Skip to main content

Topic: foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000? (Read 46572 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Ran Sagy
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #25
I've seen quite a few applications that do not support Windows 2000 for various reasons. Also note that Microsoft has ceased support for Windows 2000 itself, Further validating the approach that Windows 2000 has some limits that hold back future development of various applications and features.

  • shakey_snake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #26
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/
Extended support is really a support phase geared towards business users and other organizations that may have actual reasons not to upgrade. Since Foobar's target audience is typically the audiophile home user, my point still stands.
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2007, 03:37:32 PM by shakey_snake
elevatorladylevitateme

  • Slotos
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #27
1) I don't want to format my 250 GB HDD to install XP instead of W2k.

Why format? Update works fine enought.
Sharing delusions since 1991.

  • Egor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #28
Extended support is really a support phase

This phase applies to home users as well.

  • shakey_snake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #29
...who should upgrade.


Please don't partial quote me, it's extremely rude.
I'm done conversing with you.
elevatorladylevitateme

  • ExUser
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Read-only
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #30
Please don't partial quote me


What's the problem here?

  • Lyx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #31
If someone really wants a justification for something, he'll find one - no matter how much truth-twisting is necessary.

Have fun :)
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2007, 04:16:47 PM by Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

  • bubbleguuum
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #32
The funny thing is that fb 0.95 worls under Linux with wine, but not with windows 2000!

  • Ran Sagy
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #33
Wine 'emulates' the needed parts in XP, Probably.

  • Zao
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #34
._._h_ _h_u_d_u_g_a_e_


P_e_s_ _o_'_ _a_t_a_ _u_t_ _e_ _t_s_e_t_e_e_y_r_d_.
I_m_d_n_ _o_v_r_i_g_w_t_ _o_.


Notable is that wine does a so-so job with most of the API. The console is full of partial function implementation warnings, and unsupported gunk.
But it runs, kind of.
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2007, 05:22:12 PM by Zao
Zao shang yong zao nong zao rang zao ren zao.
To, early in the morning, use a chisel to build a bathtub makes impatient people hot-tempered.

  • bubbleguuum
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #35
Wine 'emulates' the needed parts in XP, Probably.


More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!

  • Zao
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #36
More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!


Wine reports itself as 98 or 2k by default (changable by winecfg), which one can see if one tries running the foobar2000 installer.
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2007, 05:31:49 PM by Zao
Zao shang yong zao nong zao rang zao ren zao.
To, early in the morning, use a chisel to build a bathtub makes impatient people hot-tempered.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #37
Please don't partial quote me


What's the problem here?


He changed the quote to mean something other then what it originally said, which is poor form at best.

  • FrozenSpoon
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #38
The actual dependencies on XP-only features seems rather slim on a quick look:
1) 2 XP-only networking functions that have an easy Windows 2000 work around.
2) The UI is looking for 3 functions in uxtheme.dll to draw the background of the current windows theme. Should be easy to avoid this in 2000 (obviously).
3) Some XP only calls to get properties of files... could do the same thing in Windows 2000 with "some" extra code.

There may be more, but those were the low-hanging fruit to find. I'd be disappointed if those were the only reasons -- all 3 of them aren't a big deal.

  • Slotos
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #39
More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!

It just provides all the API calls needed.
Actually one can try replacing win2k dlls with xp ones according to the foobar2000 errors. Inuse tool might be helpful.
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2007, 09:48:33 PM by Slotos
Sharing delusions since 1991.

  • TrNSZ
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #40
More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!
It just provides all the API calls needed.
Actually one can try replacing win2k dlls with xp ones according to the foobar2000 errors. Inuse tool might be helpful.
Going this route is a really bad idea, and you'll have to prepare yourself for a system that doesn't work right (or might not even boot) until you eventually replace so much of your system that you just end up with ... Windows XP.

And this defeats the whole purpose anyway, does it not, replacing the components of your Windows 2000 installation with Windows XP components?  Microsoft invented a pretty decent solution for this.  It's called Setup on the Windows XP media and it works pretty well for such an upgrade.

It was actually officially released six years ago today!  (And configured here uses less RAM than Windows 2000 did on the same hardware and runs faster).

