Skip to main content

Topic: foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000? (Read 46649 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Cryton
  • [*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Could someone give me a technical explaination as to why Windows 2000 is no longer supported? Maybe this great app should be renamed to FoobarXP

(What is going to happen to us win2k users now? I presume there won't be two branches maintained, one that will work on win2k and one more 'fancy pants' one. Are we left by the roadside?)

  • Squeller
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #1
foobar2000 0.95 and Windows 2000 - What kind of problems were you expecting? Is it limited to XP+ because of some graphics support lacking (i.e. the gdiplus.dll stuff)? Thanks in advance.
  • Last Edit: 20 October, 2007, 04:07:17 PM by Squeller

  • molnart
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #2
Requires XP or newer.

Based on this thread this version seems very interesting, i'm very sorry that i can't try it. Is there a slight chance that the next versions will work on Win2K too ?

foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #3
(What is going to happen to us win2k users now? I presume there won't be two branches maintained, one that will work on win2k and one more 'fancy pants' one. Are we left by the roadside?)


you are left with v0.9.4.5 and prior

  • Melchior
  • [*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #4
First of I love this program, I have been able to listen to so many PSX, PS2, and other Console formats through the plugins.  My thanks goes out to all the
Developers.

But I must protest the XP only....
I only have Win2K and I probably won't be able to get a PC with XP on it
for a very long time.  Please, is there no way to allow for continued support of
win2K?

Thank you for such a great program

  • radorn
  • [*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #5
It won't run on win2k anymore?  so cruel 
I guess I'll have to stick to 0.9.4.5...

EDIT: hey, who moved my post here? :S ¿?¿?
  • Last Edit: 25 October, 2007, 04:15:28 AM by radorn

  • Corelian
  • [*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #6
I would also like to know the reason(s) for dropping Windows 2000 support.

  • Egor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #7
I would also like to know the reason(s) for dropping Windows 2000 support.

Limited functionality, obviously?

Being a W2k user myself, I though understand the move was made to provide some great features, which Windows 2000 does not support natively.


By the way, the only thing I miss is the much anticipated flac 1.2.0 decoder...  Hope there is still a lucky chance for 0.9.4 input_std update... Thanks for all the work!

  • Corelian
  • [*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #8
Limited functionality, obviously?

Please, define limited functionality in this case.

I'm sure there is a good reason for dropping Windows 2000 support, but AFAIK no one has stated specifically what it is. I'm just asking for a justified explanation.

  • molnart
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #9
I'm rather interested what do i need to install into my W2k to run foobar on it....

  • reil
  • [*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #10
one possible reason i'm guessing is that foobar looks like its using comctl32 v6, which was included in windows xp/vista and is not available for redistribution.

the only reason i think that is the default ui looks like it uses a grouped listview control.

  • Egor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #11
I'm rather interested what do i need to install into my W2k to run foobar on it....

Nothing.

If you would try to run it on W2k, it will display a error message "The procedure entry point SHParseDisplayName could not be located in the dynamic link library SHELL32.DLL."

  • vasya_pupkin
  • [*][*][*]
  • Banned
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #12
I have a question... Will I be able to make future foobar2000 versions look like this?


And one more question. Which component requires Windows XP now? Is it just new UI or core itself? I hope it's UI because I don't need it anyway, but would like to continue using foobar2000 on Windows 2000.

  • radorn
  • [*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #13
Let us hope for a charitative soul (or an interested one too ) to port 9.5 to win2k in case the main developers no longer care about supporting it.

I understand the challenge that implies having to support an increasing number of platforms made by people (or an evil corporation ) that don't care much about keeping things compatible or backporting certain capabilities. But, I must ask. Is it really necessary to ditch support for a "fine" (comparatively) and perfectly valid platform like windows 2000 to add whatever new features the new foobar has?

When talking about microsoft's OS's there are many bad things to expect when upgrading to a new "version". Personally I have become pretty confident in my dominion over this particular version (2000 pro), and find myself able to FIGHT it's attempts to fuck my system, and also it's weaknesses againts the outside world. If I should switch to XP or whatever, this will surely change and possibly cause some havoc. This idea is not very pleasing considering what I have now and that I really don't feel like I need any of XP's innovations... if it weren't for so many programs' new versions that now are ditching "old" w2k in favor of newer OS's, like foobar2000, which I absolutelly love!

I'm grateful for everything I got FOR FREE so far, but, again, ¿is this change absolutely necessary?
  • Last Edit: 25 October, 2007, 06:31:06 AM by radorn

  • shakey_snake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #14
A Win2k version is probably as likely as Linux and Win3.1 versions.
Microsoft ended official support for 2000 2 years ago, why shouldn't Peter?

Fact:
Upgrade your 8 year old OS or deal with the consequences.

Fact:
If you don't mind running a legacy OS, you shouldn't have any qualms running a legacy version of Foobar.
  • Last Edit: 25 October, 2007, 04:22:24 PM by shakey_snake
elevatorladylevitateme

  • Lyx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #15
When an application drops OS support, then it typically is because of many reasons which make maintaining backwards-compatibility such a high effort, that it is in no reasonable relation to the gain anymore - or its because of lazyness. However, something like this almost never happens because of just ONE reason.

Here's a different perspective:
Last time i checked, you could get 256MB DDR RAM for about 15$. Thats more than enough to make any PC which can run win2k, XP-ready. And if you dont like some of the bloat in XP, you can always make use of NLite ( http://www.nliteos.com ).
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

  • shakey_snake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #16
Quote
It is easy to say this if you can afford a new computer every 3 years or so.
I'm not arguing for a Windows 2000 version, but I'd like to point out two things:

1. foobar2000 has the advantage that it runs well on an old computer, which is too slow for XP.

