Skip to main content
Topic: could foobar2000 replace winamp? (Read 34811 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

It seems winamp might die off, or at least stop being developed. That alone is reason enough for me to switch to the mac. IMO, the next best thing behind winamp is iTunes for OSX. The windows version sucks because apple didn't optimize the code, gaps between tracks, and the relative lacks of add-ins (which are common enough for the OSX version).
If Winamp 5 is indeed dead, like Nullsoft releases a statement saying they're halting development, do you guys see foobar2000 as having the potential to replace winamp? It would require skins, visualizations, and a real media library database, at the very least. I'm a big fan of flexibility, which is why I use winamp, but iTunes for OSX seems like it might be just as fast and flexible.

Thanks for your input on this,
Keith D

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #1
Quote
It would require skins, visualizations, and a real media library database, at the very least.

Why? I think foobar2000 is good as it is right now, and I think most people don't need this "crap".

Quote
I'm a big fan of flexibility, which is why I use winamp

In my opinion foobar is a lot more flexible than winamp is.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #2
Quote
The windows version sucks because apple didn't optimize the code[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254851"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh my. I can probably think of more reasons.

Quote
gaps between tracks

Crossfading is not a solution to the problem.

Quote
and the relative lacks of add-ins (which are common enough for the OSX version).

Yes, I'm sure the APIs are so similar, the only thing stopping add-in developers from porting is a Windows PC or a copy of VirtualPC and the patience to install and configure MinGW or Visual Studio and test everything on both platforms.

Quote
It would require skins, visualizations

Only to suit your tastes. Winamp visualizations are already wrapped sufficiently but not perfectly, and like Winamp, the foo_looks component has a fair share of ugly and/or non-intuitive looks. Plus, it's not a real dedicated UI (yet) anyway.

Quote
a real media library database

This may be useful, but nobody who seems to know how a "real" media library should be designed is also equipped to develop it, or at least motivated to do so. Most of the component projects thus far have been solo efforts, whereas a media library may be among a list of projects that call for collaboration. Nobody seems eager to collaborate for a closed source or even open source component effort, either. Eh, whatever.

Quote
I'm a big fan of flexibility, which is why I use winamp, but iTunes for OSX seems like it might be just as fast and flexible.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254851"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you're flexible enough to stretch out your budget to include a new Mac just to use iTunes, then by all means, make the switch.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #3
Quote
do you guys see foobar2000 as having the potential to replace winamp?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254851"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Probably not in its current state, and it comes down to one small fact: Peter, the developer, is not interested in catering to the general public. He's interested in making what he considers to be the best-designed, most powerful player out there, and caters to developers and technical users.

That said (and as I've commented in the past), foobar2000 goes over very well with two groups of users: beginners and advanced users. The intermediate users are either confused or overwhelmed by the configuration process. They also generally dislike the fact that it doesn't have skins. The beginners see the standard, simple interface, straightforward behaviour, and depending on whether I'm introducing them properly or not, the features they'd find interesting (archive handling was a huge deal to one of my friends).

Winamp caters to intermediate users. Between a non-standard interface, a straight-forward but broad configuration dialog, and a legendary repetoire of input plugins, it makes a pretty good player for that category.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #4
Foobar2000 is a great player.  I just discovered foo_ui_columns, and some of the designs that users have made are better than any winamp skin imo.  In my case however, winamp is the only other player that plays back protected aac tracks from the iTMS, other than iTunes.  Thats the only reason I still use it (I don't like iTunes).
- FLAC/200GB external
- AAC 128 vbr/local
- iPod Nano 2G 8GB

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #5
Quote
Foobar2000 is a great player.  I just discovered foo_ui_columns, and some of the designs that users have made are better than any winamp skin imo.  In my case however, winamp is the only other player that plays back protected aac tracks from the iTMS, other than iTunes.  Thats the only reason I still use it (I don't like iTunes).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254873"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


..I don't know where to look, but I do believe that there are programs that can *ahem* unlock your files for you, thus letting you play the unprotected aacs in Foobar

(yeah, it's prolly illegal, but if you bought the music anyways, then who's complaining? )

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #6
i really don't think foobar2000 users care if it replaces Winamp or any other player for that matter! it has more features Winamp ever had. how many users actually run their audio player without minimizing it? so a fancy GUI isn't exactly needed. and Winamp is flexible??? lol
everybody's a jerk. you, me, this jerk!

