[HN Gopher] Winamp source code leak
___________________________________________________________________
Winamp source code leak
Author : svlasov
Score : 383 points
Date : 2021-11-29 13:04 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (web.archive.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (web.archive.org)
| rambojazz wrote:
| Unfortunately the Archive link does not archive all the files in
| the repo.
| opless wrote:
| Did you not check 'code -> download zip' ?
| Sosh101 wrote:
| Doesn't work
| smcl wrote:
| I thought so too, after I clicked I was shown a page saying
| "Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time" then about 10
| seconds later Firefox prompted me to download "winamp-
| main.zip"
| fps_doug wrote:
| Does work
| echelon wrote:
| Sorry for bringing the thread completely off topic, but
| your username triggered a tinge of nostalgia for
| something I haven't seen referenced or thought of in a
| long while.
|
| Is your username a reference to the mid-2000s pre-youtube
| video series, "Pure Pwnage"?
|
| That's right before the Internet became dominated by
| platforms. EzBoard was taken over by phpBB, Invision,
| etc. Blogs.
|
| Sorry, I need to turn off the nostalgia. Fitting that
| this happens in a Winamp thread, though.
| smcl wrote:
| I agree very era-appropriate username to be commenting on
| this story! I have distinct memories of fps_doug leaping
| around (crouch-jumping?) and screaming "I could dance all
| day! BOOM headshot!" (and the other guy doing "uber
| macro") in those videos though I couldn't for the life of
| me tell you what happened in any of them
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| Just worked for me. Try again? Check ad-blocker settings?
| opless wrote:
| Try again, there's a redirect, and a very very slow
| download after.
| ale42 wrote:
| Just worked for me after the redirection, but it's super
| slow. Still downloading, I am at 210 MB, at a rate of
| around 190 kB/s... Direct ZIP download link = https://web.a
| rchive.org/web/20210418214109if_/https://codelo...
| jugg1es wrote:
| Winamp was my best friend during my teenage hallucinogen
| experimentation phase.
| 5040 wrote:
| Winamp was still my music player of choice until a little over a
| year ago when I finally made the switch to MusicBee.
| vvpan wrote:
| My hero. If I was not on Linux I feel like I'd be on the same
| boat. On Linux I use mocp which is a console-based directory-
| based player, so pretty much the same thing.
| tomrod wrote:
| Weirdly, mocp always led to memory leaks for me on Lubuntu.
|
| These days I mostly listen to soma.fm (you can use mplayer
| for their feeds[0]) or youtube in browser
|
| [0] A small gist I am super proud of as I don't write much
| bash: https://gist.github.com/tomrod/0b5caceec1a10acfb134aefb
| 5fd85...
| diimdeep wrote:
| There is simple and pretty wrapper around mplayer, I like
| it https://github.com/uschek/somafm#readme
| tomrod wrote:
| Thanks!
| zerr wrote:
| What are the reasons to switch from Winamp to something else?
| Svperstar wrote:
| I also switched to MusicBee. It has a very modern UI that
| "just works" as they say. Everything included out of the box
| no need to bother with plugins for me.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| curious, as Winamp still my player of choice and does its job
| extremely well, but checked out MusicBee just now in case
| something I missed and saw the iTunes clone interface and
| closed immediately.
| tombert wrote:
| Honest question, as someone who actually used Winamp back in
| ~2004: why would you want to use it now?
|
| I have some nostalgia for it, sure, but what exactly does it
| actually offer you that something like VLC doesn't? It seems like
| it plays my music and videos competently enough, and I don't know
| anyone who actually uses Shoutcast anymore.
|
| This isn't a passive aggressive dig or anything, I would actually
| like to know.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| I use it because I never stopped using it. I love the classic
| gray on black modular UI (it looks like high end stereo
| equipment). Winamp has all the features I want, and nothing has
| come along that compelled me to stop using Winamp altogether.
| Since it's the same old Winamp, it's incredibly light and fast.
|
| I'll use Foobar2000 and VLC from time to time (Foobar's
| conversion and bulk tagging are great). I've tried using them
| full-time instead of Winamp, but they just don't feel right.
|
| EDIT: I love how there's an 'active playlist' of what's playing
| now, and additional saved playlists in the library, and can
| move/copy entries between them. It's probably accidental design
| of adding a library later, but I haven't found another player
| that shows multiple playlists side-by-side without customizing
| it into something else.
| acidburnNSA wrote:
| Not quite an answer, but I used to have my whole library loaded
| up in one list and could search any part of it, including the
| path, using the "j" key to instantly play basically any song in
| it from the keyboard.
|
| It was so good that I literally put an old desktop computer in
| the trunk of my car in 2000 (with eggshell foam bungee-corded
| around the hard drives for shock absorption) and ran a long
| keyboard wire to the drivers seat and I could queue up any song
| at all while driving with one hand without taking eyes off the
| road or hands off the wheel. When the computer booted, it
| loaded winamp with the full playlist and so the only user
| interaction was pressing the power button (mounted in my dash)
| and pressing 'j' to search and play.
|
| I've never found this capability in e.g. VLC or anything else
| (maybe for the best ;). Am I missing it?
| beckman466 wrote:
| damn what a DIY project!
| dmead wrote:
| clementine (formerly amarok) is better than winamp and has
| all those nice playlist features.
| dreamlayers wrote:
| It's small, does the job I need, it can be made to look good,
| and extended via plugins. What else do I need? VLC seems like
| overkill for music.
| rocky1138 wrote:
| It's basically a perfect music player. Lightweight, fast, runs
| on every version of Windows 95+, great playlist manager, skins,
| and has extensive plugins which support any music file format.
|
| Why continue the search for perfection once it's been found?
| conradfr wrote:
| I like to be able to pause my music, watch a video file, and
| resume the music, so a unified player is not ideal.
