Anyone else not like what Winamp is doing? They are constantly releasing newer versions, with more options, and more features to steal your CPU. How many of these new features do I use? None. Their skins are rounder, and not as "dockable" as they used to be (I use a skin from 3.0, I wish I still had my skin from 2.0). They make it easier for people to make skins, give them more options, but confuse the hell out of those who just want to listen to a damn song. They also hide some of the stuff you used to be able to edit before, or move it to a place you'll never find (such as song cross-fading, who likes that anyways?). Lastly, how the hell am I supposed to know what settings my computer will run optimally on? It will differ if I'm playing games, or just listening to music and talking on MSN. Hm that's a great idea, maybe they can save settings to load depending on what you're doing, and while they're at it, maybe they can program it to give you blowjobs.

I feel as if I'm getting old, and not wanting to keep up with program updates because they're too damn confusing, and contain features I will never even look at. I'd be happy with my winamp 2.0 back, some bug fixes on it, and maybe one or two of the new features (like the cd ripping, and visualizations for when I'm stoned).

That's why I use iTunes if I'm listening to music while browsing the internet, writing, etc, and use Winamp 2.91 if I'm listening to something in the background while playing a game.

http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=winamp

5 is much better then 3 was with resources though.

Haven't used winamp in a while, I love XMMS though.

I love xmms and, when I'm on Windows, I use Winamp 2.93. That was the peak. And I got it from the site Thing listed.

[quote author=Thing link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=0#msg76487 date=1093057660]
http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=winamp
[/quote]
Thanks Thing.

Peofe -- Are you sure? I haven't really tried it but I would have thought 5 to be more resource intensive than 3.

This seems to be a trend with everything including Linux and Windows. Software becomes more and more bloated with useless features that end up taking more cpu and ram. Depending on what you run your 3ghz/2GB ram computer might as well be a 500mhz/128mb ram computer because they both respond about the same.

[quote author=K link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=0#msg76486 date=1093057435]
That's why I use iTunes if I'm listening to music while browsing the internet, writing, etc, and use Winamp 2.91 if I'm listening to something in the background while playing a game.
[/quote]

Right on, brother!
Although iTunes is for all the time, unless I am listening to unsorted music (music I download and put in a temp folder until I fix ID3s to it and put it in the destinated folder in my real music folder). So iTunes for my music library, and Winamp for the music fresh on my PC.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=0#msg76497 date=1093058943]
Peofe -- Are you sure? I haven't really tried it but I would have thought 5 to be more resource intensive than 3.

[/quote] Yes, 3 was a real whore when it came to resources. The day I installed the first thign I noticed was that it was running leaner (well ok, it was the second thing I noticed after the skin). But I use 2.91.

Winamp 2.81.

I run Winamp 5 and have absolutely no problems with it. I think you're all on crack. :)

It's happening everywhere. .NET platform (and Java) are huge and bloated, MS Word, hell, it's a word processor, takes up a ton of RAM for no reason.

Who wants to begin work on a suite of software that takes a bare minimum of resources and sell it?

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=0#msg76698 date=1093141741]
Who wants to begin work on a suite of software that takes a bare minimum of resources and sell it?
[/quote]
I'm in.
LONG LIVE NOTEPAD! (we'll include it)

Do you seriously want to do this? I do. We could charge big buxx for it too :)

I could go for something like this. What OS are you going to do it on Windows? If so and it was me doing it id try to get rid of as much of the basic windows crap that gets installed as possible to start with. Then you have to deal with basic windows controls that take up large chunks of memory themselves. Like richedit and such.

I was thinking of writing using as much cross-platform C++ as possible, using something like www.wxwindows.org. What the world needs is lightweight, fast, and secure software.

They've already done it, and they called it Linux. All the software I use is free and non-bloated. In fact, it all runs perfectly on my 266mhz server.

I use a lightweight window manager, and mostly console applications.

And linux is also good in the fact that, if you do like GUI type things there is always gnome, KDE, and other windowmanagers like that. But if, like iago, you're running a shitty computer theres things like fluxbox, WindowManager, etc.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76749 date=1093160731]
They've already done it, and they called it Linux. All the software I use is free and non-bloated. In fact, it all runs perfectly on my 266mhz server.

I use a lightweight window manager, and mostly console applications.
[/quote]

Strange how I when highlight something on my Penitum 550mhz Gnome/Redhat9 box my xmms skips.

For one, redhat sucks..(based on my opinion, i'm not arguing it) but anyway! I have a 558mhz machine, I use gnome//WindowMaker on Slackware 10.0. I have never had a problem with xmms, it used to run a little slow because my media was on an NTFS partition, which not suprisingly are slow with linux, so I made a fat32 partition for all music//movies, and it runs perfectly fast.

