[caddywompus]

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

[tiffanyh]

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.

[0des]

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]

You're both right!

https://web.archive.org/web/20131219003849/http://www.winamp...

> 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]

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]

You got it :)

[reaperducer]

They thought a Winamp 4 skin would leave a bad taste in people's mouths, so they scratched it.

[tomxor]

> 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]

on multiple occasions when i've needed to know command line syntax I've googled 'man find'

[scubbo]

While learning jQuery and figuring out how to retrieve elements of the DOM, I googled "how to get head".

[radlad]

Get the TLD for python.org wrong and it's less than work appropriate.

[3np]

"how to get head" expertsexchange

[iostream23]

Not to mention the hard coded file names a certain Linux screen capture utility leaves behind…

[totetsu]

NB four and fore are sound the same in some accents

[lproven]

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]

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...

[aasasd]

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.

[lproven]

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.

[ziml77]

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.

[agumonkey]

And now I have a totally different view on the smooth jazz band named fourplay

[ConceptJunkie]

Definitely true for American accents.

[squarefoot]

If memory serves, the latest unbloated version of WinAmp was called Winamp Classic, and its versions were in the 2.9x range.

[thedoctor_o]

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

[orbital-decay]

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]

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]

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/8a466a39534e4be0dc6ca5cc0d6f5a...

[yk]

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]

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.

[bee_rider]

Foobar2000 is even available on iOS -- although it doesn't really fit all that well in the new stramiong-focused ecosystem I guess.

[toyg]

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]

I clicked it and it is NSFW. :-/ Why does JWZ hate HN?

[toyg]

Well, I did warn you...

JWZ's hate of HN is long-running and due to a combination of factors, but I reckon his real annoyance is the amount of traffic this site can send to his little servers.

[krater23]

I currently use 2.95 and see no reason to update. But I listen rarely mp3's in the last years.

[lproven]

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.

[thedoctor_o]

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]

Oh! My bad. I mistook the SDK and projectM source download links for the app itself.

I apologise for the misleading comment.

[thedoctor_o]

Is all good.

-dro

[skeeter2020]

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]

Blast. Didn't even notice. Sorry!

[VortexDream]

Yeah, but does it really whip the llama's ass?

[TedDoesntTalk]

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/til_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]

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...

[fsckboy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JntDcqOxMsM

[lazyjeff]

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]

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.

[artificialLimbs]

>> see no reason to update

You will when you get a 4k monitor.

[efdee]

Winamp has a built-in function to double the pixels, so it's actually quite usable on 4K as-is.

[tomc1985]

It only works for the main window. The library window doesn't work with it.

[thedoctor_o]

It does with WACUP

-dro

[samplatt]

I just installed 2.95 last night after uninstalling 5.x. 5.x doesn't have [Q] to enqueue within a playlist. I have no idea why anyone would remove such a basic feature... maybe the advent of the "media library" management (at the time a new concept) made them decide to remove it.

I had to install milkdrop separately to WinAmp, but honestly, after reinstalling Windows 98 every 72 hours back in the bad old days, it kinda felt natural. Nostalgic.

[dreamlayers]

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.

[habeebtc]

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.

[caddywompus]

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]

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

[lnx01]

5.666

[taf2]

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]

I have long felt that, given the problems of the Python 2→3 migration, the Python devs should have done the same. :-)

[xxpor]

https://pypi.org/project/six/ ;)

[lproven]

Oh, nice. :-D

[meepmorp]

WinAmp 2 was the last "real" version, before the AOL buyout of Nullsoft took its toll.

[cyber_kinetist]

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.)

[firekvz]

The browser on my pixel 6 crashed, haven't seen a site lag a phone for like 2 years

[cyber_kinetist]

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.

[sli]

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.

[cjnicholls]

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.

[andai]

Holy shit, you weren't kidding! What the heck is this thing doing, mining bitcoins? How did this ever get approved?

[mderazon]

Came to write this as well

[kingsloi]

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!

[hdjjhhvvhga]

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.

[eitland]

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.

[lproven]

Sounds good, but I'd move for the total removal and banning of all JS and other scripting.