| toast0 wrote:
| > I don't know anyone who actually uses Shoutcast anymore.
|
| I don't know you, but I use a shoutcast based premium streaming
| service. Free tier has to use the official apps or the web.
| Winamp is still perfect for this; it loads quickly, my playlist
| has the couple of stations I want to listen to, etc. Foobar2000
| works pretty well too, but llamas. VLC could work, but I don't
| think it starts as fast, and there are so many updates to
| install.
| tombert wrote:
| Fair enough! I haven't used it since I was a teenager to
| watch bootleg episodes of Love Hina and Aqua Teen Hunger
| Force (and other things that might appeal to a 15 year old
| boy), but I didn't mean to imply it was "dead" or anything.
| sevenproxies wrote:
| VLC doesn't have gapless audio playback.
| KeyBoardG wrote:
| I would use Winamp, but at some point in the last decade I
| switched to Foobar2000 because its simple and has great FLAC
| support. At the time getting Winamp to do FLAC involved some
| weird add on.
| carry_bit wrote:
| I still use it daily due to one killer feature it has: the
| Nullsoft Signal Processing Studio DSP plugin that it comes
| with. I have my own preset in there that I use on all of my
| music. The preset combines:
|
| 1. Playback rate control, affecting both speed and pitch (like
| in a record player) 2. A bs2b transform 3. My own custom
| overdrive effect
|
| I could skip the 3rd one, but the first two already greatly
| narrows down what I can use.
| rc_mob wrote:
| I was simple and focused on playing mp3's and managing
| playlists and nothing else.
|
| Every music player now has some shitty cloud integration that I
| have to ignore.
|
| The playlist manager was top notch. 10 times better than
| itunes.
| bityard wrote:
| It works great.
|
| It looks great.
|
| What else do you need? :)
| shikoba wrote:
| I can force mono with Winamp. That's the sole player I know
| that has that option.
| tombert wrote:
| Out of curiosity, why do you want mono? Just a preference?
| shikoba wrote:
| Yes. And especially when listening with headphone, some
| artists find it fun to have a moving song from one side to
| the other, in that case I turn my head thinking that there
| is something near me, absolutely annoying. With mono the
| sound is always located in the middle of my brain.
| xxpor wrote:
| Ah, so you essentially take the existing stereo mix ->
| force it to mono -> play the new mono feed in both ears?
| That's an interesting idea...
|
| I feel like this should be relatively easy to replicate
| with VAC (https://vb-audio.com/Cable/) and Audacity, if
| the player doesn't support it natively.
| adrian_b wrote:
| For Linux there are various command-line players, e.g.
| mpg123, with this option and with any other imaginable
| options.
| shikoba wrote:
| I want a full working application with the equivalent of
| global hotkeys. I use deadbeef on GNU/Linux, but I still
| haven't find a way to force mono.
| Strom wrote:
| For me, Winamp still offers two things that most other players
| don't:
|
| 1) Global hotkeys to navigate through my playlists, enqueue
| songs, control playback etc. Also the global pop-up window
| (Ctrl+Alt+J) with my current playlist has a really fast search
| function as I type. Only 'Everything' has faster search.
| Otherwise modern apps have very slow searches.
|
| 2) Milkdrop 2. I have a very large curated collection of
| visualization presets for Milkdrop 2. This is not something I
| use when I'm behind the computer, but it's awesome to have
| running on some screens during a party as the visualizations
| are in sync with the music.
| quitit wrote:
| As it was written for an era of much slower hardware (I
| remember using it on a 100MHz machine) - it might be a good fit
| for something where that matters.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Winamp has a plugin for Orchestra 80/85/90 files, which to the
| best of my knowledge, VLC does not. Wouldn't be surprised if
| this were the case for many 8-bit era music formats. The time
| period in which Winamp came to prominence was when there were
| still lots of people with a foot in the 90s (and 80s) without
| it necessarily being retro nostalgia.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| foobar2000's library features kind of suck IMO.
|
| Clementine/Strawberry have issues with large libraries or just
| skip tracks
|
| Spotify is cloud, automatically eliminated there
|
| VLC Player gets used for porn and videos
|
| Winamp quietly Just Works(tm), it scans all my songs, plays
| them, and is great for tag grooming and setting ReplayGain
| levels
|
| What else is there?
| standardly wrote:
| Really though, what else is there? Besides what is left of
| WinAmp.. Foobar is too basic for me (not good for managing
| larger libraries). iTunes used to work well for me, but I
| don't use Apple.
|
| Is there any other alternative I can try?
| throwaway6977 wrote:
| Maybe it's just familiarity but I always come back for the
| active playlist features and IMO very good browse/search
| workflow.
|
| Literally never needs updated, until this leak at least...
| fit2rule wrote:
| Pretty sure I've got this in my GH stars.
| [deleted]
| w4rh4wk5 wrote:
| Never understood why people didn't just migrate to AIMP.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| Maybe because not everyone likes how AIMP does what it does.
| Same for why there's been numerous other media players over the
| years - one solution doesn't work for everyone or we'd all just
| be using iTunes or VLC or WMP. Choice is good.
|
| -dro
| dale_glass wrote:
| Wow, I think it's been more than a decade since I even thought
| about Winamp, let alone used it.
|
| It still seems to be free to download though? What is even the
| point of keeping the code closed?
