Shoutcast is enough reason to believe that AOL will never sell off Nullsoft or Winamp.
    7. Re:Cui bono? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Why would Google do any of those things? WA never made a dime for AOL, and in that respect was a poor investment. I'd say the same thing if Google were to do what you suggested. Unless they can make money off of it, it wouldn't be worth their time."

      WinAmp would've more than paid off if AOL had successfully smashed the constant infighting at Time Warner and digitally distributed Warner Music properties. Now that Time Warner "spun off" Warner Music, WinAmp no longer matters. It is a strategy failed because it was never implemented thanks to the shortsightedness of Time Warner. AOL may have overstated their revenue, but it was Time Warner that fucked up the merger, just as the original Time Inc. and Warner Communications merger of 1990 failed to implement the promised synergies due to infighting. In a business world like this, no wonder Microsoft is the champ.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    8. Re:Cui bono? by clymere · · Score: 1

      you realize only the interface for XMMS is cloned from WinAmp, right? My understanding is that the underlying code is very, very different.

      --
      once you go slack, you never go back
    9. Re:Cui bono? by jrockway · · Score: 2, Funny

      They do the same fucking thing. Play MP3s.

      --
      My other car is first.
    10. Re:Cui bono? by jekewa · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I see your intent. Yes, same interface, same output.

      Therefore, Linux with Gnome, KDE, or one of the other Windows-like interfaces is the same as Windows. And the Mac interface is like CDE, so Mac and Solaris are the same. Yeah, I see it now...

      Or maybe it's just that Word and all of it's work-alikes are the same? OpenOffice/StarOffice, Corel's products, even KDE Write, or maybe even Windows Write (almost the same, right)?

      Yes, there is an alternative in XMMS (heck, I prefer it), and even in Windows MediaPlayer or RealPlayer. But, no, they don't do the same thing.

      Be sad in the loss of quality software, even when there are alternatives. At least for a moment.

      Then, after the moment passes, start looking for the leaked source on the torrents...

      --
      End the FUD
    11. Re:Cui bono? by default+luser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nullsoft never made a dime for AOL for the same reason that Netscape never made a dime for AOL...because AOL never had the balls to bundle them as the default media players and browsers, even though it was their intent when they purchased said companies.

      I mean, why the hell do you think Winamp added video capability? They were gearing it up as a WiMP competitor, and got cold feet. Same thing for Netscape...they developed it, then got cold feet and signed a contract to continue including IE with AOL.

      I suppose if Google REALLY wanted to become a solid competitor to AOL / MSN / Yahoo and the rest of the internet junkie companies, they could grab this opportunity and run with it. But I don't think they're THAT determined.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    12. Re:Cui bono? by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      But, no, they don't do the same thing.

      What, does one of them grow oranges as well? Their source code may be completely different, but when I hit play, they all play mp3's. And to me, that is doing the same thing.

      And yes, Windows, Linux, BSD, and Mac are all the same thing! They're Operating systems. They all have bugs, none of them are perfect, and arguing about that stuff is as stupid as Window$ users..

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    13. Re:Cui bono? by LuSiDe · · Score: 1
      WA never made a dime for AOL


      Mar-ke-ting is not a geek's hobby.
      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
    14. Re:Cui bono? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Btw. XMMS was named LinAmp in the late 90's until it has to be named XMMS....

    15. Re:Cui bono? by notthe9 · · Score: 1

      Why would Google do any of those things?

      Because I like Winamp, and google has never done anything wrong.

    16. Re:Cui bono? by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Users don't see anything but the interface, though. Most users don't even realise which codecs are better than others (evidenced by people still using DivX to encode movies instead of XviD or LAVC.)

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    17. Re:Cui bono? by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

      wrong, it was originally X11Amp

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    18. Re:Cui bono? by McMac · · Score: 1

      Did they get cold feet or did the contract with MS cover the development costs? If the discount offered by MS was greater than the cost of developing the software then it was still a sound economic choice.

    19. Re:Cui bono? by bot24 · · Score: 1

      I suspect that it has failed because they started trying to make a dime. It was going the way of MusicMatch: less features in every release of the free version, nothing new in every release if the $$$ version. It also started crashing and playing a maximum of three songs on my PC before I got some Quintisential player that I had never heard of before.

    20. Re:Cui bono? by Not+The+Real+Me · · Score: 1

      You left out the most obvious:
      Linux is a Unix work-alike

    21. Re:Cui bono? by eneville · · Score: 1

      Why open source a mp3 player?

      I love Wina^H^H^H^HXMMS

  138. VideoLAN!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No reason for panic!! there is always VideoLAN. With Client/Server Media Streaming and a MiniSAPserver.

  139. Context menu for iTunes? by pioni · · Score: 1

    iTunes for Windows would be my next choice after Winamp only if it had "Play in Winamp" and "Enqueue in Winamp" like options in Windows Explorer context menu (right mouse button on a folder). Any idea if this is possible somehow? I don't like nor need playlists, I just want to play an album the files of which are in this folder, please.

    1. Re:Context menu for iTunes? by slcdb · · Score: 5, Informative
      I don't like nor need playlists, I just want to play an album the files of which are in this folder, please.
      You can do exactly what you want, right in iTunes, without playlists. Use the "Browse" button at the top-right corner.

      I've found that the best way to make iTunes organize your music the way you want is to trust iTunes. It took a giant leap of faith for me (having always been a launch-winamp-from-windows-explorer kind of guy). But if you let iTunes handle the music organization, you'll find that it gives you the flexibility to do more than any other method out there.

      I've now stopped organizing my music by hand (creating a folder for each artists, and album, and blah blah blah) and just let iTunes keep everything organized. It works much better since it synchronizes folder and file names with changes you make in the ID3 tags (and whatever the tags for AAC files are called). I also (usually) no longer browse my music collection from Windows Explorer, but just browse with iTunes. Even without playlists you'll find it's just as efficient (if not more so) than browsing files directly.
      --
      Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
    2. Re:Context menu for iTunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      make a shortcut of itunes.exe and put it in "Send to" context menu (C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\SendTo). now select all the files you want to play and simply choose send to-> itunes. it should open them in itunes. not sure but it's a kindda workaround.

  140. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by adaml75 · · Score: 1

    Now that is a silly question. Windows Media Player - secure, not bloated, of famous Microsoft quality. :-P [sorry, couldn't resist]

  141. Textbook Example of "What Not To Do(tm)" by slcdb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pay a hundred-million bucks for a company with a killer app and a helluva group of innovative engineers. Now that you own the company, make sure all those engineers know you are in charge by stifling the creative process. Strangle that som'bitch til' it's dead; I mean, until there is virtually NO innovation left. Revoke all of the "Next Big Things" that the engineers create. Casually compel the founder and creative genius to leave the company while you're at it. Persevere until all development -- whether it's creative development, or even just suck-ass development -- has all but ceased.

    Voila! You've just shown the world, in textbook fashion, how to flush $100m down the toilet. Not to mention the fumbling of a precious opportunity.

    --
    Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
    1. Re:Textbook Example of "What Not To Do(tm)" by bay43270 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're looking at this over the long term. Think about it in 6-month chunks (like the execs at AOL do):

      Exec 1 buys a great little company for a reasonable price considering the boom (later known as a bubble). He gets a lot of credit and a promotion.

      Exec 2 takes over and refocuses the division on its strengths - service. Exec 2 keeps costs down by discouraging research and development and promoting 'synergy'. Since AOL owns two of every type of software out there, they underfund half the company in the name of savings. Exec 2 gets a promotion.

      Exec 3 takes the new position and wonders why Exec 2 was so highly regarded. Why underfund a product when you can cut funding all together and save even more. Exec 3 takes a CEO job with another fortune 500 company.

      Exec 4 takes the job in 2005 and finds a small upstart making a great new music player. They buy the company for $200 million. Exec 4 gets a promotion.

    2. Re:Textbook Example of "What Not To Do(tm)" by bay43270 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny? I was going for Insightful. Does that speak to my horrible communication skills, or our rose colored glasses?

    3. Re:Textbook Example of "What Not To Do(tm)" by bill_kress · · Score: 1

      The real example of what not to do is sell a company with such a team--you're doomed to lose.

      Espically to a group typically known as "Assholes Online". Wouldn't you think that was doomed from conception?

  142. The last guy out... by Chief+Typist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... looks like Steve Gedikian finally shut off the lights:

    I Haven't Forgotten, And We Will Never Forget.

    An insider's view of the end of Nullsoft...

    -ch

  143. A Winamp Tale by poena.dare · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So I had heard about this kewl file format called MP3 and I needed a player. I looked around and found Winamp for $10...

    From: Nullsoft [mailto:sales@winamp.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 3:59 PM
    To: M Smith
    Subject: Winamp Registration Code

    *** Thank you for registering Winamp ***

    (etc, etc)
    Since Winamp is uncrippled nag-free shareware, this key doesn't do anything in Winamp. You can, however, for fun, enter the key into the 'shareware' tab of Winamp's about box.
    (etc etc) Now here's the important part:
    This registration is valid for ALL versions of Winamp, past, present and future.
    (etc, etc)
    ---
    Justin Frankel
    Nullsoft, Inc.
    ---

    ...and it did kick the Llama's ass. I've got bad eyes and it let me make the control panel DOUBLE SIZE, which was a godsend.

