Could someone give me a technical explaination as to why Windows 2000 is no longer supported? Maybe this great app should be renamed to FoobarXP
(What is going to happen to us win2k users now? I presume there won't be two branches maintained, one that will work on win2k and one more 'fancy pants' one. Are we left by the roadside?)
foobar2000 0.95 and Windows 2000 - What kind of problems were you expecting? Is it limited to XP+ because of some graphics support lacking (i.e. the gdiplus.dll stuff)? Thanks in advance.
Requires XP or newer.
Based on this thread this version seems very interesting, i'm very sorry that i can't try it. Is there a slight chance that the next versions will work on Win2K too ?
(What is going to happen to us win2k users now? I presume there won't be two branches maintained, one that will work on win2k and one more 'fancy pants' one. Are we left by the roadside?)
you are left with v0.9.4.5 and prior
First of I love this program, I have been able to listen to so many PSX, PS2, and other Console formats through the plugins. My thanks goes out to all the
Developers.
But I must protest the XP only....
I only have Win2K and I probably won't be able to get a PC with XP on it
for a very long time. Please, is there no way to allow for continued support of
win2K?
Thank you for such a great program
It won't run on win2k anymore? so cruel
I guess I'll have to stick to 0.9.4.5...
EDIT: hey, who moved my post here? :S ¿?¿?
I would also like to know the reason(s) for dropping Windows 2000 support.
I would also like to know the reason(s) for dropping Windows 2000 support.
Limited functionality, obviously?
Being a W2k user myself, I though understand the move was made to provide some great features, which Windows 2000 does not support natively.
By the way, the only thing I miss is the much anticipated flac 1.2.0 decoder... Hope there is still a lucky chance for 0.9.4 input_std update... Thanks for all the work!
Limited functionality, obviously?
Please, define limited functionality in this case.
I'm sure there is a good reason for dropping Windows 2000 support, but AFAIK no one has stated specifically what it is. I'm just asking for a justified explanation.
I'm rather interested what do i need to install into my W2k to run foobar on it....
one possible reason i'm guessing is that foobar looks like its using comctl32 v6, which was included in windows xp/vista and is not available for redistribution.
the only reason i think that is the default ui looks like it uses a grouped listview control.
I'm rather interested what do i need to install into my W2k to run foobar on it....
Nothing.
If you would try to run it on W2k, it will display a error message "The procedure entry point SHParseDisplayName could not be located in the dynamic link library SHELL32.DLL."
I have a question... Will I be able to make future foobar2000 versions look like this?
(http://home.shad.pp.ru/tmp/fb2k.png)
And one more question. Which component requires Windows XP now? Is it just new UI or core itself? I hope it's UI because I don't need it anyway, but would like to continue using foobar2000 on Windows 2000.
Let us hope for a charitative soul (or an interested one too ) to port 9.5 to win2k in case the main developers no longer care about supporting it.
I understand the challenge that implies having to support an increasing number of platforms made by people (or an evil corporation ) that don't care much about keeping things compatible or backporting certain capabilities. But, I must ask. Is it really necessary to ditch support for a "fine" (comparatively) and perfectly valid platform like windows 2000 to add whatever new features the new foobar has?
When talking about microsoft's OS's there are many bad things to expect when upgrading to a new "version". Personally I have become pretty confident in my dominion over this particular version (2000 pro), and find myself able to FIGHT it's attempts to fuck my system, and also it's weaknesses againts the outside world. If I should switch to XP or whatever, this will surely change and possibly cause some havoc. This idea is not very pleasing considering what I have now and that I really don't feel like I need any of XP's innovations... if it weren't for so many programs' new versions that now are ditching "old" w2k in favor of newer OS's, like foobar2000, which I absolutelly love!
I'm grateful for everything I got FOR FREE so far, but, again, ¿is this change absolutely necessary?
A Win2k version is probably as likely as Linux and Win3.1 versions.
Microsoft ended official support for 2000 2 years ago, why shouldn't Peter?
Fact:
Upgrade your 8 year old OS or deal with the consequences.
Fact:
If you don't mind running a legacy OS, you shouldn't have any qualms running a legacy version of Foobar.
When an application drops OS support, then it typically is because of many reasons which make maintaining backwards-compatibility such a high effort, that it is in no reasonable relation to the gain anymore - or its because of lazyness. However, something like this almost never happens because of just ONE reason.
