I haven't tried out winamp5 myself, but the guys over at ars tech think so!
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1071546780.html
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1071546780.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
winamp5 to rival iTunes for windows?
- Thread starter chibianh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
wimamp was always a good program for windows. i just found it to small and just not as easy to use as itunes. i think many people will feel the same. and plus it doesnt have access to the music store, and you have to pay money to burn and rip cd's. the one thing i really enjoyed about winamp is that it was able to play video files as well, but on my mac thats what mplayer is for. i think this is only good news for current winamp users who didnt switch to itunes.
iJon
iJon
Its not free at least the pro version isn't. $15 will allow you to burn and rip into MP3's. And at this point why the heck would I want to use the MP3 codec?!?! Better to use WMA or AAC.
It's nice to see a new version of Winamp. Though I won't be using it. I've recently gone all Linux, permanently.
iTunes is too CPU taxing
It doesn't have the abblity to play visual media
iTunes user interface is too large.
I use other programs to rip MP3's, and Winamp to go from MP3 to PCM/WAV.
I don't wish to buy music off the net (even if I could,) when I can do it for free, If I want to support the artists I would buy a real CD (and have done so many a time.)
I use winamp 2 and 3, because simpe is better, and don't touch windows media player.
It doesn't have the abblity to play visual media
iTunes user interface is too large.
I use other programs to rip MP3's, and Winamp to go from MP3 to PCM/WAV.
I don't wish to buy music off the net (even if I could,) when I can do it for free, If I want to support the artists I would buy a real CD (and have done so many a time.)
I use winamp 2 and 3, because simpe is better, and don't touch windows media player.
I disagree. It runs fine on an average 2003-era computer. I'm running iTunes on a 2-year old 900Mhz Duron processor without any performance issues.
Hence the name iTunes. I find it interesting that you also hold Winamp 2 in such high regard, especially since most versions prior to 2.98 or so couldn't play video either.
You can shrink it.
That's nice.
I agree, simple is better. Which is why I do all my music-related business (ripping, playing, burning, downloading, converting) with one program and use QuickTime for my other media files.
iTunes is not taxing because it runs find on my old AMD 650.
As for playing digital media? I rather have separate program dedicated to that then a all in wonder type prog.
Ok so buying a few CD's makes it ok to steal music? I don't think so. Stealing is stealing no matter what you call it. You sir are just a pirate.
Also Winamp 3 was joke with it's clunky media player. Most folks never used it or if they did they reverted back to Winamp 2 like I did back in the day. This probably also why the Camel team skipped over Winamp 4 and went straight into 5.
I believe iTunes 5 will be coming out in Jan. So whatever advantage factor Winamp 5 has maybe short lived.
But I do like the fact they do now support AAC. It shows me that they atleast know which format is better.
Winamp 3 + Winamp 2 = Winamp 5. That's the logic behind the name.
Winamp also supports WMA. And lots of other file types.
I runs fine while doing most tasks but under "NOLF" (a first person shooter game) it hampers preformance.
Yes I am a piratte, but when I buy something I like to have a peice of hardware to show for it.
Winamp 3 is crap, but it plays visual media, I'm going to have to look at version 5 though.
the fact that it supports ACC, just shows that they are watching the market.
I don't know this particular game, but most high graphics games are slow when itunes is running. I have a xp2600, fx5600, and 512 ram with a 333 bus. this shouldn't be.
What i hate most about it is the memory it eats. Why do i need itunes and 2 other services running to play music? I don't have an ipod so why should an ipod service run and waste my memoy? You can't even shut it off with out closing itunes.
On second thought, what i really hate the most about itunes for widows is that it is always open in the tastbar. I like to have winamp only open in the system tray. Apple left this very important feature (at least to me) out of itunes. I love my ibook and I love apple, but they screwed up on itunes for windows. I used winamp 2 and I beta tested for winamp 5. 5 is better than 2 and both are years ahead of itunes.
P.S. I do love itunes on os x. I think itunes on my ibook is even better than winamp on windows or xmms on linux. I just hate the windows port of it.
Agreed it's a resource consumer.
Just got Winamp 5, use the classic skin, doesn't eat the memory or CPU up. get's my vote.
Just got Winamp 5, use the classic skin, doesn't eat the memory or CPU up. get's my vote.
I recall the AMP in WinAMP meaning "All Media Player" or "Allpurpose Media Player".
And, like most people, I went to WinAMP3, and then right back to WinAMP2 and finally got a Mac.
edit: interesting - my first post made it, even though I stopped as soon as I mistakenly hit post. Sorry folks... maybe I'm just making sure you heard me.
iTunes is the best and will alwasy BE the best...
two questions...
is AAC MUCH better than MP3?
and, I presume you have to pay for mp3 encoding with winamp becausse of the patent issue regarding mp3...
so why is it free with iTunes?
two questions...
is AAC MUCH better than MP3?
and, I presume you have to pay for mp3 encoding with winamp becausse of the patent issue regarding mp3...
so why is it free with iTunes?