«

[carpetsmoker]

one of first first winamps worked well on WIN95 with 32MB ram and 486/80Mhz processor.[/b]

Windows 95 can also run on a 486, but this doesn't say anything about the system requirements of vista...

I also seriously doubt that the first version of winamp worked well on 32MB RAM.
Works? yes, works well? no.
My laptop has 32MB RAM, and runs on FreeBSD in text-only mode (Like DOS, no GUI).
I play mp3 files with mpg123, which is probably the fastest mp3 player out there, it works, but when I save a large (~500 lines) textfile for example, the music will stutter...

In my experience, winamp is slow, much slower than foobar2000 for example.
I never tried playing video files with winamp though, only audio.

[The Fifth Horseman]

The newer versions indeed are said to chew up a lot of resources.
That's why I stuck with Winamp v 2.95 for quite a while now.

[JJXB]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_fifth_horseman @ Jan 26 2007, 12:56 PM) [snapback]276547[/snapback]</div>

The newer versions indeed are said to chew up a lot of resources.
That's why I stuck with Winamp v 2.95 for quite a while now.
[/b]

umm... i'm using winamp 5.3 and listening to 160kbps mp3's right now and it's using 1 or 2 cpu power and only 4000/5000k of memory. so it doesn't take up lots if configured right