HydrogenAudio

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.

You joined to tell everyone that you will not choose Foobar2000.  Troll often?
A big

meh

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 ;-)

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.

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.

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

What is, or do you mean by 'meh'?
(English is not my native language)

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!

To TS:

stick with Winamp.

Why do you need a skin for an audio player?

What is, or do you mean by 'meh'?
(English is not my native language)

Meh means you are indifferent or do not care

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.

@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.

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?

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.

Quote from: xnor on 2011-09-24 22:55:29

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.

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:
(http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3748/foobar2000inconsistency.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/508/foobar2000inconsistency.png/)
(The yellow marked lines are the result of (not) using tabs.)

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: jistme on 2011-09-25 13:16:26

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!

Just that you know about what he talks:

http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic...f=9&t=54576 (http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?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!

@q-stankovic: Not to the OP.

But I also prefer native (looking) apps and controls.

I think most of the users won't complain if foobar2000, without sacrificing performance or functionality, came with an appealing visual design like Windows Media Player 12 - a pimped but still native look.

I think most of the users won't complain if the unpimped look remains.

(durch, in contrary to mm ugly skins wmp12 at least looks nice)

Again, I'm not trolling. I am just having problems with Winamp gotten a little bloated over the years

...and now you want fb2k to go the same route ?

No problem, no hard feelings, everybody enjoy!

Thanks! Your point of view is now noted! Bye!

It amazes me how so many people are so vehemently against even tidying up the default look of the application. There has been a real sense in this thread that because Foobar is so feature rich that it somehow isn't allowed to also look pleasing to the eye. As if form and function can never be equal.

I'd hate to see what professional designers thought of Foobar.

I'd hate to see what professional designers thought of Foobar.

What makes you think there are no "professional designers" (whatever that means) in this crowd? I've studied user-interface, human-computer interaction, and many related fields extensively, and have made money with my expertise. foobar2000's user-interface dominates every other audio player I've tried in many, many different ways.

I think most of the users won't complain if foobar2000, without sacrificing performance or functionality, came with an appealing visual design like Windows Media Player 12 - a pimped but still native look.

While I doubt fb2k would ever look anything like WMP, one very real major hurdle with updating the interface is that XP doesn't have half the APIs Vista and later have.

So sure, if fb2k only ran on one platform like WMP12 maybe we could have some nicer things. One example I can think of is the Aero style tree controls that are used in the Preferences window since v1.0. Peter could update the Album List to use those same controls, but there would be so much platform specific code it's not worth the time.

As if form and function can never be equal.

As a superior example of this idea, I think Zao's waveform seekbar component is probably the most exemplary combination of form and function I've ever seen from any part of any media player interface. But I know, I know, this is the thread where we crap all over fb2k with a lot of bygone notions that existed before the interface overhaul in 0.9.5

There has been a real sense in this thread that because Foobar is so feature rich that it somehow isn't allowed to also look pleasing to the eye. As if form and function can never be equal.

I'd hate to see what professional designers thought of Foobar.

It seems to me that foobar2000 is a case of form following function as far as possible, which is a large part of what makes it such a joy to use.

It's a bit like a well-crafted machine tool - you wouldn't decorate your Heckler & Koch G3 with a custom flourescent paint job, would you? Well, I wouldn't...

Sorry for interfering, but this discussion is a bit... ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong, but why don't skinning f2k, if someone likes it? If it's a chooseable option, where is your problem? Well, I like the default UI and after some weeks of testing and replacing features and UI elements it looks quite nice in my eyes. So I won't need the skin option. But I think it's everybodies right to wish himself a media player, which is skinable and looking pleasing to his eyes. (Sorry for not gendering, I'm hating this...)



So, if he requests this feature, you all should let him do this. And let Peter and the developing team decide, if they want to integrate this feature. There's no need to be so harsh against the topic starter.
@ TS: As you've seen what you've unleashed with your post, choose in the future a writing style and a topic, which is a bit less offending.

