Nullsoft kaput

[Neo Neko]

http://slashdot.org/articles/04/11/11/1348218.shtml?tid=120&tid=141
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/11/aol_axes_nullsoft/

Say what you will but Nullsoft was once an unarguably great group. But they never recovered from their sale to AOL. Not many do as AOL has been the kiss of death before. And for such recognisable names as Netscape. Microsoft may have taken Netscape to the edge. But AOL put them over. Heck Time Warner was barely able to stomach absorption of AOL itself.

So what's next. What will become of Winamp? The Nullsoft install system that is so ubiquitous? Or even recent developments such as the Nullsoft Streaming Format etc?

[cypher_soundz]

just about to post this as well , i saw it over at betanews http://www.betanews.com/article/Death_Knell_Sounds_for_Nullsoft_Winamp/1100111204

i'm a foobar user but i think winamp was everyones first mp3 player. RIP :(
Regards
cyph

[Mug Funky]

damn, it's a sad day for Llamas everywhere.

[Neo Neko]

Well winamp was definatly not my first. But was one of my favorites. I played with a few very limited GUI MP3 players back in 96-98 timeframe that predated Winamp. This was after I got a PC with a whopping 400Mb HD and had enough free space for a few apps and an album or so to play with. Previously I was using command line proggies with only an MP3 or two to play with on a 100Mb+- HD. :p

They will be missed.

But I still wonder what AOL will do with the corpse. Live off it for a while longer till it is irrelevant and fully soiled. Or give up the ghost to the community ala Netscape?

[Mug Funky]

i'd love to see it opensourced. the OS community could do with something that high profile. it'd join the ranks with Mozilla and OpenOffice (cyber-commies like me have been installing OpenOffice and Mozilla/FireFox into unsuspecting office computers for a while now).

[BoNz1]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
i'd love to see it opensourced. the OS community could do with something that high profile. it'd join the ranks with Mozilla and OpenOffice (cyber-commies like me have been installing OpenOffice and Mozilla/FireFox into unsuspecting office computers for a while now).

Well, winamp3 is practically open source anyway. See wasabi.player (http://www.wasabidev.org/) of course not all of it is open but a good deal of it is.

[theReal]

:( :( :( I really liked Winamp...

I have always been using Winamp, even it was only out of nostalgia, I guess. However I thought Winamp 5 was quite a good mp3 player and it's sad that AOL destroyed a nice project like that...

[neo75903]

never liked winamp3 but with the love came back with version 5 which was a real improvement.
I will keep using winamp until well whatever files it caint play anymore in the future. I dont think iTunes will replace winAmp shortly, i hate the way iTunes maintains the library.
Any alternatives as your default mp3 player? Maybe a chance for RealPlayer or MP to take winamps market place?

[theReal]

iTunes is about the ugliest media player ever - I really don't get the hype around it. It's Apple, it's supposed to be well designed (visually), but it's the ugliest thing that ever came from Apple. I mean look at the new iMac - how are you supposed to run an ugly prog like iTunes on that masterpiece of good looking computer (and this is not meant sarcastic, I really like the new iMac design)
:rolleyes: ;)

My clear choice as a replacement for Winamp 5 is The Core Media Player. It looks very nice, it plays everything and it can even load some of the old Winamp plugins (visual and general purpose plugs only, AFAIK). Also it doesn't try to force some kind of library system on me that I don't want to use...

[Sirber]

www.foobar2000.org

It's sad but at least we have alternatives :)

[communist]

I still use Winamp 2.91 - low memory usage and 'to the point' not too much extra stuff I never ever gonna use anyway. Unless new players come up with something really cool / useful I dont think I'll switch. I just dont get the whole hype for MediaPlayers these days to do all (browser / play media / burn cds) etc... I prefer a dedicated application for these purposes rather than something as bloated and at the same totally useless application like WMP7 (and higher).
Sad that Nullsoft is gone now - as far as I can see most people disliked WA3 but came back happily when they released WA5.