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| Trojans, Spyware and Miners. Oh my.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| Naive questions:
|
| - what do you mean by "miners" in this context? Malicious
| contributors sneaking crypto-mining logic into the codebase?
|
| - doesn't the concern about Trojans and spyware affect every
| other open-source project in existence? How have they been
| protecting against that, and why couldn't the Winamp
| maintainers take similar measures?
| RF_Savage wrote:
| More like precompiled binaries being distributed by
| malicious stuff added in.
|
| How will you know which winamp.exe is the legitimate one?
| dale_glass wrote:
| Code signing has been a thing in Windows for a long time
| now. Besides that, just the usual "the official .exe is
| whatever you find at the official site"
|
| Downloading from random archive sites fortunately is a
| trend that went away.
| jchw wrote:
| I just can't understand the point of the DMCA takedown here. This
| software is very dead and abandoned at this point, and the only
| thing bearing its name is vaporware that appears to be so distant
| from the original as to effectively not even compete with it.
|
| Of course, the copyright holders have every legal right to do so.
| But doesn't it seem pointless? This codebase probably has more
| historical interest than commercial by now. Am I missing
| something?
| [deleted]
| omega3 wrote:
| Not a lawyer but I guess it relates to a possibility of a loss
| of a trademark by failure to police.
| jchw wrote:
| DMCA is a copyright claim, not trademark. Also, the idea that
| a single instance of failing to enforce a mark would
| constitute trademark abandonment is disputed[1]. It certainly
| seems far-fetched given the general bias laws have towards
| the rights of corporations, not to mention extremely
| convenient for legal teams.
|
| [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-
| does-not...
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| How do we know the DMCA takedown even came from the
| rightsholder? It's trivial to pretend to own something, and
| companies aren't really obligated to verify the authenticity of
| takedown requests.
| jchw wrote:
| Well, it's impossible to be 100% certain, but the claim
| itself was posted publicly.
|
| https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/07/2021-07-0.
| ..
| tediousdemise wrote:
| Seems pretty pointless to me, too.
|
| I'll make the assumption that the founders have zero financial
| interest in Winamp. What's the point of exerting IP rights if
| you have nothing to gain financially... is it pride? A latent
| desire to stagnate innovation? Making other peoples' lives
| harder because yours was too? Who knows?
| adamnemecek wrote:
| I believe that this is a new version of Winamp, there have been
| some talks about a relaunch
| https://www.extremetech.com/computing/329258-winamp-prepares...
|
| Considering there are some references to cloud
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210418220750/https://github.co...
| I'm going to go ahead and guess that it's new.
| leros wrote:
| It's very likely about the brand and trademarks. The WinAmp
| software is dead, but the brand is alive and there is a company
| trying to build something under it.
| est wrote:
| I still remembers all those crazy music visualizations.
|
| It was rarely seen these days. Someone should make a WebGL
| version.
| jpindar wrote:
| I'm surprised other music software or streaming sites don't
| have visualizations.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| Already done:
|
| https://github.com/projectM-visualizer/projectM
|
| https://webamp.org/
| jugg1es wrote:
| It was my best friend during my teenage hallucinogen phase
| kats wrote:
| Stop using archive.org to host illegal content, the site is run
| on donations and they'll have to become less open if people use
| them as just another filesharing site. Policing uploads requires
| staff and costs real money. Legal issues cost real money.
| ktm5j wrote:
| I might be wrong here, but I think it's more that archive.org
| had already crawled and mirrored this page. Then the OP or
| someone else found the content that was already there and
| shared it with people. It's not that OP or some archive user
| deliberately caused this page to be mirrored.
| caddywompus wrote:
| 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/
|
| 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
| Iv wrote:
| But does it whip the llama's ass?
| agumonkey wrote:
| superb
|
| also the classic modern skin is great
| munificent wrote:
| _> 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...
| antris wrote:
| The Fatboy Slim album art on the screenshots page... I
| definitely got taken back :')
| danudey wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| vikingerik wrote:
| 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.
| hk1337 wrote:
| XMMS was a really nice Winamp clone for Linux way back when.
| Might be a good starting point.
|
| http://www.xmms.org/
| xtracto wrote:
| I've been using QMMP myself: 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).
| Malakun wrote:
| And QMMp! https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/
| andrewshadura wrote:
| Audacious.
| zamadatix wrote:
| > 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.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| 0des wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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".
| dapids wrote:
| Which is definitely just that, an assumption. Some people
| write things just because they want to or can, and don't
| care whether anyone else finds it useful for their own
| purposes. It might just be something for a portfolio, to
| inspire others, etc, or again, just because. Lots of
| things are created "just because".
|
| The decision is left to the end user, use it, or don't.
| justinfrankel wrote:
| fwiw dro's been around a long time and i would be
| inclined to trust them :)
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| I'm also not trying to be a jerk either but when I'm
| constantly being told by random people that I have to be
| OSS when it comes to WACUP that's also not particularly
| helpful other than introducing more potential work for me
| to do when there's absolutely no guarantee of a return to
| that effort. So maybe I'm more terse than I should be
| about such things but that's also just how I am.
|
| It might make more sense for other projects especially
| those starting out fresh but that's not ever been my
| mindset with how I've been doing Winamp plug-in related
| development since 2003 along with the 5yrs I worked on
| Winamp & if that means people will avoid WACUP then so be
| it as they're more likely to be sticking with the AOL
| provided 2.x releases anyway.
|
| Also it goes both ways on the trust aspects & maybe when
| the likes of fb2k, aimp & musicbee go OSS I might
| eventually reconsider my dinosaur like approach to
| development but there has to be a tangible benefit for me
| to do it.
|
| I've already asked for help over the 5yrs or so I've been
| trying to make WACUP but the things that need help with
| doing are also the things that no one really wants to do
| (e.g. a new good midi input plug-in).
|
| -dro (assuming this reply ever gets posted as I've been
| trying for over an hour)
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Also it goes both ways on the trust aspects & maybe
| when the likes of fb2k, aimp & musicbee go OSS I might
| eventually reconsider my dinosaur like approach to
| development but there has to be a tangible benefit for me
| to do it.
|
| Forgive me for asking, but if the reason for you
| releasing WACUP to the public at all isn't purely
| personal benefit (if it was only about that might as well
| keep it to yourself right?) but to help people and share
| something that you deem useful and let others benefit
| from it, why would the source code be any different? Put
| another way: why is releasing the binaries publicly
| acceptable even if it doesn't benefit you directly, but
| doing the same thing for the source itself isn't?