    I went through, hrm, 8 or 10 OS upgrades. I almost never downloaded a new version. It did only a few things and it did it well.

    My happy world came to an end when I moved to Windows XP and Winamp stopped working. So I got the latest version and found that after 5 years my registration code didn't work anymore. So I wrote NullSoft:

    From: M Smith
    Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:24 PM
    To: 'support@winamp.com'
    Subject: Ode to a support person

    In a desperate attempt to contact someone at NullSoft, I send this letter to you.

    Dear Human Being, presumably one employed by NullSoft:

    Back in 1997 I paid 10 hard earned dollars for Winamp. I just downloaded the 5 Pro version and discovered that my registration key doesn't work! Could this please be remedied? Here's the text of the email you sent me ages ago:
    (etc, etc)

    To which I got back this message:

    From: support@winamp.com
    Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:46 AM
    To: M Smith
    Subject: Re: Ode to a support person

    Dear M Smith,

    Thank you for writing WinAmp, My name is Larry, I will be assisting you today.

    You can find your Registration Key in your confirmation e-mail. If you do not have your confirmation e-mail, you can also retrieve your Registration Key by viewing the details of your purchase using the lookup at the address listed below:
    (etc, etc)

    Hrm. Larry appears to not have read my email, for, Lo! I did have a conformation email, in fact, I sent him a copy of it.

    NOW, I remembered the whole "AOL buys NullSoft" thing and it occurs to me that I'm in the hands of an organization with infinite cruelty and infinite patience. I tried to break through again:

    From: M Smith
    Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 7:28 AM
    To: 'support@winamp.com'
    Subject: FW: Ode to a support person

    Larry,

    You obviously are not a human being, because a real human being would notice:

    1) I DO have my confirmation email - it was pasted at the end of my email.

    2) My registration key (NNNNNNNN) is obviously not the format that Winamp uses today.

    3) Since I paid for the product BEFORE Nullsoft ever used Digitalriver for order fulfillment, looking up my order would be fruitless.


    Either the human Larry was incensed at my sarcasm or the Perl Script Larry couldn't handle the language for I haven't heard back from NullSoft/AOL/Time/Warner yet.

    So I bumble along with the latest freebie version of Winamp feeling generally dispossessed - I have a lifetime agreement with NullSoft and the parent company won't take my phone calls, so to speak. I tried sending email to Justin Frankel and it bounced - now I know why.

    Anyone know know a lawyer who will take on a class-action lawsuit for 1/3rd of $10?

  144. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by BuhSnarf · · Score: 1

    Why an alternative?

    The best player under Windows is still Winamp. It will be downloadable from winamp.com for a good time yet and probably from other sources until there is a good reason why it wont work anymore.

    There is no reason to change unless something is wrong with it!

  145. Corny followup by svin · · Score: 0
    Sorry about this but ... I have to

    Imagine my suprise when the following occured:
    An unhandled exception of type 'System.NullReferenceException' occurred in NullSoft.dll

    Additional information: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
    Once againg sorry :)
  146. Winamp was great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then I discovered xmms... ...and the os around it.

  147. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Quarters · · Score: 1

    Um,...how about WinAMP? Just because they stopped developing it doesn't mean that the current version will stop working.

  148. I believe in the concept of DONE! by irishkev · · Score: 1

    Winamp was done years ago. What else could they possibly do to it!? I have no plans to stop using it.

  149. Strange definition of "legal" by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 1

    (All legal, since they were all copied from borrowed CDs). Dude.... I hope you have a good lawyer!!!

    --
    And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    1. Re:Strange definition of "legal" by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      I was going to state how it is legal in some countries, and go into a big diatribe about diverse copyright (NOT copywrite!!) laws, but this Anonymous Coward says it so much better....

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    2. Re:Strange definition of "legal" by tricops · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I don't know where the OP is, but that is legal in Canada, at least I think it is still for mp3s. If we borrow a cd from a friend, we're allowed to burn ourselves a copy of it for personal use (but they're not legally allowed to just give us a copy). It's a weird distinction, but there yah go.

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
    3. Re:Strange definition of "legal" by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

      >>(All legal, since they were all copied from borrowed CDs).
      >Dude.... I hope you have a good lawyer!!!

      I don't need one. It says so in the law, that I'm allowed to do it. As long as I keep it non-commercial, I'm allowed to copy it. But I'm not allowed to distribute it, only the copyright holder is allowed to do that. It is no different that the 80ies tape-copying in that manner.

  150. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by PeteDotNu · · Score: 0

    Definitely foobar 2000. A fine example of function over form. It's got shedloads of features but uses native GUI widgets, meaning that it loads in the blink of an eye.

    --
    My other processor is big-endian.
  151. WinAmp Sound Quality SUCKS by standing_still · · Score: 0, Troll

    A long time ago I use to think WinAMP was the bomb, and then I found Sonique, and found the sound quality far superior ( I use a pair of $500 stereo speakers). When I moved to Windows 2000 I found that Sonique was unstable, and was forced to move back WinAmp.

    Well, Approx. 1 1/2 years ago I began using Linux -- Trying different distribution ( RedHat 9/ Fedora 1/2, Mandrake 9/9.1/10, and Suse 9.1 ) I found that will all the distributions the sound quality was leap & bound superior to anything on Windows. I don't know if this was XMMS or the sound system in Linux or what, but I knew there was a clear quality difference.

    Anyways, I'm still forced to use Windows because of my job, but I have not been able to find a GOOD audio player -- Quintessential is the best I've found, and the audio quality is not much better than WinAmp

  152. All the nerds switched a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.foobar2000.org

  153. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by mephistus · · Score: 1
    Why go with an alternative? You can still get all the old Winamp versions back to 0.20 right here. The site also has lots of old revisions of old free/shareware apps from years past like ICQ.

    Besides, until there's a version of Ryan Geiss' kick ass winamp plugins, for another player (let's not pretend that iTunes visualizations are even in the same league) I'll stay with the old stuff, thank you. How up to date do you have to be with MP3 software anyway?

  154. Streaming... by NiTr|c · · Score: 1

    Streaming is one thing that I've found WinAmp is excellent for. I'm not bothered that the development of the software will stop, as the version I have works for listening, and works for streaming. But out of curiosity, what else is out there that supports live streaming of whatever's on your playlist out to the internet world. For WinAmp the choice is obviously ShoutCast, which works wonderfully, and is also one of the main reasons I stay with WinAmp. Does iTunes have something that allows internet streaming? What about any other player out there? Just something I've wondered for a little while now.

    --
    Try actually thinking for yourself. It's quite refreshing.
  155. Now everyone can switch to QCD by cetan · · Score: 1

    QCD has been my default music player for years now. Far far far better than WinAmp ever was.

    It's a shame about sonique though. That was the first mp3 player to beat WinAmp at their own game.

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  156. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using Quintessential Player ever since the Winamp 3 blunder. Does everything Winamp does and better IMO.

    No idea the response this will get so here's a coralized link:
    http://www.quinnware.com.nyud.net:8090/

    PS.
    IANTAOQP,JAHU (I am not the author of Quintessential Player, just a happy user)

  157. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by TheDauthi · · Score: 1

    Winamp. Just because it won't be updated, doesn't mean it's not any good.

  158. Who uses WinAmp? by Toby+The+Economist · · Score: 1

    I moved on a long time ago.

    I need a basic mp3 player and WinAmp bloated; it long ago stopped being an appropriate solution merely for mp3 playback.

    --
    Toby

  159. Free the llama! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If AOL is halting its development of WinAmp, it could score lots of credit with the open source crowd by publishing the WinAmp source code under GPL. They'd be done with it just the same, but they'd continue to stymie their competitors with the player that wouldn't die, at no cost to them. Including the low management wind-up cost of releasing under the GPL, rather than some other license (especially one they roll themselves). OTOH, if they have more unholy alliances with "competitors" like Microsoft (like their IE AOL browser), they might strangle this beast just to hear it scream.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  160. Correction by Compact+Dick · · Score: 3, Funny
    Winamp 5 was a steaming turd compared to 3.
    Don't you mean Winamp 3 was a steaming turd compared to 2? Unless of course, you are a Winamp programmer and the shitty 2.x plugin API turned you off.
  161. Re:sweet by Compact+Dick · · Score: 1
    What the hell else do you need?
    Bling-bling.
  162. r.i.p. by ikejam · · Score: 1

    had a good run. hopefully the end of an era would spur some worthy successor, no longer confined to the shadows. and i didnt mean WMP10.

  163. Re: Foobar - foo_looks by Mr+Fodder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're thinking of foo_looks 2.0. I've been using this plugin for a couple of months, it's rock-solid and has some great looking skins out. You can read up on it at the foo_looks 2.0 Guide.

