[0x00000000]

I only clicked because I was hoping the page would be a cool relic from the 90s but instead I was visually assaulted by four full screen autoplay videos and a cookie pop up obstructing 75% of the laggy page. Would not visit again.

[tuoret]

Ironically it's the kind of terrible modern UX design that would make me want to use classic Winamp in the first place (if foobar2000 wasn't a thing).

[1_player]

Whoever is Winamp today, what they want to revive is not their old cool audio player, but just ride on the name and sell some modern piece of crap that has nothing to do with classic Winamp.

[SketchySeaBeast]

I imagine that in the age of streaming music it would be a hard sell to produce a new offline music player.

[smolder]

Yeah, and we don't really need one, either. Winamp5 and VLC and others all still work fine for those of us who keep offline collections.

[ConceptJunkie]

I do both: stream and play offline stuff. For the former, I use YouTube Music, which is incredibly awful, but at least it does work.

The website version of YouTube Music that I use on the PC is all right, but the app version I use on my phone is a usability mess. Google Music was so much better, but Google has become Microsoft. They're too big to care about making their products good any more.

For offline playing on my computer, I use Winamp. Full stop.

[that_guy_iain]

Let's be serious, you're not the target market. Anyone who is using minimalist software is not the target market for any corporate software. The fact it would drive you away is a feature and not bug.

[lmm]

Pretty pointless to call it "winamp" if they're not targeting that kind of user.

[that_guy_iain]

Winamp was never a minimalistic player, it was one of the feature rich players. It allowed for all the UX/UI hacking you could get wayback then. It's just compared to today it was really simple.

[handrous]

You don't have to be minimalist to perform well. Like most other software from the era of 32MB-of-memory Windows desktops with two-digit-Mhz single-core processors, it had to be lean or everyone would hate it. That doesn't mean lacking features.

[that_guy_iain]

It wasn't lean in comparison to other MP3 players at the time. This is the thing I think people are forgetting. It was in comparison pretty much what that website is promising.

[lmm]

It was featureful but it was also high-performance. It was originally popular because it could play MP3s on systems where other players couldn't keep up.

[hermitdev]

...and the target audience has probably never even used or heard of Winamp, so if they're trying to ride on the name with that audience, it's going to be another fail.

[that_guy_iain]

Lots of people who originally used Winamp way back when are using Spotify, Deezer, etc. The target audience isn't an age group but people who want that style of music app.

[carvking]

For you my friend. https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.winamp.com/

[squarefoot]

A breath of fresh air. When will they learn...