Here's a different perspective:
Last time i checked, you could get 256MB DDR RAM for about 15$. Thats more than enough to make any PC which can run win2k, XP-ready. And if you dont like some of the bloat in XP, you can always make use of NLite ( http://www.nliteos.com (http://www.nliteos.com) ).
It is easy to say this if you can afford a new computer every 3 years or so.
I'm not arguing for a Windows 2000 version, but I'd like to point out two things:
1. foobar2000 has the advantage that it runs well on an old computer, which is too slow for XP.
2. Version 0.9.5 does have some essential changes, such as FLAC 1.2.0 compatibility (which is not a problem now, but it will be in the future).
Is the 0.9.5 foo_input_std compatible with previous versions? If not, it is completely reasonable to ask for a compatible version.
If you bought a system with Win2k preinstalled instead of XP 3 years ago, then you made a pretty dumb mistake, but you honestly have my sympathy.
If you're OK running a legacy OS, then what's the issue with running a legacy version of FLAC?
It is easy to say this if you can afford a new computer every 3 years or so.
You are talking about games, not about windows.
I'm not arguing for a Windows 2000 version, but I'd like to point out two things:
1. foobar2000 has the advantage that it runs well on an old computer, which is too slow for XP.
Any pentium3 is sufficient to run WinXP well and 256MB DDR RAM costs no more than 15$. If you are running something below 400 MHz, and request support of bleeding edge software, then the proper response is "ROFL!" - even in the old days of computing where computers weren't upgraded frequently, that would equal a C64 user requesting compatibility with amiga 1200 software!
- Lyx
If you don't mind running a legacy OS, you shouldn't have any qualms running a legacy version of Foobar.
That's the opinion I reached a couple days ago. What I get from fb2k 0.9.4 is perfect for my uses, and what I get from Win 2k is adequate. I was also curious as to why and waiting for someone to ask the question. UI seems to be the answer, and that can be gathered from the list of new features.
Since I've waited this long to upgrade I figure I might as well skip XP when I do, so that means a year or so longer for Vista to get stable. For the time being, it might be nice not to have to keep up with all those components websites anymore.
I might as well skip XP when I do, so that means a year or so longer for Vista to get stable.
Now that can be a problem. Stability is not the main issue. Winxp was not too stable also at the beginning, but that was not enough of a reason for Asus/Dell/etc to switch to FreeDOS-like OEM OS.
I recommend you switching to WinXP, using nLite to remove unwanted features and some
standart properties dialogs tweaks to make it look, feel and work like Win2000 but with higher compatibility. I also was addicted to Win2000 four years ago, but after taking some of my time to get aquainted with WinXP I switched to it with no regrets.
A Win2k version is probably as likely as Linux and Win3.1 versions.
Microsoft ended official support for 2000 2 years ago, why shouldn't Peter?
You are confusing Windows 2000 with Windows NT4, sorry.
Microsoft didn't drop support for Windows 2000, extended support phase will last up until 13.07.2010.
See here for the details you don't know:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/ (http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/)
Experiences and preferences with OSs differs from person to person, so don't force your thinking onto other ppl. As for me, I have used Win9x (yeah all of them), W2k, XP and now Vista. I must say that there're things you're unfamiliar with on new OSs, new annoyances but also have nice new features, and problems of previous version fixed.
If one is not adventurous then he should switch to Vista after SP1 out. As likely shortly after, XP will be in the same situation as 2k now.
BTW I currently using Vista without a hitch for everything I do (programming, gaming, music, video, etc), of course after its up and down.
And one more question. Which component requires Windows XP now? Is it just new UI or core itself? I hope it's UI because I don't need it anyway, but would like to continue using foobar2000 on Windows 2000.
I am also wondering this. I was under the impression that Win2000 and WinXP were similar enough that little effort was required to make a program compatible for both. Of course, I don't know about FooBar2000's special case. And this lesser compatibility doesn't even affect me, since I really only use XP. So really, I am just curious.
I am looking forward to messing around with 0.9.5 when it comes out of beta. Easier configuration and fewer external plug-ins equals good to me.
If the developers care to know, I was a long-time Winamp user. I once tried FooBar2000 0.8.*, but found it too hard / too much to configure, and I was still familiar with Winamp. However, it seems that Winamp continues to bloat with features with each new release. Also, looking at the changelog for each release, there seems to be a lot of security issues with it. I'm guessing that the cause of some of Winamp's problems are from a very large codebase, with possibly some very old code in it. I also don't like programs that are skinned by default and/or you can't turn off the skin. I prefer just plain-jane Windows API GUIs. Thank you for providing a simple, functional,
lean, yet powerful audio playback program.
