49 comments

[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] thread
A winamp clone for os/x - interested in learning swift, and wanted a stable version of winamp for os/x - two itches scratched
Memories from over 20 years ago, but later I switched to foobar. I prefer foobar's simple interface. Does anyone still remember foobar?
>Does anyone still remember foobar?

I remember foobar. I also seem to recall that it does not really whip the llama's ass.

I've never seen os x written like that. I assumed it was a version of os/2 I had never heard of.
Great job! I'm sure it was a lot of fun to produce.
Pretty misleading headline. This isn't actually Winamp. It's someone's attempt at a clone.
Great project, I am using Audacious from homebrew with an XMMS skin to recreate the experience - but it struggles with HiRes displays amongst other things.

You should, however, change the name. I am pretty sure the name Winamp is trademarked and you can get into legal trouble.

Does not use the macOS standard toolkit or comply with Apple user interface guidelines.

One MacWorld mouse out of five.

This def needs skins next: https://skins.webamp.org/
It feels like making a UI with skins is a lot easier. Just draw the bitmap onto the window, and set some areas to be clickable (and change the bitmap of that area to "button is being pushed" when the user is holding the mouse down)...
The page itself has a more accurate description (Winamp *clone* in swift for OS/X) than the headline here.

Since the actual Winamp had a questionable source code release, it could feasibly have been ported to other platforms, so we need to know that it is in fact a clone, and not a port of the real Winamp.

I liked winamp when I was using windows.

I think any winamp clone should run on OSX Windows and Linux.

I understand that cross-platform code may be annoying, but we really need applications that work on the three main operating systems.

If it doesn't run on Windows, how can it call itself Winamp? Macosamp makes more sense.
Minor point: I read this as OS/2. The author may want to correct that. macOS naming and versioning is confusing enough.

macOS was never known as OS/X. It was formerly known as OS X and Mac OS X.

As a former OS/2 user, it really threw me off for a second.

Also, you're using a trademark ("Winamp") in the name. So, expect a C&D from Llama Group or whomever.

Aside from that, it looks really nice and well-designed! And it's in Swift and not some janky Electron app. Good job on those fronts!

Why does the title call it OS/X? It's macOS and it's described that way on the repo.

Unfortunately his is just a recreation rather than an actual port, since the license for the source that was released prevents derivative works.

Foobar2000 is the spiritual successor to Winamp and it runs on Windows and macOS as well as mobile.

Why do people insist on still calling macOS "OS X" (or "OS/X" for that matter)?
Rebellion against meaningless name changes. Why does Apple insist on calling Mac OS an OS X, Mac OS X, macOS?
Not everyone cares about the marketing departments feelings
Had Apple given their OS a proper name, I assure you people would use it. You shouldn't use the "OS" moniker as part an OS's name. It's redundant, like naming your child "Human Child Jimmy". Obviously people will take all sorts of shortcuts around it, which you will not have control over, leading to weird "HC/Jim" and the likes.

It's a bit like "U.S.A." not being a proper country's _name_. I mean, would you name you children "Coherent-Enough Assemblage of Bodyparts"? You keep that long-form stuff for the _description_ field! Somebody fucked up when they filled out the form, ain't no fixing it now.

This is not for OS X, this is for macOS 13.0 or later.

OS X is macOS 10. This application does not open on macOS 10.14.6.

QMMP should run under OSx.