XP Requires: Pentium 233Mhz, 800x600 SuperVGA, 64MB of RAM, 1.8GB hard disk space.
2K Requires: Pentium 133Mhz, 640x480 VGA, 64MB of RAM, 2.0GB hard disk space.

If anyone is really stuck on Windows 2000 due to true hardware constraints, give me your e-mail address registered with Paypal and I'll consider donating the cash you need to bring your system up to 64MB of RAM and a VGA card that can do 800x600.  I probably spend more money each week in fast food, and this will help my diet.

  • Egor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #41
He changed the quote to mean something other then what it originally said, which is poor form at best.

I apologize for not including the [...] mark, I was typing from my smartphone.

More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!
It just provides all the API calls needed.
Actually one can try replacing win2k dlls with xp ones according to the foobar2000 errors. Inuse tool might be helpful.
Going this route is a really bad idea [...]
[/size]
I believe he's talking about WINE and native Windows DLLs, not about a running Windows system.

  • user
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #42
I think not mentioned yet:

Though I can generally understand, that at one point support of new program versions cannot support old OS anymore, it is a bit different in this special audio player software area.

Because to play audio, very low PC-power is needed, think of decoding cpu usage by flac, mpc, mp3 etc.

As old and "slow" PC gear works often still stable but cannot be used sensefully for serious modern applications and work, this hardware is eitehr thrown to dustbin, or used for ... ?
well, I think, many old and slow hardware is used and could be used as music-PC, as audio player.

As foobar developers need to draw the line somewhere, it will be 'moot' to discuss 0.9.5+ support for win2k, but there would be another solution, that is hosting the older foobar players with components for the older systems.
This is partially? done at reallyrarewares, but honestly i cannot understand, why foobar does not host this 'officially' with complete componets, iirc, at rrw there are some special older foobar installers, but probably not with all components.
IMO, I feel it is a kind of wasted stuff, that these old but nice thingies for certain people are buried. You people invested a lot of time and work also into the older stuff, and it should be there for honours, still, as it has even today practical value as described above. But well, maybe it's (not) only me, who is conservative in these things, which means keeping good values and creating more good values for future.

And if MS decides against support of older systems, this doesn't need to be followed as good example. (At least, even by MS, if you have win2k or win98, iirc, you could update that stuff to latest ever made updates.)
What made me technically wonder, as technically win2k and xp are so close to each other, that I see here a break between support of these 2 systems, especially, as win2k was considered to be more "industrial standard" and xp more for home users, who want fancy surface stuff, well, but maybe I simply got older
What worries me, is, that the support for xp will be cut at one time also (by MS for certain, but by foobar?!)
I really like the qualities of win2k and XP, and i still really appreciate the power of P3 at 600 or 800 MHz and higher. I have the feeling, that these old PCs will survive a long time, but MS obviously would like it more, if people buy new PCs instead with a new OS on it, which makes you pay several times for an OS, not only 1 time like I did for my XP.
See the MS policy and the technical requirements about win2k, xp, vista... in this marketing point of view, and it is clear, what i want to express.
  • Last Edit: 27 October, 2007, 05:32:34 AM by user
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials

  • Ran Sagy
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #43
No one should encourage people to use outdated software with widely-known issues that are already fixed on newer versions. Most obviously for security reasons, But for other reasons as well.

In contrast to what user said, People also have to know when their systems are outdated and in a manner, obsolete. You don't expect Windows 95 and Pentium 1 to be a supported set for software today, do you?
  • Last Edit: 27 October, 2007, 06:19:41 AM by chaosblade

foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #44
Don't touch a running system. Even if microsoft stops support for windows 2000 that doesn't necessarily mean
user should switch to a newer os. Of course, there are risks with outdated os, but hey, computers functioning as audio players don't need internet access and unless os runs without problems they don't need updates !.
Second fact is that old computers and old OS should be sufficient to play music.

@chaosblade
Yes, I don't expect softwork to work with windows 95 but somehow I expect to just download the source myself in such case and change this or that to make it run, oh, well, there is no public source. I know this, Peter won't change his mind, but if he does not want to deal with older os it it's the user task to make it work. Somehow open source software is in advantage here.