| VortexDream wrote:
| Releasing a project as open source is associated with a
| lot of work and responsibility. People get quite entitled
| over open source projects and get quite upset when
| developers don't do what they want. I can see why he's
| unwilling to undergo all that stress and pressure if he
| feels it doesn't benefit him.
| jvolkman wrote:
| The Windows ecosystem has a long history of closed source
| freeware. It doesn't seem strange at all to me.
| caddywompus wrote:
| Oh hey! Appreciate the work you've done, thanks for keeping
| the project alive!
| tiffanyh wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| yk wrote:
| 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.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| 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.
| toyg wrote:
| That reminds me of this classic JWZ :
| https://www.jwz.org/doc/mailsum.html
|
| (Note: you want to copypaste that link, not click it)
| goldenkey wrote:
| I clicked it and it is NSFW. :-/ Why does JWZ hate HN?
| lnx01 wrote:
| 5.666
| taf2 wrote:
| 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
| lproven wrote:
| I have long felt that, given the problems of the Python 2-3
| migration, the Python devs should have done the same. :-)
| xxpor wrote:
| https://pypi.org/project/six/ ;)
| lproven wrote:
| Oh, nice. :-D
| meepmorp wrote:
| WinAmp 2 was the last "real" version, before the AOL buyout
| of Nullsoft took its toll.
| krater23 wrote:
| I currently use 2.95 and see no reason to update. But I
| listen rarely mp3's in the last years.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| >> see no reason to update
|
| You will when you get a 4k monitor.
| efdee wrote:
| Winamp has a built-in function to double the pixels, so
| it's actually quite usable on 4K as-is.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| It only works for the main window. The library window
| doesn't work with it.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| It does with WACUP
|
| -dro
| lazyjeff wrote:
| Same here, using Winamp 2.95 on a HiDPI screen as my main
| audio player.
|
| The best feature that it seems no other player has
| reproduced yet is being able to hit the J key to do an
| instant search for a song, with 0 latency: the search
| narrows down the songs as fast as you hit the keys.
|
| But I've noticed that there are now a few files that sound
| scratch when played, perhaps they're 48 kHz or something...
| jraph wrote:
| Same thing in Clementine, except you don't even have to
| press J. Just type your search when the window is focused
| and the filter bar will catch the keys.
|
| This can be disabled too.
| lproven wrote:
| Foodbar 2000 FTW. 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.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Blast. Didn't even notice. Sorry!
| VortexDream wrote:
| Yeah, but does it really whip the llama's ass?
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| In case you don't know, WinAmp borrowed that meme from
| the late, schizophrenic musician Wesley Willis.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2lepog/ti
| l_t...
|
| "McDonalds is a place to rock, It is a restaurant where
| they buy food to eat, It is a good place to listen to the
| music, People flock here to get down to the rock music."
| - Rock 'N Roll McDonalds
|
| "Batman beat the hell out of me and knocked me to the
| floor, I got back up and knocked him to the floor, He was
| being such a jack off" - I Whupped Batman's Ass
|
| "This beast killed as many as 100,000 people / It's wings
| can flap like a bird / It can break a glass / It can also
| stab you in the ass" - The Chicken Cow
| JasonFruit wrote:
| I didn't realize until today that Wesley Willis was also
| a visual artist[0], and surprisingly good.
|
| [0]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wesley+willis+art&t=brave&
| iax=imag...
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Oh! My bad. I mistook the SDK and projectM source
| download links for the app itself.
|
| I apologise for the misleading comment.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| Is all good.
|
| -dro
| habeebtc wrote:
| 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.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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/8a466a39534e4be0dc6ca5cc0d6
| f5a...
| caddywompus wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| 0des wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| You're both right!
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20131219003849/http://www.winam
| p...
|
| > 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. ;)
| xmprt wrote:
| I still don't understand. What's wrong with Winamp 4
| skins?
|
| Edit: Maybe I have to sound it out. Is it because 4 skin
| sounds like foreskin?
| lelandfe wrote:
| You got it :)
| ConceptJunkie wrote:
| 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.
| 0des wrote:
| >the clowns that made that awful new Winamp
|
| You don't have to be like that.
| zwirbl wrote:
| The site didn't have to like that either
| hermitdev wrote:
| If the new website is any indicator of the quality of the
| new Winamp, it's going to be a huge nope from me.
| lelandfe wrote:
| They may win for the worst scrolljacking I've seen to
| date
| [deleted]
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| how can i msg you a invite to the new landoleet discord?
| totetsu wrote:
| NB four and fore are sound the same in some accents
| agumonkey wrote:
| And now I have a totally different view on the smooth
| jazz band named fourplay
| ConceptJunkie wrote:
| Definitely true for American accents.
| lproven wrote:
| Thank you for so delicately pointing out the problem/joke
| here -- I hadn't noticed it, not even back then.
|
| My question is: in what English accents do "four" and
| "fore" *not* sound alike?
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| This is the Horse-Hoarse merger. [1]
|
| > Accents that have resisted the merger include most
| Scottish, Caribbean, and older Southern American accents
| as well as some African American, modern Southern
| American, Indian, Irish, and older Maine accents.
|
| If my understanding is correct, in some accents that
| don't pronounce their "R"s at the end of words, the vowel
| shape changes slightly while pronouncing "four," but
| "fore" is pronounced with a simple vowel.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-
| language_vowel_changes...
| lproven wrote:
| Fascinating. Thank you.
|
| It is extremely hard for me to even _imagine_ this, as
| apparently my native accents both contain this merger.
| This is a rare experience for me, but a previous
| occurrence was discussing the rhotic-R phenomenon.
| aasasd wrote:
| Wiktionary sometimes comes handy in such musings, because
| it has IPA spellings and recordings of pronunciations,
| and marks the dialects--not always but frequently for
| more popular words.
