Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TROLL] v2.0 is disappointing (Read 2044 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TROLL] v2.0 is disappointing

90% of the components are still 32-bit and some of them will probably never upgrade to 64-bit as they have not been updated for many years (e.g. foo_ui_hacks, foo_vis_vumeter and many others).
Beside that, the new ReFacets sucks big time as the album cover art has been removed and if you're using that you can only use the old Facets. I have no idea why they didn't recompile it to 64-bit and get done with it.
foorbar2000 is a great program but it's basic architecture is outdated since it's built with C or C++ which makes no sense these days as C# is portable now and can run 32bit and 64bit without recompiling the code.
C# would allow user to run fb2k on Linux, Mac, Android, iOS and Windows but that's just my 2 cents.
If you've broken the backwards compatibility, go all the way and move to a modern programming language.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #1 –
fb2k 2.0 is available as 32bit so that invalidates everything you're grumlbing about. You must be blind or just plain stupid if you thought it was 64bit only.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #2 –
Quote from: marc2k3 on
fb2k 2.0 is available as 32bit so that invalidates everything you're grumlbing about. You must be blind or just plain stupid if you thought it was 64bit only.

I don't reply to this type of insults.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #3 –
Quote from: marc2k3 on
fb2k 2.0 is available as 32bit so that invalidates everything you're grumlbing about. You must be blind or just plain stupid if you thought it was 64bit only.
yo chill. why is bro angry? o.O

Edit: but yea i havnt switched to 64 bit because of that reason and i propably never will by the looks of it.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #4 –
Brash as he is, marc2k3 is not really wrong: you did not do your due diligence and just went on a rant that's based on factually incorrect information.

And I won't even touch "outdated architecture" and "use modern language" parts, since it seems that you don't have an understanding of what "writing a program" actually entails (let alone writing such a complex cross-platform application)

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #5 –
marc2k3 is accustomed to lack of respect.
He often despises how we appreciate him.
This is because I am refractory to participate in this forum.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #6 –
Maybe you're right, but don't forget all the people he helped.
And for the OP, would you like someone to come at your home, criticizing you, telling you how you should do things ?
But anyway, I know it's an intended provocation because you want to use Foobar2000 2.0 64 bits and you can't.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Nojevah on
Maybe you're right, but don't forget all the people he helped.
And for the OP, would you like someone to come at your home, criticizing you, telling you how you should do things ?
But anyway, I know it's an intended provocation because you want to use Foobar2000 2.0 64 bits and you can't.
Ehm... helping some people sometimes does not give you a "free ticket" to be an absolute terrible forum user. That's not how it works. It amazes me that in this forum you can not say "these 500€ cables make your music sound better" but you can go full rage mode insulting users without a mod doing anything.

People should try to think a bit before writing. The forum would be a much greater place with much less stupidity and aggressiveness, and that applies to everyone. Developers and "people who help" too.

About the user's concerns, well... the same marc & tQ.. have their points (it's so easy to complain without being conscious about the work required), thing is the user also have some points right.

The last 10 years of components development don't really make any sense due to x64 development being postponed ad infinitum. Like nowadays people are fine ditching win 7 support, but it was "common sense" to not have a 64 bit version of foobar2000 5 years ago. "Common sense" only for some users/devs on this forum, as usual. Years later most component devs have gone away, there is no source code (lets not talk about 5 versions to do essentially the same thing like lyrics components...), people keep using broken components and the change to x64 has come too late; now this is the result. I would say it would be wise to also see that behind the critics -even if badly formulated- there is some truth.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #8 –
C# would require significant re-writing, would it not?
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #9 –
Quote from: fooball on
C# would require significant re-writing, would it not?
as would marc's responses ^^
For example:
"Why are you stupid?" -> "Could you elaborate?"
Although i can see why it could be frustrating to read such a overly negative criticism when you are involved this much.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #10 –
I'm sorry but I don't really understand what all the hubbub is about. It is all free. If you don't like it use something else. In my book the developers have shown a remarkable willingness to address what they can.

Third party means someone besides the foobar developers have made a free add-on, many times without releasing the code. To demand that just because an add-on exists somewhere it somehow becomes the foobar developers responsibility to update it is ridiculous.

If you have an add-on that you can't live without just keep a portable copy of the newest version of foobar that will run it until it is upgraded.

I for one would like to express my appreciation for all the hard work that many people have done to make foobar2000 the best audio player around.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #11 –
Quote from: oberon0470 on
I'm sorry but I don't really understand what all the hubbub is about. It is all free. If you don't like it use something else. In my book the developers have shown a remarkable willingness to address what they can.
I do agree, and I have shown my thanks and support where I can. But I also understand how frustrating it is when something is so close to 'perfection' (or more precisely, what a specific user sees as perfection), but not being able to achieve it because it would take tremendous effort to learn a new skill to make the rest yourself. It also sucks when there is a new version with a feature you've been wanting for a long time, but there is a component/feature you already rely on that won't work with said newer version.

I am very thankful for all of the hard work the developers and helpers here have put into this, and I still use foobar2000 because nothing else comes even close to the utility I get from it. And people making angry posts about something they get for free is never classy. I do understand where the frustration is coming from.
Think millionaire, but with cannons.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #12 –
Quote from: fooball on
C# would require significant re-writing, would it not?

C# would require a complete re-write which takes time and a lot of effort.
I wrote C++ for about 10 years before I moved to C# for the last 20 years and I wrote many languages before that (started in 1978) so I do know just a bit about programming.
The code is closed and the community cannot contribute so this makes it even harder.
If it would be on Github I think that many programmers would join the effort.
The owner does not have to do that but one can look in these forums and see how many complain on the new ReFacets which is why I think 64bit is .
I am still using the 32-bit just for that reason.
Maintaining 32-bit and 64-bit takes a lot of effort and in the long run I would have move this project to C# when v2.0 started but that's me and no one needs to get insulted for that and surely no one needs to call me stupid.
I am sure that if we would have this discussion face-to-face he would not call me stupid but it's easy behind the keyboard.
foobar2000 is a great program and free which is awesome with so may components that it can be customized to whatever one likes.
This person marc2k3 didn't bother to read my comment. I complained about the new ReFacets which so many users are complaining about in the forum and not on fb2k itself.

Re: v2.0 is disappointing

Reply #13 –
Quote from: Gabriel Schwartz on
C# would require a complete re-write which takes time and a lot of effort.
So you've answered your own complaint.

Quote from: Gabriel Schwartz on
The code is closed and the community cannot contribute so this makes it even harder.
So your fundamental gripe is the proprietorial underpinnings of the FB2K ecoverse.  The easy answer to that is "that's Peter's choice, take it or leave it".

The longer answer is that I can see why.  Opening it up to community development not only exposes code to plagiarism but also ends up with the "committee effect" – a lot of time going into arguing and management rather than development.

Just be grateful.  At least it is a structure which can be built on, and offered free-of-charge.

Quote from: Gabriel Schwartz on
This person marc2k3 didn't bother to read my comment. I complained about the new ReFacets which so many users are complaining about in the forum and not on fb2k itself.
You're trying to falsify the record.  You titled this thread "v2.0 is disappointing" (no mention of ReFacets), and the first post says:
Quote from: Gabriel Schwartz on
foorbar2000 is a great program but it's basic architecture is outdated since it's built with C or C++ which makes no sense these days as C# is portable now and can run 32bit and 64bit without recompiling the code.
C# would allow user to run fb2k on Linux, Mac, Android, iOS and Windows but that's just my 2 cents.
If you've broken the backwards compatibility, go all the way and move to a modern programming language.
That sounds like a complaint about FB2K itself to me.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.