14 ms·

Interestingly enough, there has been a community project dedicated to keeping the last Winamp version alive (last version from the original creators), and it re

Interestingly enough, there has been a community project dedicated to keeping the last Winamp version alive (last version from the original creators), and it really great to use. https://getwacup.com/ https://getwacup.com/ It includes a skin that allows it to work on modern display resolutions. It's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor. Edit: I was too young to remember the releases, but replies are indicating that version 5 was in fact, not the most popular :P

tiffanyh 5y ago
My memory is fuzzy on this but didn’t most consider Winamp 2.x the best. Winamp 3.x was considered bloated. So to help rectify the problems of 3.x, Winamp release version 5.x (the best of 2 + 3). Though I recall many still used version 2.x even after the 5.x release. Question: so when you say folks are trying to keep the "last version" alive, which version are you referring too since later versions weren’t loved.
- dreamlayers 5y ago
  Winamp is highly modular. Most functionality is in plugins, and you could only install the plugins you want. For example you could exclude the media library, modern skins, and video playback. So, 5.x doesn't have to be bloated.
- caddywompus 5y ago
  I'm actually not too familiar with it, I was too young to use the original Winamp back when it was released, and can only remember playing around with the skins, along with RealPlayer on Win98 I'm guessing they went with version 5, since it looks like versions after that might have been a full rewrite?
  - skeeter2020 5y ago
    If you want a fun read that wastes a few hours, poke around the interwebs for the story of Justin Frankel and WinAmp. There's been some recent posts on HN about how "the Internet is played out". Not sure if I agree, but this guy definitely belongs in the mythos of web 1.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Frankel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Frankel
- 0des 5y ago
  Winamp 2 was generally preferred. If I recall correctly, it skipped version 4 not because v2 + v3 = v5 but because nobody would want to download a Winamp 4 skin. Not kidding.
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    You're both right! https://web.archive.org/web/20131219003849/http://www.winamp.com/help/FAQ#General https://web.archive.org/web/20131219003849/http://www.winamp... > What happened to Winamp 4? You're not imagining things. Yes, we skipped a version number for the following reasons: a) Winamp 5 combines the best aspects of Winamp 2 and Winamp 3 into one player. Hence Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 = Winamp 5! b) Who the hell wants to see a Winamp 4 Skin :P c) We think that a Fibonacci sequence for versioning might be pretty damn cool. d)We improved so much in Winamp 5 that we figured it warranted skipping a version. ;)
    - ConceptJunkie 5y ago
      So I can't imagine that the clowns that made that awful new Winamp site would be cool enough to call the new one Winamp 8. Or release a version that anyone actually wants, for that matter.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - thedoctor_o 5y ago
        Supposedly they're still going to call it Winamp v6 assuming it happens. They've lied a number of times over the past 8yrs so don't hold your breathe but the new site is somewhat indicative of their disregard about why those still using Winamp (or clones of it) do so. -dro
        gonesilent 5y ago
        how can i msg you a invite to the new landoleet discord?
- lnx01 5y ago
  5.666
- meepmorp 5y ago
  WinAmp 2 was the last "real" version, before the AOL buyout of Nullsoft took its toll.
- krater23 5y ago
  I currently use 2.95 and see no reason to update. But I listen rarely mp3's in the last years.
  - lproven 5y ago
    Foodbar 2000 FTW. https://www.foobar2000.org/ https://www.foobar2000.org/ Tiny, fast, simple, does the job. There's an Android version too, which is my go-to audio player, because of its simplicity. Both FOSS.
    - thedoctor_o 5y ago
      Fairly certain that fb2k has never been FOSS or can you point to where that's not the case as that'd be far more interesting than the point of this thread. -dro
      - lproven 5y ago
        Oh! My bad. I mistook the SDK and projectM source download links for the app itself. I apologise for the misleading comment.
        thedoctor_o 5y ago
        Is all good. -dro
    - skeeter2020 5y ago
      Haven't tried Foodbar :) I use Foobar on my PC daily but didn't even know it was available on Android, so thanks! Musicolet is also a great Android player without all the BS (ex: can run mp3 files copied to the device with no internet connnection)
      - lproven 5y ago
        Blast. Didn't even notice. Sorry!
    - 5y ago
- orbital-decay 5y ago
  IIRC, Winamp 3 introduced the new skin engine which supported transparency and was slow as molasses on contemporary machines. Moreover, 2.x switched to the new MP3 decoder at some point, and many people didn't like it, either ripping the old decoder from the old versions or stopping upgrading past a certain 2.x version. (None of this is important today, I guess)
  - warning26 5y ago
    Winamp 3 was a complete rewrite from the ground up, built around the new skinning engine and the "Wasabi" scripting language. But as you say, it wasn't very performant, and it was also super buggy. I believe there was some drama which resulted in the lead dev for 3 getting fired, and then the skinning engine (which was the most popular part of 3) was grafted onto the 2.x base for version "5".
    - res0nat0r 5y ago
      I've been using my minimal Winamp install and the noerror skin for like 15+ years now. Still the best mp3 player on Windows IMO. https://skins.webamp.org/skin/8a466a39534e4be0dc6ca5cc0d6f5a80/noerroramp.wsz/ https://skins.webamp.org/skin/8a466a39534e4be0dc6ca5cc0d6f5a...
- taf2 5y ago
  Yes I loved Winamp 2.x - the transition from tapes to mp3 was great for me. My car had a tape player and not a CD player and it was more fun to make tapes that’s cds imo