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fore
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/four
|
| The IPA suggests that pronunciations of the two words are
| identical both with and without the merger, but I'm no
| specialist.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Just dug a little deeper, and I've arrived at this
| conclusion:
|
| In accents _with_ the merger, "four," "for," and "fore"
| are all always homophones.
|
| In accents _without_ the merger, "four" and "for" are
| never homophones.
|
| And in some subset of these non-merged accents, "fore"
| may be pronounced identically to "four" (as listed in the
| IPA guide in your first link). In another subset, it may
| be pronounced identically to "for" (as implied by the
| "Homophones" section in that same link).
| ziml77 wrote:
| Thank you. This is what it took for me to realize why
| version 4 might be an issue. If I just saw "4 skin" I
| certainly would have gotten it. Somehow adding Winamp in
| front made it hard for me to interpret it the alternative
| way.
| tomxor wrote:
| > not because v2 + v3 = v5 but because nobody would want to
| download a Winamp 4 skin
|
| I wish the people who named Gimp image editor were this
| thoughtful! Searching for image masking info has caught me
| out multiple times :/
| monkeycantype wrote:
| on multiple occasions when i've needed to know command
| line syntax I've googled 'man find'
| squarefoot wrote:
| If memory serves, the latest unbloated version of WinAmp
| was called Winamp Classic, and its versions were in the
| 2.9x range.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| 5.x is just the 2.x base continued with newer plug-ins &
| newer apis for those plug-ins. Unchecking things during
| installation (e.g. choosing the lite install) or just
| removing the unwanted plug-ins was always an option to
| make a 5.x into a comparable 2.x install.
|
| -dro
| cyber_kinetist wrote:
| For context, here's the new revamped(!) Winamp coming up soon:
| 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.)
| pongo1231 wrote:
| 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.
| kingsloi wrote:
| 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!
| stavros wrote:
| Winamp ( _winamp_ )
|
| It really whips your browser's ass.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| My brain automatically read that in that guy's voice from
| DEMO.MP3, complete with the bleating.
| stavros wrote:
| As it should!
| andrew_ wrote:
| LOL same. It's absolutely wild how that's an automatic
| response.
| [deleted]
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| 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.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| NoScript does this.
| eitland wrote:
| There is another thread going on about bringing back web
| 1, but here is something I have been advocating for a
| while, make 2 different new web profiles, along the lines
| of:
|
| 1.) A subset of modern HTML / CSS, custom Javascript.
| Remove anything that isn't needed and especially anything
| that affects rendering negatively for no good reason.
|
| 1.1.) Possibly: Provide versioned, vendor neutral
| versions of js to allow for autocomplete.
|
| 2.) Same as 1, but with custom JS. All js must complete
| in a specified number of cycles. User interaction gives
| extra cycles.
|
| The point of 1 is to:
|
| - for companies: massively lower the barriers for new
| browsers (remove lots of backwards compatibility and the
| huge problem of JS)
|
| - for security conscious users: provide a safer way to
| browse the web
|
| - for users generally: provide a way to browse the web
| faster and more comfortably
|
| - the point of 2.) is to provide an approximation of what
| we have today but in a way that automatically limits
| developers from abusing JS.
| Kiro wrote:
| What about actual apps or games where you want to push
| the limits?
| eitland wrote:
| For that we already have html5 and Firefox :-) (and
| Chrome and what not)
| lproven wrote:
| Sounds good, but I'd move for the total removal and
| banning of all JS and other scripting.
|
| Otherwise, what's the point?
| lostgame wrote:
| In the Spotify/Apple Music, etc; era - wtf is the selling
| point on this?
| ttyyzz wrote:
| The page is a performance nightmare on my mobile phone (pixel
| 4a), unusable.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| 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.
| firekvz wrote:
| The browser on my pixel 6 crashed, haven't seen a site lag a
| phone for like 2 years
| andai wrote:
| Holy shit, you weren't kidding! What the heck is this thing
| doing, mining bitcoins? How did this ever get approved?
| cyber_kinetist wrote:
| Yeah, the site also freezes my Firefox for 5 seconds, and
| this is from a gaming PC. Absolutely horrendous...
|
| How hard you would actually have to try to make a website
| as horrible as this, this thing is just a meme.
| cjnicholls wrote:
| Here's the developer https://www.laniche.com . Their
| other websites don't seem to be as laggy but there is a
| theme of animating *every* element and embedding videos.
| sli wrote:
| For all that lag, I was expecting a lot more than some
| simple animations. And that scrolljacking is by far the
| worst I've ever experienced. I have to scroll three times
| to switch to the next section. Can't even manually drag
| the little scrollspy thing. Atrocious.
| mderazon wrote:
| Came to write this as well
| Flockster wrote:
| Wow, it made my Firefox stuck for a few seconds, opening it
| in a new tab. (So it wasn't viewable while loading).
| isk517 wrote:
| Add me the the list of people who thought you were
| exaggerating about how bad the website was and then
| immediately noticed how it made my browser stutter.
| Nition wrote:
| Funnily enough, despite that brand new absolute mess of a
| website, the ancient original Winamp Forums are still
| running: http://forums.winamp.com/
| alx__ wrote:
| Looks like they copped the design styles from Sonos. Which is
| already meh
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > We're building Winamp for the next-generation.
|
| The incorrect hyphen is just irritating as well.
| jmknoll wrote:
| At the bottom of their site, they have about 30 open full
| time positions, including Sales, Legal, and Finance. Seems
| strange for a 25 year old media player. Did they just close a
| big funding round or something?
