Mr. Burns Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 I use winamp 3 with MMD3 skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Rainman Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 I use WMP9 generally because it organises the music great. Winamp 2.9 when I'm listening to music loud! Winamp is clearer at higher volume Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Burns Posted April 10, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 oops :unsure: i voted for the wrong one.. WMP9 instead of WA3 :'( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Rainman Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 i voted for the wrong one.. WMP9 instead of WA3See, you are actually correct although you deny it One reason I don't like WA3 is it takes so long to load. Even WMP9 is faster!!! The best is WA2.9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Burns Posted April 10, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 no.. i just gave WMP9 another try.. didn't like one bit of it.. i even put the good skins and visualisation.. still don't like it..and i don't have a problem with winamp 3 taking long to load maybe it's by RAM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Rainman Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 I'm not saying you should like it or that you should use it. I'm saying that I think WA2.9 is better than WA3 because of the slower load time. And I'm taking instant loading standard But hey thats me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Burns Posted April 10, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 i think my 728 ram makes it start faster though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Rainman Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 You're missing the point Say your WA3 loads at speed x milliseconds. And that media player loads at speed y milliseconds. And WA2.xx loads at speed z milliseconds. What I'm saying is that x > y > z. The system variable remains constant and the speed is down to the program...capiche ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Burns Posted April 10, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 HUH ken ken.. capische Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Rainman Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 Check out this thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PC-fre@k Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 i think my 728 ram makes it start faster though How did you manage to put in 728 mb? You broke 1 cm of one of the banks!?32641282563845127681024I can't find a match...Tell me how you did that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Rainman Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 He's using 256+512 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Burns Posted April 19, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 yea i am whyever rainman was answering that, he was answering the right answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Rainman Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 whyever rainman was answering Insight my friend naa... actually because I remember all your specs and how it progresses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_rooster Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 sorry to be picky but 512+256 is not equal to 728512+256=768mb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Jew Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 LMAO!! somebody doesnt know its system specs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Burns Posted April 19, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 everyone making fun of me again?? :lol: great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Rainman Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 I think that was a typo. I didn't notice it, thought he said 768 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry_pothead Posted April 21, 2003 Report Share Posted April 21, 2003 I use a thorens td 166 mkII turntable, a sony cd player and a technics tape deck. it all runsd into a mackie ms 1202 vlz mixer and plays back through behringer thruth reference monitors.... and i also use winamp 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_H4x0r Posted May 3, 2003 Report Share Posted May 3, 2003 LOL..same here.. i have 768 MB..so is it just me and Tha_French then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.