- yk 5y ago
  If memory serves, the update from 2.x to 3.x was the one were suddenly skins no longer worked and they decided to base the program around a db instead of the file system. Which is not that bad (though still strictly inferior to file based) in modern cell phones, but at a time when computers were a lot slower and everybody had organized their music library around files instead of metadata it was a bloody disaster.
  - toyg 5y ago
    That reminds me of this classic JWZ : https://www.jwz.org/doc/mailsum.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/mailsum.html (Note: you want to copypaste that link, not click it)
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      I clicked it and it is NSFW. :-/ Why does JWZ hate HN?
      - theodric 5y ago
        It's all the finance-obsessed man-children and brogrammers, I think.
      - toyg 5y ago
        Well, I did warn you... JWZ's hate of HN is long-running and due to a combination of factors, but I reckon his real annoyance is the amount of traffic this site can send to his little servers.
  - raffraffraff 5y ago
    I dunno... Libraries were a revolution for me. If I remember correctly, that was around the time I briefly switched to iTunes for its library features. The ability to start typing and instantly see a list of song matches was great. The problem with the WinAMP library was that it wasn't that good. If course iTunes turned into a bloated mess too, and I ended up on foobar2000 for years.
- lproven 5y ago
  I have long felt that, given the problems of the Python 2→3 migration, the Python devs should have done the same. :-)
  - xxpor 5y ago
    https://pypi.org/project/six/ https://pypi.org/project/six/ ;)
    - lproven 5y ago
      Oh, nice. :-D
- habeebtc 5y ago
  I have been running Winamp 2.95 for coming up on 20 years now. So you would be correct on that count. Despite how powerful modern computers are, I still notice how much lighter 2.x is than 3.x.
- samplatt 5y ago
  I just installed 2.95 last night after uninstalling 5.x. 5.x doesn't have [Q] to enqueue within a playlist. I have no idea why anyone would remove such a basic feature... maybe the advent of the "media library" management (at the time a new concept) made them decide to remove it. I had to install milkdrop separately to WinAmp, but honestly, after reinstalling Windows 98 every 72 hours back in the bad old days, it kinda felt natural. Nostalgic.
cyber_kinetist 5y ago
For context, here's the new revamped(!) Winamp coming up soon: https://www.winamp.com/ https://www.winamp.com/ It's just... the complete opposite of what Winamp was all about, and it's horrible and leaves a bad taste in your mouth (-100 points for the atrocious "modern" website which loads MBs of Javascript, screams BIG TEXT at you, hijacks your scroll wheel, and still tells you nothing about the actual software other than it will probably suck. Oh and another -100 points for that cookie popup.)
- _piif 5y ago
  Interestingly in contrast to the others it loads up fine on both my laptop and my S9 with Firefox, even after disabling my adblocker and unblocking all scripts in NoScript.
  - caslon 5y ago
    Another one who it worked completely fine for. Zero issue here. Firefox on X11.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  That site's unusable; I see [Decline][Accept] buttons, with no explnation of what I'm being invited to decline or accept. No choice but to close the tab.
- lostgame 5y ago
  In the Spotify/Apple Music, etc; era - wtf is the selling point on this?
- kingsloi 5y ago
  Wow, that's a first. Clicking the URL hung Brave, completely unresponsive for 2-3 mins, now it's loaded but shows nothing but a dark blue background. Same for every refresh, too!
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    This is my pet peeve. Browsers should not allow any websites to hijack all computing cycles. This was already clear a few years ago during the Monero hype. The fact that most adblockers will detect such attempts today doesn't change the fact that any website can almost prevent you from doing other work just because you opened it. The current strategy of dealing with this problem ("this tab has become unresponsive") is inadequate because it is reactive, not proactive. I'd like to be able to blacklist everything and whitelist only chosen websites I trust. Loading for too long because of tracking code? Too bad, choose another loading strategy or I just close the tab. Making my fans spin faster? Begone.
antris 5y ago
The Fatboy Slim album art on the screenshots page... I definitely got taken back :')
0des 5y ago
Somewhat worrying that I can't seem to find the source code for WACUP listed anywhere, checked their website, discord, and github. I'd feel a lot better about using it if I could see the source code. Currently using Audacious with a Winamp Classic skin.
- thedoctor_o 5y ago
  Then don't use it if you only want to use 100% OSS. I'm making something that I want to use (essentially a compatible implementation for my plug-ins to run under) & if it's of use to others then that's a bonus. At no point has WACUP claimed to be 100% OSS nor should I be expected to do that when I'm the only one working on my Winamp reimplementation. Aspects that need to be done that way are done so accordingly. -dro
  - 0des 5y ago
    Yikes, okay. I trust Justin Frankel, I don't know you, previous team or not.. The world can go on using Winamp 2.x forever and be just fine, its GRAS. If you're bringing something that isn't that, previous dev history or not, you're going to have to differentiate yourself from the folks who are also putting out winamp-alikes. I'm not trying to be a jerk, that's just the reality. Knowing what the code I'm running is doing is helpful in swaying me to your direction, even if that's not what you claim to be aiming for. > should I be expected to do that when I'm the only one working on my Winamp reimplementation Let us know when you want to change that. We're talented, and generally nice. Maybe some day you'll want some help.
