| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
 Posted - 12/16/2003 : 23:54:44
|
They say they skipped 4..it's more like 2 + 3..
I've installed it..seems waaay better than 3, tho still not sure if i like it more than good 'ole 2.
Whaddya folks think?
'What can we do to get the people who pretend to care, to pretend to do something?' - Bill Mahr
 Get Noisy! |
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 06:33:59
|
Yeah, I never installed and then uninstalled a program as fast as WinAmp 3. Big, clunky, and slow. Give me quick, lite, and efficient 2. Haven't tried 4 yet, but I'll check it out...
 "Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
 |
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 09:21:05
|
Those Winamp forum moderators are some fine examples of serious morons. They had the nerve to say that Winamp 3 is not a follow-up to Winamp 2, that it was a completely separate product so HOW DARE you users compare the two? It may be true that they were separate products but why treat it like a sequel by putting "3" at the end of the name?
Can you believe that?
Anyway, I'll give 5 a try. Dean is right, 3 was terrible: the Swiss Army knife of MP3 players. Don't know about you but I'm not interested in playing video with my MP3 player. That's what Real and Quicktime and Mediaplayer are for.
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 18:29:05
|
Apparently it's the '2' engine, and you can use the '3' graphics..or you can drop 'em and run it in 'simple' mode.
I'm running it at 'full' right now, and it's a little more sluggish to load, but seems pretty good once it's up and running. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