2. Version 0.9.5 does have some essential changes, such as FLAC 1.2.0 compatibility (which is not a problem now, but it will be in the future).

Is the 0.9.5 foo_input_std compatible with previous versions? If not, it is completely reasonable to ask for a compatible version.


If you bought a system with Win2k preinstalled instead of XP 3 years ago, then you made a pretty dumb mistake, but you honestly have my sympathy.

If you're OK running a legacy OS, then what's the issue with running a legacy version of FLAC?
  • Last Edit: 25 October, 2007, 05:38:13 PM by shakey_snake
elevatorladylevitateme

  • Lyx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #17
It is easy to say this if you can afford a new computer every 3 years or so.

You are talking about games, not about windows.

I'm not arguing for a Windows 2000 version, but I'd like to point out two things:

1. foobar2000 has the advantage that it runs well on an old computer, which is too slow for XP.

Any pentium3 is sufficient to run WinXP well and 256MB DDR RAM costs no more than 15$. If you are running something below 400 MHz, and request support of bleeding edge software, then the proper response is "ROFL!" - even in the old days of computing where computers weren't upgraded frequently, that would equal a C64 user requesting compatibility with amiga 1200 software!

- Lyx
  • Last Edit: 25 October, 2007, 05:39:43 PM by Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

  • Early
  • [*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #18
If you don't mind running a legacy OS, you shouldn't have any qualms running a legacy version of Foobar.


That's the opinion I reached a couple days ago.  What I get from fb2k 0.9.4 is perfect for my uses, and what I get from Win 2k is adequate.  I was also curious as to why and waiting for someone to ask the question.  UI seems to be the answer, and that can be gathered from the list of new features. 

Since I've waited this long to upgrade I figure I might as well skip XP when I do, so that means a year or so longer for Vista to get stable.  For the time being, it might be nice not to have to keep up with all those components websites anymore.

  • Slotos
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #19
I might as well skip XP when I do, so that means a year or so longer for Vista to get stable.

Now that can be a problem. Stability is not the main issue. Winxp was not too stable also at the beginning, but that was not enough of a reason for Asus/Dell/etc to switch to FreeDOS-like OEM OS.

I recommend you switching to WinXP, using nLite to remove unwanted features and some standart properties dialogs tweaks to make it look, feel and work like Win2000 but with higher compatibility. I also was addicted to Win2000 four years ago, but after taking some of my time to get aquainted with WinXP I switched to it with no regrets.
Sharing delusions since 1991.

  • Egor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #20
A Win2k version is probably as likely as Linux and Win3.1 versions.
Microsoft ended official support for 2000 2 years ago, why shouldn't Peter?

You are confusing Windows 2000 with Windows NT4, sorry.

Microsoft didn't drop support for Windows 2000, extended support phase will last up until 13.07.2010.

See here for the details you don't know:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/

  • thuan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #21
Experiences and preferences with OSs differs from person to person, so don't force your thinking onto other ppl. As for me, I have used Win9x (yeah all of them), W2k, XP and now Vista. I must say that there're things you're unfamiliar with on new OSs, new annoyances but also have nice new features, and problems of previous version fixed.

If one is not adventurous then he should switch to Vista after SP1 out. As likely shortly after, XP will be in the same situation as 2k now.

BTW I currently using Vista without a hitch for everything I do (programming, gaming, music, video, etc), of course after its up and down.

  • Jipcy
  • [*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #22
And one more question. Which component requires Windows XP now? Is it just new UI or core itself? I hope it's UI because I don't need it anyway, but would like to continue using foobar2000 on Windows 2000.

I am also wondering this.  I was under the impression that Win2000 and WinXP were similar enough that little effort was required to make a program compatible for both.  Of course, I don't know about FooBar2000's special case.  And this lesser compatibility doesn't even affect me, since I really only use XP.  So really, I am just curious.

I am looking forward to messing around with 0.9.5 when it comes out of beta.  Easier configuration and fewer external plug-ins equals good to me.

If the developers care to know, I was a long-time Winamp user.  I once tried FooBar2000 0.8.*, but found it too hard / too much to configure, and I was still familiar with Winamp.  However, it seems that Winamp continues to bloat with features with each new release.  Also, looking at the changelog for each release, there seems to be a  lot of security issues with it.  I'm guessing that the cause of some of Winamp's problems are from a very large codebase, with possibly some very old code in it.  I also don't like programs that are skinned by default and/or you can't turn off the skin.  I prefer just plain-jane Windows API GUIs.  Thank you for providing a simple, functional, lean, yet powerful audio playback program.

  • Squeller
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #23
When an application drops OS support, then it typically is because of many reasons which make maintaining backwards-compatibility such a high effort, that it is in no reasonable relation to the gain anymore - or its because of lazyness. However, something like this almost never happens because of just ONE reason.
Yes, maybe. In theory. But that wasn't the question.

Quote
Last time i checked, you could get 256MB DDR RAM for about 15$. Thats more than enough to make any PC which can run win2k, XP-ready. And if you dont like some of the bloat in XP, you can always make use of NLite ( http://www.nliteos.com ).
Yup I agree it's easy to XP. E.g. I was surprised how smoothly it runs on my Pentium III Notebook, better than W2K.

I still would be interested in what the reasons were.
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2007, 01:40:19 PM by Squeller

  • molnart
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #24
Last time i checked, you could get 256MB DDR RAM for about 15$. Thats more than enough to make any PC which can run win2k, XP-ready.

What you're saying is very true, but you forgot 2 things:

1) I don't want to format my 250 GB HDD to install XP instead of W2k.
2) Foobar2000 0.9.5 is the first application i've ever seen that runs on xp, but refuses to run under W2k