Winamp 5 - Blatant Ripoff of MMJB

MrScott81

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2001
1,891
0
76
So I finally downloaded and installed Winamp 5, and fired it up....I couldn't help but notice it looked almost exactly like MusicMatch Jukebox with the layout....anyone else agree?
/me goes back to 2.91 (again).
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Are you saying this because of the music library? You can skin Winamp 5 to look however you want. I really like the music library of MMJB but I really don't like how MMJB is a piece of crap.
 

Amorphus

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2003
5,561
1
0
Erm. So, does how it look affect performance? It's still packed with features and better than anything MM has. Oh, oh, how about changing the skin?????? OMG!!!!1!1 W4t t3h h1zz3rd?!!1?!

This thread deserves a
 

MrScott81

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2001
1,891
0
76
well the general look of the program...and how they added cd burning and the music library....seems like they are gradually moving toward MMJB and away from the traditional winamp.

I know you can skin it, but I was just commenting on the initial skin.
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,853
1,048
126
MM is bloatware. Winamp is 10x more trustworthy by name alone.
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Originally posted by: scottdog81
well the general look of the program...and how they added cd burning and the music library....seems like they are gradually moving toward MMJB and away from the traditional winamp.
Neither of those are exactly crazy original ideas you know.

 

Rent

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
7,127
1
81
Its called keeping up with the competition.

MusicMatch is a bulky piece of sh1t. Winamp has remained more or less bulk free.
 

CaseTragedy

Platinum Member
Oct 24, 2000
2,690
0
0
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Originally posted by: scottdog81
well the general look of the program...and how they added cd burning and the music library....seems like they are gradually moving toward MMJB and away from the traditional winamp.
Neither of those are exactly crazy original ideas you know.
exactly.
 

MrScott81

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2001
1,891
0
76
all I'm saying is that it is moving toward the MMJB idea of a media player...and as far as I know, MMJB was the first media player to offer CD burning.
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Originally posted by: scottdog81
all I'm saying is that it is moving toward the MMJB idea of a media player...and as far as I know, MMJB was the first media player to offer CD burning.
MMJB is a program that costs money, winamp is not. When you have paid developers you can get more features in less time. When I first got into the whole MP3 thing with Winamp, having not hear of MMJB, I remember thinking, "Man, it would be cool if you could burn a CD directly from your playlist."
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
I tried winamp once (can't even remember what version 3.XX I believe) and didn't see what all the fuss is about. On the other hand I :heart: MMJB.

Btw, why do people even talk about bloated programs anymore? Hard drive space is freaking cheap if you're refering to the size of the program. If you're refering to memory usage that's not really expensive either. Hell, something might as well use my gig of ram when I'm not playing a game or running Photoshop.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
I tried winamp once (can't even remember what version 3.XX I believe) and didn't see what all the fuss is about. On the other hand I :heart: MMJB.

Btw, why do people even talk about bloated programs anymore? Hard drive space is freaking cheap if you're refering to the size of the program. If you're refering to memory usage that's not really expensive either. Hell, something might as well use my gig of ram when I'm not playing a game or running Photoshop.

2.91 and 5.01 Lite are the two best versions of Winamp. 3.xx was bloatware. Why increase memory/processor usage to decode MP3s when Winamp does it bloat-free?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
I tried winamp once (can't even remember what version 3.XX I believe) and didn't see what all the fuss is about. On the other hand I :heart: MMJB.

Btw, why do people even talk about bloated programs anymore? Hard drive space is freaking cheap if you're refering to the size of the program. If you're refering to memory usage that's not really expensive either. Hell, something might as well use my gig of ram when I'm not playing a game or running Photoshop.

i don't enjoy wasting 20% processor time to play mp3s
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
I tried winamp once (can't even remember what version 3.XX I believe) and didn't see what all the fuss is about. On the other hand I :heart: MMJB.

Btw, why do people even talk about bloated programs anymore? Hard drive space is freaking cheap if you're refering to the size of the program. If you're refering to memory usage that's not really expensive either. Hell, something might as well use my gig of ram when I'm not playing a game or running Photoshop.