  164. the same people complaining by night_flyer · · Score: 1

    about the lack of updates thanks to WinAmps demise are usually the same people complaining about the bloat that comes out with the new versions. WinAmp 2.x works fine, doesnt have blaot and didnt self destruct when new versions of WinAmp were released

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  165. no replacement tbh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is just no way for me to stop using Winamp. Almost all the usefull plug-ins are for winamp. For example, Winamp TV is in fact better then any stand-alone program for playing from a TV-Card. Also, has anyone else heard of a 24bit dithering plugin in any other worthwhile player like foobar?
    What about my favorite skins and visualisations?
    It is a sad day indeed :(

  166. Something I'm still not clear on -- by scribblej · · Score: 1

    I've been using WinAmp since the beginning, before AOL, and I still have a copy of 3.0 somewhere because it was the last version that didn't suck, sure.

    But there's one thing I've never understood.

    What's with the Llama-whipping?

    There's got to be some story there, right?

  167. What's this talk about seeking a replacement? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    I don' use Winamp as I'm a mac user but i don't understand the mad rush to look for a replacement. Is the current version you are using stable? Does it still work? Then what is the problem?

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  168. mplayer needs a few things first. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    1) a fine-grained (sub second) seek-to feature. At least, for the media types that support it.
    2) A better way to handle the sourcing and sinking of data. Right now, you've got command line options and a config file. It needs to support call-backs that the xmms plug-in provides instead of internal routines.

    I think a better way would be to perhaps roll a libmplayer and have an instance configuration API... maybe to use

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  169. THAT'S WHAT WE CALL "ABUSING ALCOHOL" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
  170. skins and plugins by cout · · Score: 1

    In addition to being a media player, the draw toward winamp was it skinnability and the availability of plugins for it. People liked seeing all the silly bouncing flying thumping swirly off-the-wall crazy retro tripply twirly blip-bang around-and-around epilepsy-inducing orgasmic smooth gel-glide itchy nifty cool visualizations that the winamp plugin interface gave them. And they loved the EQ and the numerous effects plugins. If people just wanted basic functionality, then WinPlay32 would have been just fine. If people just wanted skins then Sonique would have been more popular. And if they really wanted the fastest most lightweight player out there, they would have used NAD. But the cool thing about winamp is that it did all of these things, and it did them well.

    Writing an mp3 player that looks similar to winamp probably isn't that hard. Writing an winamp clone is impossibly difficult, though; to create a player with the same appeal as winamp is a daunting task (remember that much of what made winamp great was its developer community and its ubiquity).

    1. Re:skins and plugins by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      If you look at the links I provided, most of the players feature WinAMP-compatible(TM) skinning. Plugins are a bit more of a problem, but only in so far as they are demanded. If users began demanding WinAMP plugins out of, say JamP, I imagine that the feature would be added immediately.

      WinAMP is not that hard to replicate. That's why XMMS exists, and that's why many other players exist. There just hasn't been much push to replace WinAMP on Windows.

    2. Re:skins and plugins by Chibi · · Score: 1
      If you look at the links I provided, most of the players feature WinAMP-compatible(TM) skinning.


      I'll admit that the feature I have loved the most over the years with Winamp has been the user-created skins. It's nice to see support for Winamp skins from some of these other players. Just out of curiosity, do you have any opinions on any of these other players? I know ultimately I should test each one out if I decide to give up on Winamp, but it never hurts to go in with some info beforehand. Thanks! :)

      --
      If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
    3. Re:skins and plugins by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      , do you have any opinions on any of these other players?

      Myself? Not really. I use iTunes most of the time. :-) Both jlGUI and JamP are execellent options, though. Before iTunes came along, I was just waiting for a few simple features to get added (they were in pre-release form). I expect that both of those should pretty well replicate WinAMP's functionality.

    4. Re:skins and plugins by honestmonkey · · Score: 1

      silly bouncing flying thumping swirly off-the-wall crazy retro tripply twirly blip-bang around-and-around epilepsy-inducing orgasmic smooth gel-glide itchy nifty cool

      This is why I read /. Really, it is. This is going to become my new slogan. I'm going to tell everyone I know that I like WinAmp because it's bouncy, orgasmic... no wait, silly retro-ish, uh... hey, wait, come back...

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
  171. 2.91 now and forwever by Zedrick · · Score: 1

    As other have said above, so what? I use 2.91, I have the installation file in my backup directory and I see no reason to change, ever. I tried the later versions (3.x or 4.x or whatever it is) and decided right away that I do *not* need another bloated do-it-all-multimedia thing. I want an MP3/OGG player, 2.91 is great for that.

  172. Too bad... by smimi10 · · Score: 1

    It's too bad that I had to discover Winamp as a result of this post on /. I hang my head in geek shame.

  173. Nullsoft's Open Source... by EdgeOfEpsilon · · Score: 1

    Nullsoft is definitly big into open source. Just check out their website. Most of the tools they've developed are open source. Get em' before they're gone!

  174. Bye Bye Winamp by Yo+Grark · · Score: 1

    Bye bye Winamp
    Bye bye happiness, hello crapiness
    I think I'm gonna cry
    Bye bye Winamp, bye bye sweet codec's hello "unable to play"
    I feel like I could die
    Bye bye my Winamp goodbye

    There go the last developers, to someone new
    they sure look unhappy, we sure are too
    It was their baby till AOL stepped in
    Goodbye to future perfectness that might have been

    Bye bye Winamp
    Bye bye happiness, hello crapiness
    I think I'm gonna cry
    Bye bye Winamp, bye bye sweet codec's hello "unable to play"
    I feel like I could die
    Bye bye my Winamp goodbye

    I'm through with big corps, I'm through with closed source
    I'm through with counting the bugs add up
    This is a perfect reason, Open Source is free!
    My Winamp playlists, export for me.

    Bye bye Winamp
    Bye bye happiness, hello crapiness
    I think I'm gonna cry
    Bye bye Winamp, bye bye sweet codec's hello "unable to play "
    I feel like I could die
    Bye bye my Winamp goodbye

    Bye bye my Winamp goodbye
    Bye bye my Winamp goodbye

    Yo Grark

    --
    Canadian Bred with American Buttering
  175. The future by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Of course it wont self-destruct, im not stupid..

    My reason for asking is due to future changes in windows, and audio/video codecs. At some point it will quit working .. Rather not wait until the 'last moment'...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  176. sweet-XML Skinning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I liked Winamp's XML based skinning system. It was easy to understand and use. It was also smooth. Panels that slide in and out smoothly, that looked good. Of various shapes that worked well, instead of the cardboard cutout look that some Linux skinning systems give us.

  177. Too bad.. by __aavljf5849 · · Score: 1

    winamp was finally getting good. A few small glitches to iron out and that would have been it...

    ah, well.

  178. Re:I disagree by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, but you and I strongly disagree on this! Winamp 5 is the best Winamp I've used. I really wish there was an OSX version of it, as a matter of fact!

    iTunes is nice, and since getting an ipod, it's more or less a requirement, but it still lacks features that Winamp 5 brings to the table.

    You mention that Winamp5 is unstable and slow, and that may be on your hardware, but on mine it flies (On both a 3Ghz P4, and a AMD1600 system), and it resolved all instability that Winamp3 brought to the table. In contrast, itunes is a f'in power hungry beast! On Windows it slows the whole system down at times, something Winamp5 has never done, and even on my dual 2ghz. Mac, it can freeze the whole system at times. Not too cool... If Winamp5 were out for the Mac, and gave me ipod features simuilar to itunes, itunes would never be used again on my systems.

    You also bitch (sorry... When you call things a "steaming turd", you're bitching, rather than making a point) about how Winamp 5 was moving away from being free, but only the pro version was. The regular version has more than enough capabilities for 99% of the users out there, and for those who wanted more, they could pay a small fee to upgrade it to the pro version. Not a bad deal IMHO, and it's a helluva lot better than a time-limited trial.

    Not to mention the streaming media capabilities that Winamp5 offers: The .nv video format provides freekin' great quality, considering it's rather meager bandwidth requirements. It allows you to do much more than itunes does in this respect, and again... All for free.

    As for your comments about people reverting to winamp3... I haven't met anyone who feels that way. In fact the opposite's true, from what I've seen. I know several people who had wrote Winamp off after v3, but came back loving it after v5 hit the streets.

    Finally, I have to point out that their library is the best I've seen. It automatically updated and removed dead tracks as they were shuffled around, which is something itunes still doesn't pull off that well, and the way it imports both video and audio files has allowed me to do some very granular sorting by putting the files into named folders.

    As an example, I can search for, and find items with such wide-ranging search terms as "Rated-G animation", "Industrial music", "Sheep on Drugs", "The Simpsons", "Rock Music", "Rated-R movies", and "Kids Television", and get very specific, meaningful results. This allows anyone in my house to quickly pull up media without having to know how I've sorted my collection. itunes doesn't even come close to this level of organization.

