Winamp3 ? | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in
Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
ijonspeches
...and 339 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614224
Today 6
Topics 127549
  
 
Messageboard index
Winamp3 ?
 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2002-09-09 00:02 [#00384522]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker



Anyone using winamp 3? If so, do you like it more than the
last release of winamp 2? Does winamp 3 give you any
problems?

Discuss!

 

offline Ophecks from Nova Scotia (Canada) on 2002-09-09 00:07 [#00384531]
Points: 19190 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



There was a topic about it just down the page... and from
what I've heard, it SUCKS! I'm sticking with 2.8, not gonna
bother with 3. Slow and a memory hog. The free skinning
sounds good, but not good enough to make me get it...


 

offline Diao from Olathe (United States) on 2002-09-09 00:25 [#00384550]
Points: 609 Status: Lurker



If you have a fast processor, then it's a god send. I love
the free skins. The playlist editor is great too, because
you can add playlists on one side, and switch back and forth
as you please. 2.81 was great for when my processor was 233
mhz. My new computer is 1.3 ghz, and 3 works fine. I tryed
3 on my old one, and it worked just like 2.81, except that
the graphics sucked. I would try 3, and if you don't like
it, just go back to 2.81. Everything is free, it's not like
you are going to lose money or anything. I say give it a
shot.


 

offline aron from saskatoon (Canada) on 2002-09-09 00:26 [#00384553]
Points: 3756 Status: Lurker



i ate it./

 

offline TonePu5her from lincoln !UK! (United Kingdom) on 2002-09-09 00:29 [#00384560]
Points: 3640 Status: Regular



I never had winamp 2 so nothing to compare winamp 3
to.Anyways a virgin to this mp3 thing,just seems to be a
fancy real player to moi.


 

offline TonePu5her from lincoln !UK! (United Kingdom) on 2002-09-09 00:32 [#00384562]
Points: 3640 Status: Regular



I never had winamp 2 so nothing to compare winamp 3
to.Anyways i'm a virgin to this mp3 thing,just seems to be a
fancy real player to moi.


 

offline TonePu5her from lincoln !UK! (United Kingdom) on 2002-09-09 00:32 [#00384563]
Points: 3640 Status: Regular



sorry bout that.

 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2002-09-09 00:35 [#00384566]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular



I like it alot better than 2.8

the only drawback is that it doesn't yet support most
lossless audio codecs, so i'm still using 2.8 to play all of
my ripped cd's


 

offline Conformist from Powell, OH (United States) on 2002-09-09 01:05 [#00384586]
Points: 550 Status: Lurker



It's true, Winamp 3 is a chunk of shit (sorry) - but that's
really the best descriptive word for it. I refuse to ever
upgrade past 2.81, it works perfectly for all I'd ever need
it to do - play music!


 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2002-09-09 01:45 [#00384604]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker



fantastic

 

offline -V- from Ensenada Drive on 2002-09-09 02:09 [#00384608]
Points: 1452 Status: Lurker



I didn't like version three much, but it did play nice
moving pictures. I think there was something else that
annoyed me about it, aside from it being slow. I got rid of
it, along with my computer, and ordered a new better shiny
silver computer... it should arrive sometime next year.

Oh yeah... I remember now. In version three you can't just
double click on the square in the bottom left-hand corner to
add a new song to the play-list - you have to click, move
mouse up, and then click again. That's what annoyed me.


 

Messageboard index