    - smolder 5y ago
      > you're going to have to differentiate yourself from the folks who are also putting out winamp-alikes. No one giving away software has to do anything. Maybe they'd get more donations as OSS or something, but it's no guarantee.
      - romwell 5y ago
        Yes, but nobody has to use their work. I'd assume that people who make general-purpose open-source software with the intent of it being used by someone other than themselves. So read the "have to" as "if you want to have people use and appreciate your work, this is a necessary step".
TonyTrapp 5y ago
The WACUP author also discussed the source code leak here a while ago: https://getwacup.com/blog/index.php/2021/04/17/what-does-the-leaking-of-winamps-source-code-mean-for-wacup/ https://getwacup.com/blog/index.php/2021/04/17/what-does-the...
- mkoryak 5y ago
  Reading that blog and not being familiar with winamp's history after winamp2 (which was the best), it felt like there is a good story there about "dro" and the current owners. Can someone point me to it?
- toyg 5y ago
  The fact that he points out what is and is not in the leak, might come back to bite him if the owners get very litigious. He should not have looked at it.
Iv 5y ago
But does it whip the llama's ass?
ChrisArchitect 5y ago
hm, forgotten about that one. I get why it exists/independent/opensource whatever..... but why does it exist? Far as I can tell the 'official' v5.8 version that's been around for download on the main site and still is for a long time works great. Maybe I've just been using it for so long I don't notice any oddities (or don't need them, it's a music player for godssake), and I guess they've improved interface etc on wacup but....
- thesuitonym 5y ago
  Well, reading the release notes may answer that question. Some highlights: - running WACUP on Windows 10 for ARM on a Raspberry Pi 4 is now a known to work configuration - Changed the shared metadata handling to do a better job in skipping trying to process requests for metadata requests that are always going to fail before triggering relatively time consuming calls - Changed how the CD playback plug-in initialises itself to minimise the delays on loading that it can cause - Fixed a crash when retrieving the raw lyrics data from a file's metadata tag on opening the Alt + 3 / View File Info dialog
hk1337 5y ago
XMMS was a really nice Winamp clone for Linux way back when. Might be a good starting point. http://www.xmms.org/ http://www.xmms.org/
- xtracto 5y ago
  I've been using QMMP myself: https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/ https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/. It's another WinAmp clone. The thing that I liked about Winamp that stopped being cool were visualizations. net Audio player nowaday are so bland and featureless (including Spotify, Tidal, Deezer and others I've tried).
- Nursie 5y ago
  I liked XMMS, it was very clean. I spent far too long building it for my Sun workstation in about 2004... TIL - Audacious was a fork of XMMS!
- Malakun 5y ago
  And QMMp! https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/ https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/
- andrewshadura 5y ago
  Audacious.
zamadatix 5y ago
> It includes a skin that allows it to work on modern display resolutions. It's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor. Monitor size/resolution has gotten larger which is some of the factor but I think people downplay the shift in common effective DPI which leads to a much bigger perceived change in UI sizing design than there really has been. In the late 90s to early 2000s an effective DPI of 75-85 for a typical home user was not uncommon. Nowadays an effective DPI of 125-135 is pretty standard, many tech folk using an effective DPI of 150 because it gives the effect of having more workspace. So what may have looked like a half physical inch wide UI element on a standard user's display in the late 90s might look like a quarter inch wide UI element on many HN reader's screens today because nobody likes to set their DPI properly :p.
vikingerik 5y ago
Winamp 2.xx was generally the favorite. And there's no reason to talk about it in the past tense -- you can still just use it even now. I do. 2.95 works fine right up to Windows 10 and probably 11, and still plays any MP3 and pretty much any other format with a plug-in. It even has a double-size display option built right in which makes it perfectly usable on modern 4k resolution.
munificent 5y ago
> It's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor. When WinAmp was big, typical resolution was 1024x768 (XGA). Wikipedia has a nice comparison image to give you a sense of how tiny that was compared to 4K: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#/media/File:Vector_Video_Standards8.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#/media/File...
danudey 5y ago
> I's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor. This reminds me of the realization that modern MacOS apps can have icon sizes larger than the original Mac's screen- 512x512 icons vs. 512x384 monochrome screen.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  The max size for file an app icons on macOS was bumped to 1024x1024 some years ago actually, I think around the time the first retina MBPs appeared. So your point is even more true.
dmt0 5y ago
macOS desperately needs a version of this. Vox is the closest thing I could find, but still isn't the same. Can't stand native Apple apps.
- thedoctor_o 5y ago
  There's also re:amp which is a decent implementation of the Winamp classic skin support. -dro
  - justinfrankel 5y ago
    you can also install reaper and this plug-in and get something highly winampish with its own special authenticity: https://landoleet.org/reaplay.zip https://landoleet.org/reaplay.zip
agumonkey 5y ago
superb also the classic modern skin is great
mvkel 5y ago
I miss apps like this. The UX is just so efficient and perfect. That settings screen is chef’s kiss