| WorldMaker wrote:
| I don't recall the full tumultuous journey, but highlights
| I recall were Nullsoft (original Winamp creators) towards
| the end were bought by AOL who did them dirty and then AOL
| forgot about Winamp as a property entirely for something
| like two decades through the Time Warner merger then
| divorce then the Yahoo! merger into "Oath" under Verizon.
| At some point in spinning Oath back out of Verizon and
| putting Oath's IP on the chopping block someone found
| Winamp in an old closet somewhere and sold the "brand" to
| whoever this new company is that so far as any can tell has
| zero relationship to the original Nullsoft in any capacity.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| The pure Nullsoft Winamp was from 1997 to mid-1999 with
| AOL having Winamp under it's ownership until 2013
| (technically until mid-January 2014) when it was sold to
| Radionomy (who then were bought by Vivendi but then
| bought themselves back under the guise of Audiovalley).
|
| So that time with AOL covers v2.5 when it became free
| after starting out as shareware through to v5.666 along
| with the maligned WinAmp3 period. So that's whole a lot
| of not doing much but still producing releases for almost
| 15yrs. Winamp (& SHOUTcast) were sold before Verizon did
| it's thing with AOL.
|
| -dro
| dmt0 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| There's also re:amp which is a decent implementation of the
| Winamp classic skin support.
|
| -dro
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| 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...
| toyg wrote:
| 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.
| mkoryak wrote:
| 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?
| pachico wrote:
| Leak or an attempt to get attention since it doesn't seem to be
| getting much?
| manyellsea wrote:
| Download zip doesn't work for me, found a mirror here
| https://sizeofcat.ru/so.cl/1638195782/
| timdorr wrote:
| This appears to work (for now):
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210418214109if_/https://codelo...
| vermaden wrote:
| Winamp was great in 2000s ... Today Deadbeef works exceptionally
| great on UNIX systems. There is also Sayonara or VLC ... and tons
| of other usable players.
|
| Not sure what happens on Windows systems nowadays but I always
| include Winamp 2.95 as part of the Windows installation that I do
| for family/buddies ... I just change the default 'ugly as fuck'
| theme to something usable and nice appealing :)
| marcodiego wrote:
| Interesting as a historic document. If someone is willing to port
| it to newer systems or compilers, also maybe of some value. I
| really don't see much value considering there are already
| reasonable good, lightweight (I think) and multi-platform (like
| qmmp) which offer support to winamp skins.
| fps_doug wrote:
| It's the same as the Opera Presto leak a few years ago. You
| cannot legally maintain or update, let alone distribute it.
| Back then you could find a few minor patches in Russian forums
| but that's about it. So even if there's people capable and
| willing to maintain it (which for a browser I think is an order
| of magnitude more work), there is no easy way to have a
| collaboration platform that also gives the project enough
| visibility, so motivation is pretty low.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Is this legal obstacle true everywhere? If a company stops
| making a breakfast cereal permanently, then I can replicate
| it and sell my own. Why not a browser that Opera is never
| going to sell again?
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| Copyright law will generally cannot be applied to a
| breakfast cereal anywhere. Patents or trademarks may apply,
| however, but these work differently.
|
| Is it the same everywhere? No, but it is similar in a lot
| of places, due to political agreements and convergence.
| userbinator wrote:
| There's still plenty of that "true hacker" mentality (for
| lack of better term) in lesser-known and mostly non-English
| sites out there. Chinese is common, as is Russian, not
| surprisingly. I dare not disclose them because I know they'll
| get too much and unwanted attention, but look hard enough and
| you will find.
| bullox wrote:
| It really whips the llama's ass.
| johnsillings wrote:
| Man, that audio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaF-nRS_CWM)
| makes me so nostalgic.
|
| Apparently it was a Wesley Willis reference, too, which just
| makes it 1000x better.
| [deleted]
| WithinReason wrote:
| For those looking for a lightweight but powerful music player,
| Foobar2000 is a good choice!
| gorbachev wrote:
| I've been quite liking musicbee. foobar2000 is definitely great
| as well, I just prefer musicbee's UI a bit more.
| bt1a wrote:
| I'm going to second musicbee. It's really fast and the UI is
| very clean. I don't doubt that foobar can be customized to
| one's grandest desires - it's just that musicbee works well
| out of the box.
| geocrasher wrote:
| I listened to my first MP3 ever (Creed's "Higher") in 1999 on
| Winamp. It really whipped the South American camelid's posterior.
| Dang. I'm old.
| nikcub wrote:
| The first scene releases of mp3's were in 1996[0]. It was 1997
| when things got rolling, just as Winamp was released.
|
| I recall then that even new PC's couldn't decode at full CD
| quality and you had to downscale. We also picked which songs to
| download locally based on their size
|
| Spiderbait's song "Calypso" was probably the most popular mp3
| download in '97 since it was only 2.5MB and a lot of people
| just wanted to try this new mp3 thing everybody was talking
| about.
|
| The decoder Winamp used was actually amp - developed by
| Tomislav Uzelac[1]. I can't remember how he dodged patent
| issues, but he had his name and an ask for donations in the
| about box of v1 iirc.
|
| Winamp owe a lot to amp - the first version was essentially a
| skin + port of his library to Windows. I'm pretty certain
| Winamp v2 also used amp, just as it was blowing up to become
| the most downloaded program online.
|
| Nullsoft and Justin were absolute legends. He wrote an AOL ad
| removal / blocking tool and WASTE while at AOL. I can't think
| of any similar startup or subsidiary today that has even close
| to the attitude / courage they had.
|
| [0] https://www.mp3scene.info/releases/year/1996/
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomislav_Uzelac
| MisterTea wrote:
| > I recall then that even new PC's couldn't decode at full CD
| quality and you had to downscale.
|
| I remember pentium 90's struggling to play mp3's on Win95/98
| while at uni. They would play but you couldn't do much else
| otherwise they would stutter. Even minimizing and maximizing
| the mp3 player would cause stuttering.
