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: Re: foo_dsp_effect (Read 480 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from foo_dsp_effect
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: foo_dsp_effect

I thought I fixed that at some point, maybe need to redo it for beta 2. Whenever that comes out at least.
Shame, 'cos I'm not moving on from 1.6.13
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #1
And why not? Genuinely curious as I would love to know a rationale behind why people purposely stick to old versions of software.

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #2
And why not? Genuinely curious as I would love to know a rationale behind why people purposely stick to old versions of software.

A few weeks ago, fooball couldn't use one of my components because it required windows 7 users had Service Pack 1 (2011) and the platform update from 2013 installed. They had neither. :/

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #3
And why not? Genuinely curious as I would love to know a rationale behind why people purposely stick to old versions of software.
While the generalization and following statement by Marc is clearly putting the focus on "being against updating"... (and yep, that' may be silly sometimes) why are not we being honest about the current state of foobar v2? XD

- Performance is much worse on v2 than before. There are dozens of threads talking about it. Specially for lage libraries, have not seen any answer about it by Peter yet.
- Playback statistics is built-in now, and has a regression, where playback tags are linked to file paths instead of title + album + date. (*)
- Not only many plugins need an update for 64 bit, which has not happen yet. BUT many 32 bit plugins also don't work properly on v2 32version: like any plugin which access the entire library and read the tags. foo_upnp for ex. exposes the entire library to the net and now it takes 50 secs to initialize. We keep continuing asking plugins developers to update their plugin to fix it instead of going to the root of the problem, ejem, no tag caching.
- Lets not talk about going to 64 bits to discard tag caching, and thus not use the RAM available on 64 bit systems XD
- V2 is in beta (?)
- V1 is tested and fully functional (?)

So I would say right now the point is the user needs reasons to update, instead of being on 1.6 for some months or even a year. Like not everybody wants to be testers and have their library or playback statistics randomly deleted u know ;) like the first betas. Or people already have a functional system and updates don't bring improvements but regressions.

(*) Maybe because uhm... since tag access is so slow, that was the only way to put it back?  ::)

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #4
Genuinely curious as I would love to know a rationale behind why people purposely stick to old versions of software.
I'm using FB2K for ballroom dance music presentation using a couple of little netbooks running WIn7 Starter Edition.  I've concentrated on achieving the necessary functionality rather than it being pretty.

I decided I wanted the Playlist Manager available in Jscript Panel, but couldn't run Jscript Panel (it turned out) because it requires IE9 minimum and the first netbook was pre-installed with IE8.  After some jiggery pokery I managed to upgrade it to IE9, and fortunately the second netbook was IE9 already.  I don't fancy trying to update these any further, as would be required for the new version of Jscript Panel!

It's all described in my blog thread, with links to other relevant discussion.

But, as a general point, it is good policy to not fix what ain't broke.  A new feature has to be VERY attractive before I go to any trouble to add it, and certainly not if it requires irreversible actions (disk cloning is very handy for back-tracking).  The ability to pre-program a tempo adjustment through a tag AND be able to modify that live (which is not the case in 0.47) would be one such very attractive feature, but would have to operate with the environment that I have available.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #5
And why not? Genuinely curious as I would love to know a rationale behind why people purposely stick to old versions of software.
While the generalization and following statement by Marc is clearly putting the focus on "being against updating"... (and yep, that' may be silly sometimes) why are not we being honest about the current state of foobar v2? XD
.........

So I would say right now the point is the user needs reasons to update, instead of being on 1.6 for some months or even a year. Like not everybody wants to be testers and have their library or playback statistics randomly deleted u know ;) like the first betas. Or people already have a functional system and updates don't bring improvements but regressions.


Some of us have not even a chance to be beta testers
In the current state of development v2 is almost impossible to use in a Linux machine with wine. That in addition to all the others problems that Windows users have too.

So for now, and maybe a long time?. Ii'm stick with 1.6.

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #6
Regardless of anyone's issues with fb2k v2, it should have no bearing on mudlord's personal choice to target whatever version he likes with his own components. No one else gets to decide.