Don't get me wrong, but why don't skinning f2k, if someone likes it? If it's a chooseable option, where is your problem?

I think it's fine if a person wants a slick-looking player. I used to want that. In fact I still want it. But ultimately, foobar has won me over with superior functionality and I don't mourn the loss of skinnability.

Proper skinning requires that the underlying program has provisions for it, which takes time to implement and a lot of additional testing. If these aren't in place, then you can't support skinning, even if everyone, including the program author, is technically fine with the general idea of skinning. So it's a matter of, hey, too bad, but don't sweat it; there are more important things to think about.

Re-read the first post. He did not request anything. He did not specifically state what is lacking.  He spent as little time and effort on the OP has he may of spent using Foobar2000. He 'gave it a shot'. It was not a constructive post. It was a general blanket criticism with no specifics offered and thus no specific way of receiving help. A trolling post as he later agreed. 

Where do you suggest the line be drawn regarding ease of skinning vs size of program vs speed of use? There are posts nearly everyday with examples here and at deviant art that foobar2000 can be skinned. Using both the default user interface and Columns user interface. Lots of people seem to be able to do it.

I don't understand this topic. Foobar2000, both with columns ui and default user interface, HAS in all of its versions the best looking interfaces or skins that you can find in any audioplayer. Search around and you will find real wonders of art and funcionality put together. Even if you don't like any of the hundreds of skins or interfaces, you only need to ask in the right place and you'll get exactly what you are looking for. So, what are you speaking of?

Ys
Rozzo

Sorry for interfering, but this discussion is a bit... ridiculous.

Re-read the first post. He did not request anything. He did not specifically state what is lacking.  He spent as little time and effort on the OP has he may of spent using foobar2000.

I don't understand this topic.

Echoing all these sentiments: great, so let's just let it die. This topic seems to be creating lots of hard feelings (be it blind fanboyism or blind skin love) but no one even knows (or can agree on) what is being discussed. Discussions of this type can be more constructive if they are focused.

I understand the topic starter perfectly. I don't believe any of you people defending foobar2000 use it with its out-of-the-box look. All he is suggesting is to make the default UI more appealing. He doesn't tell us how and some people are criticizing him for that. But if he did say something like "make it look like WMP or Winamp" he would be jumped at even more.

I understand the topic starter perfectly. I don't believe any of you people defending foobar2000 use it with its out-of-the-box look.

I add a couple more tabs to one of the default presets for certain third-party components. That's it.

case, for me it is visually more appealing to have an ui that matches exactly the os theme but i have no problem if someone likes more fancy skins. I must admit that i saw some really good skins in the terms of design and taste. The point is that the topic starter didn't ask for more visual pleasure but started trolling that foobar2000 looks like the 90's and such stuff. The most absurd part was his comment that he will stick with media monkey that in turn indeed looks like from last decade and is cumbersome and ugly. The latter is an objective rating i could give several reasons for.

And not to belabor the point about the functionality provided by fb2k but it should be pointed out that with the addition of the excellent UPnP component you can indeed use any UPnP controller as your player UI, including WMP12 if you so desire. As for myself, I frequently use a UPnP controller app on my android phone to control various players around my house streaming from my fb2k server.

There are many UI choices for fb2k once you take the time to understand what it is capable of providing.

"What people expect.. software to look like.. in 2011"

Really, do they? Have you asked many?

Making a point is fine, but please don't make it with infuriating BS arguments. I'm not even gonna get into the backwardsness of a graphically supercharged interface for something that plays audio only. Because, by the argument I quoted up there, that would make people pretty dumb. And they aren't.

As already mentioned by others, if you want fancy, there's always Columns UI and Deviantart for inspiration. But the vanilla look does not need spicing up. People who get foobar2000 get it to suit their needs exactly. That means the default look will almost always be modified.

