Skip to main content
Topic: feature request: winamp skin support (Read 1211 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

feature request: winamp skin support

Hi Peter,

Is it possible to add winamp skin support?

Here is winamp source code, so you can take it from there:

https://archive.org/details/anicemusicplayer

Here are 2 open source players that have winamp skin support too:

https://github.com/audacious-media-player/audacious

https://github.com/djdron/qmmp/tree/master/qmmp

What do you think Peter? All code is here, including winamp so it can't be hard to do?

Foobar2000 - It Really Whips ALL Llamas' Ass!

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #1
Are you a troll?

Winamp skins are just images. You don't need to use stolen source code for that. But I can assure you there will be no official support for Winamp anything in foobar2000. If foobar was limited to Winamp UI it would lose about 99% of its features.

Why are you not using Audacious as it seems to do everything you want?

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #2
I mean of course an option in settings to choose between winamp skin mode and foobar2000 standard mode.
See audacious for example.

No features are lost, you switch to foobar2000 standard mode.
Foobar2000 - It Really Whips ALL Llamas' Ass!

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #3
Nobody knows if this will be added one day?
Foobar2000 - It Really Whips ALL Llamas' Ass!

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #4
You already got an answer about that. No need to spam.

Are you a winamp dreamer?
foobar2000 plays music

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #5
You already got an answer about that. No need to spam.

Are you a winamp dreamer?

Peter never answered my question about it...
Foobar2000 - It Really Whips ALL Llamas' Ass!

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #6
You're  not doing your reputation on this forum any favors. Do you honestly think Peter, if he replies, gives a positive answer to such a question? Case already laid it out completely for you. Give it a rest.

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #7
I'm free to ask here what I want.
You're just too dumb to understand that...
Foobar2000 - It Really Whips ALL Llamas' Ass!

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #8
Insults? As is said, you're not doing your reputation any favors. You're free to ask but you'll suddenly find you'll be short on people wanting to answer your questions.

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #9
Guys, what's up with the anti-social attitude? Jessica is asking a perfectly valid question here. Winamp 2.x skins support, would be a great additional feature for foobar2000, especially given the disaster that is currently fb2k's skin system. I've tried installing various fb2k skins, and aside from that none of them are actually good and useful, they also completely break and bug out foobar, to the point that a clean install of foobar becomes necessary. This is due to all the scripts and heavy modifications that are required to install foobar skins. Winamp 2.x skins (and AIMP's skinning system also, both of which are far superior to the current foobar skinning system in their design) are completely non-problematic. This is because they're standardized as a simple wsz in Winamp or acs2/acs3/acs4 files in the case of AIMP, and these files contain images and style sheets, and there are literally no bugs and other issues with Winamp and AIMP skins, because as revolutionary as it might sound, they don't modify Winamp and AIMP's internals, whereas installing foobar2000 skins, does. With Winamp 2.x skins and AIMP skins, all you have to do is load these wsz/acsx files into the respective players, and that's it. Works like a charm. With foobar2000 on the other hand, installing a skin is like a major chore. You have to read manuals and follow instructions and so on, and they not only bug out your foobar2000 installation, they also lack support for various fb2k features. So personally, I think that not only should foobar support Winamp 2.x skins, but also AIMP skins. If not, at least design a better native skinning system, which is similar to Winamp 2.x and AIMP skins (bmp/png images with some simple style sheets). Again, I can't stress this enough: foobar2000's current skinning system is a complete disaster. Columns UI is sort of okay but really not much different than the default UI, so it's not much of a skin.

Are you a troll?
She's obviously not a troll. Just an average user that doesn't know much about software source code and their associated license models.

Winamp skins are just images. You don't need to use stolen source code for that.
No one cares about Winamp's leaked source code. All functionality in Winamp can be reimplemented without "stealing" any Winamp source code, and both Audacious and qmmp are excellent examples of open source Winamp-like clones. Jessica is still asking a valid question though: will we see Winamp 2.x skins support in foobar2000? I for one would really like to see this. I genuinely like foobar2000, but I'll be the first to admit that its skinning system is a complete disaster.

But I can assure you there will be no official support for Winamp anything in foobar2000.
How can you assure us that? Are you Peter Pawlowski or an official, lead developer of fb2k? Foobar2000 does everything better than Winamp anyway, except skins, so there's no need to add any support for anything else from Winamp. However, Winamp 2.x skins has become somewhat of a standard among audio players (aside from Winamp, Audacious and qmmp support Winamp.x skins, and also XMMS, Beep Media Player, XMMS2 and I'm sure some other players too).

