Skip to main content

Topic: I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style (Read 10487 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • jistme
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Hithere,

Today I gave Foobar a shot, intending to divorce from Winamp after a very long and happy marriage.
After hearing some positive feedback about Foobar I gave it a try, but to be honest, I am quiet astounded to see that Foobar is graphically still in the 90's, and so is the way to get usable skins (to make the experience a little more apealing and usable) to work.

O.k. flame me to hell with probably a lot of valid arguments and opinions, but I can't imagine I am the only one looking for a Winamp of the 21st century, and will for these reasons not choose Foobar as a successor.

  • tpijag
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #1
You joined to tell everyone that you will not choose Foobar2000.  Troll often?
A big

meh


  • jistme
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #2
Nope,

Just expressing my honest feelings, maybe hoping that there might be some development in this area by people more talented in this area then me ;-)

  • fusen
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #3
He isn't trolling, he's saying it how it is.

the Foobar 2000 default skin is terrible compared to what people expect in 2011 for any type of software. I've used foobar for years (5+) yet am still using version 0.9 as the only skin I like isn't compatible with 1.0+ and I can't find any new skins that are good enough to make me upgrade to the latest version of foobar even though if I did upgrade I'd them be able to use a lot of iPhone foobar control applications that only work with 1.0+

So I'm essentially losing features due to the terrible state of both the default skin and the skins that are publicly available, ignoring the fact that if you do find a skin you like, it takes about 15 minutes to install it all and make sure it's working how you'd expect it to.

To put it simply, the OP is 100% correct with everything he says. (I'll just stick with my 0.9 install until something one day comes along)

oh, and before you say "just create one yourself if you're so unhappy" I'm not the artistic type let along someone who wants to spend however many double figure hours it'd take to create something that's good enough.

  • jistme
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #4
Thnx fusen,

After posting I did feel a little bit like a troll, criticizing what must be a lot of of work by a lot of dedicated and talented people.
  • Last Edit: 25 September, 2011, 06:59:24 AM by db1989

  • tpijag
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #5
Your point of view is well understood. Why can people not understand that Foobar2000 puts a premium on functionality. It is just one piece of software and it is not appropriate for everyone. You want to take the time to make it into something that, subjectively to you that is pretty, and even more functional, fine. Have at it. If not, so be it.
And again, meh

  • jistme
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #6
What is, or do you mean by 'meh'?
(English is not my native language)

  • shakey_snake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #7
fb2k is, despite some people's efforts, not "skinable" like Winamp is. It is customizable and functional, but not "skinable". If you want a piece of software that is "skinable", then you should probably make that your top priority when looking for new software.

Have a good day!
  • Last Edit: 24 September, 2011, 02:28:05 PM by shakey_snake
elevatorladylevitateme

  • sld
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #8
To TS:

stick with Winamp.

  • xnor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #9
Why do you need a skin for an audio player?
"I hear it when I see it."

  • lukesau
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #10
What is, or do you mean by 'meh'?
(English is not my native language)


Meh means you are indifferent or do not care
whenever I have to do subtraction I'm like "wut?"

  • fusen
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #11
Why do you need a skin for an audio player?


the term "skin" in this thread is being used a glorified term for a graphical frontend to foobar that doesn't look like some windows 95 application.

If a decent GUI is so unimportant that why did they not make foobar run via the cmd prompt or in terminal and you could just use commands to play/find music.

It's a shame that people think that just because Foobar is how it is, some awesome customisable, feature rich  music player that it can't also just one one good looking preset config.

  • derty2
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #12
@jistme, since skinning music players is your main interest, then show us a Photoshopped mock-up of your perfect skin.
What would it look like; what features are essential to you? You have not gone into any technical detail about what you want because you don't know what you want. You are a troll as tpijag explained.

Go to deviantart website and have a look at all the foobar skins made by 'Br3tt' or 'tedgo'  (...and don't forget to join the site).

Me personally, I am eternally grateful that minimalist programs such as "foobar2000" and 1by1" are still developed
for the x86 computer. I am starting to conclude that the influence of touch screen computing is having an impact on peoples minds; it's dumbing people down.

  • DotNoir
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #13
To each their own, I guess, but I haven't ever undestood why people who want skins/great looks on a player insist on using foobar2000. fb2k is perfect for me and usually stays hidden on my taskbar. But when it is open, I find it very usable. If you want looks, go for Winamp. They sound the same, so why be frustrated over the looks of fb2k if it doesn't siut your needs?
  • Last Edit: 24 September, 2011, 08:42:03 PM by DotNoir
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe

  • kraut
  • [*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #14
Quote
Your point of view is well understood. Why can people not understand that Foobar2000 puts a premium on functionality


Concur. I am looking for functionality in a player and foobar has features that are beyond what other players can do - and I have tried the lot of them.....and after about half a year fucking around with everything from winamp to media monkey, vlc, dbpower amp, winamp, and what the hell else is out there  I came back to windows.
The discussion reminds me very much of the "audiophile" discussions I participated in where the looks of the equipment was considered almost more important than its "hi end" performance.

I have a very functional default UI layout with biography/album info, lyrics display , waveform seekbar and spectrum display, album art, esl playlist and it does all I want and need it to do.

If you want pretty pictures - look for a different player... or go back and paint your laptop/desktop paisley.

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #15
Why do you need a skin for an audio player?


the term "skin" in this thread is being used a glorified term for a graphical frontend to foobar that doesn't look like some windows 95 application.