| marcodiego wrote:
| I think only the first versions of winamp used amp, it was
| replaced later. Interestingly, the old amp code can still be
| compiled and ran on modern systems with little modifications.
| I've did it a few months ago.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| Oh wow, WASTE, that brings back some memories. I hadn't heard
| of it until college, where everyone on campus used it to
| share music / videos / etc. I never knew that the history of
| it was linked to Nullsoft and Winamp.
| raydev wrote:
| My favorite "wild west" item from this time period is
| nineinchnails.net. I don't know who was running the site at
| the time, but they were ripping and hosting mp2/mp3 files of
| NIN's entire discography just out in the open and free.
|
| A combination of limited hard drive space + sad dialup speeds
| prevented me from actually downloading the entire discog
| before the eventual shutdown in 98 or 99-ish.
| racl101 wrote:
| > I listened to my first MP3 ever (Creed's "Higher")
|
| My condolences.
| IggleSniggle wrote:
| After years of listening to Adlib MIDI soundtracks on the
| computer, I was absolutely blown away to be hearing "Yesterday"
| by the Beatles coming out of the speakers. I played that tiny
| little file (not a whole CD!) countless times on repeat. Just
| unbelievable that such a thing could be coming from a tiny
| (relatively) little file.
| geocrasher wrote:
| Yes, I remember feeling that awe as well. For giggles, I just
| went to YouTube and listened to "Higher" again, and man...
| that really took me back. Haven't listened to it in years.
| Still one of my favorite heavy metal songs of all time.
|
| I also remember being _so thrilled_ to be able to store
| _several_ MP3 's on my 64mb Sharp Zaurus SL-5600.
| wgx wrote:
| You may enjoy this for a nostalgia hit: https://webamp.org/
| jvolkman wrote:
| I remember being jealous of my friend's Pentium (66? 90?) when
| mp3 playback slaughtered my 486.
| raphman wrote:
| The original Fraunhofer MP3 player, Winplay3, had settings to
| reduce decoding quality - which helped a lot on my 486.
|
| https://youtu.be/vzQT4qkC-gk?t=110
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I had an AMD DX4-120 that was overclocked to 160 Mhz. Yup, a
| 160 Mhz 486.
|
| Was on par with a 90 Mhz Pentium for integer processing,
| IIRC, so MP3 playback didn't drag the system to a halt,
| though it was still a noticeable impact on performance.
|
| What really dragged the performance down was when I'd try to
| run 3D Studio MAX at the same time. I had 24 MB of RAM, and
| the installer warned that they did not recommend running with
| less than 48 MB, which was an absurd number for a home user
| at the time.
| IggleSniggle wrote:
| When "Pentium" was the name of the very most precious metal
| one could obtain
| dehrmann wrote:
| It truly was all about the Pentiums.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMvS1Q1sos
| giarc wrote:
| That has to be one of the best advertising campaigns in
| history. I've heard non-technical people in the last few
| years still say things like "I think our new computer has a
| Pentium or something". The word Pentium was synonymous with
| quality and speed.
| trulyme wrote:
| They might be right, though I wouldn't say the name is
| synonymous with speed anymore. Intel is still using this
| name for entry level cpus [0].
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium
| ComodoHacker wrote:
| If you want Winamp-like experience, try AIMP[0]. It keeps
| Winamp's traditions on usability, audio quality and features,
| while not trying to monetize its users in any way.
|
| 0. https://www.aimp.ru/
| MrGilbert wrote:
| I'm afraid that, at one point in time, a DMCA takedown might
| backfire at the archive. I mean, it has been taken down on
| Github, but it's of course available at archive.org - it would
| hurt the internet as a whole if the archive needs to close it's
| doors.
|
| Hopefully that will never happen.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It depends on whether Github or Winamp can be arsed; given that
| it's been posted on HN now, they are probably on the trail now.
|
| Archive.org can't just ignore a DMCA takedown, that would
| threaten their safe haven status.
| gmueckl wrote:
| Winamp at this point in time is just a trademark that ended
| up at a Belgian company. And I think they want to use it to
| launch a music streaming service. The rest of Nullsoft went
| down with AOL. I wonder which party would even have the legal
| rights to move against such a source code leak.
| [deleted]
| garaetjjte wrote:
| They are claiming they have rights to the code too: "I am
| acting on behalf of AudioValley SA who currently owns the
| copyright to the Winamp code after a purchase from AOL."
| RF_Savage wrote:
| I wonder what happened to NSIS, the NullSoft InstallSystem?
|
| Used it myself as a teen to have a professional looking
| installer for my software releases.
|
| I still occasionally see software with NSIS installers and
| Nullsoft copyright. So I wonder what entity is behind it
| now days.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| NSIS is open source, seems to be maintained by the
| community.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| NSIS has nothing to do with the lot that own Winamp & it
| was a clearly defined "not part of the sale" as it has
| been OSS from early on around it's v1.0 iirc which was a
| long long time before Winamp was eventually sold.
|
| I still think they should be using their own forum with
| an archive of the NSIS sub-forum to ensure that there's a
| clear distinction between them & the lot that now own
| Winamp (as there's no benefit for them to be keeping that
| forum running other than a trickle of ad revenue) but
| that's down to those that lead NSIS to decide upon.
|
| -dro
| dmos62 wrote:
| We should have infrastructure for sharing things like this
| without putting a centralized entity like archive.org in the
| crosshairs. Bittorrent comes to mind, but it could only be part
| of the solution.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Disclaimer: I'm not into shitcoins, and I am not shilling
| this coin at all.
|
| However, the goals of Filecoin seem to be right up this
| alley. Distribute file storage among billions of users where
| the more you host and help the swarm, the more coins you
| earn.