If foobar was limited to Winamp UI it would lose about 99% of its features.
It's not a "limitation". No features whatsoever are lost. When using Winamp 2.x skins in foobar2000, pretty much all features and functionality would still be there, the only differences is that while in Winamp 2.x skins mode, you wouldn't be able to see as many column fields. The fact that you seem to believe that Winamp UI means features would be lost, makes me doubt you're an actual developer, as any software developer should be capable of understanding something as basic as this. It's not like Winamp UI completely breaks foobar or that once enabled, it has to be used forever until you've uninstalled foobar and reinstalled it just to get back to the default user interface.

Why are you not using Audacious as it seems to do everything you want?
I'm not Jessica, but anyway, I think I can answer this one: foobar2000 is simply an overall better and more powerful audio player. Doesn't mean foobar is flawless though. Fact is, foobar's native skin system just plain out sucks. This is actually an area where for example, AIMP is definitely superior to foobar2000, and AIMP is actually better than fb2k in some other areas as well, but generally I think foobar2000 is still the overall better audio player. In any case, fb2k really would benefit from simply adding Winamp 2.x skins support.

You already got an answer about that. No need to spam.
She's not spamming. She's asking a perfectly valid question, and quite frankly your answers don't matter, because ultimately it's Peter Pawlowski's decision to add support for Winamp 2.x skins or not, so Jessica still hasn't gotten an actual answer here (espcially given that the answer she got from Case was pretty much disinformation).

Are you a winamp dreamer?
Winamp is a good player, and again, while obviously inferior to foobar2000 as far as features and functionality are concerned, Winamp still does some things better than fb2k, and its skin system is an example of that. And since two open source players already have more or less full support for Winamp 2.x skins, and they're not "limited" by this nor are their features "lost" when enabling Winamp UI, it's pretty much intellectually dishonest of you guys to argue that foobar shouldn't add support for Winamp 2.x skins, especially given that Winamp 2.x skins are so simple (basically BMPs and some not too complicated style sheets).

Insults? As is said, you're not doing your reputation any favors. You're free to ask but you'll suddenly find you'll be short on people wanting to answer your questions.
Is it really an insult if it's true though? You guys aren't arguing intelligently in this thread. Jessica is asking a valid question and you guys are accusing her of spamming and giving nonsensical explanations as to why foobar can't or shouldn't handle Winamp 2.x skins.

If anyone is harming anyone's reputation, it's you guys who are harming foobar2000's reputation with your behavior in this thread. Basically what you guys are doing, is arguing against additional functionality and features.
Codec enthusiast!

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #10
I'm quite ready to put the era of ugly winamp jpeg skins behind, but such things as dockable panels and re-skinned windows are generally nice things to have.

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #11
I'm quite ready to put the era of ugly winamp jpeg skins behind, but such things as dockable panels and re-skinned windows are generally nice things to have.
Yeah, I agree with this. It's not that Winamp 2.x skins are so beautiful and stylish, that I want to see them in foobar2000, quite the contrary, Winamp 2.x skins look like crap, almost every single one of them. However, that's beside the point. The Winamp 2.x skin system is somewhat of an open standard (although not ISO certified or anything like that, nor is it actually an open source licensed standard), in the sense that any audio player can with some tweaks and coding add support for Winamp 2.x skins, and personally, what I really like about Winamp 2.x skins is that they minimize well and dock even better. This is also why I like AIMP4.x skins, as AIMP is really taking cues from the best functionality of old school Winamp skins: dockable panels and minimize both the player and playlist and keep it always on top.

Besides, adding support for Winamp 2.x skins can be seen as a legacy internet feature, lol.

Anyway, think of it like this: we'd have zero need for Winamp, if foobar2000 adds support for Winamp 2.x skins, because ultimately it's not Winamp's source code that matters (which in itself is quite uninteresting), but rather, the functionionality and features of Winamp that make Winamp useful. For all intents and purposes, foobar2000 is superior to Winamp on just about every point, except skins. Adding support for Winamp 2.x skin wouldn't be "stealing" anything by the way, because it's fully allowed to add support for this. Just as Winamp's developers can add support for foobar2000 skins, although I don't see why they would wanna bother with that, given how much foobar skins suck for the time being (I discourage anyone to install any fb2k skins, as they will completely screw up your foobar installation).
Codec enthusiast!

