2x has graphic bugs that annoy the skinners...and the last thing we are looking for is a buggier version to skin for.
If and when there is a standard, final, un-buggy version that won't break skins then more will work with it.

There's nothing worse than expending lots of time and energy creating a skin only to have the skin format 'progress' rendering all your work pointless...

Is there a section for it here then? Or is the current Winamp section for 2.x?

Jus select 'WinAmp V3' in the header of the section and click 'Go'. Easy, isn't it ?

Let me try.

Hey, I was only making fun about myself...

ok... I want to know... why does winamp suck???

I didn't have that many problems with it.

pfft. aren't kids precious? (I saw a guy in a chat argue that Sonique sucked because it caused his computer to crash while he was playing Everquest...)

Machine: p4 1.8ghz, 1gig of ram, matrox g450 video card, Windows 2000 SP2.

stats taken immediately after loading; playing, skinned, with a 3000 song playlist (running alongside Photoshop, HTML kit, and two IE windows).

Coolplayer: 1.5 minutes to load the playlist, 9.6 megs of ram.
Winamp 3: 10 seconds to load the playlist, 3.9 megs of ram.
Winamp 2.x: 20 seconds to load the playlist, 8.8 megs of ram.
Sonique 1.96: 15 seconds to load the playlist, 7.0 megs of ram.


As for leaks, after 5 hours of continuous play, winamp 3 is using 9.4 megs of ram, that's approx. one meg an hour. I have expensive software, *years* into gold, that is far, far worse.

Winamp 3 is the best mp3 player by far of all that I have used. I have run it almost continually since it went public and it hasn't crashed *once*. Seriously. I think many, many people are having more problems with hardware compatability and software conflicts, because the instability simply isn't there for me.

People who say it 'sux' either are either having conflicts or are trying to sound l33t (I favor the latter). If someone wants to cough up some issues that would make it 'suck', I'd love to see them, but don't just say "it crashes". If you are running swooby visuals at fullscreen with 64 megs of ram and a 4 meg video card on windows 95, don't bother even chiming in.

Between the great player and the SDK, I think we will be seeing the fruits of the winamp team's efforts for years to come. Will be hard to touch.

I think you meant 1 gig of ram.

It is never the issue unless you *make* it the issue, which you did. People worked a lot of hours on that software, and you blow it off without even bothering to track down *why* it *might* suck on *your* system. If you were sitting with the developers of winamp 3, you'd never trash them like that, but anonymously, on a board that thousands of people a day read, you'll trash them and their software. pfft.

uh so bakerstreet what your saying is because winamp3 crashes thats because we have crappy systems?

I have a problem with Winamp3. It's a cosmetic one actually. Why did they have to skin the menus? Same with Netscape and StarOffice actually. Is this the price we must pay for applications that run on Windows AND Linux?
Besides that, I've had good luck with Winamp3, except with its inability to display information of WMA files and trying to play a CD track when that CD isn't in there (it freezes rather than just says no track found or something).

MessiahWWKD: I'm not crazy about the menus either. That seems to be the way things are going, though.

Never had the CD problem, but I rip all my CDs when I get them.

Voodoo_FreaK

You still didn't explain to me why it runs fine on most people's systems...

You are only using that gdi and ram if you have it maximized, i.e. looking at it. No one I know sits and looks at it. If you are, then you probably don't need the extra ten megs.

Here's a shot of my task manager. roughly 10 minutes running, 3000 file playlist, minimized, a 6 meg MP3 playing:

http://www.geocities.com/bakerstr33t/w3pic.jpg

the performance tab is alternating between 2% and 4% processor use.

Explorer crashes and it must be winamp...? Are we talking about the same Explorer? You are a skinner, you should know better than that...

No offense, Stardock software is well-made (did I say that?), but 'a lot'? Could there be a conflict with any of it? Could windowblinds be trying to skin stuff it shouldn't? have you excluded Winamp? Which versions of Stardock software? Isn't it reasonable with that much UI enhancing software something is bound to go wrong after an extended amount of time?

What do you mean by "up to date"? Sometimes the newest, or specialized drivers (for games *cough*), can be worse than old ones. I have actually had to switch out drivers every time I have wanted to play some games. Wanna talk about bad programming?

30 minutes later...? What did you do in the 30 minutes between? Did you run photoshop with 100 levels of history? How many layers in the image? How much of your resources is it set to use? surely not the default... Which version of photoshop? I can name a half dozen reasons photoshop can crash you... mercilessly, with tons of ram.

I'm not trying to be nasty to ya, but you have to understand that the language you are using is really, really damaging to other people's hard work and dedication. You *will* influence people not to use something that most likely will work fine for them. Sure, you have the right to say it, but you really need to be able to back it up with some kind of confirmable proof. If you can do that, though, you ought to be telling the developers at Nullsoft...

Jark made me grumpy. I think I'll go do some smiling exercises...