9 ms·
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).
by tuoret 5y ago
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 5y agoWhoever 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 5y agoI imagine that in the age of streaming music it would be a hard sell to produce a new offline music player.
- smolder 5y agoYeah, 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 5y agoI 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 5y agoLet'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.
- hermitdev 5y ago...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 5y agoLots 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.
- lmm 5y agoPretty pointless to call it "winamp" if they're not targeting that kind of user.
- that_guy_iain 5y agoWinamp 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 5y agoYou 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 5y agoIt 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.
- 5y ago