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76783 date=1093186299]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76749 date=1093160731]
They've already done it, and they called it Linux. All the software I use is free and non-bloated. In fact, it all runs perfectly on my 266mhz server.

I use a lightweight window manager, and mostly console applications.
[/quote]

Strange how I when highlight something on my Penitum 550mhz Gnome/Redhat9 box my xmms skips.
[/quote]

I don't think Gnome qualifies as a lightweight window manager.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76749 date=1093160731]
They've already done it, and they called it Linux. All the software I use is free and non-bloated. In fact, it all runs perfectly on my 266mhz server.

I use a lightweight window manager, and mostly console applications.
[/quote]
*On the windows platform.

I would love to do something like this, unfortunately I don't think I have the skills to contribute alot. If you decide to go through with it, let me know I'd like to see how something like this happens.

[quote author=K link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76789 date=1093189065]
[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76783 date=1093186299]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76749 date=1093160731]
They've already done it, and they called it Linux. All the software I use is free and non-bloated. In fact, it all runs perfectly on my 266mhz server.

I use a lightweight window manager, and mostly console applications.
[/quote]

Strange how I when highlight something on my Penitum 550mhz Gnome/Redhat9 box my xmms skips.
[/quote]

I don't think Gnome qualifies as a lightweight window manager.
[/quote]

Haha, that's what I was going to say. I haven't personally used Gnome, but KDE is at least as bloated as Windows, and I don't like it. WindowMaker, like many others, is very light weight and does very little for you.

Linux is more modular, but isn't immune. I admit, it's easy to throw together a lightweight Linux system, but a lot of the time, it's just as bloated as Windows in a standard install.

It matters if you do it right, and I know gnome is bloated but I also use windowmaker, which is a low profile window manager.

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76842 date=1093203187]
Linux is more modular, but isn't immune. I admit, it's easy to throw together a lightweight Linux system, but a lot of the time, it's just as bloated as Windows in a standard install.
[/quote]

I don't see the problem, then! The losers with their 3ghz machines can bloat themselves up, and the people like me can use the clean fast stuff, and everybody's happy!

What about us losers with 2.4ghz and want light software?

http://linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=45

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76854 date=1093204647]
What about us losers with 2.4ghz and want light software?
[/quote]

I have a 1.0ghz (which runs Windows or kde fine) but I still use it for light software.

Gentoo is ok.

I am a fan of Slackware, myself, which can also be found at www.linuxiso.org But I don't see why we're discussing distros now.

[quote author=muert0 link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76903 date=1093215609]
http://linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=45
[/quote]
http://www.linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=17

You can build gentoo from the ground up so it can be as light as you want it. But I guess you can do that with just about any distro.

Build from scratch, eh?

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

[quote author=Archonist link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76784 date=1093186805]
For one, redhat sucks..(based on my opinion, i'm not arguing it) but anyway! I have a 558mhz machine, I use gnome//WindowMaker on Slackware 10.0. I have never had a problem with xmms, it used to run a little slow because my media was on an NTFS partition, which not suprisingly are slow with linux, so I made a fat32 partition for all music//movies, and it runs perfectly fast.
[/quote]
Here is why Red Hat sucks: because, like me, you got the x.0 versions (7.0, 8.0, 9.0). The developers of Red Hat don't even use those ("I always wait until at least the .2 version"). Aside from that, Red Hat is good for building what you want and keeping everything else the way it is (unlike Gentoo where you have basically two options: build everything yourself or don't use it).
The problem with non-RH distros is that they tend not to like Gnome (how can you not like Gnome?).

So how do the developers work the bugs out of the X.0 versions if they don't use them?

[quote author=Undeference link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=30#msg77655 date=1093632825]
[quote author=Archonist link=board=2;threadid=8272;start=15#msg76784 date=1093186805]
For one, redhat sucks..(based on my opinion, i'm not arguing it) but anyway! I have a 558mhz machine, I use gnome//WindowMaker on Slackware 10.0. I have never had a problem with xmms, it used to run a little slow because my media was on an NTFS partition, which not suprisingly are slow with linux, so I made a fat32 partition for all music//movies, and it runs perfectly fast.
[/quote]
Here is why Red Hat sucks: because, like me, you got the x.0 versions (7.0, 8.0, 9.0). The developers of Red Hat don't even use those ("I always wait until at least the .2 version"). Aside from that, Red Hat is good for building what you want and keeping everything else the way it is (unlike Gentoo where you have basically two options: build everything yourself or don't use it).
The problem with non-RH distros is that they tend not to like Gnome (how can you not like Gnome?).
[/quote]

That reminds me of my friend xar's quote, "For redhat, I'd wait till .1 or .2, because redhat sucks. For Slackware, get the .0, it's built like a tank anyway."