On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 10:03:53PM +0300, Valters Vingolds wrote:
> > that puersuaded(SP?) me to switch from using WinAmp. (Its a little
> > frustrating to loose the visualization plugins .. but that could
> > be an interesting project in itself ;)
> >
>
> well, i have whipped up some support fo
Valters... you rock!
elrod
Valters Vingolds wrote:
> > that puersuaded(SP?) me to switch from using WinAmp. (Its a little
> > frustrating to loose the visualization plugins .. but that could
> > be an interesting project in itself ;)
> >
>
> well, i have whipped up some support for winamp visu
> that puersuaded(SP?) me to switch from using WinAmp. (Its a little
> frustrating to loose the visualization plugins .. but that could
> be an interesting project in itself ;)
>
well, i have whipped up some support for winamp visualization plugins!
right now it has serious architecture/speed is
All,
Please disregard my previous question about revision levels... I must not
have had enough coffee this morning!
Mark
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freeamp.org/mailman/listinfo/freeamp-dev
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Mark B. Elrod wrote:
> Ok I just replaced Artist with Comment for a quick test and it worked fine
> on my machine... could you zip up the code and send it to me or just send me
> a diff if you want.
Well I've sent the patch to Mark earlier today, but if
anybody on the lis
I may have missed something but...
The last version of the source code I worked with is 2.0.6.
2.1 beta 3 is being communicated as released, but when I download the latest
source code it's all being referred to as 2.0.1.
Is this correct?
Mark
___
[EM