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #12
Oh my Lord..
Here we go again.
foobar2000 plays music

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #13
Are you a troll?
She's obviously not a troll. Just an average user that doesn't know much about software source code and their associated license models.
The troll statement didn't come from this post alone and the user with jessicaj handle has been banned for a while now. The worst posts have been binned.

But I can assure you there will be no official support for Winamp anything in foobar2000.
How can you assure us that? Are you Peter Pawlowski or an official, lead developer of fb2k?
I can be pretty sure as I have been following the development closely from the beginning. To quote Peter: "If you want skins, use Winamp."

Adding support for simple skins would not benefit foobar2000 or its users in any way. If someone wants a player that looked like Winamp and worked like Winamp why not just use Winamp?

Anyone could make UI that added Winamp skin support. I'm not surprised no one has as what foobar2000 offers is so much better.


Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #15

Insults? As is said, you're not doing your reputation any favors. You're free to ask but you'll suddenly find you'll be short on people wanting to answer your questions.

Is it really an insult if it's true though? You guys aren't arguing intelligently in this thread. Jessica is asking a valid question and you guys are accusing her of spamming and giving nonsensical explanations as to why foobar can't or shouldn't handle Winamp 2.x skins.

If anyone is harming anyone's reputation, it's you guys who are harming foobar2000's reputation with your behavior in this thread. Basically what you guys are doing, is arguing against additional functionality and features.

Pretty obvious this is that troll jessica all over again. Why insult me again when you have no stake in it? Give it up troll with that winamp nagging all over again. Can mods place bans based on IP?

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #16
The troll statement didn't come from this post alone and the user with jessicaj handle has been banned for a while now. The worst posts have been binned.
Oh okay. I haven't read what else she's posted. In any case it doesn't matter if she was a troll or not (she's not trolling btw from what I can tell, on the Audacious forum). Jessicaj's feature request in this thread, is actually a valid suggestion. The problem here is you guys, and Peter Pawlowski, for not adding more functionality to foobar2000; you guys, in encouraging Peter Pawlowski not to add Winamp skins, probably because he said so and you're just agreeing with him because you think it shouldn't take priority over some bug fix or something.

I can be pretty sure as I have been following the development closely from the beginning. To quote Peter: "If you want skins, use Winamp."
If Peter actually said that, then it's a very unfortunate attitude he has in regards to an otherwise really good piece of software.

Look, I'm not a skins fanatic or anything, and I use MPC-HC because it doesn't have any fancy skins or anything, and provides an excellent experience when watching films and such. Normally I wouldn't care about skins when listening to music, except that Winamp's skin system really boosts the user experience. A properly developed skin system is sorely lacking in fb2k right now, and skins make a lot more sense for audio players than video players anyway.

Adding support for simple skins would not benefit foobar2000 or its users in any way.
Actually it would and you don't know what you're talking about.

It's not that Winamp skins are so fantastic or good looking; as I was saying in my previous post, they really don't look all that great, and Winamp 2.x skins are like internet 1.0 (lol). However, they do have some very nice functionality that fb2k is severely lacking right now: minimize, dock and always on top. And of course, changing songs by hovering with the mouse over the minimized playlist and scrolling with your mouse wheel; that's also a very nice feature with Winamp 2.x skins (this functionality is also not available in the open source Winamp-like clones, Audacious and qmmp by the way). You see, the entire point with Winamp skins is functionality, not cool looking skins. Me personally, whenever I use Winamp skins, I just use a simple black and blue skin.

Adding full support for Winamp 2.x skins wouldn't take much effort, and it would render Winamp completely irrelevant; that's two birds with one stone right there for foobar2000. As of right now, foobar2000 does everything Winamp can do and much better at that, except that Winamp has a light years ahead skin system. Really, the only reason I personally used Winamp throughout the 2000s, was because of its classic 2.x skins, and I'm sure that's still true for most people who still use Winamp today. It's not like there's anything exclusive with or magical about Winamp otherwise. Winamp just happens to have a far better skin system than foobar2000. And I'm talking about Winamp's 2.x skins system; the Winamp 3.x skins are even better, but personally I've always been of the opinion that Winamp 2.x skins did the job well enough, and it's the Winamp 2.x skin system that's used by other players too, like Audacious and qmmp. I've been aware of fb2k since 2005 or so, but didn't really bother with foobar back then, because Winamp's skin system was a much nicer user experience to listen to music with. Now that I've gotten more serious about listening to music (scrobbling and such), fb2k is clearly the top dog here.

This notion of yours, that foobar is perfect and doesn't need any improvements or additional features, that's really not good for foobar2000 or its users. Unfortunately, to some extent, this attitude of yours is also shared by Peter Pawlowski. If you guys didn't have this attitude, fb2k would be much better than it is today.