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #7
"could foobar2000 replace winamp?" They can probably co-exist in the known universe, don't you think? Giving people a choice? Or is everthing a competition now? Reality-TV, capitalist logic and bush-either-with-us-or-them-mafia-style-give-them-an-offer-they-can't-refuse-tactics seeping into the bones and marrows of ALL? Jeez, gimme a break...... (or a spaceship...) 
"ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD"
        - Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #8
Foobar is flexible - big or little as you want it to be.  Same with Firefox.

Much like Firefox, it's not going to be widely popular among lower level users.  Winamp is synonymous with Internet Explorer IMO.

The analogy breaks down a little in terms of FF being less restrictive on extensions (plugins) - correct if I'm wrong please, I'm not familiar with the rules on how FF extensions must comply with the browser.

Something like what Canar said.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #9
I don't foresee Foobar ever being funded by a multi-billion dollar corporation, ie: AOL.  Though, I'm sure if AOL offered the developers some money with no strings attached, they'd probably be pretty excited.  But that just wouldn't happen.

The point is (I would guess) that Foobar will never see the commercial success that Winamp/Nullsoft has seen, which is maybe one thing that we love about it.  Somehow it feels like maybe Foobar belongs to the community.  (Correct me if I'm out of line there.)  Don't get me wrong, the developers deserve multitudes of credit, and my hat goes off to them.

Then again, when Winamp first appeared, it was kinda underground... and who knew...
"The way we see our world is better than yours."

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #10
I think fb2k could replace winamp - but not in its current state.

It would require creating a customized version - some kind of FoobarEasy - not with changes to its core, but with preinstalled components which would need some minor changes(mostly simplification) and a slightly changed default configuration(mostly changed menues). Some compenents would also need to be merged (example: i would propose to merge the special file infobox, masstagger and renamer - a single window with tabs to switch between those components)

I do have some plans how to do this, unfortunatelly, i currently dont have the time to do this project - but i do plan to start it someday.... then, it will only be a question of if some component-devs are interested in cooperation (for doing some minor ui-changes to certain components).

So, in short - yes, it could - but it would need some minor (but important) changes to its plugins and config.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #11
Quote
do you guys see foobar2000 as having the potential to replace winamp?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254851"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

foobar2000 already replaced winamp over a year ago (well, at least for me  )

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #12
Quote
foobar2000 already replaced winamp over a year ago (well, at least for me  )
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254931"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hehe, same for me, though it may be close to two years now

past winamp users will (in case of winamp's death) find their own alternatives (or stay with old binaries). i'm sure some of them will find about foobar and like it, some not ... and i'm ok with that, i don't need every n00b using it, hehe

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #13
Same here, fb2k is my default audio player for about 9-10 months :B But in my case I've switched from MMJB, I installed Winamp to try it but I didn't like it's media library (I prefered the MMJB library). Why did I change?

- Free
- Low resources
- Support most used (and others via plugins) formats
- Replaygain
- Lot of plugins + great community + great reviews
- You can customize it 

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #14
Quote
...It would require skins, visualizations, and a real media library database, at the very least. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Skins never came into the picture for FB2K, until foo_looks.

I use [a href="http://potatoriffic.f2g.net/bacon/bacon.html]this[/url] if I want to use Milkdrop.

I never understood the importance of a database, since all my music are in one folder and if I need to do mass modification, I drag everything into one playlist and play with the convert, database, masstagger or replaygain context menu options.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #15
Quote
I never understood the importance of a database[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254985"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess what's important to someone is not so important to another person and viceversa  Different people, different uses, different priorities... 