Otherwise, what's the point?

[Zandikar]

I've actually taken to using a Javascript toggle extension that defaults to off. Makes the web a far better experience when it comes to venturing into unfamiliar territory (going to a site you haven't been to in a while, if it all, or following some shortened url that leads who knows where, or just clicking through something on a news aggregator for example). And if it breaks the website? 9 times out of 10 that's your "It's not worth it" signal to just close the tab and move on. If they can't even deprecate gracefully, they almost never use javascript competently and unobtrusively.

[Kiro]

What about actual apps or games where you want to push the limits?

[eitland]

For that we already have html5 and Firefox :-) (and Chrome and what not)

[kevin_thibedeau]

NoScript does this.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

My point is, I'd like to give some basic cycles to unknown websites. The NoScript solution is good but radical. If you visit new websites often, you spend some time clicking "temp trusted." In my scenario, websites do have some power, but not much. They should never be allowed to make my fan turn faster - unless I allow it. I don't believe this can be done at the plugin/extension level.

[stavros]

Winamp (winamp)

It really whips your browser's ass.

[theandrewbailey]

My brain automatically read that in that guy's voice from DEMO.MP3, complete with the bleating.

[andrew_]

LOL same. It's absolutely wild how that's an automatic response.

[stavros]

As it should!

[Nition]

Funnily enough, despite that brand new absolute mess of a website, the ancient original Winamp Forums are still running: http://forums.winamp.com/

[robertlagrant]

> We’re building Winamp for the next-generation.

The incorrect hyphen is just irritating as well.

[jmknoll]

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]

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]

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

[_piif]

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.

[caslon]

Another one who it worked completely fine for. Zero issue here. Firefox on X11.

[isk517]

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.

[ttyyzz]

The page is a performance nightmare on my mobile phone (pixel 4a), unusable.

[sen]

Not only froze my entire browser (ALL firefox tabs, including youtube playing in another window), but it locked up my entire system for a few seconds, I couldn't alt-tab or anything.

That's... almost impressive in how bad that is. I didn't know a website COULD lock up an entire system in this day and age.

[denton-scratch]

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.

[Flockster]

Wow, it made my Firefox stuck for a few seconds, opening it in a new tab. (So it wasn't viewable while loading).

[lostgame]

In the Spotify/Apple Music, etc; era - wtf is the selling point on this?

[alx__]

Looks like they copped the design styles from Sonos. Which is already meh

[vikingerik]

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.

[danudey]

> 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]

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.

[0des]

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]

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]

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.

[thedoctor_o]

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]

> 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]

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.

[smolder]

> 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]

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]

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.

[jvolkman]

The Windows ecosystem has a long history of closed source freeware. It doesn't seem strange at all to me.

[justinfrankel]

fwiw dro’s been around a long time and i would be inclined to trust them :)

[0des]

Yes, Exactly, Yes!

:) Thanks

[caddywompus]

Oh hey! Appreciate the work you've done, thanks for keeping the project alive!

[TonyTrapp]

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...

[mkoryak]

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?

[toyg]

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.

[hk1337]

XMMS was a really nice Winamp clone for Linux way back when. Might be a good starting point.

http://www.xmms.org/

[xtracto]

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).

[Nursie]

I liked XMMS, it was very clean. I spent far too long building it for my Sun workstation in about 2004...

TIL - Audacious was a fork of XMMS!

[Malakun]

And QMMp! https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/

[andrewshadura]

Audacious.

[antris]

The Fatboy Slim album art on the screenshots page... I definitely got taken back :')

[zamadatix]

> 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.

[munificent]

> 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...

[Iv]

But does it whip the llama's ass?

[ChrisArchitect]

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]

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

[dmt0]

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]

There's also re:amp which is a decent implementation of the Winamp classic skin support.

-dro

[justinfrankel]

you can also install reaper and this plug-in and get something highly winampish with its own special authenticity:

https://landoleet.org/reaplay.zip

[mvkel]

I miss apps like this. The UX is just so efficient and perfect. That settings screen is chef’s kiss

[agumonkey]

superb

also the classic modern skin is great