tiffanyh 5y ago

My memory is fuzzy on this but didn’t most consider Winamp 2.x the best. Winamp 3.x was considered bloated. So to help rectify the problems of 3.x, Winamp release version 5.x (the best of 2 + 3). Though I recall many still used version 2.x even after the 5.x release. Question: so when you say folks are trying to keep the "last version" alive, which version are you referring too since later versions weren’t loved.

dreamlayers 5y ago
Winamp is highly modular. Most functionality is in plugins, and you could only install the plugins you want. For example you could exclude the media library, modern skins, and video playback. So, 5.x doesn't have to be bloated.
caddywompus 5y ago
I'm actually not too familiar with it, I was too young to use the original Winamp back when it was released, and can only remember playing around with the skins, along with RealPlayer on Win98 I'm guessing they went with version 5, since it looks like versions after that might have been a full rewrite?
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  If you want a fun read that wastes a few hours, poke around the interwebs for the story of Justin Frankel and WinAmp. There's been some recent posts on HN about how "the Internet is played out". Not sure if I agree, but this guy definitely belongs in the mythos of web 1.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Frankel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Frankel
0des 5y ago
Winamp 2 was generally preferred. If I recall correctly, it skipped version 4 not because v2 + v3 = v5 but because nobody would want to download a Winamp 4 skin. Not kidding.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  You're both right! https://web.archive.org/web/20131219003849/http://www.winamp.com/help/FAQ#General https://web.archive.org/web/20131219003849/http://www.winamp... > What happened to Winamp 4? You're not imagining things. Yes, we skipped a version number for the following reasons: a) Winamp 5 combines the best aspects of Winamp 2 and Winamp 3 into one player. Hence Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 = Winamp 5! b) Who the hell wants to see a Winamp 4 Skin :P c) We think that a Fibonacci sequence for versioning might be pretty damn cool. d)We improved so much in Winamp 5 that we figured it warranted skipping a version. ;)
  - ConceptJunkie 5y ago
    So I can't imagine that the clowns that made that awful new Winamp site would be cool enough to call the new one Winamp 8. Or release a version that anyone actually wants, for that matter.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - thedoctor_o 5y ago
      Supposedly they're still going to call it Winamp v6 assuming it happens. They've lied a number of times over the past 8yrs so don't hold your breathe but the new site is somewhat indicative of their disregard about why those still using Winamp (or clones of it) do so. -dro
      - gonesilent 5y ago
        how can i msg you a invite to the new landoleet discord?
lnx01 5y ago
5.666
meepmorp 5y ago
WinAmp 2 was the last "real" version, before the AOL buyout of Nullsoft took its toll.
krater23 5y ago
I currently use 2.95 and see no reason to update. But I listen rarely mp3's in the last years.
- lproven 5y ago
  Foodbar 2000 FTW. https://www.foobar2000.org/ https://www.foobar2000.org/ Tiny, fast, simple, does the job. There's an Android version too, which is my go-to audio player, because of its simplicity. Both FOSS.
  - thedoctor_o 5y ago
    Fairly certain that fb2k has never been FOSS or can you point to where that's not the case as that'd be far more interesting than the point of this thread. -dro
    - lproven 5y ago
      Oh! My bad. I mistook the SDK and projectM source download links for the app itself. I apologise for the misleading comment.
      - thedoctor_o 5y ago
        Is all good. -dro
  - skeeter2020 5y ago
