4 ms·
Back in the day I was using Intel Celeron 333 MHz and then AMD Duron 800 MHz. I did not know how to use Winamp playlists because Winamp has been "an instant" a
by b212 6y ago
Back in the day I was using Intel Celeron 333 MHz and then AMD Duron 800 MHz.
I did not know how to use Winamp playlists because Winamp has been "an instant" app for me, I just clicked on a song and it played within miliseconds. That was my flow of using Winamp for years. This did not change between the Celeron and Duron, the thing was instant on both Celeron and Duron.
Then Winamp 3 came out and I had to use playlists because a song once clicked took good second or two to start playing. Winamp 5 from 2018 still starts slower than my beloved 2.73* did 20 years ago. On Celeron 333 and 5400 RPM HDD with 256 MB of RAM. I think even the good old Winamp 2.x is not as fast as it was on Windows 98/XP.
Something went wrong.
* not sure if it was 2.73, but I think so
Note: I realise Winamp 3 was crappy as hell, but still...
- mlok 6y agoThis is why I did choose and stick to coolplayer at the time (before I converted to Linux) : no install, so light, so fast, and it had everything I needed. I loved it when I could find such an elegant a versatile app. I don't need to get "more" every 6-12 months. I learned that every time you gain something, you also loose something without realizing it, because you take it for granted.
- movedx 6y agoThis is sad to read :( I remember having a 486 my self and everything being so damn snappy. Sigh.
- yowlingcat 6y agoAre you me? Perhaps a little bit later on and a different set of signifiers (foobar2000/xp/celeron 1.7) but the same idea. Things were so much snappier back then than on my previously-SOTA MBPR 2019. Sigh.
- desktopninja 6y agoWinamp 2.73 is still my default player and works Win10 Pro 64x build $LATEST. I will never change. It is 2MB pure gold.