    Summary: I hope this isn't the end of Winamp. They lost me w/Winamp3, but really made up for it with v5. I hope someone either buys the source, or it's open-sourced. This would be a very sad ending for such a great piece of software!

  179. Warning by grouse · · Score: 1

    Their ex-Product Manager is a man, baby!

  180. Talent = $$ by e2d2 · · Score: 1

    The talent in the original Nullsoft team would be worth their weight in gold. Those are all top notch developers and I can think of 3 apps that either Justin or the team released that changed the world:

    Winamp, a very popular mp3 player
    Gnutella, the benchmark for anon p2p
    Waste, which has morphed into various darknets

    A good team of programmers. It's too bad that AOL didn't recognize their worth and cater to their needs. I'm sure google would love to get these guys in house, I know I would.

  181. end of an era... by buhatkj · · Score: 1

    this is a sad day, the end of an era. I am sad to see them go, they made some great stuff. via con dios winamp team!!!

    --
    sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
  182. I Owe My Job To Winamp by szyzyg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well kinda.....
    Back in 1997 I wrote an mp3 streaming server that was originally intended as the audio equivalent of a webcam I could chat and play music.... obviously this quickly turned into the webs first live mp3 radio station. Problem was that there were no mp3 players that could stream content, I had to give my friends a perl script wrapped around mpg123. (as it happened this script also turned the client into a relay server, creating the earliest p2p streaming distribution system).

    So it laboured in obscurity for a while until Winamp added HTTP streaming support and suddenly I could tell all those windows users to download winamp and point it at port 3223 on the server cluster. The code was released under the GPL, and I had a few downloads, but it required some real hackish thinking to get it to work for most people. That's when I started getting job offers in California (I was working as an astronomer in Northern Ireland).

    Of course then Shoutcast got released and it pretty much did what mp3serv did, mp3serv promptly became even less interesting. But that didn't matter, because mp3serv was so obscure that nobody ever found it, it was only once there was a proprietory solution that people started to look for an open source solution. Icecast came along, it was much cleaner and smarter than mp3serv, so I took all the good bits from mp3serv and integrated them into Icecast and LiveIce.

    That was 1999, by that point I was ready to quit my PhD and take a real job......

  183. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by alnjmshntr · · Score: 1

    I've been using foobar2000 for the last 3 or 4 months extensively (I had used it before, but it always had a little niggle that forced me back to winamp).

    Now it's my number 1 music player, loads of customisations, I love the way you can make the tray icon pop up a balloon with the artist and song name. It's much less obtrusive in this sense than winamp where you always need the window in view. Also has great sound.

    Better app than clunky old winamp imo.

    --
    If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
  184. Itunes has a decent interface? by cdavies · · Score: 1
    This is news to me.

    ok, I am biased.

  185. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outsourcing companies in the East are sharpening their knives and forks.

  186. GOOD!!! by fastfinge · · Score: 1

    For the last little while, winamp has just been a load of AOL out of date crap, used only by the masses because of the market share it got when it was a leader, and kept up only by the fact that it's not quite as bad as Microsoft or Real Player. Winamp hasn't done anything new in more than a year; this is nothing new. Foobar is clearly in the lead, and I for one will be glad to see winamp go. One less AOL icon installing peace of crapware on the internet!!!

    What currently used file formats can winamp play with out plugins? Ogg and mp3 last I checked. Everything else requires you to hunt through masses of (mostly crappy) plugins to find what you want. Foobar also uses plugins, but they come built in, and all of the popular file formats are supported. The only place that foobar falls short on is midi files; in everything else, it's a winner (dsp, general, lossless formats, etc).

  187. Re: Foobar - foo_looks by Pleione · · Score: 1
    Yep, that's it exactly.

    Maybe I'll check it out again. Usually I have fb minimized or running MilkDrop fullscreen, so skinning kind of gets forgotten.

    Those are some pretty cool looking skins though.

  188. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Fweeky · · Score: 1

    +1 for fb2k. I use it with foo_ui_columns, and it looks and feels a hell of a lot nicer than WinAmp ever did (that is; like a real application, and not an ugly picture with buttons (although you can make it look like that too)). Don't let its rather, uh, conservative default look put you off.

  189. Re:sweet by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    It's just you. mpg321 manages quite happily without skinnability. MP3s are for listening to, not looking at.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  190. Hah! by eMartin · · Score: 1

    AOL paid $400,000,000 to aquire Nullsoft in the first place.

    You think Winamp could be worth only $10,000 of that?

    1. Re:Hah! by Madcapjack · · Score: 1

      well, we wouldn't be buying Nullsoft, only a few megabytes of code...

  191. Who cares? They got their $100 Million... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now they don't own their code. The project is dead. This happens all the time, especially when you do not release your code as open source.

    I don't want to hear any sympathy for these guys, no grace, no whining, no complains. The sold their souls for money and now the owner has the right to do whatever it wants.

    A project that does not continue, dies, and Windows Media Player WILL BE the replacement for this. No question.

    End of story. Last nail in the coffin. You saw it coming. Now go away and move on.

    This is no sob story. No emotions here, no creativity, only cold hard business... Like prostitution. And they acted like willing prostitutes to come under a big-daddy pimp.

    1. Re:Who cares? They got their $100 Million... by Cplus · · Score: 1

      Are you ok? You seem quite upset.

      Nullsoft was sold to AOL in 1999, you were probably still running Win95 at the time. AOL bought Nullsoft for $100,000,000, eight zeros, not bad for a kid barely out of high-school. It is a shame that things have transpired this way, but I don't think you can really blame them for the sale.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
  192. winamp winamp winamp by leperkuhn · · Score: 1

    it really whips the llamas ass

    BAAAHHH!

    --
    http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
  193. J River Media Center - It's iTunes for Grown Ups by meehawl · · Score: 1

    The best media jukebox software on Windows is probably Media Center.

    --

    Da Blog
  194. Winamp Skins need to be mirrored by Zapdos · · Score: 1

    Someome with some disk space needs to mirror the skins archive. There are some real gems in there. I think the variety of skins, and the subjects covered by the skin authors is a strange little snapshot of our time.

  195. J River Media Center - It's iTunes For Grown Ups by meehawl · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The best media jukebox software on Windows is probably Media Center. It's what iTunes would like to be when it grows up a bit. Unfortunately for Apple, it's a moving target. The motto is "All Media, One Interface".

    --

    Da Blog
  196. I applied there three years ago. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    I got a reply from justin. He said that AOL had put a hiring freeze on. They wren't allowed to hire anyone else, and if someone left they wouldn't be replaced. It was pretty clear that he was really frustrated with the situation. So this doesn't come as such a big suprise.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  197. Configurable Interfaces Rule! by meehawl · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is news to me.

    How true that is. iTunes is classic Apple: "You'll take your music this way and no other. THis is unquestionably the single greatest design ever... until *we* change it in the next release".

    The best media jukebox software on Windows (for customization and probably overall) is Media Center. It has several modes (Maxi, Mini, Theatre) and the "Playing Now" screen can be customized with HTML, Flash, Java and ActiveX widgets to load and manipulate tag info, or anything else. So you get to make your own killer playback screens. But your streamer is a nice workaround iTunes' lack of interface flexibility.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Configurable Interfaces Rule! by dstutz · · Score: 1

      How many times are you going to say the same thing?

  198. RealPlayer, Go Away by kfergos · · Score: 2, Funny

    While the loss of Winamp is sad. Now, how can we go about losing RealPlayer and its disgustingly insidious spyware (which pisses everybody off and only works on the most clueless of users anyway)? Success would probably spawn parties all over the web. Too bad there's no AOL to ditch RealPlayer...
    Can we vote them off the island soon?

    --
    Snazzier than a Three-Piece Suit: http://kf.rainydaycommunications.net/
  199. J River Media Center by meehawl · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Lots of people say 'iTunes". But one of the great things about WinAmp was its complete interface flexibility with skins and mods. iTunes is classic Apple: "You'll take your music this way and no other. This is unquestionably the single greatest design ever... until *we* change it in the next release". The kind of people who like WinAmp for its freeform nature would probably find iTunes too limiting.

    The best media jukebox software on Windows (for customization and probably overall) is Media Center. It has several modes (Maxi, Mini, Theatre) and the "Playing Now" screen can be customized with HTML, Flash, Java and ActiveX widgets to load and manipulate tag info, or anything else. So you get to make your own killer playback screens. But your streamer is a nice workaround iTunes' lack of interface flexibility.

    --

    Da Blog
  200. The Brain! by roelbj · · Score: 1

    One of my favorite WinAMP Plugins is The Brain, which monitors your listening habits and begins automatically creating its own playlist for you. Just choose music for a week or so and then let The Brain take over... Kind of like having your own radio station. The plugin hasn't been updated in a while, though. Are there any other audio players with built-in or plugin capability to do the same?

  201. Funny, I don't recall submitting this story? by Artifex · · Score: 1

    Though as long as I'm here, who remembers that one of the first things they did after getting bought out by AOL was create an advertising remover for the AOL IM client? That let us know the llama was still going to cause trouble!

