How about it all? What is safe to delete in the ../Winamp3 directory? Seems like there's an awful lot of bloat in there.

Why can't they have a "minimum install" option dammit!

Read the FAQs. The full install is all that is out ATM. The normal ant lite installs will follow.

honestly, if you want to avoid bloat, stick with winamp2 for now. Three has crashed on me several times, and that's not counting the many problems i've been having trying to get it to play MPCs.

take care. :beer:

WA3 is buggy, and incomplete.
But I use it every days, now, with mpc : Media Library is fantastic (yes, buggy too ). Crashes are rare. WA3 can play my mpc very fine. I just regret the lake of a good plug-in. I really hope that Case will developp soon a decent one.

Yeah, of course its buggy. Remember Winamp 2.0 on its glorious opening day?

Stick with Winamp 2.80 for now, guys. Case should have an MPC plugin soon, and the Nullsoft guys will have a more stable release in about a month or so. ( 3.01, 02? )By the end of this year, most of the major issues should be dealt with and MUCH more people will begin to use Winamp 3.

Also, we should have a good wealth of components and skins by the from the great plugin makers out there....

Why don't you just select custom install in the Full Installer and uncheck what you don't need?

If you are worried about HD space the WACS directory UPXs quite well

upx -9 *.wac

Also, at the Winamp Forums, there is a sticky in the Winamp3 Discussion describing that the components do.

UPX owns. More people should know about it.

UPX homepage.

Spread the word .

Try "upx --best [file]" for even better compression.

Direct link.

I would believe his interest isn't disk usage, but resource consumption and loading time. In that aspect, UPX'ing can be even worse than leaving the files alone.

Thanks for all the replies. I guess I'm dissapointed (although not suprised) that 3.00 is so damn bloated compared to 2.80. Why couldn't they focus on playback quality. Who cares about video/browser.

1. Player (sound quality/resource usage/loadtime/etc)
2. Media Library

that's it.

I too will stick w/ 2.80

>> Who cares about video/browser.

AOLTW... you know, the guys who sign their checks.

It was just meant as general information. The "--best" switch is only listed with "upx -h".

I did a little benchmark of UPX. I compressed the Paint Shop Pro 7.04 executable, which is a huge-as-hell 9.293.824 bytes file.

It took 1:26 to compress with "upx --best psp.exe" on my AMD Athlon XP 1700+.

It decompressed nearly instantaneously with "upx -d psp.exe". It was less than half a second or so.

So I hardly think there would be a major performance hit involved with compressing the WAC files (or any executables for that matter).

EDIT: Psp.exe compressed to 31.24% of its original size (2.904.064 bytes). Most impressive.

I don't care about the size on the disk, it's all load-time and recourse economics for me. Why does all software get larger with revision number?

Windows 3.11 ---> 6 x 1.44 meg discs
Windows 95 ---> installed to 75 meg
Windows 98se ---> installed to 250 meg
Windows 2000 ---> installed to 350 meg
Windows XP ---> installs to 1,130 meg

WHEN DOES IT END? AND IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S GETTING *THAT* MUCH BETTER EITHER!
:mad:

You forgot one: Windows 1.01 weighs in at just about 1.35 Mb. Or if you want, it's easy to find the whole thing in a 708 kb *.zip file. And hey, if you look at 'em side-by-side it's still hard to tell the first version from XP. Fancy-schmantzy, my aunt Bertha.

Yes, I'm running XP. But when I found out Windows 1.01 was freely available, I sure felt stupid for plunking down cash for its "modern" counterpart. I mean, who really needs DirectX, Y or Z? I coulda saved myself a chunk of change and added a second floppy drive, instead.

With tongue firmly in cheek,
- M.