  • joen
  • [*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #45
The comparison with older versions of Windows like 95,98,ME and such is not really a fair comparison. The 9.X line of Windows is fundamentally different in architecture so with these OS's compatibility problems are more likely to occur. Windows 2000 and XP are part of the same code "family", as is Vista. So I think 2000 shouldn't be dismissed already. Unless it is technically impossible, something I find hard to believe.

On the other hand, Windows 2000 never was a home consumer OS, and let's face it, Foobar is hardly a business application. And I don't think most Win2K Foobar users really bought Windows 2000

But, I do think one of Foobar's strong points is that it's really suitable for older PC's. And some people just do not need to have the latest greatest computer for what they do with it.
Security is mainly a matter of how you use a PC anyway. Sure an OS that is totally insecure (which 2000 surely isn't) can be vulnerable. But I'm sure a sensible user can use Win2K and be free of malware. In the end ensuring system security is a matter of the user and the OS and not an application like Foobar running on it. To an extent of course.

It doesn't affect me personally as I use XP, but I would surely be quite pissed if in the future XP support for Foobar was canned in favor of Vista, as I don't see myself ever switching to it. An application should not force people to use a different OS. Unless it's of a different architecture.

  • Ran Sagy
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #46
Comparing the code base of Windows 2000, XP and Vista is unrealistic.
Unless you are completely aware of the design decisions for each OS and in this case, Foobar, You can't really comment whether or not it is necessary to make this choice or not.

Also, I wouldn't expect every program to have its source code available. People are too used to certain projects out there, But need to face the fact - Most of the software that is popular\common is NOT open source.

All in all - The decision is made. Foobar2000 no longer supports Windows 2000. It is not open source, and not likely to ever be. Frankly, I find further discussion of this moot and pointless.

  • DocBeard
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #47
I don't use Windows 2000 (in fact, I don't think I've ever seen a machine that had it installed; I went straight from 98 to XP, with a slight diversion for NT 4 on my work PC), but, um, if your machine does everything you want it to do, and works well for your purposes, there really is no reason to upgrade. (Yes, even if that machine is 'obsolete'.) Mind you, expecting new software to support old systems is, at best, unrealistic.

I'll admit to some curiousity over the question that started this thread, though, a question that, to my knowledge, no one has actually answered. Specifically, what in the new version breaks in Windows 2000? For that matter, *is* it actually confirmed not to work in Windows 2000, or is it just 'no longer supported' (i.e. it may or may not work, but if it doesn't, we won't try to make it work)?

  • Slotos
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #48
I believe he's talking about WINE and native Windows  DLLs, not about a running Windows system.

About Windows system. And I'm talking from my experience. It may be or may not be successful.

Btw, I  should've wrote "one may consider trying" instead of "one can try". Just that in my native language those to phrases are almost identical.
Sharing delusions since 1991.

  • j7n
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 0.9.5 and Windows 2000?
Reply #49
Indeed what's up with the XP requirement now? For what reason exactly Foobar won't run on Win2000 anymore?

I hope the day never comes when Foobar will demand Vista.

_________________

-- Sorry about posting in the wrong thread before.

I read this discussion here and came to conclusion that new Foobar versions are dead and gone for me. I'm still using v0.8.3 and was seriously considering if v0.9 is good enough as a replacement for it. (We know that some functions were removed and the interface is completely different.) And guess what... Foobar didn't even reach v1.0 before setting its own standards again!

I don't really care about Win2k myself since my PCs have either Win98 SP2 (the unofficial service pack) or WinXP SP1. But I see where it's going and a requirement for Vista seems more realistic than ever. I know a good person who prefers Win2k over WinXP because the former has ugly icons and he's not going thru all the trouble to replace them. Version 0.8.3 works everywhere and that's what I'm gonna recommend to anybody without first asking them which OS they run.

I'm grateful to the development team for providing the wonderful program that Foobar2000 v0.8.3 is and I hope to continue using it for many years. Take care.
  • Last Edit: 27 October, 2007, 02:41:31 PM by j7n