winamp 5 full version | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
big
...and 529 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614087
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
winamp 5 full version
 

offline AlbertoBalsalm from Reykjavík (Iceland) on 2003-12-17 10:24 [#00995532]
Points: 9459 Status: Lurker



www.winamp.com


 

offline Hetzel from Montreal (Canada) on 2003-12-17 10:25 [#00995534]
Points: 551 Status: Regular



3...... to 5 !

Where's the 4 ?


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2003-12-17 10:26 [#00995536]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator



on my comp!?


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2003-12-17 10:26 [#00995538]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker



version 5 is the good things from version 2, plus the good
things from version 3.

2+3=5


 

offline jand from Braintree (United Kingdom) on 2003-12-17 12:44 [#00995711]
Points: 5975 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



Sure is....Forget 3 ever existed; 5 pisses all over it and
not far off the speed space of 2.8x ...

I'm well taken with the music library - that's been getting
better & better in each beta - and I think they've got it
about right now....Worth upgrading for that alone, I
reckon...

The default Modern skin is better than I expected,
especially with the diff colours...I'm running this NOIR
Theme on XP and WA fits in well (I think you can use all of
V2s skins outthere...


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-12-17 12:47 [#00995717]
Points: 27795 Status: Regular



how is it for performance? 3 was too processor intensive for
me, i still use 2.91


 

offline giginger from Milky Beans (United Kingdom) on 2003-12-17 12:48 [#00995721]
Points: 26326 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



this is a great release of Winamp. Quickest loading one I've
used. Even against 2.9x :)


 

offline BlatantEcho from All over (United States) on 2003-12-17 12:53 [#00995733]
Points: 7210 Status: Lurker



winamp 5 can suck it.

2.9x for me!


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2003-12-17 13:05 [#00995748]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to earthleakage: #00995717



performance is almost exactly where 2.91 was


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2003-12-17 13:07 [#00995749]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to BlatantEcho: #00995733



i too was jaded by the steaming shitpile that was winamp 3.

but, five really is pretty good. no pressing reason to
upgrade, but it's every bit as satisfying as 2.9x was... and
it has some snazzy newness that makes it worth the 35
seconds it takes to upgrade.


 


Messageboard index