Winamp 5 final

  • Thread starter Thread starter sabresonic
  • Start date Start date
out today. forget winamp 3, version 5 is well worth the download.

full version: http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail.php3?fid=1066336873

lite version (havn't check it myself): http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail.php3?
fid=1069287658
Click to expand...

Christ, I hate sites that can't work with Opera. I try to download,
it just sits there. I try the "click here" option, doesn't work. I
try to go to the "Winamp5 Lite Home Page" - guess what, it takes me to
the Winamp TWO home page!

The NullSoft Winamp Home Page is still touting Winamp THREE!

Morons at betanews and NullSoft...

Call me when this thing is really available somewhere with some
competence...
 
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:17:44 GMT,"Richard Steven Hack" posted ...
Christ, I hate sites that can't work with Opera. I try to download,
it just sits there. I try the "click here" option, doesn't work. I
try to go to the "Winamp5 Lite Home Page" - guess what, it takes me to
the Winamp TWO home page!

The NullSoft Winamp Home Page is still touting Winamp THREE!

Morons at betanews and NullSoft...

Call me when this thing is really available somewhere with some
competence...
Click to expand...

I got Winamp 5 from here using Opera 7.23 identifying as Mozilla:
http://fileforum.betanews.com/download.php?fid=1066336873
 
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:36:56 GMT,"Chet" posted ...
What's the difference between Winamp 5 full and Winamp 5 Lite???
Click to expand...

Lite has less features but I've never checked it out. I always download
the Full version without installing all the features. If I need an extra
feature, it is immediately available for install.
--

Chris Bee
 
|["sabresonic"; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:37:21 GMT]
|
|> forget winamp 3, version 5 is well worth the download.
|
|I'll second that!
|
But is it better than 2.91 classic, that many of us went back to?
--
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address
Visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Jim Scott said:
|["sabresonic"; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:37:21 GMT]
|
|> forget winamp 3, version 5 is well worth the download.
|
|I'll second that!
|
But is it better than 2.91 classic, that many of us went back to?
Click to expand...

Same question here. I have 2.80. I didn't like the v3, what with all the
extra fluff 'n' stuff.

I just want to play audio files. No "visualizations" or skins needed. Play,
stop, pause, volume, balance. That's all I need.

So is there a reason to move beyond 2.80?
 
["sabresonic"; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:37:21 GMT]
forget winamp 3, version 5 is well worth the download.
Click to expand...

I'll second that!
Click to expand...

I refuse to use Winamp because of its micro size. Forcing people to squint
is not nice. The large option is just too ugly. Something in between would
be nice.

It's AOL bloatware anyway.

Bob
 
|I refuse to use Winamp because of its micro size. Forcing people to squint
|is not nice. The large option is just too ugly. Something in between would
|be nice.
|
Glasses would be help.

|It's AOL bloatware anyway.
|
Sez who?
--
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address
Visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
["sabresonic"; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:37:21 GMT]
forget winamp 3, version 5 is well worth the download.
Click to expand...

I'll second that!
Click to expand...

I refuse to use Winamp because of its micro size. Forcing people
to squint is not nice. The large option is just too ugly.
Something in between would be nice.
Click to expand...

Using one of the 3.x/modern skins will give you the option of scaling
the window to whatever percent of the original skin.
It's AOL bloatware anyway.
Click to expand...

Umm...the install for Winamp5 Lite is only 654k, and upon install you
can choose what features you do and don't want installed. In fact, if
you know that you aren't going to use Classic skins because they are
too small, then you can choose not to install the module for classic
skins. As for the "AOL" part, AOL doesn't seem to have much
influence, seeing as how you can even choose to not install an AOL
link to the desktop.

Informed opinions are nice, aren't they?
 
Christ, I hate sites that can't work with Opera. I try to download,
it just sits there. I try the "click here" option, doesn't work. I
try to go to the "Winamp5 Lite Home Page" - guess what, it takes me to
the Winamp TWO home page!
Click to expand...

That shouldn't surprise you, as AOL and Microsoft are now bosom buddies. Do
you think AOL would put up a site that was friendly to non IE browsers? I
use Firebird, and AOL sites are now almost useless to me, even though once
they were designed especially for Gecko based browsers, rather than IE.

I sure hope all you people falling over yourselves about Winamp 5 don't
later discover that it's loaded with spyware and tattleware like WMP9 is.
If it isn't, I'll be surprised.

Microsoft's goal is to completely lock up the computing world and control
the use of all forms of media. They took another step towards that by
linking up with AOL, thus effectively getting Netscape (a major thorn in
their side) out of the way. Winamp was another major thorn. Maybe it's my
paranoid nature, but I just can't see Microsoft leaving this one alone.
 
dkg_ctc said:
Umm...the install for Winamp5 Lite is only 654k, and upon install you
can choose what features you do and don't want installed. In fact, if
Click to expand...
Yes, but Lite version can't do anything, it can't play OGG and other
things... I was using it for while but then I gone to full version. And
RC666 was very unstable at me, it just sop play MP3 and help just restart of
Winamp, I heard this about Final version too, isn't very stable...
 
Back
Top