When an application drops OS support, then it typically is because of many reasons which make maintaining backwards-compatibility such a high effort, that it is in no reasonable relation to the gain anymore - or its because of lazyness. However, something like this almost never happens because of just ONE reason.
Yes, maybe. In theory. But that wasn't the question.
Last time i checked, you could get 256MB DDR RAM for about 15$. Thats more than enough to make any PC which can run win2k, XP-ready. And if you dont like some of the bloat in XP, you can always make use of NLite ( http://www.nliteos.com (http://www.nliteos.com) ).
Yup I agree it's easy to XP. E.g. I was surprised how smoothly it runs on my Pentium III Notebook, better than W2K.
I still would be interested in what the reasons were.
Last time i checked, you could get 256MB DDR RAM for about 15$. Thats more than enough to make any PC which can run win2k, XP-ready.
What you're saying is very true, but you forgot 2 things:
1) I don't want to format my 250 GB HDD to install XP instead of W2k.
2) Foobar2000 0.9.5 is the first application i've ever seen that runs on xp, but refuses to run under W2k
I've seen quite a few applications that do not support Windows 2000 for various reasons. Also note that Microsoft has ceased support for Windows 2000 itself, Further validating the approach that Windows 2000 has some limits that hold back future development of various applications and features.
A Win2k version is probably as likely as Linux and Win3.1 versions.
Microsoft ended official support for 2000 2 years ago, why shouldn't Peter?
You are confusing Windows 2000 with Windows NT4, sorry.
Microsoft didn't drop support for Windows 2000, extended support phase will last up until 13.07.2010.
See here for the details you don't know:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/ (http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/)
Extended support is really a support phase geared towards business users and other organizations that may have actual reasons not to upgrade. Since Foobar's target audience is typically the audiophile home user, my point still stands.
1) I don't want to format my 250 GB HDD to install XP instead of W2k.
Why format? Update works fine enought.
Extended support is really a support phase
This phase applies to home users as well.
...who should upgrade.
Please don't partial quote me, it's extremely rude.
I'm done conversing with you.
Please don't partial quote me
What's the problem here?
If someone really wants a justification for something, he'll find one - no matter how much truth-twisting is necessary.
Have fun :)
The funny thing is that fb 0.95 worls under Linux with wine, but not with windows 2000!
Wine 'emulates' the needed parts in XP, Probably.
._._h_ _h_u_d_u_g_a_e_
P_e_s_ _o_'_ _a_t_a_ _u_t_ _e_ _t_s_e_t_e_e_y_r_d_.
I_m_d_n_ _o_v_r_i_g_w_t_ _o_.
Notable is that wine does a so-so job with most of the API. The console is full of partial function implementation warnings, and unsupported gunk.
But it runs, kind of.
Wine 'emulates' the needed parts in XP, Probably.
More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!
More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!
Wine reports itself as 98 or 2k by default (changable by winecfg), which one can see if one tries running the foobar2000 installer.
Please don't partial quote me
What's the problem here?
He changed the quote to mean something other then what it originally said, which is poor form at best.
The actual dependencies on XP-only features seems rather slim on a quick look:
1) 2 XP-only networking functions that have an easy Windows 2000 work around.
2) The UI is looking for 3 functions in uxtheme.dll to draw the background of the current windows theme. Should be easy to avoid this in 2000 (obviously).
3) Some XP only calls to get properties of files... could do the same thing in Windows 2000 with "some" extra code.
There may be more, but those were the low-hanging fruit to find. I'd be disappointed if those were the only reasons -- all 3 of them aren't a big deal.
More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!
It just provides all the API calls needed.
Actually one can try replacing win2k dlls with xp ones according to the foobar2000 errors. Inuse (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/228930/en-us) tool might be helpful.
More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!
It just provides all the API calls needed.
Actually one can try replacing win2k dlls with xp ones according to the foobar2000 errors. Inuse (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/228930/en-us) tool might be helpful.
Going this route is a really bad idea, and you'll have to prepare yourself for a system that doesn't work right (or might not even boot) until you eventually replace so much of your system that you just end up with ... Windows XP.
