[erebearalte]

The new one sucks, but the old one sucks too imo. I know you don't say old websites were great but I've seen alot of people saying that and yet their examples are bad too, usually they look simple and efficient but they're horrible, like spanning the whole page or not enough empty spaces or bad use of colors.

[olyjohn]

Hey if empty spaces and bad use of colors are all you can complain about, then that's a win IMO. At least it still works, which only time will tell for current websites. But I have this sneaky feeling that time wont be so friendly.

[babypuncher]

The current winamp.com works perfectly fine. Everyone's complaints about it are 100% cosmetic, just like these complaints about the 1998 website

[ConceptJunkie]

It might "work", but it's almost entirely content-free. It might as well be a blank page with the old "Under Construction" gif everyone used in the early 90s for all the information it gives.

In fact, the first time I looked at it, I didn't even realize there was anything there, because it was just some random graphic that filled the whole window with no indication that I could scroll down for more non-content. If you ask me that website fails in pretty much every way it can fail.

[shkkmo]

Yeah, that newer site loads slower, messes up my scroll, and is makes it harder to find the content you are looking for. It is the kind of site that makes me navigate away quickly because I don't want to waste my time working around their bad UX.

[progman32]

Incorrect, though. The page does not work on my phone running latest Firefox. Page goes in a refresh loop.

[LordAtlas]

I have a decent spec PC with 32 GB of RAM and a 500 Mbps connection and that site just straight up seemed to have "hung" for a long time before loading that ugliness.

[emodendroket]

If I saw a page like the old one I'd probably assume whatever is being promoted has been long since abandoned.