    Haven't tried Foodbar :) I use Foobar on my PC daily but didn't even know it was available on Android, so thanks! Musicolet is also a great Android player without all the BS (ex: can run mp3 files copied to the device with no internet connnection)
    - lproven 5y ago
      Blast. Didn't even notice. Sorry!
  - 5y ago
orbital-decay 5y ago
IIRC, Winamp 3 introduced the new skin engine which supported transparency and was slow as molasses on contemporary machines. Moreover, 2.x switched to the new MP3 decoder at some point, and many people didn't like it, either ripping the old decoder from the old versions or stopping upgrading past a certain 2.x version. (None of this is important today, I guess)
- warning26 5y ago
  Winamp 3 was a complete rewrite from the ground up, built around the new skinning engine and the "Wasabi" scripting language. But as you say, it wasn't very performant, and it was also super buggy. I believe there was some drama which resulted in the lead dev for 3 getting fired, and then the skinning engine (which was the most popular part of 3) was grafted onto the 2.x base for version "5".
  - res0nat0r 5y ago
    I've been using my minimal Winamp install and the noerror skin for like 15+ years now. Still the best mp3 player on Windows IMO. https://skins.webamp.org/skin/8a466a39534e4be0dc6ca5cc0d6f5a80/noerroramp.wsz/ https://skins.webamp.org/skin/8a466a39534e4be0dc6ca5cc0d6f5a...
taf2 5y ago
Yes I loved Winamp 2.x - the transition from tapes to mp3 was great for me. My car had a tape player and not a CD player and it was more fun to make tapes that’s cds imo
yk 5y ago
If memory serves, the update from 2.x to 3.x was the one were suddenly skins no longer worked and they decided to base the program around a db instead of the file system. Which is not that bad (though still strictly inferior to file based) in modern cell phones, but at a time when computers were a lot slower and everybody had organized their music library around files instead of metadata it was a bloody disaster.
- toyg 5y ago
  That reminds me of this classic JWZ : https://www.jwz.org/doc/mailsum.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/mailsum.html (Note: you want to copypaste that link, not click it)
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    I clicked it and it is NSFW. :-/ Why does JWZ hate HN?
    - theodric 5y ago
      It's all the finance-obsessed man-children and brogrammers, I think.
    - toyg 5y ago
      Well, I did warn you... JWZ's hate of HN is long-running and due to a combination of factors, but I reckon his real annoyance is the amount of traffic this site can send to his little servers.
- raffraffraff 5y ago
  I dunno... Libraries were a revolution for me. If I remember correctly, that was around the time I briefly switched to iTunes for its library features. The ability to start typing and instantly see a list of song matches was great. The problem with the WinAMP library was that it wasn't that good. If course iTunes turned into a bloated mess too, and I ended up on foobar2000 for years.
lproven 5y ago
I have long felt that, given the problems of the Python 2→3 migration, the Python devs should have done the same. :-)
- xxpor 5y ago
  https://pypi.org/project/six/ https://pypi.org/project/six/ ;)
  - lproven 5y ago
    Oh, nice. :-D
habeebtc 5y ago
I have been running Winamp 2.95 for coming up on 20 years now. So you would be correct on that count. Despite how powerful modern computers are, I still notice how much lighter 2.x is than 3.x.
samplatt 5y ago
I just installed 2.95 last night after uninstalling 5.x. 5.x doesn't have [Q] to enqueue within a playlist. I have no idea why anyone would remove such a basic feature... maybe the advent of the "media library" management (at the time a new concept) made them decide to remove it. I had to install milkdrop separately to WinAmp, but honestly, after reinstalling Windows 98 every 72 hours back in the bad old days, it kinda felt natural. Nostalgic.