And this defeats the whole purpose anyway, does it not, replacing the components of your Windows 2000 installation with Windows XP components? Microsoft invented a pretty decent solution for this. It's called Setup on the Windows XP media and it works pretty well for such an upgrade.
It was actually officially released six years ago today! (And configured here uses less RAM than Windows 2000 did on the same hardware and runs faster).
XP Requires: Pentium 233Mhz, 800x600 SuperVGA, 64MB of RAM, 1.8GB hard disk space.
2K Requires: Pentium 133Mhz, 640x480 VGA, 64MB of RAM, 2.0GB hard disk space.
If anyone is really stuck on Windows 2000 due to true hardware constraints, give me your e-mail address registered with Paypal and I'll consider donating the cash you need to bring your system up to 64MB of RAM and a VGA card that can do 800x600. I probably spend more money each week in fast food, and this will help my diet.
He changed the quote to mean something other then what it originally said, which is poor form at best.
I apologize for not including the [...] mark, I was typing from my smartphone.
More probably it merely tells fb2k: "hey I'm XP", to make it happy!
It just provides all the API calls needed.
Actually one can try replacing win2k dlls with xp ones according to the foobar2000 errors. Inuse (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/228930/en-us) tool might be helpful.
Going this route is a really bad idea [...]
[/size]
I believe he's talking about WINE and native Windows DLLs, not about a running Windows system.
I think not mentioned yet:
Though I can generally understand, that at one point support of new program versions cannot support old OS anymore, it is a bit different in this special audio player software area.
Because to play audio, very low PC-power is needed, think of decoding cpu usage by flac, mpc, mp3 etc.
As old and "slow" PC gear works often still stable but cannot be used sensefully for serious modern applications and work, this hardware is eitehr thrown to dustbin, or used for ... ?
well, I think, many old and slow hardware is used and could be used as music-PC, as audio player.
As foobar developers need to draw the line somewhere, it will be 'moot' to discuss 0.9.5+ support for win2k, but there would be another solution, that is hosting the older foobar players with components for the older systems.
This is partially? done at reallyrarewares, but honestly i cannot understand, why foobar does not host this 'officially' with complete componets, iirc, at rrw there are some special older foobar installers, but probably not with all components.
IMO, I feel it is a kind of wasted stuff, that these old but nice thingies for certain people are buried. You people invested a lot of time and work also into the older stuff, and it should be there for honours, still, as it has even today practical value as described above. But well, maybe it's (not) only me, who is conservative in these things, which means keeping good values and creating more good values for future.
And if MS decides against support of older systems, this doesn't need to be followed as good example. (At least, even by MS, if you have win2k or win98, iirc, you could update that stuff to latest ever made updates.)
What made me technically wonder, as technically win2k and xp are so close to each other, that I see here a break between support of these 2 systems, especially, as win2k was considered to be more "industrial standard" and xp more for home users, who want fancy surface stuff, well, but maybe I simply got older
What worries me, is, that the support for xp will be cut at one time also (by MS for certain, but by foobar?!)
I really like the qualities of win2k and XP, and i still really appreciate the power of P3 at 600 or 800 MHz and higher. I have the feeling, that these old PCs will survive a long time, but MS obviously would like it more, if people buy new PCs instead with a new OS on it, which makes you pay several times for an OS, not only 1 time like I did for my XP.
See the MS policy and the technical requirements about win2k, xp, vista... in this marketing point of view, and it is clear, what i want to express.
No one should encourage people to use outdated software with widely-known issues that are already fixed on newer versions. Most obviously for security reasons, But for other reasons as well.
In contrast to what user said, People also have to know when their systems are outdated and in a manner, obsolete. You don't expect Windows 95 and Pentium 1 to be a supported set for software today, do you?
Don't touch a running system. Even if microsoft stops support for windows 2000 that doesn't necessarily mean
user should switch to a newer os. Of course, there are risks with outdated os, but hey, computers functioning as audio players don't need internet access and unless os runs without problems they don't need updates !.
Second fact is that old computers and old OS should be sufficient to play music.
@chaosblade
Yes, I don't expect softwork to work with windows 95 but somehow I expect to just download the source myself in such case and change this or that to make it run, oh, well, there is no public source. I know this, Peter won't change his mind, but if he does not want to deal with older os it it's the user task to make it work. Somehow open source software is in advantage here.
