Unpopular opinion: there are bad examples, just like with any design trend, but the basic layout scheme for most websites for desktop use peaked with the "thin top bar & nav, 2-3 columns, left of which may also be navigation" standard style of the mid to late '00s.

Other designs are more convenient if you want a very easy-to-write responsive layout, and some sites do actually need something different, but that was as good as we've seen, in general, for desktop. You can't do it now because it "looks old" and people will assume your site is defunct, but it's the best.

Every time I get a flashy new modern design pop up, I'll just assume it will be gone in a year or so I just close the tab and try to move on to the next one..

Sometimes I'd get some bootstrappy looking website.. I assume not even half the buttons on that page work, don't even bother trying anymore, and move on..

I assume most modern web is defunct.

Strongly agree and thought I was alone in this thinking. A flashy new web-design makes me immediately think "VC, smoke and mirrors salesy BS, here today gone tomorrow". If I don't see links to "Screenshots" "Docs" and "News" immediately in my view on the landing page, I peel out.

The new one sucks, but the old one sucks too imo. I know you don't say old websites were great but I've seen alot of people saying that and yet their examples are bad too, usually they look simple and efficient but they're horrible, like spanning the whole page or not enough empty spaces or bad use of colors.

Hey if empty spaces and bad use of colors are all you can complain about, then that's a win IMO. At least it still works, which only time will tell for current websites. But I have this sneaky feeling that time wont be so friendly.

The current winamp.com works perfectly fine. Everyone's complaints about it are 100% cosmetic, just like these complaints about the 1998 website

It might "work", but it's almost entirely content-free. It might as well be a blank page with the old "Under Construction" gif everyone used in the early 90s for all the information it gives.

In fact, the first time I looked at it, I didn't even realize there was anything there, because it was just some random graphic that filled the whole window with no indication that I could scroll down for more non-content. If you ask me that website fails in pretty much every way it can fail.

Yeah, that newer site loads slower, messes up my scroll, and is makes it harder to find the content you are looking for. It is the kind of site that makes me navigate away quickly because I don't want to waste my time working around their bad UX.

Incorrect, though. The page does not work on my phone running latest Firefox. Page goes in a refresh loop.

I have a decent spec PC with 32 GB of RAM and a 500 Mbps connection and that site just straight up seemed to have "hung" for a long time before loading that ugliness.

If I saw a page like the old one I'd probably assume whatever is being promoted has been long since abandoned.

I don't love the old site, either.

But the new one is indeed a horror. I cannot wait to hate the way they ruin winamp, one of the all-time great programs.

I believe the website IS the llama's ass.

What I really like about the original (not perfect) website is they understood WHY you would go to the website: to download winamp, or see what was new and download an update. Those are the top reasons, all other things like "news" are secondary and down the page.