cyber_kinetist 5y ago

For context, here's the new revamped(!) Winamp coming up soon: https://www.winamp.com/ https://www.winamp.com/ It's just... the complete opposite of what Winamp was all about, and it's horrible and leaves a bad taste in your mouth (-100 points for the atrocious "modern" website which loads MBs of Javascript, screams BIG TEXT at you, hijacks your scroll wheel, and still tells you nothing about the actual software other than it will probably suck. Oh and another -100 points for that cookie popup.)

_piif 5y ago
Interestingly in contrast to the others it loads up fine on both my laptop and my S9 with Firefox, even after disabling my adblocker and unblocking all scripts in NoScript.
- caslon 5y ago
  Another one who it worked completely fine for. Zero issue here. Firefox on X11.
denton-scratch 5y ago
That site's unusable; I see [Decline][Accept] buttons, with no explnation of what I'm being invited to decline or accept. No choice but to close the tab.
lostgame 5y ago
In the Spotify/Apple Music, etc; era - wtf is the selling point on this?
kingsloi 5y ago
Wow, that's a first. Clicking the URL hung Brave, completely unresponsive for 2-3 mins, now it's loaded but shows nothing but a dark blue background. Same for every refresh, too!
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  This is my pet peeve. Browsers should not allow any websites to hijack all computing cycles. This was already clear a few years ago during the Monero hype. The fact that most adblockers will detect such attempts today doesn't change the fact that any website can almost prevent you from doing other work just because you opened it. The current strategy of dealing with this problem ("this tab has become unresponsive") is inadequate because it is reactive, not proactive. I'd like to be able to blacklist everything and whitelist only chosen websites I trust. Loading for too long because of tracking code? Too bad, choose another loading strategy or I just close the tab. Making my fans spin faster? Begone.

antris 5y ago

The Fatboy Slim album art on the screenshots page... I definitely got taken back :')

0des 5y ago

Somewhat worrying that I can't seem to find the source code for WACUP listed anywhere, checked their website, discord, and github. I'd feel a lot better about using it if I could see the source code. Currently using Audacious with a Winamp Classic skin.

thedoctor_o 5y ago
Then don't use it if you only want to use 100% OSS. I'm making something that I want to use (essentially a compatible implementation for my plug-ins to run under) & if it's of use to others then that's a bonus. At no point has WACUP claimed to be 100% OSS nor should I be expected to do that when I'm the only one working on my Winamp reimplementation. Aspects that need to be done that way are done so accordingly. -dro
- 0des 5y ago
  Yikes, okay. I trust Justin Frankel, I don't know you, previous team or not.. The world can go on using Winamp 2.x forever and be just fine, its GRAS. If you're bringing something that isn't that, previous dev history or not, you're going to have to differentiate yourself from the folks who are also putting out winamp-alikes. I'm not trying to be a jerk, that's just the reality. Knowing what the code I'm running is doing is helpful in swaying me to your direction, even if that's not what you claim to be aiming for. > should I be expected to do that when I'm the only one working on my Winamp reimplementation Let us know when you want to change that. We're talented, and generally nice. Maybe some day you'll want some help.
  - smolder 5y ago
    > you're going to have to differentiate yourself from the folks who are also putting out winamp-alikes. No one giving away software has to do anything. Maybe they'd get more donations as OSS or something, but it's no guarantee.
    - romwell 5y ago
      Yes, but nobody has to use their work. I'd assume that people who make general-purpose open-source software with the intent of it being used by someone other than themselves. So read the "have to" as "if you want to have people use and appreciate your work, this is a necessary step".

