5 ms·
Winamp
by techbio 10y ago
Winamp
- kyriakos 10y agowinamp was all you needed. no bloated UI. just play music.
- p4bl0 10y agoNo bloated UI? As I remember it 80% of the hype of WinAmp was the numerous UI themes it had.
- purerandomness 10y agoAh, not the Winamp that AOL released after they bought Nullsoft. AOL killed it, around the same time as they killed Netscape Navigator.
- throwanem 10y agoNo, not that Winamp, the pre-AOL one. It got worse after AOL bought Nullsoft, I grant, but it wasn't anything special before; it might've been the best of a bad lot, but nostalgia aside, that doesn't make it good.
- enraged_camel 10y agoWinamp still exists, I think.
- jlebar 10y agoWindows only. :(
- teknopaul 10y agoI think audacious is based on winamp code. aptitude install audacious
- cnvogel 10y agoAudacious? Seems to be a sufficiently lightweight replacement. Linux, BSD & Windows, AFAIK.
- cnvogel 10y agoAudacious? Seems to be a sufficiently lightweight replacement. Linux, BSD & Windows, AFAIK.
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoI remember first running Winamp on a 486/25. It would play music, but you couldn't run anything else at the same time. I used it anyway.
- cJ0th 10y agoIf you're on windows try foobar2000 [0] On linux try moc.[1] The latter might be too restricted for your needs but personally I absolutely love its simple interface. [0] http://www.foobar2000.org/ http://www.foobar2000.org/ [1] https://moc.daper.net/ https://moc.daper.net/
- yoodenvranx 10y agofoobar2000 and Winamp are completely different types of programs. The former was more or less just a simple music player while the latter is highly configurable. btw, foobar2000 runs perfectly fine under Wine.