Author Topic: Winamp 5.53 Release (Read 28,382 times)

mahesh2k · « **on:** May 07, 2008, 05:22 PM »

I was pretty excited to download the Winamp's new version.It looks more like Windows media player..And hell it is...they even made their web page title about "Windows Media player".... Funny but glossy and attractive looks are in winamps new themeing engine with release of skin"botha"....
Other features like tool-tip when songchanges and new visualier and media library stuff sounds cool..but i want my old-winamp back...so switching back to old skin....

So i ask you to download and give your opinion about it.What makes u like new or hate new version of winamp...

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2008, 01:03 AM »

2.95 was the last good version of winamp in my book.
Still available via oldversion.com thank goodness.

Josh · « **Reply #2 on:** May 08, 2008, 01:07 AM »

May I ask why? If you say because of AOL I will lose respect for your opinion in this matter.

f0dder · « **Reply #3 on:** May 08, 2008, 01:30 AM »

I also stuck with 2.95 (or something close). The later versions got too bloated for my taste, and I finally realized that I really need a player for, well, playing music, not having a pretty skin or fancy visulizations. Ended up with foobar2000, which isn't perfect by any means, but it has good sound quality and supports cue-sheets decently.

lanux128 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 08, 2008, 02:51 AM »

i'm stuck at WinAmp 2.9x too but for no particular reason other than that now most of the time i'm using a stand-alone mp3 player. i'll use winamp in conjunction with seedling's Random Mix Tape Maker when previewing songs for transferring.

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #5 on:** May 08, 2008, 03:02 AM »

Quote

May I ask why? If you say because of AOL I will lose respect for your opinion in this matter.

Not at all, just because any higher versions started hogging resources and including in my opinion unnecessary features for an mp3 player application such as video playing etc...
Anything higher than 2.9x didn't barely run on my p133MHz. Even on modern computers I prefer 2.9x just because I don't like wasting resources. It may seem insignificant with modern hardware, but I think it matters.

J-Mac · « **Reply #6 on:** May 08, 2008, 08:10 AM »

Winamp, at some point - not sure exactly when - started getting a little pushy for my taste. Once it grabbed all the file associations when I had specifically configured it to not do so. That was it. Gone.

Now I use MediaMonkey 3.x Excellent player and cataloger at the same time. So until that gets too "pushy", I'll use it.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #7 on:** May 08, 2008, 12:22 PM »

Quote

May I ask why? If you say because of AOL I will lose respect for your opinion in this matter.

Agree with what gothic says. I dnt want to take sides or give biased opinion but New version eats lot of resource. If you observe the new skin and theme then you'll come to know about it,Josh.
Besides if you want i can post screenshot for you,where i got winamp hogging memory while i was typing with MS-Word.

Somebody mentioned here 2.9 yup..thats right its less resource eater..and many PCMECH users recommende that version to me....But anyway i switched to Old Skin...So no to use those Fancy effects.

Lashiec · « **Reply #8 on:** May 08, 2008, 03:13 PM »

Quote from: Gothi[c

link=topic=13278.msg112304#msg112304 date=1210215744]
Not at all, just because any higher versions started hogging resources and including in my opinion unnecessary features for an mp3 player application such as video playing etc...

But you can unselect them during the installation phase.

Quote

Anything higher than 2.9x didn't barely run on my p133MHz. Even on modern computers I prefer 2.9x just because I don't like wasting resources. It may seem insignificant with modern hardware, but I think it matters.

I think that a minimal install might be able to run in such an old horse, at least I didn't see a noticeable surge in resource consumption when I upgraded from 2.x to 5.x on my old PIII. It may be a different story with newer versions, though.

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #9 on:** May 08, 2008, 03:26 PM »

Quote

I think that a minimal install might be able to run in such an old horse, at least I didn't see a noticeable surge in resource consumption when I upgraded from 2.x to 5.x on my old PIII. It may be a different story with newer versions, though.

I tried it, and >2.9 would run very noticeably slower on a pentium 133.
Dont forget that a pentium III is still waaaaaaaaay newer than a pentium I at 133MHz so you probably wouldn't notice it

urlwolf · « **Reply #10 on:** May 08, 2008, 07:26 PM »

I also love apps that do just one thing without hogging memory.
I used MM3 and think it's probably the most feature-complete player, but then I realized that I was allocating ~250MB of memory to play music... not nice.

Now I use a super-simple winamp 5.53 with nothing but the basics. It uses ~40Mb when minimized on tray.