If someone wants a player that looked like Winamp and worked like Winamp why not just use Winamp?
There are mostly--if not only--valid reasons not to use Winamp today. There are also valid reasons not to use foobar (and that's a topic for a different thread). But Winamp's skin system completely destroys anything foobar has to offer, and that's also true for every fb2k skin available on deviantart, and yes, I've tried them all, or a lot of 'em anyway, and I concluded that I would never install a foobar skin from deviantart or elsewhere, until Peter gets his act together and either implements support for Winamp 2.x skins, or simply develops a proper, standardized skinning system, similar to what AIMP has done; AIMP's skinning system is very Winamp-like by the way, but written from scratch. Artem Izmaylov did a really good job with AIMP's skin system, and now AIMP has a solid community developing properly working skins for AIMP.

One of the many reasons not to use Winamp is that it's pretty much abandonware at this point. Another reason is that in terms of feature and functionality, fb2k clearly is superior when compared with Winamp. I also happen to like Musepack (great codec, as some of you here already know), and Winamp doesn't really play Musepack files, so that's another, important reason actually, not to use Winamp (on that note, Audacious doesn't play Musepack either). Also, foo_scrobble works well, and fb2k is the only audio player that properly handles split values for the artist field (and other fields; splitting values is important for an organized music library!), which is important when I scrobble to Last.fm, which is also the main reason I use foobar2000. On that note, this is the main reason I registered here on Hydrogenaudio:

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=119832.0

I didn't get any response from Peter when emailing him about this issue, so I figured that maybe he didn't notice my email, and it would be useful to alert him about this bug/issue here. I still haven't gotten a reply from Peter in that thread though, so maybe he doesn't think it's important that fb2k on Android doesn't allow album artist scrobbling.

Anyone could make UI that added Winamp skin support. I'm not surprised no one has as what foobar2000 offers is so much better.
Yeah, you're not really helping foobar2000 with this attitude. This fanboy attitude of yours, basically "foobar2000 is already perfect so it doesn't need more features and functionality", is really detrimental to the improvement of foobar2000. You're basically arguing against a better foobar2000. Of course without realizing it.

And no, not anyone can make a UI that adds Winamp skins support. There's plenty of Winamp users and I'm sure some of them are developers and appreciate fb2k too, and if it were as easy as you say, to develop a user interface for fb2k that adds full support for Winamp skins, I'm sure someone would do it. The fact that no one has so far, statistically speaking, means it's either too difficult to bother with or simply not possible due to fb2k's closed source nature.

I'm not Jessica
I seriously doubt it.
Doubt it all you like, I'm not Jessica but I fully agree with her on Winamp 2.x skins. It's not why I registered on this forum though, to argue in favor of Winamp 2.x skins. Actually I came here for something else, but I did notice this thread when I was contemplating registering like a month ago, so I'm participating in this thread for now, because I think full Winamp 2.x skins support in fb2k would hit the spot.

Pretty obvious this is that troll jessica all over again. Why insult me again when you have no stake in it? Give it up troll with that winamp nagging all over again. Can mods place bans based on IP?
It wouldn't matter if I were jessicaj; you still have to make valid arguments as to why you don't want Winamp skins supported in Winamp, and so far, none of you are really making any valid points. In your case, you're not even arguing, you're just making up false claims that I'm a banned user and requesting me getting banned also (I can by the way prove that I'm not Jessica, but I'll do that with Peter if demands it). This "ban anyone I disagree with" attitude of yours is of course not helpful for foobar2000 either. You know, we fb2k users should be able to make feature requests without being accused of trolling, sockpuppeting or getting banned for it. More importantly, if you're going to argue against additional functionality and features (in other words, improvements in foobar2000), your arguments should be valid, and by that I mean intelligent arguments. Just saying "adding Winamp skins to foobar isn't going to help foobar or its community", that's just nonsensical. Winamp skins is basically the only reason people still use Winamp, and it would increase foobar's market share significantly; you'd have a lot of users switching to foobar2000 because while being better in every way, fb2k now also can look and behave like a very popular player.

The way I see it, adding full support for Winamp 2.x skins is a quick fix instead of developing a proper, native skin system, and it's also good in the the sense that Winamp skins has become somewhat of a standard, as in interoperability.
Codec enthusiast!

Re: feature request: winamp skin support

Reply #17
Request made and thoroughly discussed. Topic closed.
korth

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020