|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
03-20-2003, 11:04 AM
|
#1 |
|
Mondsreitersmann
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Skingrad
Posts: 8,781
|
Winamp 3
Is it true that Winamp 3 takes a lot of system resources? Should I be better off with the 2.8 version?
TIA for the input.
__________________
Darum still, füg' ich mich, wie Gott es will. Nun, so will ich wacker streiten, und sollt' ich den Tod erleiden, stirbt ein braver Reitersmann. |
|
|
|
03-20-2003, 01:51 PM
|
#2 |
|
Barefoot on the Moon!
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 13,385
|
The older versons seem to run better on low end machines.
Also, when I try version 2, system resources don't go down that much.
__________________
There are two secrets to staying young, being happy, and achieving success. You have to laugh and find humor every day, and you have to have a dream.
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2003, 05:02 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Random
Posts: 997
|
Oh, man, there is a version 2?! How behind am I?
Nah, I run v2.x and it does fine. On my machine, at least, it has a 3MB footprint. I think it could be smaller, personally. What could WinAmp possibly do that would require a ton of resources? Version 3 must not be doing all that well if they still have links to their Version 2 on the homepage. Just a bunch of random observations. Respectfully, Demosthenes |
|
|
|
|
03-20-2003, 06:20 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 210
|
I have heard from several users that 2 is better than 3. I have 3 and it seems to work fine but I haven't tried 2. 3 does make my PC slower.
Maybe you should check out the forums on the winamp site. |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