The UI could be a little more slick, in terms of preferences UI and some of the menu UIs but as far as the player goes itself, it is unbeatable.

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.

Time for a small genuflection from my side.

Having some spare time lately, and besides the bashing reading also some good arguments in this thread I spend some time and effort experimenting with FooBar and all kinds of plug-ins. (a lot of time, effort and some cursing to be honest)
It's now clear to me that if you have the time and persistence, you can make FooBar into your personal almost perfect audio player. Options like splitters, tabs and presets are really great once you get the hang of it.
I developped a lot of apreciation for the inventor and all contributors, and now see it as a twisted kind of fun project.

Still I would be very hesitant to advise FooBar to most of my friends, since I am afraid I would have to spend lots of time helping them adjusting everything to everybody's wishes.

I understand that the original programmer is very protective about his code and alternative installers, and of course this is praiseworthy.
Still I am convinced FooBar could be a lot more popular and easy to use if there was at least a small choice of installers with plug-ins and themes included, targeted to some different kind of users.

It would also help if there was a solid and easy option to make a backup of all personalisations, plug-ins and tweaks.
It is (at least for me) quite a struggle to figure out which files and folders to back-up, and later on paste or replace.


Jistme.

genuflection

You mean reflection or introspection?

Still I would be very hesitant to advise FooBar to most of my friends, since I am afraid I would have to spend lots of time helping them adjusting everything to everybody's wishes.

No interface system with that allows users to have complete layout control can be without community support. The reason you would be helping them is because it's possible at all with Foobar, not because it's done poorly in Foobar.

Note: Foobar already contains a set of preset layouts.

What are FooBar and Foobar? :s

I like the way Foobar2000 looks.  I customized mine extensively, and it wasn't difficult.  I HATE the way Windows Media Player looks.  It's like some kind of fisher price crap.  Foobar2000 looks very professional and about business.  And since you can customize the layout and fonts and colors there's really no reason to complain.

case, for me it is visually more appealing to have an ui that matches exactly the os theme[...]

This. I'm aware that it's matter of personal preferences, but my inner OCD forces me to use apps that inherits OS theme and does not stand out and this is one of the biggest assets of the foobar2000 for me (am I the only one that doesn't like rummaging for hundreds of skins just to find one that at least barely matches the rest of the applications?)

Having some spare time lately, and besides the bashing reading also some good arguments in this thread I spend some time and effort experimenting with FooBar and all kinds of plug-ins. (a lot of time, effort and some cursing to be honest)
It's now clear to me that if you have the time and persistence, you can make FooBar into your personal almost perfect audio player. Options like splitters, tabs and presets are really great once you get the hang of it.

Great to hear! My rule-of-thumb is that if you're willing/able to spend some time to sign up and post comments to a piece of software's message board (which is only a small subset of total users), you're probably committed enough to spend enough time to teach yourself how to make fb2k "worth it" to you.

Still I am convinced FooBar could be a lot more popular and easy to use if there was at least a small choice of installers with plug-ins and themes included, targeted to some different kind of users.

"Installlers" should be unnecessary, as anyone with some knowledge and will power could very well write their own UI module for the program. The "problem" isn't that you can't skin fb2k, it's a lack of knowledgeable skinning community members.  If you consider that fb2k is in many ways intended as community software for hydrogenaudio-like functional interests, you can see why this might be the case.

It would also help if there was a solid and easy option to make a backup of all personalisations, plug-ins and tweaks.
It is (at least for me) quite a struggle to figure out which files and folders to back-up, and later on paste or replace.

Navigating the profile folder isn't harder than other software--this is probably more of a design problem with the components you are using. If you want automatic backups, try foo_jesus (http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_jesus)

i love the way foobar looks, saying that .. would also love foobar to suport a skinning feature. (my main "complain(?)" its even not directlly at foobar, it that horrible aero thing of vista and win7 , and can be "resolved" using visual styles, ..still...bla, bla..
thanks.