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
    1. Re:Funny, I don't recall submitting this story? by artifex2004 · · Score: 1

      I didn't. Slashdot editors let submitters claim to be anyone, even if someone else is already using the nick.

  202. story submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I submitted this story at approx 5:00 PM EST 11/10/04. Nice to see my story get rejected, then published the next day. WHERE THE FUCK IS MY CREDIT?

  203. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foobar2000 is the ultimate geek's toy. Bare-bones approach with a competent database engine, plug-in arhitecture with an already huge and growing number of useful plugins and all of the features you can wish for already inside.
    The interface is the best there is, bar none - it supports multiple playlists and has the ability to script your own playlist view, integrates with freedb.org, has many (many) tag editors and whatnot - there is even an optional iTunes-like interface available as a plugin. Also, Milkdrop and most other Winamp vis plugins (even AVS) work perfectly through its foo_bacon wrapper.
    Foobar2000 has been the best audio player for Windows for a year now - it's just that not many people noticed. And as an aside, it's written by Peter Pawlowski, of the Winamp plugin fame.

  204. So...what'll happen to Shoutcast? by gearmonger · · Score: 1
    Shoutcast is one of the THE best streaming utilities out there. I, for one, would be quite unhappy to see it fester and rot due to neglect.

    Any good alternatives to Shoutcast for Windoze-powered servers (that isn't a Windows Media service)?

    1. Re:So...what'll happen to Shoutcast? by Dwedit · · Score: 1

      Use Icecast 2.

      I've used it combined with dsp_oddcast, and soon I was streaming out MP3 or OGG Vorbis streams. Ogg vorbis sounds better at lower bitrates.

  205. RIP by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

    Good luck to all those NullSoft developers and staff.

  206. Time to Switch to the Core Media Player by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

    I don't know what everyone else has tried, but I find TCMP (http://www.corecoded.com/) to be a worthy successor to Winamp.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  207. Several ex-winamp developers are now at yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so maybe yahoo will release a scion of winamp

  208. iTunes a poor choice for streams by extra88 · · Score: 1

    I like iTunes a lot for maintaining and playing audio files on a local drive but I have problems with how it handles streaming audio.

    Every time you play a new stream, iTunes permanently adds it to its library. While it's nice to keep streams you listen to regularly in the library, it's annoying to have to clean up the ones you don't want to listen to again or that broke.

    This is particularly annoying when you're using a some kind of online jukebox, like Namp! With an online jukebox, iTunes will add a library entry for *each* track.

  209. this is a real shame by qbproger · · Score: 1

    their programmers had some real talent. I'll be interested in seeing what they go onto next.

    --

    - Joe
  210. ITunes IS open source.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's why we like it.

    If Itunes was run by a group that had a closed proprietary mindset, we'd never support it but since Apple is THE best example we have of how open source companies can be successful then ....
    ah screw it, Im not gonna go on with the charade, Ill admit it, /.ers drink from the Apple kool-aid daily, sure its against the principles of open source but its toys are so cool, geeks cant help but flip flop on OS principles.

  211. Please mod up. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    This is basically the truth.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  212. Good I like ITUNES by puremisery · · Score: 1

    ITUNES is MUCH better than WINAMP....... MuUUUAHHHAHHhHHhHAHHAhah

    --
    -- "Life's not fair, but the root password helps."
  213. In theory you don't _need_ one. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    What'd be nice is if (we, someone) could use the "remote control" mode of mplayer along with a local website that let you queue songs/query a database and control it from wherever.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:In theory you don't _need_ one. by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      Hrm, I hadn't heard about the remote control mode, but that could work out nicely. Especially if the website was all XSL that could output to xhtml for normal browsers, or XUL for gecko browsers

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    2. Re:In theory you don't _need_ one. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

      Here is the current protocol implementation.

      You start it up with -slave, and it's headless... connected via a pipe to your application.

      --
      THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  214. "Hacking" by Dizzle · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be easy, given Nullsoft's history, to claim that they were hacked in order to get the source code out there? If i were in the position they're in, I'd blame it on a bug or something in AOL. 2 birds, one stone!

    --
    -Dizzle
    "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
  215. A fatal trend? by RedShoeRider · · Score: 1
    So first the developer of Motherboard Manager (an app I'm sure most of the MS users in here have had running at one time or another) bails out because it's really costing him too much in both time and money to keep the ball rolling.

    Now Nullsoft bails out because AOL is, well, AOL.

    Given that both of these programs were (at least originally) indedpendantly developed, are we starting to see a trend toward the innovation being sucked right out of the industry?

    --

    Chris Knight is my hero.

  216. you want foo_looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many UI plugins to foobar2k. if you like the WinAmp style, you want to use foo_looks. A rolled up foo_looks skin is usually about the same size as a collapsed winamp.

    If you want something which is actually minimalist, I'm not sure how much more minimal you can get than the fb2k default: a window containing a playlist. You can define a format for the playlist, or use a plugin to install formats from the fb2k formats website.

    The next step beyond that is usually deciding that you want a little bit more interface - maybe a sidebar containing multiple playlists, or playlist-tabs across the top. Possibly you want to have a heirarchical representation of your albums, not related to your directory structure. All of these are built in, and just need to be turned on.

    There is also a column-oriented playlist available, rather than the basic text one.

    The real compelling features for fb2k are the Masstagger and renamer (with the "trader's friend" add-in), and the format converter. This basically means that I can get a directory full of .SHN files from a live show, and in just a couple of steps, convert "GD800620D2T03.SHN" into "Grateful Dead - 1980-06-20 West High Auditorium, Anchorage, AK - 12 - Deal.ape".

    Yes, I know I could do similar things with WinAmp - but fb2k does it more in the way that I think.

    1. Re:you want foo_looks by skadus · · Score: 1

      Finally a GUI that's small and somewhat works. Thanks for being the only person to actually help me rather than tell me about features that don't exist in the default install. :)

      I still had to search on Google for 5-10 minutes hopping over busted links and broken websites to find it.

      Every copy of foo_looks I found was incompatible with v0.8.3 except for the 2.1 beta, and the only working link I found for it was on a German forum.

      I guess that must be why so many l33t d00ds love foobar so much. I mean, why go with something that works out of the box when you can go traipsing through half the Internet to find plugins?

      This guy's article says it all.

    2. Re:you want foo_looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're welcome.

      Points well taken. The problems with fb2k are:

      1. not at all intuitive. I suspect the whole thing with the volume mentioned in the guy's article was that WinAmp's volume control was actually adjusting the windows mixer wave volume or something, while the fb2k volume control just does attenuation, and assumes you don't want any other software messing with system-level volume. This is no help to the guy who just wants to turn the thing up.

      Another note about this: "Volume Control", in fb2k, is implemented as a software DSP. That's not exactly the first place I'd look for it.

      2. foo_looks is the only thing that makes fb2k look like what people now expect an audio player to look like, and it's not included by default. This means that when people look at fb2k, they see an interface that only a mother or a l33t haxx0r could love. With a bit of tweaking it looks a whole lot more like a modern application, but that initial impression is stark and ugly.

      3. absurd configuration, by which I mean, you can configure everything to an extreme level, except those things that you can't configure at all, and the setup of the configurator is very, very strange.

      4. the purported sound quality gains are BS for nearly everyone. What are you going to hear, for the most part? Clearer tape hiss? More accurate rendering of MP3 encoding artifacts? The real win for higher bit depth in fb2k is that you can use more software DSPs in the DSP chain without losing precision - but the only DSP I use is Volume Control, and I can't think of a compelling reason to use enough of them to make a difference.

      It's not for everyone - but once you get past all of this (which takes about 15 minutes if you've set it up before, and a few DAYS otherwise), fb2k is easy to live with. I've long since got my format and plug-ins the way I like them, and I tend to be a couple of builds behind whatever Peter has released. It's very stable for 0.8 software.

      I don't like foo_looks myself, for the same reason I didn't like WinAmp. I want something that shows me my playlists, and lets me work with them. The WinAmp model, in which the most important things are the control buttons and some current track info, is not as useful to me.

  217. There's already Freeamp by Animats · · Score: 1
    There's Freeamp, known as Zinf because Nullsoft complained. It's open source, it works fine, and it doesn't phone home, spew ads, or tamper with your system.

    Once Winamp tanks completely, Zinf can use the Freeamp name again; you have to use a trademark to keep it alive.

    1. Re:There's already Freeamp by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Is Zinf binary compatible with WinAmp plugin modules? If not, it's just one of many Windows music players. If it is, it can replace WinAmp in serving the WinAmp installed base. The WinAmp momentum is a question of market dynamics and interoperability, more than competitive technology.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  218. Why not just.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just keep on using Winamp? Why switch?
    It's stable enough, there are plenty of plugins for it for most formats, there will always be copies of every version online...

    I still use WinAmp 2, and its been working fine for me since I got it. I don't see why AOL nixing Nullsoft should have any effect over this.