The comparison with older versions of Windows like 95,98,ME and such is not really a fair comparison. The 9.X line of Windows is fundamentally different in architecture so with these OS's compatibility problems are more likely to occur. Windows 2000 and XP are part of the same code "family", as is Vista. So I think 2000 shouldn't be dismissed already. Unless it is technically impossible, something I find hard to believe.
On the other hand, Windows 2000 never was a home consumer OS, and let's face it, Foobar is hardly a business application. And I don't think most Win2K Foobar users really bought Windows 2000
But, I do think one of Foobar's strong points is that it's really suitable for older PC's. And some people just do not need to have the latest greatest computer for what they do with it.
Security is mainly a matter of how you use a PC anyway. Sure an OS that is totally insecure (which 2000 surely isn't) can be vulnerable. But I'm sure a sensible user can use Win2K and be free of malware. In the end ensuring system security is a matter of the user and the OS and not an application like Foobar running on it. To an extent of course.
It doesn't affect me personally as I use XP, but I would surely be quite pissed if in the future XP support for Foobar was canned in favor of Vista, as I don't see myself ever switching to it. An application should not force people to use a different OS. Unless it's of a different architecture.
Comparing the code base of Windows 2000, XP and Vista is unrealistic.
Unless you are completely aware of the design decisions for each OS and in this case, Foobar, You can't really comment whether or not it is necessary to make this choice or not.
Also, I wouldn't expect every program to have its source code available. People are too used to certain projects out there, But need to face the fact - Most of the software that is popular\common is NOT open source.
All in all - The decision is made. Foobar2000 no longer supports Windows 2000. It is not open source, and not likely to ever be. Frankly, I find further discussion of this moot and pointless.
I don't use Windows 2000 (in fact, I don't think I've ever seen a machine that had it installed; I went straight from 98 to XP, with a slight diversion for NT 4 on my work PC), but, um, if your machine does everything you want it to do, and works well for your purposes, there really is no reason to upgrade. (Yes, even if that machine is 'obsolete'.) Mind you, expecting new software to support old systems is, at best, unrealistic.
I'll admit to some curiousity over the question that started this thread, though, a question that, to my knowledge, no one has actually answered. Specifically, what in the new version breaks in Windows 2000? For that matter, *is* it actually confirmed not to work in Windows 2000, or is it just 'no longer supported' (i.e. it may or may not work, but if it doesn't, we won't try to make it work)?
I believe he's talking about WINE and native Windows DLLs, not about a running Windows system.
About Windows system. And I'm talking from my experience. It may be or may not be successful.
Btw, I should've wrote "one may consider trying" instead of "one can try". Just that in my native language those to phrases are almost identical.
Indeed what's up with the XP requirement now? For what reason exactly Foobar won't run on Win2000 anymore?
I hope the day never comes when Foobar will demand Vista.
_________________
-- Sorry about posting in the wrong thread before.
I read this discussion here and came to conclusion that new Foobar versions are dead and gone for me. I'm still using v0.8.3 and was seriously considering if v0.9 is good enough as a replacement for it. (We know that some functions were removed and the interface is completely different.) And guess what... Foobar didn't even reach v1.0 before setting its own standards again!
I don't really care about Win2k myself since my PCs have either Win98 SP2 (the unofficial service pack) or WinXP SP1. But I see where it's going and a requirement for Vista seems more realistic than ever. I know a good person who prefers Win2k over WinXP because the former has ugly icons and he's not going thru all the trouble to replace them. Version 0.8.3 works everywhere and that's what I'm gonna recommend to anybody without first asking them which OS they run.
I'm grateful to the development team for providing the wonderful program that Foobar2000 v0.8.3 is and I hope to continue using it for many years. Take care.
Windows 2000 support is gone because maintaining it would mean degrading eveyrone else's experience to keep a tiny minority happy.
By degrading experience I mean not only less use of XP-level Windows features (mainly Common Controls 6.0 features), but also more development time spent on:
- Verifying that everything still works on Windows 2000 with each new release (all our development and internal beta-testing machines have been XP or newer for a few years now).
- Coding a complicated hack-workaround to keep the code running semi-properly on Windows 2000 every time we need to use a standard Windows feature introduced in Windows XP.
- Coding special workarounds for Windows 2000 bugs such as Common Controls crash with empty multiline tab control.
... instead of on adding features that our entire userbase would benefit from.
As for supporting Windows XP, I can assure you that there are no plans to drop XP support.
Topic closed.