Oh and I dont get the hype around iTunes either unless you have to use it for iTMS :o

[KpeX]

As far as open source alternatives go, I wonder how difficult a windows xmms port would be? I've been using xmms (http://www.xmms.org) under linux for a while now, and it's very lightweight and very similar in performance and user interface to winamp 2.x.

[neo75903]

Originally posted by theReal
iTunes is about the ugliest media player ever - ...

I like iTunes, but it does look a bit odd between all those windows applications, the typical mac look kinda curse with it.
Another reason i dont like to make iTunes to be my default music player because its memory use. it uses much more resources then Winamp.

My alternative so far? Winamp with this skin:
http://winamp.com/skins/browse.php?search=yes&filter=F&query=iplay

looks very clean and the blinking Apple logo is really a final touch :)

[theReal]

I just checked out The Core Media player as an mp3 player-substitute for Winamp 5 and I found two things that I will be missing badly:

1. Crossfades (I have been using SQRSoft crossfading all the time)
2. cue-file support (in Winamp with mp3cue)

Is there any way to do this in Core Player - or which one of the other possible media players can do it?

[neo75903]

erm is it me or there is something wrong with my pc?
Try to listen to Eamon's, "I Don't Want You Back" on Winamps site, video section.
Every "sh?t" "fu?k" is removed? or is it so far? i have lost my marbles? :)

PS: the videos look acceptable, shame AOL didnt start their own music store.

[virus]

you can check this thread (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=198903) over at Winamp forums where the topic is discussed. WA is not dead yet. Looks like version 5.06 is in the works, too.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Sirber
www.foobar2000.org

It's sad but at least we have alternatives :)

I have been using Foobar2k solely for quite some time. PP was my favorite Winamp plugin writer. When Winamp lost him that is more or less when they lost me. PP has done an excelent job with FB2k. He even implemented one of my suggestions. One of my favorite features. Global hotkeys. I have followed it since his first public releases.

[neo75903]

winamp ver5 also has global hotkeys. I think you need to activate them in your preferences.

[shevegen]

i liked winamp up to 2.91 but afterwards i started to really dislike it... man, why do applications feel the need to pack this and that option, too and taa feature to make it even more confusing ....

but mind you, all in one, winamp was great

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by neo75903
winamp ver5 also has global hotkeys. I think you need to activate them in your preferences.

Yeah but foobar and PP had em first. Because he listens to his users. ;) That and it uses less resources. Is less intrusive. Is more configurable. And has more configuration.

[theReal]

I just tried foobar and the only thing that came to my mind was: it needs another look! I'm not judging programs for their looks, usually, but with mp3 players I'm just used to it...
I mean foobar looks like one of the first mp3 players I used in the early nineties when my HD was 600MB and my CPU had 90MHz...

--> if the player looked as nice as its icon, it'd be really cool :D

I'll give it a try anyways, I'm not that superficial ;)

[Angelus]

I just prefer the "jukebox" feel of winamp more than foobar I guess. I installed it and it does seem kind of plain when compared to Winamp. I'm sure its a great player but I still like Winamp. I guess I'm superficial :D

[dragongodz]

yep foobar works ok but is one of the plainest looking guis. a little work on that side would not go astray. :)

[BoNz1]

Well, the gui is completely seperate from the foobar core. So, if you wanted to write a new gui you could. In fact, several people have. I also would like a better gui. We really need something that is nice and skinable though. Why not do this through the wasabi framework which I linked to earlier? It would make for an easy transition for winamp skinners thats for sure. Dunno, maybe that is a little crazy but its an idea.

[Neo Neko]

When I listen to music I generally have the app minimised, in the background, or in the system tray. So looks have little to sway me. If I want eye candy I play UT2004 or the like. If I want ear candy foobar is perfect. Fully functional. And it does not get in my way. The highly integrated replay gain support and masstagger rock. It's playlist is highly functional and comes with archive support including cue files. It has no visual fluff to get in the way. ;) It's only plain if you stare at it. But if you just listen it is quite ritch.

[theReal]

I've been using foobar for a few days now and I must say I like it better and better. Crossfades work like a charm with the crossfade plugin and the crossfade features of the DirectSound 2.5 output plugin (that was the most important feature for me)
I also like the replaygain function a lot.
The integrated .cue-file support is much better than Winamp's old mp3cue plugin.
All in all I think I can stay with foobar.