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #16
winamp ain't dead http://www.winamp.com/about/article.php?aid=10627

even if development stops it'll still be a viable audio player for years to come.  I use winamp personally... and keep foobar around for masstagging, transcoding [span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](from lossless)[/span], and other nerdy tasks
seanny.net

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #17
Quote
I never understood the importance of a database[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254985"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There exists types of metadata that I want my players to be able to store and use but not to be written to the files themselves.

Notably, play count, last played time, ratings. Having the ability to save them to the file on demand is nice, but I want the ability to turn this off. There is no reason my music should change every time I play it or change its rating. There's a lot of good reasons for it not to do so.

A "database" would essentially hold metadata information about my music. I cannot conceive of any other real purpose for it (let me know if you've got one, anybody). Considering foobar is pretty good at going to the music itself to get the metadata on demand, a metadata DB is almost unneeded *except* for this sort of functionality.

This is the only thing preventing me from using foobar for all my music needs. Its incapability of doing this sort of thing correctly makes it unusable for my needs. I'm forced to use iTunes, which though the interface sucks and it's slow, at least gets all that aspect of things correct.

Gapless was never a big deal for me. I frankly don't understand why people care so much. Is a tenth of a second gap between tracks really bothering you? Why?

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #18
I think asking whether Foobar can ever replace Winamp is such an injustice. 

It's like asking whether the PC could ever replace the XBox. 


I really hope Foobar doesn't go any further down the GUI route than it has.  I'd rather it concentrated on reading/conversion of formats, quality of decoding, low resources and the component SDK.

Mr_Rabid_Teddybear may be a little mental, but I agree with the basic concept - having a choice is great.

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Edit: nasty grammatical error[/span]
I'm on a horse.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #19
Quote
winamp ain't dead http://www.winamp.com/about/article.php?aid=10627

even if development stops it'll still be a viable audio player for years to come.  I use winamp personally... and keep foobar around for masstagging, transcoding [span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](from lossless)[/span], and other nerdy tasks
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254993"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]




I am happy someone posted that article.  Lets just hope the competition of the two players keeps making them both better.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #20
this is a little off topic, but what exactly does everyone have in mind for a "media database" or whatever.

what is wrong with the use of the foobar metadata database and the tagz scripting along with the album list?

if this isnt really a database, then i'm not sure what is.... at least i find it quite useful for organizing my music and accessing it.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #21
Quote
I think asking whether Foobar can ever replace Winamp is such an injustice. 

It's like asking whether the PC could ever replace the XBox. 


I really hope Foobar doesn't go any further down the GUI route than it has.  I'd rather it concentrated on reading/conversion of formats, quality of decoding, low resources and the component SDK.

Mr_Rabid_Teddybear may be a little mental, but I agree with the basic concept - having a choice is great.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255002"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

WA and FB2K cater to different audiences - just a few of the reasons that I love foobar  (not forcing me to use a seekabar/buttons, easy support for nearly every living audio codec out there, lack of skins and other worthless GUI items) are the very same reasons that some will dislike foobar as much as I dislike winamp or Itunes.

All I need is the option for the original 'day 1' interface with full access to new features as I want them; the only reason I upgraded from 0.7 was the masstagger and upgrading from 0.8.2 will not happen for a long time unless a similar compelling reason comes along for me.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #22
Quote
; the only reason I upgraded from 0.7 was the masstagger and upgrading from 0.8.2 will not happen for a long time unless a similar compelling reason comes along for me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255021"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Is there any particular reason why you mention your upgrade policy in every single of your posts related to FB2K?

Jeezus we've got the point by now. You like using outdated software.

Apperently you think that kind of makes you cool or something.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #23
It's the typical Winamp-5-sux-compared-to-Winamp-2 mentality. All because they could not take the extra wee bit of time to tweak everything out nicely.

Anyway, 0.8.3 improves upon masstagger's functionality, besides other bugfixes.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #24
Well.. This may sound kind of Simple......

But.. i started using Foobar2000 about 2 years ago....
Before that... i did use WinAmp......

The reason for the switch......

Because.....The "Sound" (PlayBack) was MUCH Better!!!!!!

Plain and Simple....


David

Dsn

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019