5 ms·

Older software sometimes runs just as fast on older hardware, too. It’s anecdotal, but I never remember waiting on Winamp to start up. iTunes, on the other hand

Older software sometimes runs just as fast on older hardware, too. It’s anecdotal, but I never remember waiting on Winamp to start up. iTunes, on the other hand, has always seemed slow.

dfxm12 4y ago
Is that really an ahem apples to apples comparison? Depending on when we're talking, iTunes had many more built in features than Winamp...
- tanseydavid 4y ago
  Large number of features is not a great excuse for slow start times.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  Winamp may be an unfair comparison. I'm not overly familiar with that period's iTunes, but I remember when I bought my first iPod, a 4th gen click wheel (don't remember the year, but it was already an "older model" at the time) I was using Amarok on Linux on an AMD Thunderbird with 256 MB of RAM. That thing would fly. And it did more than Winamp: it had an actual DB-backed music library, iPod interface, etc. Yet, a few years later, when I got a MacBook Pro with a dual-core CPU and 16 times the RAM, iTunes would still be painfully slow. And I don't remember it doing much more than Amarok. As a matter of fact, it was inferior on pretty much every metric I could think of.
  - anthk 4y ago
    Similar here. AMD Athlonb XP, Amarok, KDE3, no Arts, just Alsa and DMIX. 256MB of RAM and a Geforce2.
- addicted 4y ago
  I think you’ve got that backwards. iTunes had a fraction of the features Winamp did.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    It is amazing, I remember using out of the box winamp for decentralized video streaming circa ~2003?. This was years before YouTube was even founded
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      not sure who is downvoting, but this was an actual feature, not a snarky comment.
  - dtech 4y ago
    On the music player side yes, but it had a lot of features/bloat like the music store and iPod synchronization.
    - bbatha 4y ago
      > it had a lot of features/bloat like the music store and iPod synchronization. This is a hilarious statement to read, cause that's probably what 80% of people were using iTunes exclusively for and relegating their music listening to their iPod/iPhone, especially in the later part of the 00s.
myfonj 4y ago
> I never remember waiting on Winamp to start up. Me neither, but I remember I was annoyed few times it took "ages" to load a "library" of few (thousands) tracks and then consumed considerable amount of RAM. Maybe TENS of megabytes even (!!1!). So I remember the relief when I switched to Billy audio player [1], that was way more "spartan" and had just those few features I really needed, and then joy of even faster start time and negligible memory footprint. [1] https://www.sheepfriends.com/index-page=billy.html https://www.sheepfriends.com/index-page=billy.html (download is "temporarily off", but there are comparisons with Winamp and screensot).
raffraffraff 4y ago
Simple player vs library though.

Older software sometimes runs just as fast on older hardware, too. It’s anecdotal, but I never remember waiting on Winamp to start up. iTunes, on the other hand, has always seemed slow.

dfxm12 4y ago

Is that really an ahem apples to apples comparison? Depending on when we're talking, iTunes had many more built in features than Winamp...

tanseydavid 4y ago
Large number of features is not a great excuse for slow start times.
vladvasiliu 4y ago
Winamp may be an unfair comparison. I'm not overly familiar with that period's iTunes, but I remember when I bought my first iPod, a 4th gen click wheel (don't remember the year, but it was already an "older model" at the time) I was using Amarok on Linux on an AMD Thunderbird with 256 MB of RAM. That thing would fly. And it did more than Winamp: it had an actual DB-backed music library, iPod interface, etc. Yet, a few years later, when I got a MacBook Pro with a dual-core CPU and 16 times the RAM, iTunes would still be painfully slow. And I don't remember it doing much more than Amarok. As a matter of fact, it was inferior on pretty much every metric I could think of.
- anthk 4y ago
  Similar here. AMD Athlonb XP, Amarok, KDE3, no Arts, just Alsa and DMIX. 256MB of RAM and a Geforce2.
addicted 4y ago
I think you’ve got that backwards. iTunes had a fraction of the features Winamp did.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  It is amazing, I remember using out of the box winamp for decentralized video streaming circa ~2003?. This was years before YouTube was even founded
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    not sure who is downvoting, but this was an actual feature, not a snarky comment.
- dtech 4y ago
  On the music player side yes, but it had a lot of features/bloat like the music store and iPod synchronization.
  - bbatha 4y ago
    > it had a lot of features/bloat like the music store and iPod synchronization. This is a hilarious statement to read, cause that's probably what 80% of people were using iTunes exclusively for and relegating their music listening to their iPod/iPhone, especially in the later part of the 00s.

myfonj 4y ago

> I never remember waiting on Winamp to start up. Me neither, but I remember I was annoyed few times it took "ages" to load a "library" of few (thousands) tracks and then consumed considerable amount of RAM. Maybe TENS of megabytes even (!!1!). So I remember the relief when I switched to Billy audio player [1], that was way more "spartan" and had just those few features I really needed, and then joy of even faster start time and negligible memory footprint. [1] https://www.sheepfriends.com/index-page=billy.html https://www.sheepfriends.com/index-page=billy.html (download is "temporarily off", but there are comparisons with Winamp and screensot).

raffraffraff 4y ago

Simple player vs library though.