Also I have discovered a little plugin called foo_looks with which I can use the standard GUI as a playlist only and I get another, skinned, player control. Very nice (not necessary, I know, but nice!)

[Mug Funky]

yes. how nice is foobar? replaygain is just the total bomb. it's something i miss very badly when i use another player - you never know how much volume-jumping you do until you're forced to do it again.

i hope replaygain takes off and gets some hardware implementations going (either that, or studios start mastering to the K-14 or K-20 scale, so i don't even need replaygain).

[wmansir]

I like QCD. The only core function tha QCD is lacking is decent library managment, so I use WMP10 for that. It has a basic library plugin, but it's not very full featured.

[DAvenger]

Originally posted by BoNz1
Well, the gui is completely seperate from the foobar core. So, if you wanted to write a new gui you could. In fact, several people have. I also would like a better gui. We really need something that is nice and skinable though.

I'll do some balant advertising here - hope you won't mind :p Have a look at the latest RL. Not only can you write own GUIs (see the Oldskool GUI to get the idea) but you can actually create a completely different player - audio, video only or both. And the best is it will never get bloated ;)

Too bad people only talk about foobar (which is good and I use it currently - waiting for a new RL UI :p) :rolleyes:

[Siku]

Everyone who tries fb2k after Winamp is shocked by the GUI. At least I was. As Neo Neko already said, you don't listen to the music with your eyes. Besides there's few pretty handy plugins for customizing your fb2k. Here's (http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=175690) Neowin's Foobar2000 Customizing topic. You might also want to check this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13854) out...

[theReal]

Everyone who tries fb2k after Winamp is shocked by the GUI.It's really funny because I usually don't want and don't need any fancy looking GUIs. It never came to my mind to complain about, i.e. Besweet GUI or Virtualdub's GUI, I'm using realproducer from the commandline, I turn off all GUI animations in WinXP - you really can't expect I wouldn't immediately turn off any animated button if it freed 1MB of RAM and/or made the button react 1/100ms faster :D ;)

It's just that one is so used to eye-candy from media players and foobar looks a bit plain at first compared to the others - but then you realize you really don't need a fancy GUI, not even on a media player. It's just what you expected from a mediaplayer because all the others have it...

[neo75903]

@siku:
no you dont need your eyes to listen. But looks is also important, as one wise man ever said: "If you caint make it good, make it looks good". :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by neo75903
@siku:
no you dont need your eyes to listen. But looks is also important, as one wise man ever said: "If you caint make it good, make it looks good". :)

Bill Gates a wise man? Wise guy maybe. Wise man definatly not. Remember he is also the guy that said 640Kb of RAM aught to be enough for anybody. Nothing will come of the internet. OS/2 is the clear sucessor to DOS. So on and so forth ad-nauseum.:devil:

[theReal]

Bill Gates a wise man? Wise guy maybe. Wise man definatly not. Well, he made one wise decision (or lucky guess?) that operating systems are going to be bundled with computers in the future and that he who had the cheapest and most common OS would be king...

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by theReal
Well, he made one wise decision (or lucky guess?) that operating systems are going to be bundled with computers in the future

It was not a guess or decision or lucky in any way. He had gotten to be a monopoly and basically demanded that system manufacturers bundle his OS with their computers or pay the price. That takes no foresight.

Originally posted by theReal
and that he who had the cheapest and most common OS would be king...

But that isn't the case. Windows is one of the most expensive OS on the market. Common, mundane perhaps. But damned expensive. A license for a new copy of Windows XP for the computer I built would have cost me almost as much as the computer!