Josh · « **Reply #11 on:** May 08, 2008, 10:12 PM »

Winamp 5 has always been fast and light for me. You can customize every installation and only install the components you require thus cutting down on memory usage. Very highly recommended. I even went pro even thou I wont use any of the burning features from it!

Shades · « **Reply #12 on:** May 08, 2008, 11:21 PM »

There is also TrayPlayer http://www.atmaxsoft.com/trayplayer.html. Doesn't use too much resources and is more than adequate for playing music. It's GUI is minimalistic, but very well ordered and accessible by shortcut keys.

Fred Nerd · « **Reply #13 on:** May 09, 2008, 03:00 PM »

Personally I have 5.5 and use it for most media. I just want something which can browse my library and play songs in any format.
What I miss is a really light player for one song at a time if I just want to see what a sound file is. Sort of having a picture viewer instead of opening Picasa every time.
But Winamp suits me alright. Early versions were no good at browsing/searching the library.

justice · « **Reply #14 on:** May 09, 2008, 03:43 PM »

Winamp does what it did best in 2.x and a lot more better especially with the media library of version 5. Just turn of the bentoo skin and revert back to classic which is underlying all the other skins anyway.

sri · « **Reply #15 on:** May 09, 2008, 03:48 PM »

Quote from: Shades on May 08, 2008, 11:21 PM

There is also TrayPlayer http://www.atmaxsoft.com/trayplayer.html. Doesn't use too much resources and is more than adequate for playing music. It's GUI is minimalistic, but very well ordered and accessible by shortcut keys.

doesn't work for me. The songs seem to play, but I hear nothing.

Can winamp be put in tray?

justice · « **Reply #16 on:** May 09, 2008, 03:50 PM »

[attach]

sri · « **Reply #17 on:** May 09, 2008, 03:55 PM »

justice. Not just the icon, all the buttons (play, pause, stop, open etc.) in the tray like

nosh · « **Reply #18 on:** May 09, 2008, 04:22 PM »

Quote from: sri on May 09, 2008, 03:48 PM

Can winamp be put in tray?

Try the Advanced Controls plugin, it has the usual play controls (including a progress slider) & you can also use it to delete the file currently playing right off the HDD. Luckily they have a Foobar2000 [[[

]]] version too, since I dumped Winamp long back.

[attachimg=#]

[Edit: Added screenshot, other mandatory OCD stuff]

Lashiec · « **Reply #19 on:** May 09, 2008, 05:27 PM »

Quote from: urlwolf on May 08, 2008, 07:26 PM

I used MM3 and think it's probably the most feature-complete player, but then I realized that I was allocating ~250MB of memory to play music... not nice.

Now I use a super-simple winamp 5.53 with nothing but the basics. It uses ~40Mb when minimized on tray.

o_O, what kind of music library do you have?

sri · « **Reply #20 on:** May 09, 2008, 05:32 PM »

Thank You very much nosh. Functional and unobtrusive, I like it. We can access winamp options from it as well. I've removed winamp's icon from taskbar and tray.

urlwolf · « **Reply #21 on:** May 09, 2008, 06:14 PM »

Quote from: Lashiec on May 09, 2008, 05:27 PM

Quote from: urlwolf on May 08, 2008, 07:26 PM
I used MM3 and think it's probably the most feature-complete player, but then I realized that I was allocating ~250MB of memory to play music... not nice.

Now I use a super-simple winamp 5.53 with nothing but the basics. It uses ~40Mb when minimized on tray.

o_O, what kind of music library do you have?

Just 40.000 songs. With musicIP tags, which may make it bigger. I'm reporting physical + virtual memory here. Some players release memory when in the tray (foobar, winamp), others not (MusicIP, MM).

J-Mac · « **Reply #22 on:** May 09, 2008, 06:57 PM »

Quote from: urlwolf on May 09, 2008, 06:14 PM

Just 40.000 songs. With musicIP tags, which may make it bigger. I'm reporting physical + virtual memory here. Some players release memory when in the tray (foobar, winamp), others not (MusicIP, MM).

Wow - that would be why I am not seeing that kind of memory hit with MM3! I only have about 3,000 songs in it!

Jim

mahesh2k · « **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2008, 10:53 AM »

Hey i forgot to ask..

Windows Media Player have the feature of Auto-Crossfading song when one song ends it fades to another and we can set the seconds for it...is there any settings in Winamp? Also is there any plugin that does this job...i'm not asking for DJ-Deck thing...but like windows media player like feature...

jgpaiva · « **Reply #24 on:** May 10, 2008, 11:27 AM »

mahesh2k: check the "equalizer" on winamp, there should be an option there for cross-fade