Re:Winamp
by CountDrewku on Tuesday November 23, 2021 @09:19AM
(#29318089)
Form over function. So, yep not what Winamp is about.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I wonder how much of this is nostalgia. Winamp was awesome, but given that skinning was part of its popularity, form was definitely a big deal.
Winamp skins were surprisingly restrictive, though; you couldn't really skin Winamp in a way that impeded its functionality / created mystery-meat navigation. Every Winamp skin was fundamentally just a set of textures applied to the same standard controls layout: https://skins.webamp.org/
Windows Media Player, meanwhile... https://www.theskinsfactory.com/wmpdesign
Re:Winamp
by captbaritone on Thursday November 25, 2021 @11:13AM
(#29342497)
That was true for "classic" skins, but starting with Winamp 3, Winamp supported free form "modern" skins that were defined in XML and had a custom scripting language so that the author could define their own behavior.
True; though I'm pretty sure the WinAmp anyone here actually has any level of nostalgia for, is WinAmp 2. WinAmp 3 was so lacklustre that they brought back a lot of WinAmp 2 stuff and called the result WinAmp 5. (And then everyone continued to use the Classic skins, which WinAmp 5 supported.)
If the form impeded function, it was easy to change. Some skins even made sure to cover all of Winamp's sections properly. The Invader Zim skin appealed to my 15-year-old tastes and still offered visible, functional controls with a readable playlist. Some skins looked cool, but if they removed options, they weren't used other than to show off to friends on occasion
Re:Winamp
by ConceptJunkie on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @08:55AM
(#29329957)
The form could be changed, but the substance remained the same: an incredibly well-design app that just worked.