  219. Excellent Analogies by krygny · · Score: 1

    Please moderate parent up.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
  220. SHOUTcast?! by benw1979 · · Score: 1

    I wonder what will become of http://www.shoutcast.com/? Any other good internet radio directories out there?

  221. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by DavidTC · · Score: 1
    What I like is the OSD (on-screen display) plugin. It sticks up one of those bright green messages like the kind you get on TV, VCRs, and even some laptops, telling what song you've just switched to.

    And it's completely customizable, so if you do have a laptop with said messages, you cna make it match them, style-wise.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  222. Re:Winamp 5 - OpAmp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OpAmp would be awesome! They could start the numbering scheme at ver 7.41!

    (Non-electronics people probably just have a confused look on their faces, but I know there can be no doubt about my coolness to all you EE's out there.)

  223. RTFAQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I registered Winamp when it was shareware circa 1999. Can I use my old serial number to unlock Winamp Pro?
    No, Winamp 5 Pro requires you to re-register in order to unlock the latest features.

    Winamp Pro is a different product from Winamp, which your key is still valid for.

    1. Re:RTFAQ by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      Winamp Pro is a different product from Winamp, which your key is still valid for.

      Fucking asshole corporations, always screwing with customers. It's not a different fucking product. They just made it one to screw the few people who supported them early on.

  224. Re:Woah! (XMMS ...) by joeldg · · Score: 1

    xmms is closing.?!?.

    oh wait.. heh.. was just one of the winamp skins I had on xmms, which supports everything winamp did as well..

    They did have one truly cool product and that was called AO or something, and you could rearrange the interface while playing music.. it was very cool, buggy, but cool..

  225. Wasn't free for me by jubei · · Score: 1

    Free? I paid $15 for the shareware in 1997.

    Still I feel it was a good deal.

  226. What about Shoutcast by Chemical · · Score: 1

    It's unfortunate that there is going to be no further development of my favorite software product, but my real concern is what's going to happen to the Shoutcast website. The website is little more than a tracker for Shoutcast audio streams, but it's a very nice resource and I have found plenty of wonderful webcasts using it. The consolidation of hundreds of streams onto one site, plus searching features, made it invaluable. Without the site, finding a stream is going to be very difficult unless you know exactly what you are looking for. Has there been any word on this, or are we just going to have to hope for someone else to take over stream tracking?

  227. Re: iTunes vs. Winamp music store by gorbachev · · Score: 1

    "Nullsoft/AOL would just not be able to compete at this late stage in the game."

    I disagree. AOL would have an advantage over Apple, because they *own* the music they would sell. They could price very competitively.

    What Apple or AOL does with the user interface is really secondary, although of course if they really screw it up, that won't go too well.

    There's plenty of opportunity still left in the downloadable music market. Apple may have a huge lead, but they still have barely scratched the entire potential of the market.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  228. Thanks, Nullsoft by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


    Winamp can now take its place in software history, next to Wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Mosaic, and all the other innovative and important "killer apps" of years past that have been reduced to only niche usage today.

    We've moved on to other things, now. But we appreciate what you made for us.

    1. Re:Thanks, Nullsoft by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      You forgot BSD on your list :).

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

  229. Makes sense to me by supabeast! · · Score: 1

    There really is no reason for AOL to develop Winamp anymore. Every Wintel PC out there comes with Windows media player, which isn't perfect, but many people seem to prefer it to Winamp. Now that iTunes is picking up steam on PCs, and with AOL using iTunes for its own online music sales, Winamp is just a competing project that isn't really competing. Delayed releases, poor performance, and a bad randomization algorithm that doesn't cut it for today's trend of listening to music with shuffle on aren't pushing the envelope.

    I remember when Winamp was cool, interesting, and mattered, but those days ended after AOL picked up Nullsoft. It's about time for AOL to just euthanize the poor thing and move on.

  230. Re:Media Library by Zooka · · Score: 1

    I really like the Media Library too.

    I can't remember exactly in which revision it first appeared, but the Media Library *IS/WAS* available in a 2.9x version.

    It can probably still be found on oldversion.com :)

  231. Re:sweet by ar1550 · · Score: 1
    What the hell else do you need? A built-in web browser and tax advisor?

    Yes! I want it to be just like emacs, but for Windows.

    --
    I once shot a man in Reno 'cause they cancelled Firefly.
  232. alternatives to WA by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 1

    I am really disappointed in this development, though I did see the writing on the wall for WA. My main question is, what alternatives are there to WA that have a small footprint, and are able to play OGG VORBIS files. I have a lot of friends who use Real's player, or Windows Media, but I haven't been able to find OGG support for these players. I saw the link to the three sort of alternative players, but they don't look quite polished enough for my liking. If anyone has any suggestions for a Windows based player that would suite my needs, please let me know. Or perhaps this is the time for me to completely ditch Windows for Linux.

    1. Re:alternatives to WA by jcuervo · · Score: 1

      XMMS over XF86-Cygwin, but the sound would be coming from across the room. ;-)

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  233. We'd be SOL (Re:Buying it from AOL) by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

    We'll probably be SOL since IP and copyrighted materials are such a nice thing to have in today's sueciety.

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  234. Well .. by ciupman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just stopped using winamp when it got to the 3.0 version. By then that thing had load times bigger then MSWORD, just to listen to music ... i thought they would improve in 5.0 but no, the same thing happened. I Got a little prog, very small and very fast loading (eats very little memory), has skinning capabilities, and supports winamp input plugins .. it's called XMPLAY .. and i forgot .. it's one of the best modules players around.. so one advice to developers all around, use the GOOGLE paradigm, that is, small, fast and very functional. So in this case the function is to play music, SO WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT GRAPHICAL BLOAT FOR???

    --
    I fuse with Mercer every single day...
  235. NOOOO by genner · · Score: 1

    Oh wait I just got an mp3 player, I guess this isn't so sad then.

  236. *blink* by TWX · · Score: 2, Funny

    "They all have bugs, none of them are perfect, and arguing about that stuff is as stupid as Window$ users.."

    Ow! The irony is making my stomach hurt!

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  237. Can't beat Winamp for Visualizations by cualexander · · Score: 1

    I have a 100" projection screen and I use Winamp for its Visualization Plugins. There are some plugins that only are made for winamp. Therefore, despite the fact that I can play the files on any itunes,vlc, windows media,etc., Winamp still rocks for visualizations. The big ones like G-Force work in iTunes as well, but for sheer variety and number of plugins Winamp is still the king. I dare you to find a program that tops Winamp in this area. Actually I'd look forward to finding anything that could.

  238. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by blankman · · Score: 1

    Uhh... how bout Winamp? There likely won't be further development, but that doesn't mean you can't use it any more. As of now Winamp is still available from both winamp.com and download.com, and probably other sources as well.

  239. Ogg Vorbis killer by DogsBollocks · · Score: 0

    Maybe by removing Winamp from the masses (Windoze)is a way to stop Ogg Vorbis from becoming a standard format. Lets face it these large corporations are only intrested in the bottom line, corporate greed. The company has the potential to make more money from the consumables (the music) than they do from the player itself. They probably treat Ogg Vorbis as a serious threat to their little DRM shananigans. By removing the player (Winamp) from the masses before Ogg gets popular means the masses will choose the other formats such as MP3 or iTunes.

  240. love Winamp... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    It's just nice and simple and does what I need a player to do.

    How much can we buy the source code for from AOL?

    1. Re:love Winamp... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually wanted to put a plug in for the winamp community. if it wasn't for all the volunteer work done by guys like darrah, wally, harvey, eric et al. we'd never have been able to process up all the skins and plugins, or have articles for you all to read. thx guys!

      and to the rest of the community- it's been a pleasure skimming through all the great skins and plugins that have been submitted to the site.

      let's face it, winamp's a great media player, but it's the third-party apps that made it so special

      - (1 of 3 left) heh

  241. Time to switch to Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe try visiting mandrakesoft.com instead.

  242. True alternatives? by MRKisThatKid · · Score: 1

    Are there any decent alternatives that share all these features with winamp? Gapless play Volume ramping when pausing/stopping Crossfading when seeking Supported within logitech iTouch Media library I'm sure there must be but i've never found one. I can't do without any of them features either, otherwise i would be driven insane. It also has to look ok. Not necassarily eye candy but not depressing either.

  243. Re:J River Media Center - It's iTunes for Grown Up by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

    What a wonderful iTunes rip-off. Hah.

    --
    Not All Who Wander Are Lost
  244. Apple lock-in by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why anyone would choose iTunes over Winamp (or even Windows Media player) is beyond me.

    Other than that M4Ps bought on iTMS work only in iTunes?

    1. Re:Apple lock-in by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Other than that M4Ps bought on iTMS work only in iTunes?

      Well, if the DRM'd files you buy from a online music store are tied to a lousy program, then I would shop elsewhere.

  245. Winamp will never die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody knows that Winamp will never die. Everybody knows how to write plugins for 5.0. Everybody knows how to make skins for 5.0. Everybody knows that AAC and MP3 (and Vorbis I hope) will be around for the next few decades to come. The source code will probably find its way into the hands of other development teams eventually if it gets totally abandoned by AOL.