If a decent GUI is so unimportant that why did they not make foobar run via the cmd prompt or in terminal and you could just use commands to play/find music.

It's a shame that people think that just because Foobar is how it is, some awesome customisable, feature rich  music player that it can't also just one one good looking preset config.


IMO you are the one that does not really understand the term and glorify Skin.
Foobar2000 is very functional, to be that f2k could just run from command line. But Foobar2000 has a decent customizable GUI with already many preset config.

GUI adds usability. Skinning on the other hand just add more color, hide some texts,  save some screen places, a bit reposition. Usability added is minimal. Some people feel more comforting with nice skin, that's just their preference.

  • durch
  • [*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #16
The default user interface has improved a lot since version 1.0. I love clear lines. However, there is still too much inconsistency. Have a look at the following example:

(The yellow marked lines are the result of (not) using tabs.)

  • jistme
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #17
Respect to the admin who changed the subject of my thread. This is indeed more respectful and a factual statement of what I encountered exploring Foobar.

Again, I'm not trolling. I am just having problems with Winamp gotten a little bloated over the years and having problems with hi-res flacs, and maybe a little disappointed not being able to find an simple, aesthetically pleasing successor. This has nothing to do with pimping or Teletubbies fetishism.

I don't think I am incorrect stating that Foobar is visually not very attractive, and that trying to adjust this with or without 'skins' is very cumbersome.

Of course fanboys will be fanboys and they will always be comfortable seeing things black or white, and ridiculing or meh'ing the opinion of others. Just make sure you don't hinder real progress....

Thanks for also some sensible input from others. I suppose I’ll have to keep Winamp, MediaMonkey and Foobar side-by-side for the different purposes for a while.

Bye for now!

  • MrMonkey
  • [*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #18
Try XMPlay.  It has less bloat than Winamp and it's simpler to modify via skins than foobar2000. There are many nice skins available for it.
fb2k does have a learning curve when you're modifying it to your needs; for me, it was worth the time spent.
  • Last Edit: 25 September, 2011, 08:24:10 AM by MrMonkey

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #19
Of course you are trolling or did you write the same posting in the forums of other players too. You are able to know that foobar2000 is using the windows theme of the os on which it is running: is windows 7 looking like the 90s for you? Probably yes! Are the most programs under Mac or Linux looking for you like stone age just because they us the os theme and not some shitty selfcreated ui? Probably yes! I really don't care about your opinion but why do you think it could be an interesting message that you are going to stick with media monkey and its crappy user interface that indeed look cumbersome like nothing else? If you don't like to use foobar2000 so that's ok because it was not written for you!

german support forum: www.foobar-users.de / user: qwert73

  • jistme
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #20
Try XMPlay.  It has less bloat than Winamp and it's simpler to modify via skins than foobar2000. There are many nice skins available for it.
fb2k does have a learning curve when you're modifying it to your needs; for me, it was worth the time spent.

Thnx, will give it a shot.

  • Last Edit: 26 September, 2011, 06:30:57 AM by db1989

  • jistme
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #21
Of course you are trolling or did you write the same posting in the forums of other players too. You are able to know that foobar2000 is using the windows theme of the os on which it is running: is windows 7 looking like the 90s for you? Probably yes! Are the most programs under Mac or Linux looking for you like stone age just because they us the os theme and not some shitty selfcreated ui? Probably yes! I really don't care about your opinion but why do you think it could be an interesting message that you are going to stick with media monkey and its crappy user interface that indeed look cumbersome like nothing else? If you don't like to use foobar2000 so that's ok because it was not written for you!

That's a lot of words (from a seemingly chaotic, and not very open mind) for somebody who doesn't care about my opinion.
  • Last Edit: 26 September, 2011, 06:31:09 AM by db1989

  • xnor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #22
I don't think I am incorrect stating that Foobar is visually not very attractive, and that trying to adjust this with or without 'skins' is very cumbersome.

Again, why does it have to look attractive?

Fb2k allows users, that are willing to spend some time, to customize/skin it, but the functionality provided out of the box is what counts. It plays audio files well and lets you manage huge media libraries, rip CDs, en/decode files etc.
  • Last Edit: 25 September, 2011, 12:01:50 PM by xnor
"I hear it when I see it."

  • jistme
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #23
I don't think I am incorrect stating that Foobar is visually not very attractive, and that trying to adjust this with or without 'skins' is very cumbersome.

Again, why does it have to look attractive?

Fb2k allows users, that are willing to spend some time, to customize/skin it, but the functionality provided out of the box is what counts. It plays audio files well and lets you manage huge media libraries, rip CDs, en/decode files etc.

Of course you are very right about the priorities of good software.

Still, it adds to pleasure and satisfaction if what you are handling also has some nice design features.
Without wanting to get too raunchy, this will apply to software, cars, daily tools, clothes, members of the opposite sex (for most of us ;-), etc. etc.
I am quite certain you also own stuff that has "an attractive design".

Anyway, it is now clear to me that most Foobar users prefer 'Spartan' in their software, and if necessary are willing to use "90's methods" to make things a little more attractive.

No problem, no hard feelings, everybody enjoy!
  • Last Edit: 26 September, 2011, 06:31:24 AM by db1989

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #24
Just that you know about what he talks:

http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic...f=9&t=54576

@xnor
foobar2000 looks attractive since it match the rest of my OS. Compare all the Dui-themes with mm skins from the link!
  • Last Edit: 25 September, 2011, 02:06:11 PM by q-stankovic
german support forum: www.foobar-users.de / user: qwert73