[neo75903]

@neo geko:
i know, except from the sigle input qeue was os/2 a very stable 32bit OS.
and btw i was being sarcastic about uncle bill :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by neo75903
@neo geko:
i know, except from the sigle input qeue was os/2 a very stable 32bit OS.
and btw i was being sarcastic about uncle bill :)

Actually OS/2 was pretty sweet. Up untill about the release of Windows 95B or perhaps 98 Most OS/2 users pittied Windows users. Imagine having Windows 2000 or XP back in the Windows 3.11/95 days. That is more or less what it would have been like. In fact if you are using Windows 2000 or XP they are descended from those old OS/2 versions. IBM still develops and sells OS/2. But then again they are also the largest user of OS/2 today. But back then OS/2 was a joint IBM/Microsoft venture. IBM created how the system would work and laid down a solid base. Then Microsoft contributed a few core parts especially those dealing with DOS/Windows compatability. And some of the interface work. Then IBM went back in and polished up the Microsoft work to produce a realy polished OS. This was about the time Microsoft was getting ready to announce their Windows 95 product. Had OS/2 caught on Microsoft would not stand a chance With Windows 95. Microsoft kindly told IBM that they should not compete with Windows. Or else. Then Microsoft went out and told OEMs not to sell OS/2 or else. That is all part of the antitrust hearings anyhow.

Long story short OS/2 was awesome. No having to make special boot disks just to run games. Or having to unload TSR programs.

[neo75903]

idd, i am with you.
I hold on with OS/2 until version 4 aka as OS/2 Warp. OS/2 was light years ahead. I still consider the object oriented desktop still superioir against that of windows. For example, delete or move a file and the shortcuts points to a missing file. Every shortcut pointing to that file(object) is updated instantly. Dont forget we are still talking in a time where Windows95 was not released yet running on a intel486 with 64mb RAM. That is least to say impressive.
The last time I ran Os/2 was on a Pentium and it was a breeze. Similar as running Win2k on a 3.0 machine. And running multiple protected windows apps.

The fault also came from IBM who did not do:
1) updated it with a game engine alike directx. OpenGL was to late implemented.
2) Despite IBM put in to make drivers for al sorts of hardware it coulnd keep up with the latest hardware. Manufactures where not interested in OS/2 due to M$ marketing or ... .
3) IBM is still IBM. They though a pc was for business and if you wanted to play games, get yourself a nintento. Big mistake!

Dont forget OS/2 is still supported! M$ just announced to stop support for NT4, which was released later then OS/2 4.

Today OS/2 continues to exists under the name "ecomstation", for more: http://www.ecomstation.com/

I am using win2k these days and refuses to xP coz it is nothing more then a blown up version of win2k. I will wait until the next version and decide whether to switch to Linux permantly or go for new windows version.

[b00zed]

Wasn't this thread once about Nullsoft? (BTW, Bill Gates never said anything about 640kB being enough back in the day, that's an urban legend.)

Anyhow, Winamp is the only mp3 player I've ever regularly used. I've tried many of the others but never really noticed any advantage to using them. Winamp did almost everything I wanted of it, and those few things it didn't could be done with plugins, eg. hotkeys were implemented in plugins well before they became part of the program itself. Skins... meh, it sits in the tray all day.

Winamp 5 was a pretty good improvement over the the abortion edition, version 3. The only advantage for me in using v5 and not v2.91 is that my two most often used plugins, traycontrol and hotkeys, are built in so it's easier to install :)

[theReal]

Another OT post, sorry... ;)

But that isn't the case. Windows is one of the most expensive OS on the market. Common, mundane perhaps. But damned expensive. I wasn't talking about now with a lot of good Linux releases around, I was thinking about the time where you could either have DOS or some professional UNIX distributions (Sun, SCO, I dunno what exactly existed back then).
I think DOS was probably cheaper than the pro Unix OS's?

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by b00zed
Wasn't this thread once about Nullsoft? (BTW, Bill Gates never said anything about 640kB being enough back in the day, that's an urban legend.)

No one has proved it either way. If you look you can find just as much info to support it as disprove it. And at any rate it sounds like the sort of thing bill would say. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/18/171425/218 Just because Bill denies it does not mean he did not say something to the effect of. ;)

[neo75903]

there was a sound file with bill saying 640kb is enough. Long time ago, think it should be somewhere available for download.
Unless you think the file is faked, but i doubt it. It was recorded from one of Bill's speaches.