  246. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

    Does it Rip CDs? I'm looking all over for a BSD/GPL/true freeware/ID3 lookup/win32 all in one digital music solution and I'm pulling my hair out.

    At this point i'd even go for a good freeware/bsd/gpl CD ripper with a reliable id3 lookup capacity. Its getting the lookups so I can automate moving over my CD collection that is the pain right now.

  247. Re:sweet by chrisjrn · · Score: 1

    There is an mplayer backend for xmms, and can be found at TheGraveyard.org

  248. Whatever. NEXT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boohoo, too bad, so sad, buh bye! Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out, et. al.

    Seriously, though. Winamp stopped being useful for me around version 5. They steadfastly refused to develop a plugin for Real Media or Quicktime formats, despite the fact that version 2 had plugins for both. Yes, yes, I and probably everybody else here knows why they made this decision, but that's neither here nor there. Their reasons don't change the fact that Winamp ceased being a relevant and comprehensive solution for my multimedia playback needs in Windows. Couple this with the fact that they started charging again and it was enough, I'm certain, to drive hordes of users like me away. Media Player classic is free and small, and supports every media you can imagine. See you around Justin. I only hope, for your sake, that you saved some of the millions you made, instead of frittering it all away.

  249. Media Center Version 11 - Software for Grown Ups by meehawl · · Score: 1, Informative

    What a wonderful iTunes rip-off. Hah.

    You're just showing your ignorance. Have you used both softwares for any appreciable amount of time? I have. When and if your media collections grows beyond the larval stage then you will probably realise the limitations of most jukebox software out there.

    Considering that Media Center was first released several years before iTunes, that it is now at version 11, that it pioneered programmable smartlists and user-defined dynamic tags, client-server streaming, programmable visualisations, programmable and scriptable playback screens, and that it supports over 30 audio and video formats, multi-Zone playback, 32-bit internal processing, 3d digital playback upsampling, scheduled recording and broadcasting, on-the-fly downsampling and transcoding, as well as managing photo collections and Tivos, which would you call a "rip off"?

    Furthermore, iTunes chokes on anything over 40000 files. I know, I tried it on my 100K multimedia collection. It just whimpered and died, much like the MS player and the Real Player. However, Media Center just kept on chugging, read in all tags correctly, and even successfully spent around 400 hours of CPU time analyzing the entire collection, writing BMP and auto dB levelling info into the ID3 tags. Given that this entailed processing around 800GB of data assorted into over a dozen different formats, and that Media Center completed this mammoth job without a single crash or complaint, I was impressed.

    I'd just add that thing about MC that I like most is that its client-server streaming mode is not lamely limited to LANs like iTunes. I can stream from my home server to anywhere over the internet, and I do. It's quite a kick to be visit someone, or work abroad, and simply hit "Play" to instantly hear what I want to hear.

    --

    Da Blog
  250. Big Christmas card from Microsoft by Magickcat · · Score: 1

    Once again AOL kills a Microsoft competitor, by purchasing it, and then killing the project, despite it's popularity. Netscape all over again.

    I bet Microsft will send an extra big Christmas card to AOL this year.

    --

    Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

  251. Nullsoft devs in trouble over open source MAME by jelwell · · Score: 1
    "All of this would indicate that the good people at Nullsoft are pretty cool with open source. So if the Winamp 5 source code is not going to be released, then I think we should blame AOL for that, not Nullsoft."

    This is simply not true. If you take a look at Kaillera it is in a questionable battle with MAME developers. MAME (open source - but no GPL) requires that derivative works open their source as well. But the Kaillera (two of the main Nullsoft guys) developers have not only refused to comply with MAME's license they've also perma-banned the MAME developers from Kaillera's forums.

    This is not a group of people that like open source. Sure they liked fighting AOL, but they also like fighting open source.

    Joseph Elwell.

    1. Re:Nullsoft devs in trouble over open source MAME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.kaillera.com/faq.php#11

      This looks like an answer to your assertion.

  252. Completely wrong. by evilviper · · Score: 1
    AOL quickly clamped down on Gnutella, but not before the software's source code leaked.

    Wow! That's just completely wrong. Not even close on that one!

    The Gnutella binary/program leaked, but NOT THE SOURCE CODE. The protocol was reverse engineered, and that spec is where we got new Gnutella programs. No original source code at all. Perhaps they are confusing Gnutella with "Waste"?

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  253. Ad Nauseum by meehawl · · Score: 1

    How [slashdot.org] many [slashdot.org] times [slashdot.org] are you going to say [slashdot.org] the [slashdot.org] same [slashdot.org] thing [slashdot.org]?

    Until they wrench the keyboard from my cold dead fingers. If something is worth saying then it's worth repeating.

    --

    Da Blog
  254. Spelling Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strangle that som'bitch til' it's dead

    The correct spelling is "sumbitch".

    1. Re:Spelling Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the apostrophe goes before til, not after it. Bravo on the correct spelling and usage of it's though.

  255. Ogg For iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ogg For QuickTime/iTunes is here. Just copy it to C:\WINDOWS\system32\QuickTime. Works great.

  256. Re:Media Center Version 11 - Software for Grown Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never underestimate the eagerness of zombie Macolytes to mod down any comments critical of the Church of Steve.

    WINAMP FUCKING RULES!

  257. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

    I tried CoolPlayer for a while. It was small, sleek, did the job (usually), and had some decent minimalist skins. But it was also buggy beyond belief. Might end up back with that one or not.

    Foobar2000 - I might go back to them. Very powerful but really lacking in polish.

    Pity, because WinAmp5 was actually rather decent (compared to the garbage that was v3, which caused me to go looking for other solutions).

    --
    Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  258. Prime Versions by magnum3065 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well technically 2, 3, and 5 were all prime and people used to say 1 was prime, but it's not considered to be prime anymore.

  259. Linux Player That Matches Winamp's Library? by bottlerocket · · Score: 1

    This is a little OT, but does anyone know of any media player for Linux that matches Winamp's Media Library. I've tried several (Rhythmbox, Yammi, Madman, Juk), and they don't even come close to Winamp, or, hell, even MusicMatch.

    --
    where the comment ends and sig begins
  260. Use Media Center by meehawl · · Score: 1

    All I really want is one player that plays all the audio formats. *Sigh* I currently have WMP, Winamp 5, Foobar2000 and iTunes all fighting over extensions...

    You probably should try Media Center - it plays everything, audio and video. The developers' slogan is "All Media, One Interface". It supports over 80 formats, does ASIO playback, and has a scripting engine that can drive any unsupported formats using their player's API. It can also transcode between formats on-the-fly while serving clients, as well as doing bitrate downsampling and soundstage upsampling. More info. Windows only though, I am afraid, although it has been embedded in several home theatre and media playback set top boxes.

    --

    Da Blog
  261. Re:I disagree by big+daddy+kane · · Score: 1

    has anyone gotten any luck running winamp 5 under wine?

  262. no major updates != instant death by clubin · · Score: 1

    "no further improvements to Winamp are expected"

    I can't remember the last time I've upgraded Winamp due to the new version having some killer new feature I couldn't live without. Winamp has been satisfactory since it's mid 2.0's and will remain so for a very long time to come. Winamp is a nearly completely open box, operating mostly under the control of it's plugin modules; I see no reason for a lack of official updates to slow Winamp down.

    For the record, though, I no longer use Winamp, anyway. Foobar2000 better supports my workflow. Now, if only it supported Milkdrop et al.

    1. Re:no major updates != instant death by clubin · · Score: 1

      "Winamp has been satisfactory since it's mid 2.0's and will remain so for a very long time to come." ... or 2.x's, rather.

  263. Holy shit, good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Anybody out there in Slashdot land think we might be able to put together an initiative, gather donations for funds, and buy the source from AOL?
    Call me naive, but that sounds like a damned good idea. Not just for Winamp, either. Maybe it could work for other software.

    Two problems with the general idea: first, how much would it cost?

    Second, do we want to give programmers and companies the impression they can develop closed-source software just to sell to the open-source community?
  264. Absolutely by spoco2 · · Score: 1

    I had issues with 3, but loved the library, so didn't want to go back to 2, then 5 came out, it really was the best bits of 2 and 3, so it is now my standard music player, and I love it to bits...

    This is very sad that Winamp has died, but it was becoming apparent that it was in a downward spiral, the number of people who were amazed I was still using it was staggering. "You're still using that old thing?"

    1. Re:Absolutely by -=Zak=- · · Score: 1

      I tried the media library in 5 when it first came out and had a lot of crashy issues with it. A couple of weeks ago, I downloaded 5.05 and completely fell in love with the media library. I can type in anything and it searches all of the ID3 fields, the filename, and even the path the file is in! I love it!

