3 ms·
The good versions of Winamp were essentially a giant list of searchable songs with a lightweight skin. It was fast and lightweight and was able to handle thous
by jlarocco 14y ago
The good versions of Winamp were essentially a giant list of searchable songs with a lightweight skin. It was fast and lightweight and was able to handle thousands and thousands of songs in a single playlist. 10 years later and both iTunes and Clementine will choke if I add 5k songs to a playlist, yet Winamp 2 handled it without a problem.
The skinning feature was overrated, and I never understood why there were so many skins. In the years I hung on to Winamp 2, I may have changed the skin one time. Most people picked one and forgot about it.
I think I heard somewhere that Foobar2000 only exists because Winamp 3 messed everything up so badly. I don't know if that's true, but Wikipedia says Winamp3 was release in August 2002, and the first release of Foobar2000 was December 2002, so the dates would be correct.
- gcp 14y agoThe author of foobar2000 was a (former) Winamp developer. So yes, the correlation is strong.
- agumonkey 14y agoI remember wa vs fb discussions about who was the lighter. At the time (i think it was around 2007), with a heavy medialibrary, Winamp5 ended using less ram than Foobar. Everyone was surprised. Random jump, isn't winamp v3 a reaction to Sonique ?