News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Winamp by blowski on Tuesday November 23, 2021 @10:12AM (#29318703)
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.
Re:Winamp by derefr on Tuesday November 23, 2021 @09:53PM (#29326484)
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.
Re:Winamp by derefr on Thursday November 25, 2021 @06:58PM (#29346219)
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.)
Re:Winamp by Minor49er on Tuesday November 23, 2021 @12:44PM (#29320740)
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.