      Anyhow - the only problem I've had with Winamp 5.05 is when I want to mass update several ID3 tags. For instance, let's say I need to enter an album name for all of the files in a directory... I select the whole lot of songs and hit "file info" but Winamp pops up one window for each song instead of letting me type in the album name once and applying it to all of the selected songs. (By the way, MusicMatch's library does this just fine - but MusicMatch sucks).

      Anyhow, hopefully the minor problems will still be worked out in time - they haven't said that Winamp is completely dead. Just that development will be slowing down to minor fixes and updates. I can live with that.

    2. Re:Absolutely by JamesGecko · · Score: 1

      I still use WinAmp 2 on my 100MHz computer, simply because it's the only player out there that can play mp3s without skipping. That's what I call a slim music player. Sadly, WinAmp 5 has about twice the system requirements or 2 and *feels* more bloated.

    3. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Select multiple files, right click and choose "edit multiple items" (ctrl+E).

      Now you can change all the tags at once.

  265. Skins and interface by phorm · · Score: 1

    It might be worthy of note that XMMS does support Winamp skins (the 2.x variety at least, not sure about the newer ones). And in addition to it's former name of LinAmp I'm guessing it was in many ways made to be a semi-clone of Winamp.

    Of course, with many of its own plugins and featurse etc it's advanced beyond WinAmp now, with Winamp having advanced in different directions as well in Winamp5... but many of the simulatities do remain.

    Sometimes I wish they were more cross-compatible though, as there are some nice winamp vis plugins that I would love to have in XMMS...

  266. That is butt ugly by spoco2 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but on loading it up, I am presented with a large, empty white box and the controls at top. On loading up my MP3 directory I'm presented with one long list of tracks.

    That is butt ugly and painful to look at. No replacement there.

    1. Re:That is butt ugly by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      I don't like it too. I tried it and uninstalled it because it looked terrible.

  267. Version 2.91 by Nurgled · · Score: 1

    Version 2.91 has the media library.

  268. Winamp? by Christopheles · · Score: 0

    You mean that thing people used back before they had Foobar 2000?

  269. Tom Pepper's exit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the two founders of the company gone (Justin Frankel and Tom Pepper) and now Steve as well, it seems the soul the company is gone regardless of who still might be present.

    Tom and Justin came up with Winamp originally, and worked together on the rest of Nullsoft's treasures including SHOUTcast, W.A.S.T.E., and Gnutella. Tom said goodbye last month, for undisclosed reasons.

  270. Re:Media Center Version 11 - Software for Grown Up by Mitleid · · Score: 1

    I just recently checked out Media Center after using Winamp for years, and while I have to say it's media library support/functionality is the BEST I've ever used I'm still at a loss for GLOBAL HOTKEY SUPPORT. Is it possible, you being a more experienced user, to get some light shed on the status of Media Center and hotkeys? Any plugins or anything? Hotkeys are the only thing keeping me on Winamp now; Winamp isn't bad necessarily, but I have a huge music collection and as of late Winamp's library management has felt inadequate.

    ...I don't mean to turn this into a support forum thread or anything, but I did feel like milking this opportunity to pose my question...

    --

    --
    Is it me, or did it just get fatter in here?
  271. Some important points about WinAmp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, many people have the misconception that Winamp 5.x sucks because they found that Winamp 3.x was terrible. The developers stuck to what worked and Winamp 5.x was in fact back along the lines of the beautifully engineered Winamp 2.x. Solid, functional, efficient. Download Winamp 5.x now if you haven't yet tried it.

    Second, you obviously don't have to stop using Winamp. It supports MP3, OGG and much more. What else do you need?

    Third, the Winamp Media Library feature under 5.x shows something amazing -- that streaming Internet television does work. The format is actually Nullsoft's own NSV and it works really really well. What is NSV? Just MP3 + VP3, where VP3 is now developed as Ogg Theora. The point I'm trying to make here is that the Nullsoft people have demonstrated that streaming Internet television works better with something cobbled together with existing, simple (and free) formats that anyone's been able to pull off with Real, Quicktime, or whatever.

  272. Winamp can be replaced, but... by sycomonkey · · Score: 1

    This also spells the end of Milkdrop, which is still by far the best visualization for any media player. It's too bad it's DirectX based or I'd have hopes of it going open source one day and showing up in iTunes.

    --
    --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
  273. WMP has claimed victory here. by jseale · · Score: 1

    Hate to break it to y'all, but it sure as heck looks as if Mr. Softie has claimed a victory in this particular multimedia software battle. Windows Media Player has and always will kick some major butt (llama's butt in this case LOL).

  274. Re:What's a good alternative for people stuck with by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

    So...

    Did I miss something? Is Winamp going to suddenly disappear from computers around the world?

    Host a copy yourself if you're really worried, but I doubt it will be hard to find for a long, long time.

  275. Revolutionary skin support by Reaverkin · · Score: 1

    I think a lot of people forget that Winamp was one of the first programs to popularize the use of 'skins'. The /. crowd may not care much for eye candy but it has certainly been very influential and was quite a leap forward.

  276. Be serious... by Eminence · · Score: 1

    Come on guys, be serious. Did anyone seriously expect corporate behemoth like AOL to keep a team of creative programmers unharmed forever? This is corporation, everything that sticks out of the line would be squished, it's just a matter of time. Corporations are a great place for those with mediocre talents or bad luck that need a paycheck at the end of the month in return for some spiritless effort. Anyone creative will suffocate there in the long run.

    But, as someone pointed out, they asked for it. After all AOL bought Nullsoft with real money. So, basically, it's their now and they can do whatever they want. And I bet Justin Frankel doesn't regret selling Nullsoft when he looks at his bank account. So it is all OK in the end - entrepreneurs got their money, AOL got the product and employees got their paychecks.

  277. Re:Media Center Version 11 - Software for Grown Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I heard was 100k of multimedia...

  278. Thanks by Amadodd · · Score: 1

    I just installed 5.05 lite. It looks and behaves just like V2 - did not even need to change skins. Performance is just as snappy as well. Great stuff!

    --
    Freedom of speech doesn't come with bandwidth.
  279. Re:sweet by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

    I like the way you can leave winamp set to "shuffle" but still enqueue songs. When your selections are finished playing, it goes back to randomly playing your playlist. This is especially neat for parties, when you can cue the right song for the moment, then go and enjoy the moment without having to go and hit the shuffle button again before winamp plays the rest of the album your selected tune comes from...

  280. Hotkeys by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Yes, the lack of built-in global hotkeys has been mentioned many times by users as sorely lacking for novice users. For further info, just type "hotkeys" in here.

    There are a few solutions that probably illustrate why the developers have not bothered to date implementing a global hotkey support for menu items. The first is that MC users tend to be a crafty lot and many have already linked MC with girder and their existing universal home theatre remotes or AirPanels. The other is that MC can be driven using the command line, so many people map their function and macro keys to some of MC's command line parameters, along the lines of

    C:\WINNT\system32\mjextman.exe /Command Pause

    C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\mjextman.exe /PLAY TREEPATH=Playlists\Top Hits

    etc etc.

    You can even get one of those blank UI templates with lots of buttons and make yourself your own on-screen widget to control the program this way. Some people use their PDAs, or Bluetooth phones for this.

    --

    Da Blog
  281. Kaillera not open source. by jelwell · · Score: 1

    1) MAME developers, including the ones I've linked to in my original message, will disagree with that Kaillera FAQ item.

    It's easy, almost required, for the Kaillera developers to "claim" that they're compliant with the MAME license. But if they're compliant why are the MAME developers up in arms against them, asking them to open their sources?

    2) The Kaillera server is not open source.

    It should also be noted that Kaillera is practically abandonware at this point. Development has stopped since MAME .67 (2003-04-06). The not-open-source server has many known remotely exploitable holes that prevent users from setting up full time open servers without actively banning ip ranges in a pathetic attempt at security.

    Joseph Elwell.

  282. Re:Media Center Version 11 - Software for Grown Up by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

    Come on, you could practically overlay Media Center's interface over iTunes, and probably 80% of it would line up. That's a rip-off. I don't care if it was around several years before iTunes, but it obviously wasn't using iTune's interface before iTunes came up with it..

    --
    Not All Who Wander Are Lost
  283. Skins My Friend by meehawl · · Score: 1

    I don't care if it was around several years before iTunes, but it obviously wasn't using iTune's interface before iTunes came up with it

    So let's see, you admit you are completely ignorant concerning the history and evolution of a piece of software you nonetheless deign to comment upon. Interesting.

    Why not take a look at Media Jukebox versions 1-5, released many years before iTunes. Then take a look at the literally hundreds of Mini and Maxi mode skins for Media Center. I also think you're ignoring the fact that MC works in multiple interface modalities: maxi, mini, theatre. Many of the skins do implement a classic three-pane action-modal maxi interface, which is also the design that iTunes has tended to use in its various incarnations and which was common by 1999. But some of the skins are insanely non-Euclidean weirdnesses,

    I think what you're seeing instead is a case of parallel evolution. Take a look at an ichthyosaur sometime, then compare it to a dolphin, and tell me who "copied" whom.

    --

    Da Blog