2.91 and 5.01 Lite are the two best versions of Winamp. 3.xx was bloatware. Why increase memory/processor usage to decode MP3s when Winamp does it bloat-free?

Because I've got plenty of memory an MHz to spare and I prefer MMJB for a handful of reasons. Besides, it was included with my iPod so I didn't pay for it separately. Also, with my iPod why have two programs (winamp and ephrod) to do what MMJB does by itself?
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
I tried winamp once (can't even remember what version 3.XX I believe) and didn't see what all the fuss is about. On the other hand I :heart: MMJB.

Btw, why do people even talk about bloated programs anymore? Hard drive space is freaking cheap if you're refering to the size of the program. If you're refering to memory usage that's not really expensive either. Hell, something might as well use my gig of ram when I'm not playing a game or running Photoshop.

i don't enjoy wasting 20% processor time to play mp3s

Neither do I
 

Palek

Senior member
Jun 20, 2001
937
0
0
The library and the Super tagging is excellent in MusicMatch. Too bad (for the MM people) that now iTunes does almost everything that MusicMatch does, and for free to boot.
 

ThisIsMatt

Banned
Aug 4, 2000
11,820
1
0
The standard layout of winamp 5 is virtually the same as it has ever been, long before MMJB was even a well known name.
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
I tried winamp once (can't even remember what version 3.XX I believe) and didn't see what all the fuss is about. On the other hand I :heart: MMJB.

Btw, why do people even talk about bloated programs anymore? Hard drive space is freaking cheap if you're refering to the size of the program. If you're refering to memory usage that's not really expensive either. Hell, something might as well use my gig of ram when I'm not playing a game or running Photoshop.

i don't enjoy wasting 20% processor time to play mp3s

Neither do I

Touche salesman..

I believe you could add a "BIAAATCH!" to the end of that sentence and it would be justified.
 

DOSfan

Senior member
Sep 19, 2003
522
0
0
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Originally posted by: scottdog81
all I'm saying is that it is moving toward the MMJB idea of a media player...and as far as I know, MMJB was the first media player to offer CD burning.
MMJB is a program that costs money, winamp is not. When you have paid developers you can get more features in less time. When I first got into the whole MP3 thing with Winamp, having not hear of MMJB, I remember thinking, "Man, it would be cool if you could burn a CD directly from your playlist."

Perhaps I am missing the crux of this discusion...

But MusicMatch Jukbox is free as well.

From what I can tell, the Plus version (the one you pay for) only really increases the speed at which you burn CD's.

Or did I miss something?
 

Krugger

Senior member
Mar 22, 2001
820
0
0
hi. windows media player does all that stuff too. don't just blame winamp. MM wishes it was worthy of having nullsoft steal from it.
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
I don't know what the hell is all the hype with Winamp. I've tried using Winamp since 2.X and I really didn't like it at all. However, I love MMJB. The library organization and the easy playlist burning just puts it over the top for me. Now with Winamp 5, it just looks more like MMJB. But I definitely think it is a step in the right direction.
 

thraxes

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2000
1,974
0
0
Hmmm... It's called competition. If iTunes and MMJB have the same functions, Winamp might as well join in to become more competitive. If one company has a good idea the others will copy it in one form or anther.

I prefer iTunes to either Winamp5 and MMJB... it's just its basic user simplicity that I like. Now if only Apple supported FLAC and OGG...
 

nebula

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,315
3
0
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Btw, why do people even talk about bloated programs anymore? Hard drive space is freaking cheap if you're refering to the size of the program. If you're refering to memory usage that's not really expensive either. Hell, something might as well use my gig of ram when I'm not playing a game or running Photoshop.

Oh it's just a bloated MP3 player, who cares. Oh it's just a bloated pop-up blocker, who cares. Pretty soon your system performance is lackluster. Doesn't it suck to lose that "fresh XP install snappiness"?

No wonder you need a gig o' ram.