TonyTrapp 5y ago

The WACUP author also discussed the source code leak here a while ago: https://getwacup.com/blog/index.php/2021/04/17/what-does-the-leaking-of-winamps-source-code-mean-for-wacup/ https://getwacup.com/blog/index.php/2021/04/17/what-does-the...

mkoryak 5y ago
Reading that blog and not being familiar with winamp's history after winamp2 (which was the best), it felt like there is a good story there about "dro" and the current owners. Can someone point me to it?
toyg 5y ago
The fact that he points out what is and is not in the leak, might come back to bite him if the owners get very litigious. He should not have looked at it.

Iv 5y ago

But does it whip the llama's ass?

ChrisArchitect 5y ago

hm, forgotten about that one. I get why it exists/independent/opensource whatever..... but why does it exist? Far as I can tell the 'official' v5.8 version that's been around for download on the main site and still is for a long time works great. Maybe I've just been using it for so long I don't notice any oddities (or don't need them, it's a music player for godssake), and I guess they've improved interface etc on wacup but....

thesuitonym 5y ago
Well, reading the release notes may answer that question. Some highlights: - running WACUP on Windows 10 for ARM on a Raspberry Pi 4 is now a known to work configuration - Changed the shared metadata handling to do a better job in skipping trying to process requests for metadata requests that are always going to fail before triggering relatively time consuming calls - Changed how the CD playback plug-in initialises itself to minimise the delays on loading that it can cause - Fixed a crash when retrieving the raw lyrics data from a file's metadata tag on opening the Alt + 3 / View File Info dialog

hk1337 5y ago

XMMS was a really nice Winamp clone for Linux way back when. Might be a good starting point. http://www.xmms.org/ http://www.xmms.org/

xtracto 5y ago
I've been using QMMP myself: https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/ https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/. It's another WinAmp clone. The thing that I liked about Winamp that stopped being cool were visualizations. net Audio player nowaday are so bland and featureless (including Spotify, Tidal, Deezer and others I've tried).
Nursie 5y ago
I liked XMMS, it was very clean. I spent far too long building it for my Sun workstation in about 2004... TIL - Audacious was a fork of XMMS!
Malakun 5y ago
And QMMp! https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/ https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/
andrewshadura 5y ago
Audacious.

zamadatix 5y ago

> It includes a skin that allows it to work on modern display resolutions. It's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor. Monitor size/resolution has gotten larger which is some of the factor but I think people downplay the shift in common effective DPI which leads to a much bigger perceived change in UI sizing design than there really has been. In the late 90s to early 2000s an effective DPI of 75-85 for a typical home user was not uncommon. Nowadays an effective DPI of 125-135 is pretty standard, many tech folk using an effective DPI of 150 because it gives the effect of having more workspace. So what may have looked like a half physical inch wide UI element on a standard user's display in the late 90s might look like a quarter inch wide UI element on many HN reader's screens today because nobody likes to set their DPI properly :p.

vikingerik 5y ago

Winamp 2.xx was generally the favorite. And there's no reason to talk about it in the past tense -- you can still just use it even now. I do. 2.95 works fine right up to Windows 10 and probably 11, and still plays any MP3 and pretty much any other format with a plug-in. It even has a double-size display option built right in which makes it perfectly usable on modern 4k resolution.

munificent 5y ago

> It's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor. When WinAmp was big, typical resolution was 1024x768 (XGA). Wikipedia has a nice comparison image to give you a sense of how tiny that was compared to 4K: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#/media/File:Vector_Video_Standards8.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#/media/File...

danudey 5y ago

> I's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor. This reminds me of the realization that modern MacOS apps can have icon sizes larger than the original Mac's screen- 512x512 icons vs. 512x384 monochrome screen.

kitsunesoba 5y ago
The max size for file an app icons on macOS was bumped to 1024x1024 some years ago actually, I think around the time the first retina MBPs appeared. So your point is even more true.

dmt0 5y ago

macOS desperately needs a version of this. Vox is the closest thing I could find, but still isn't the same. Can't stand native Apple apps.

thedoctor_o 5y ago
There's also re:amp which is a decent implementation of the Winamp classic skin support. -dro
- justinfrankel 5y ago
  you can also install reaper and this plug-in and get something highly winampish with its own special authenticity: https://landoleet.org/reaplay.zip https://landoleet.org/reaplay.zip

agumonkey 5y ago

superb also the classic modern skin is great

mvkel 5y ago

I miss apps like this. The UX is just so efficient and perfect. That settings screen is chef’s kiss