|
| https://filecoin.io/
|
| Last I checked (about a month ago) there was still no way to
| "help the swarm" without having a ridiculous set up but I
| imagine someone with more experience will correct me.
| danlugo92 wrote:
| https://gun.eco/
| 0des wrote:
| IPFS is perfect for this.
| dvdkon wrote:
| Almost, but since it publicly associates the files you
| share with your IP address, I don't see most interested
| people willing to use it in this context.
| 0des wrote:
| Pinning services exist, VPN's exist, also every other
| technology including torrents exposes your IP.
| soylentcola wrote:
| True, but torrents et al make you a peer, so you're also
| distributing, not just saving a copy locally. At least
| that's how I've always understood it in terms of legal
| risk.
|
| But yeah, VPN has (so far) been enough for me to avoid
| being low hanging fruit when torrenting something I don't
| have a license to "distribute" while seeding.
| dmos62 wrote:
| To be fair, most Bittorrent users have not had any legal
| issues (while downloading copyrighted stuff).
| makeworld wrote:
| All archive.org items have a torrent file, so even if IA goes
| down you can still download the item from seeders.
| haunter wrote:
| I never get how Archive.org can get away with... everything?
| Like every single console game is there. Nintendo is very
| famous to take down ROM sites yet their full library is on
| Archive.org. And that's Nintendo only, all the PS1, PS2, PS3
| games and the whole Xbox/360 catalog is there as well. It's
| crazy
|
| In some aspect Archive.org is better than some private torrent
| trackers
| nicoburns wrote:
| There's plenty of precedent for archives. National libraries
| get a copy of everything published, and anybody is allowed to
| borrow and read from it for free. I think there is a
| recognition that preserving history is important.
| gibspaulding wrote:
| I've been worrying about this as well. I recently found a
| Beetles discography on Archive.org even after TPB turned up
| almost nothing. It's great being able to find things, but
| It'd be a shame to loose all of the legitimate content
| because of getting associated with blatant piracy.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Meatspace libraries often have a big collection of CDs too.
| This is part of our cultural heritage, and I think making
| it accesible in this form is a no-brainer.
|
| (By the way, maybe it was a typo, but the spelling is
| "Beatles". They were better at songwriting than puns.)
| spicybright wrote:
| I'm so happy they somehow keep going. I've found so much
| otherwise dead software there, esp. obscure windows 3.1 games
| I played growing up :)
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Because they're a library with a DMCA exception (which may be
| expiring soon), they are allowed to host that content. That
| doesn't mean you are allowed to download it though. Normal
| copyright and DMCA law still applies to you as a consumer of
| this content. Also Jason Scott has stated that they prefer to
| take a stance of "just upload whatever it is first, then if
| someone complains we will take it down".
| kingcharles wrote:
| archive.org regularly removes things when they are alerted :(
| bt1a wrote:
| Sounds like we need an archive.org archive
| kiallmacinnes wrote:
| I'm not 100% sure of all the details, but archive.org has some
| exceptions[1] to the DMCA & thanks to California, it's
| officially considered a library - which again, I believe gives
| it some more leeway on the DMCA.
|
| [1]: https://archive.org/about/dmca.php
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| In the event a DMCA notice must be actioned, the content is
| no longer made available ("darked") but it remains archived
| for the future.
| thefourthchime wrote:
| I nearly got a job with them back around 2001. At the time they
| were revamping their development group.
|
| I had written some plug-ins for Winamp so I familiar with the
| plug-in structure. It looks like the new lead developer wanted to
| rewrite everything. Using all kinds of object-oriented
| methodologies. The older code was all C based and very simple. I
| wasn't fan of the new direction.
| bluedino wrote:
| > The older code was all C based and very simple. I wasn't fan
| of the new direction.
|
| Pretty sure the original author hung out in #winprog (EFnet
| IRC), I wasn't a great Windows programmer but I remember him
| showing off how he created the skinnable interface and
| everything. I also remember spending a half hour downloading a
| Rob Zombie MP3, using Winamp to play it, and wondering what the
| big deal was :)
| spicybright wrote:
| There's something special about how limited media
| availability was back then. Made every track you could manage
| to get your hands on really special!
| nebula8804 wrote:
| I guess we are replicating this today with vinyl.
| ConceptJunkie wrote:
| Some people are. Probably not folks who actually came up
| in the age of vinyl. The only plans I ever have for using
| my turntable again is to digitize some obscure stuff that
| I'll probably never find on more modern media.
| unixhero wrote:
| There is some sense of mindfulness in the physicality of
| listening to a vinyl record.
| spicybright wrote:
| Def. It's interesting because now we have to willingly
| limit ourselves to get the same effect.
|
| I actually wish we tried this a bit more with news,
| social media, etc.
| IggleSniggle wrote:
| As a kid with plenty of time but without access to either a
| car or a credit card, and with plenty of experience with MIDI
| and a little with WAV, being about to download an mp3 was
| absolutely mind-blowing.
| Y_Y wrote:
| > the new lead developer wanted to rewrite everything. Using
| all kinds of object-oriented methodologies. The older code was
| all C based and very simple.
|
| A tale as old as time.
| andrew_ wrote:
| Is it bad that I start hearing the Aladdin (1992) soundtrack
| whenever I read that line?
| khedoros1 wrote:
| Not Beauty and the Beast?
| smolder wrote:
| A whole new world,
|
| a new fantastic paradigm!
|
| No more structs,
|
| Or bad raw pointer luck,
|
| I will use the whole damn STL.
|
| A whooole neeeeww woooooorld!
| asveikau wrote:
| A whole _operator new_ world?
|
| (Apologies.)
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Yes, it is bad. You got the wrong movie. ;)
| [deleted]
| synergy20 wrote:
| there are so many music players that can do mp3, why winamp
| source code is of interest still?
| titaniumtown wrote:
| I've never even heard of Winamp before lol
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-29 23:00 UTC)