Why are not Winamp3 designers yet in here????

winamp3 is awfull its unstable uses way to much mem and gdi

wayyyy too many bugs, i remember beta's being much better than this final 3.0 version

settings dont save, skins dont auto reload, play lists fail too save or WA3 locks the pc & i had to ctrl alt and del 1min later winamp3 blew up

plus theres too many skins that were made for the beta's thats not compatible with final release.

Don't get me wrong ive seen some cracking winamp3 skins, but the program has a long way to go before i stick it back on and until then im staying with 2.8

/me wonders if that's one of the reasons why you ain't seen many WA3 skins on WinCustomize

2x has graphic bugs that annoy the skinners...and the last thing we are looking for is a buggier version to skin for.
If and when there is a standard, final, un-buggy version that won't break skins then more will work with it.

There's nothing worse than expending lots of time and energy creating a skin only to have the skin format 'progress' rendering all your work pointless...

I haven't had any problems with Winamp 3 yet. The skin reloads and everything. The playlist doesn't stay though... I was pretty surprised at the ability so skin it (from reading that is). I don't know of the bugs for it.. then again I haven't tried to skin it either. The only reason why it is not on my computer now is because I gt tired of uploading a Winamp2 skin and it going directly to the WinAmp 3 folder.

I guess I am just not really ready for Winamp3, I love 2 too much. But there are some fantastic skins for WinAmp3 though.... I hope those bug you guys are speaking of are gone when I reload it to my box.

Is there a section for it here then? Or is the current Winamp section for 2.x?

Jus select at 'WinAmp V3' in the header of the section and click 'Go'. Easy, isn't it ?

Jus select 'WinAmp V3' in the header of the section and click 'Go'. Easy, isn't it ?

Just as easy as pressing 'Submit' twice in skinbrowser.

Let me try.

Nope, can't seem to press submit twice.

Hey, I was only making fun about myself...

Simply because wa3 sux (you all proberly allready why alot of ppl think that, so i'll spare you for the HUGE list of flaws )

ok... I want to know... why does winamp suck???

I didn't have that many problems with it.

You just said it you'r self :
>I didn't have that many problems with it.

that many? you shouldn't even have had one single problem (atleast not bugs in the player itself)

I'm afraid NullSoft (May they rest in pieces when their time comes) have released a cleary unfinished product, proberly to satisfy the masses.


I Never have had ANY problems with wa2, but when it comes to wa3 i successfully made it crash plenty of times in the 4 days i used it, both with audio and video files. An example of that : Nasty bug just makes the player stop responding while playing the same mp3's that wa2 plays without problems.

wa3 Uses a huge amount of resources and cosumed alot of CPU compared to wa2 when playing a normal mp3.
I myself got a 2.2Ghz P4 and if i can actually feel the diffrent in everyday work then there must be a truth to it.. right?

That's why I *know* it sux.

But i'm not afraid to take on a new version of wa3 (if they fix it to be more stable)

pfft. aren't kids precious? (I saw a guy in a chat argue that Sonique sucked because it caused his computer to crash while he was playing Everquest...)

Machine: p4 1.8ghz, 1gig of ram, matrox g450 video card, Windows 2000 SP2.

stats taken immediately after loading; playing, skinned, with a 3000 song playlist (running alongside Photoshop, HTML kit, and two IE windows).

Coolplayer: 1.5 minutes to load the playlist, 9.6 megs of ram.
Winamp 3: 10 seconds to load the playlist, 3.9 megs of ram.
Winamp 2.x: 20 seconds to load the playlist, 8.8 megs of ram.
Sonique 1.96: 15 seconds to load the playlist, 7.0 megs of ram.


As for leaks, after 5 hours of continuous play, winamp 3 is using 9.4 megs of ram, that's approx. one meg an hour. I have expensive software, *years* into gold, that is far, far worse.

Winamp 3 is the best mp3 player by far of all that I have used. I have run it almost continually since it went public and it hasn't crashed *once*. Seriously. I think many, many people are having more problems with hardware compatability and software conflicts, because the instability simply isn't there for me.

People who say it 'sux' either are either having conflicts or are trying to sound l33t (I favor the latter). If someone wants to cough up some issues that would make it 'suck', I'd love to see them, but don't just say "it crashes". If you are running swooby visuals at fullscreen with 64 megs of ram and a 4 meg video card on windows 95, don't bother even chiming in.

Between the great player and the SDK, I think we will be seeing the fruits of the winamp team's efforts for years to come. Will be hard to touch.

backerstreet>
I don't have a 'comparison' with the playlist loading like you. But i do know that when i drop a folder with ~19500 files onto my trusty'ol wa2 playlist window it starts playing <10 sec after (that's with Sort On Load and a shitload of programs open).

As for my setup.. well.. i don't go buying cheap hardware
ASUS-P4 w. P4N-2.1GHz, 1024Gb DDR, GF3 Ti500, 3x120Gb HD Running Both WinXP (SP1) & Win2k (SP3) (not at once.. yet

My wa2 mem usage with ~19500 files in list are appr. 47Megs (that includes plugs : 18 Input, 6 Output, 4 General. The rest are not loaded. Skins : About 400 on list and about 30 bookmarks)

But i must agree with you. The wa3 SDK is very nice. I even started some projects for wa3 (but they are dorment now)

But this discussion is really not the isue. So i give it a rest...

I think you meant 1 gig of ram.

It is never the issue unless you *make* it the issue, which you did. People worked a lot of hours on that software, and you blow it off without even bothering to track down *why* it *might* suck on *your* system. If you were sitting with the developers of winamp 3, you'd never trash them like that, but anonymously, on a board that thousands of people a day read, you'll trash them and their software. pfft.

