iq_132 Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Don't forget that AOL purchased Netscape as well.
Xeon Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 I think the least they should do to give it an horourable death is to opensource it. It might revive the whole project.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> or an old school final 2.9x release. open-source route would be better though in my opinion.
ugenn Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 I think the least they should do to give it an horourable death is to opensource it. It might revive the whole project.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> or an old school final 2.9x release. open-source route would be better though in my opinion.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Give me 5 anyday. 3 was disastrous, few people would disagree. But in classic-skin mode, I don't honestly see any difference significant. between 2 and 5.
Sturmvogel Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 I love my Winamp.....hell I still use ver. 2.8!! Yeah Gryph..I'll still be using it for years to come too.
Daeval Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 One more reason to hate AOL, as if the rest of the internet needs anymore. Anyone else remember when they bought up the best damn instant messenger on the net, Mirabilis' ICQ? It wasn't long before that was destroyed also. An interesting quote:"In addition to its international reach, ICQ has tremendous appeal among young, technically sophisticated Web users and there is remarkably little overlap with AOL."-America Online President and Chief Operating Officer Bob Pittman Winamp was getting bloaty in its later forms, maybe it was time for it to go. The question now is, what's next? Someone with enough programming experience will be angry at its demise. We can only hope.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>WOW, did he really say that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I found it originally in an article on MSN or CNN or one of the big'uns back then. After a google search, you can still find it here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._15/ai_50072222 At least he knew his user base.
Gryph Posted November 11, 2004 Author Posted November 11, 2004 I think the least they should do to give it an horourable death is to opensource it. It might revive the whole project.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> or an old school final 2.9x release. open-source route would be better though in my opinion.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Give me 5 anyday. 3 was disastrous, few people would disagree. But in classic-skin mode, I don't honestly see any difference significant. between 2 and 5.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Classic mode is the best, I can't stand Winamp 3 and it's new flashy crap. But if you think about it, what more could have been done to Winamp? Hell, I thought the earlier Winamp 2.x hit the nail right in the head. Winamp! It really whips the llama's ass!
Daeval Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 I think the least they should do to give it an horourable death is to opensource it. It might revive the whole project.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> or an old school final 2.9x release. open-source route would be better though in my opinion.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Give me 5 anyday. 3 was disastrous, few people would disagree. But in classic-skin mode, I don't honestly see any difference significant. between 2 and 5.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Classic mode is the best, I can't stand Winamp 3 and it's new flashy crap. But if you think about it, what more could have been done to Winamp? Hell, I thought the earlier Winamp 2.x hit the nail right in the head. Winamp! It really whips the llama's ass!<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Amen, winamp 2.x was the pinnacle.
Agozer Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 I think the least they should do to give it an horourable death is to opensource it. It might revive the whole project. or an old school final 2.9x release. open-source route would be better though in my opinion. Give me 5 anyday. 3 was disastrous, few people would disagree. But in classic-skin mode, I don't honestly see any difference significant. between 2 and 5. Classic mode is the best, I can't stand Winamp 3 and it's new flashy crap. But if you think about it, what more could have been done to Winamp? Hell, I thought the earlier Winamp 2.x hit the nail right in the head. Winamp! It really whips the llama's ass! Amen, winamp 2.x was the pinnacle.Truth. But with Windows XP, I've grown into 5's Modern skin. Preferences change with time I guess, but as you said, 2 was the pinnacle.
Shibathedog Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 damn, WinAMP dying is kinda like Linux Dying, it was awesome, free, and....you get it. Ive been using it for sooooooo long its rediculous, see how AOL screws everything up?
Gryph Posted November 18, 2004 Author Posted November 18, 2004 Winamp's Death Greatly Exaggerated I'll go ahead and get this out of the way: No we weren't axed. We haven't even seen anyone with an axe. There was this one guy who came up to us to axe us a question, but that's about it. Much like Tupac Shakur and/or Jesus Christ, our deaths have been greatly exaggerated.
Agozer Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 Oh for god's sake, the internet is way too full of misinformation.
OverlordMondo Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 Yeah, dirty bastards. Need to be shot I use the most recent winamp, but I use the same skins I've has for a long time.
Elazul Yagami Posted November 18, 2004 Posted November 18, 2004 i still use winamp 2.87 don't need anything else.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now