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #7
Regardless of anyone's issues with fb2k v2, it should have no bearing on mudlord's personal choice to target whatever version he likes with his own components. No one else gets to decide.

That's common ground for everybody here. At least I hope. Anything else would be pretty rude.

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #8
Regardless of anyone's issues with fb2k v2, it should have no bearing on mudlord's personal choice to target whatever version he likes with his own components. No one else gets to decide.
Then developers may give that answer from the start and not make others spend their time having to justify their position.
The "no one else gets to decide" applies both ways, not just for developers. Time is also precious for everybody.

Which is fine... really... but it's really funny seeing always the same pattern:
- User asks for X.
- Developer asks for a justification.
- User gives one.
- Developer uses the "it's my choice".
-...

We can simply skip all that and apply the lest step.

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #9
Quote
Then developers may give that answer from the start

Fine I will, and I will justify why.
Future versions will require FB2K v2.
This is, because of my experience on a Ivy Bridge 4 core, for me performance is fine, and I originally developed this component for me and me only for fun and I only work on the component when I genuinely feel motivated to, since I work better when I actually care. Having to bend my will to cater to older versions/working on it when I could be doing more fun things completely goes against that and is not my idea of "fun".

Quote
We can simply skip all that and apply the lest step.

Yes, quite simply use something else, because.....

Quote
Time is also precious for everybody.

And if people are truly wanting stuff done faster, the source code is all there. And then they can fork it. I don't care.

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #10
I thought I fixed that at some point
Do you think it should work in 0.47?  What I found is that a value in the tempo_amt tag over-rides any manual setting (except the enable tick box).  I have a work-around, but it's not very nice: use the speed control, and if necessary compensate with the pitch control.  The work-around isn't worth the hassle, so I have simply given up on the tempo_amt tag.

Having to bend my will to cater to older versions/working on it when I could be doing more fun things completely goes against that and is not my idea of "fun".
But pride in one's achievements can also be a motivation.

And if people are truly wanting stuff done faster, the source code is all there. And then they can fork it. I don't care.
I don't have the skills.  I have other skills which I contribute to other communities, sometimes at considerable inconvenience (definitely not fun at times).  This is "pay forward" – the concept that if you can't pay back, then at least by contributing elsewhere ultimately the loop might close.  Having to acquire the skills would detract or eliminate my ability to support other communities, and be a fool's errand because I am of an age where new skills are only acquired temporarily so you never get beyond having to look everything up as you go along.  I know: I coded a website for others' benefit, and have to go back to the W3Schools website for reference every time something needs to be changed.

You're the boss, but if you could see your way to fixing this bug in 0.47 without me having to adopt FB2K v2 (which I can't as things stand), it would be much appreciated – just as I am grateful to all those who have made FB2K what it is (even if I do only use a subset of an old version).
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #11
Quote
Then developers may give that answer from the start

Fine I will, and I will justify why.
[...]
?WTF I mean... no one asked u specifically about your reasons. Neither to justify yourself (which was also my point the same than marc's one).

My point was about a general pattern on this forum with stupid questions one day and another, answers which make no sense, passive-aggressive replies everywhere, questioning users about their behaviors, etc. And this is a reality, if you don't feel like you are in that loop, great then you could have skipped my comment (?).

Like really, not sure what is the problem with most developers on this forum, do people here always have a bad day or what? Obviously as developer you[anyone] can do whatever you want with your things XD it's just that there is no need to specifically be overly-egocentric about that part everytime an user ask about a deviation of our "planned route".

In this particular case, it was not you (or your question), but another developer who came to rant about "updating". And I simply answered to that, because hey, there are lot of reasons to not update. I would not touch V2 right now even if you pay me.

So again... we could simply not spend time with all these rants XD which was my point from the beginning.

About your performance experience, it has been stated multiple times to be specifically related to large libraries and massive tag usage, not to random usage. So... one user having a great experience doesn't deny there is a problem somewhere, specially when it's reproducible and has been experienced by multiple users.

 

Re: Re: foo_dsp_effect

Reply #12
"The real hobby of our generation is whining and talking about nothing."
George Carlin