Skip to main content

Topic: foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey (Read 28872 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Lyx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #25

Aren't those "ready-set-go"-packages forbidden?
Without prior written permission, yes.

If they're, can someone explain me the reason?
Support hell. This was allowed before 0.9, then the license was changed to prevent it.

One more reason for that limitation may be, that in the past, this possibility was abused for defamation purposes.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

  • Horst Fux
  • [*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #26
I'm awared of it, that giving other people my config is allowed, was written a little bit cloudy by myself. However, especially for Panels_UI-Users it's very uncomfortable to use "packages" like br3tt's. I think it could make foobar more popular but this could have bad by-effects like it happened to WinAmp. Otherwise there would be more developers. Anyways, if foobar is getting developed constantly I'm happy enough.

  • Kiteroa
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #27
MM is extremely customisable for those that can/want to use SQL and VBScript. 

See:  http://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Scripting

For look and feel for out-of-box users there are many scripts  (see: http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic...5e34bf73fe1787) and a few MM skins (http://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Skins_for_MediaMonkey_v3.0_and_higher) but, apparently, any winamp skin can be used.

I have recreated my Foobar customisations in MM with little difficulty (once I got back up-to-speed with SQL and VBS)! It was easier than setting up Foobar in many ways as different parts of the config. communicate.

I have not found it necessary to upgrade to the paid version of MM.

Nice to have some alternative... Tagging is much better with drop-down selection/entry from almost anywhere  track(s) are displayed.

  • mobyduck
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #28
MM is extremely customisable for those that can/want to use SQL and VBScript.
Wow, didn't know that.

SQL & foobar2000 is definitely a toy I'd like to play with!

Alessandro
  • Last Edit: 04 June, 2008, 03:36:50 AM by mobyduck

  • shakey_snake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #29
MM is extremely customisable for those that can/want to use SQL and VBScript. 

See:  http://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Scripting

For look and feel for out-of-box users there are many scripts  (see: http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic...5e34bf73fe1787) and a few MM skins (http://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Skins_for_MediaMonkey_v3.0_and_higher) but, apparently, any winamp skin can be used.

I have recreated my Foobar customisations in MM with little difficulty (once I got back up-to-speed with SQL and VBS)! It was easier than setting up Foobar in many ways as different parts of the config. communicate.

I have not found it necessary to upgrade to the paid version of MM.

Nice to have some alternative... Tagging is much better with drop-down selection/entry from almost anywhere  track(s) are displayed.
Honestly, if you primarily used foobar because of panels UI's "interface customization ability" you were barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

How hard it was to setup something like someone else's should have been your first clue.
  • Last Edit: 04 June, 2008, 04:30:21 AM by shakey_snake
elevatorladylevitateme

foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #30
@shakey_snake: The New Default UI has a Quick Appearance Setup feature. This is, practically speaking, exactly what you are talking about.

Actually, No.  I'm was referring to more than just UI components for packaging.
  • Last Edit: 04 June, 2008, 06:28:38 AM by LadFromDownUnder

  • ExUser
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Read-only
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #31
SQL & foobar2000 is definitely a toy I'd like to play with!
There's really not much point. foobar2000's database is not relational. It consists of one table, with one row per file (or track), with arbitrary field names, and is highly optimized to take advantage of its unique structure. Using a SQL backend or a SQL query language would serve no purpose and would probably be less efficient than the current structure.
  • Last Edit: 04 June, 2008, 10:14:06 AM by Canar

  • mobyduck
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #32
SQL & foobar2000 is definitely a toy I'd like to play with!
There's really not much point. foobar2000's database is not relational. It consists of one table, with one row per file (or track), with arbitrary field names, and is highly optimized to take advantage of its unique structure. Using a SQL backend or a SQL query language would serve no purpose and would probably be less efficient than the current structure.
Yes, I was suspecting foobar2000 data structures are not RDBMS-based, so mine was more the expression of a dream rather than a request.

SQL might be handy for grouping, gathering statistics, filtering and things like that, but I understand it's probably something that doesn't fit in the current architecture.

Alessandro

  • kanak
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #33
SQL might be handy for grouping, gathering statistics, filtering and things like that, but I understand it's probably something that doesn't fit in the current architecture.


Hmm... Facets has statistics that leverages the current database structure, and it performs REALLY well. So I doubt that the architecture is preventing any features.

  • ExUser
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Read-only
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #34
If you've ever used the album list, you'll realize that foobar2000 has found an equivalent that probably outperforms the SQL query technique and is much lighter and user-friendly in terms of user configuration. Title-formatting-based grouping and queries are quick, effective, and easy to understand. That saves on stuff like this:



Long table is long.

Also, try pulling all songs added in the past week out of that table structure. Oh wait, that data isn't stored. And there's no place to store it. Install one component in foobar2000 and you're golden.

Edit: Post was made before the requisite morning dose of caffeine and thus contained minor, if someone silly, errors.
  • Last Edit: 04 June, 2008, 11:39:46 AM by Canar

  • Kiteroa
  • [*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #35
Honestly, if you primarily used foobar because of panels UI's "interface customization ability" you were barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

How hard it was to setup something like someone else's should have been your first clue.


I can't disagree, it was like banging my head against a brick wall - but it feels really good now I have stopped!

  • mobyduck
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #36

SQL might be handy for grouping, gathering statistics, filtering and things like that, but I understand it's probably something that doesn't fit in the current architecture.


Hmm... Facets has statistics that leverages the current database structure, and it performs REALLY well. So I doubt that the architecture is preventing any features.
I meant the current architecture prevents the usage of SQL, not the collection of those data. And Facets is a great tool indeed, but if you use ColumnsUI...

Anyway, all my "ranting" is probably due to the fact that I feel more comfortable setting up an SQL query than fiddling with foobar scripting language (let alone write a plugin in C). Not that I'm expecting to see a RDBMS for foobar any time soon...

Alessandro

  • ~*McoreD*~
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #37
Customizable to the max.

$if3($if($stricmp(%genre%,Classical),%composer%,),%band%)

That's a just View you can have using Facets UI.

  • PredUK
  • [*][*]
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey
Reply #38

Simply being limited makes MediaMonkey bad IMO. It's okay, but foobar is for my needs perfect.

There are so many things unlogical with that statement, that i dont even know where to start.
Why? What makes my opinion illogical? I don't like using shareware, and a program that wants you to pay for the full feature set yet still has the menu entries for the options and features that are off limits isn't one that I want to use. If they took everything that had to be paid for out of the free version then it would be a lot better. Besides, it's for my needs bloated. Foobar does what I need it to do.