Erhm. yeah.. i meant 1024Mb Not Gb.

If *I* don't like the software (for numerous reasons) which is the case with wa3 i have the right to trash it. So do you if you don't like any software. And don't confuse that with my statement 'wa3 sux', it's a general thing. I know wa3 has come to stay and i also know that i would use wa3 at a later stage. Trust me, if i was in the same room as the developers i *would* trash the software (not THEM), being a developer myself i know that bugs are something we just have to live with (but that don't mean we have to LIKE it). But understand that it's hard to switch from a fully working player to one that don't like me (or my machine, i'm not sure'bout that )..

uh so bakerstreet what your saying is because winamp3 crashes thats because we have crappy systems?

yes actually that might be true. (the crappy systems that is) Don't let gigabyte of ram and memory fool you. There can be problems with other programs using or violating some part of the system and you do not know it until you install another program and BOOM, down goos your system. Why, because you installed WinAmp??? It is posible. I know I had some problems with Winamp 3 but those were more design problems rather than "bugs". I couldn't keep my playlist loaded, I am figureing that it does not have that capability right now. I have to keep reloading it. it take up system resources only when I have it set to alpha blend. It crahses when I use a plug in... it crashed when I played a file, then to find out the file had errors.

What I wanted to know was how did it suck for other people. For my I have problems finding the feature I want if it is there at all. Those are the only "bugs" I have found.

Oh and it is not just the system that could be the problem, but other programs on the system that could be the problem. That is why we are not supposed to download any old program... Like Winamp

I have a problem with Winamp3. It's a cosmetic one actually. Why did they have to skin the menus? Same with Netscape and StarOffice actually. Is this the price we must pay for applications that run on Windows AND Linux?
Besides that, I've had good luck with Winamp3, except with its inability to display information of WMA files and trying to play a CD track when that CD isn't in there (it freezes rather than just says no track found or something).

Voodoo_FreaK:

What I am saying, is that if it crashes on your system, and runs smoothly on a vast majority of other systems, should you conclude that the problem is 'crappy' software?

If you think expensive hardware has any less 'issues' than cheap hardware, you haven't bought a lot of it. I have seen celeron 400's with low-end hardware that would run an app smoothly sitting right next to bleeding-edge boxes that would crash the second the same app was loaded. Top-of-the-line Soundblaster cards have more issues than your average self-help meeting. You can make them work with about anything, though, if you have patience. A lot of people just take them back and rant about them mercilessly on messageboards...

Anyone who claims to be a developer *cough* would go to the forum at winamp and dig in when they had a problem. Either you would find your cause (sound card, video card, software conflict, etc.) or you'd help out by adding a bug to a list. The freedom to complain is balanced by the responsibility to complain fairly.

MessiahWWKD: I'm not crazy about the menus either. That seems to be the way things are going, though.

Never had the CD problem, but I rip all my CDs when I get them.

ahem well winamp3 is bad programming its running on Xp pro sp1 with alot of stardock software i dont have any crappy software here my drivers are upto date & no office software

just stuff like Unreal quake 3 rtcw jedi knight 2 photoshop paint shop pro etc

i just use this as an enterainment pc

plus i know for a fact its not any my stuff clashing with it

just need too fire up winamp3 mess with some play list settings or menus 30mins later boom weird things happen messing with explorer or stuff

beta's were way better than their crummy final release

do you know default skin uses 15meg ram and over 1,000 gdi thats a disgrace and yes ive reinstalled it many times but enough is enough im staying with 2.8

geez all i want is to play my mp3's or listen to internet radio not too have hasstle with a buggy incomplete app & we are the testers for WA3

Voodoo_FreaK

You still didn't explain to me why it runs fine on most people's systems...

You are only using that gdi and ram if you have it maximized, i.e. looking at it. No one I know sits and looks at it. If you are, then you probably don't need the extra ten megs.

Here's a shot of my task manager. roughly 10 minutes running, 3000 file playlist, minimized, a 6 meg MP3 playing:

http://www.geocities.com/bakerstr33t/w3pic.jpg

the performance tab is alternating between 2% and 4% processor use.

Explorer crashes and it must be winamp...? Are we talking about the same Explorer? You are a skinner, you should know better than that...

No offense, Stardock software is well-made (did I say that?), but 'a lot'? Could there be a conflict with any of it? Could windowblinds be trying to skin stuff it shouldn't? have you excluded Winamp? Which versions of Stardock software? Isn't it reasonable with that much UI enhancing software something is bound to go wrong after an extended amount of time?

What do you mean by "up to date"? Sometimes the newest, or specialized drivers (for games *cough*), can be worse than old ones. I have actually had to switch out drivers every time I have wanted to play some games. Wanna talk about bad programming?

30 minutes later...? What did you do in the 30 minutes between? Did you run photoshop with 100 levels of history? How many layers in the image? How much of your resources is it set to use? surely not the default... Which version of photoshop? I can name a half dozen reasons photoshop can crash you... mercilessly, with tons of ram.

I'm not trying to be nasty to ya, but you have to understand that the language you are using is really, really damaging to other people's hard work and dedication. You *will* influence people not to use something that most likely will work fine for them. Sure, you have the right to say it, but you really need to be able to back it up with some kind of confirmable proof. If you can do that, though, you ought to be telling the developers at Nullsoft...

Jark made me grumpy. I think I'll go do some smiling exercises...

pfft, goofy geocities and their image filters...

http://www.geocities.com/bakerstr33t/w3pic.html

that oughtta do it.