• 0

Winamp 2.8 or Winamp 3?


Question

Which do you prefer, Winamp 2.8 or Winamp 3?

I personally find Winamp 3 to be slow, and overly complicated for the features it has. The cross-fader in the early Winamp 3 betas was the only feature I genuinely liked, but that feature was added into WinAmp 2, starting at version 2.78.

Don't get me wrong, though, I still think Winamp 3 is a very nice piece of software, it's just inferior to it's predecessor. I'm sure that will change in following builds of the software. If it played Divx files, it would be superior to Windows Media Player in almost every way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

well the default skin looks nicer, but i like the preferences better in 2.8 and the playlist, and for me the scroll bar draggy thingy is kinda wonky when u fast forward a song

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

sticking with 2.8, 3 is too much of a memory pig right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by alexchu2643

If it played Divx files, it would be superior to Windows Media Player in almost every way.

You mean your Winamp 3.0 doesn't play DivX files? Wierd, because mine does... :cool: huh? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

WinAMP 3 seems to have a few bugs to say the least, but then most x.0 releases do. Tried it at work on a slow machine and the sound was dire. But tried it at home and the sound is cool, just sometimes messes up when messing with visualisations, which I hardly use. As a player I personally like the layout and am using it as a player as I like the way the playlists are listed as a retractable sidebar on the playlist.

Only uses 1.6mb of my memory and 1-2% of my cpu, but I have quite a rare mobo (nforce) which uses 128 bit RAM, some ppl have seen bad memory usage, so this could be due to memory bandwidth (at a guess) and if you have Rambus RAM this could solve the memory issue (as it also has just over 4 GB/s memory bandwidth) - this is only a guess though.

If you use visualisations and don't like the occasional bug 2.8 should be the better. For me it boots quick (guess it likes my system) and looks better though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

i've tried most of the betas as well as the final of winamp 3.0, and i always seem to uninstall it and go back to 2.8. there's something about winamp2 that keeps me going back. i think it's just the fact that it runs quickly and doesn't hog all the resources..and it does its original purpose..to play music. i'll just let WMP play the movies for now. Until i upgrade my 850 mhz athlon, i don't think i'll be jumping on the winamp3 bandwagon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

2.8, although i like the skins in 3...

3 takes up to much memory, almost double of and sometimes more of 2.8. and although you can disable it, that fader crap is annoying as hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

For me, there's a fine line between visuals and performance, and I feel Winamp 3 crosses that line, giving more visuals than performance.

Also, Winamp 2.8 has that nice hotkey plugin, and Winamp 3 installs AOL ads (easily deletable though).

EDIT: Thanks for the info, Chrissssssss. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.