Skip to main content
Topic: windows support (Read 890 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

windows support

Hi Peter,

Why is windows xp and vista support removed in the new version?
The BEST feature of foobar2000 is that it runs on all PCs and all windows.
Why are you doing this?!?
Foobar2000 - It Really Whips ALL Llamas' Ass!

Re: windows support

Reply #1
Use v1.5.5 it supports old XP
foobar2000 plays music

Re: windows support

Reply #2
Support for old OS versions was dropped for several reasons. Very few users are on those old platforms, Peter has no ability to verify that things work on operating systems he doesn't use, and he can now use new programming interfaces that simplify things and even give performance benefits.

Old version supporting XP and Vista will be kept available and he has even promised fixes for it.

Re: windows support

Reply #3
The BEST feature of foobar2000 is that it runs on all PCs and all windows.
Wrong. The current version doesn't support Win 3.x, 95, 98, Me, NT 3.5, NT 4.0, 2000, and even XP retail and XP SP1.
Also it doesn't support Intel i586 (aka Pentium), AMD K6-III, VIA C3 Ezra and older processors.

Re: windows support

Reply #4
If jessicaj allows, I'll use this thread for my question and add a word "feature" between "windows" and "support" just not to establish new thread.

Now, when we've got rid of XP support with v1.6, removed dsound.dll call from the audio pipeline and built own session for wasapi as default output, for keeping current device output setting the internal fb2k resampler has to be always in "standby" mode to intervene if necessary and default dsp array is therefore a prerequisite since now.
Media Foundation pipeline (from W7 onwards) calls Resampler DMO (resampledmo.dll) for the same purpose, very fast and transparent src.

In this context, I'm interested in what's behind the decision not to use this (OS build-in) library?
Coding complexity/impossibility or something else? Preference of independence it probably won't be, as there will be always an option to use another src.
Thanks for clarification (Peter or developers..).

Re: windows support

Reply #5
foobar2000 uses its own decoders, also for many more formats than Media Foundation supports.

Let's not forget that wine has absolutely zero support for Media Foundation, except for a third party patch that doesn't look like it stands any chance of being upstreamed. Unless you like going the dubiously legal path of installing parts of Windows 7 into your wine prefix.

Re: windows support

Reply #6
Thanks for a comment.
What's probably obvious, I asked the question because of my limited knowledge, that's maybe why your explanation didn't help me much. The first sentence was clear to me and what Wine has to do with that all, I don't understand.
It's as if calling the library in question was conditioned by the use of the MF pipeline, but that's exactly what I didn't mean at all. Let's ignore MF pipeline completely for now..
So back to my question, what's behind the decision not to use this (OS build-in) library? Impossible to call it outside MF pipeline?
Yamamoto's PlayPCMWin calls this src during shared mode playback. Is all that possible just because it is build on .NET technology?
Thank you again.

 

Re: windows support

Reply #7
But why should fb2k use some external thing instead of already existing internal one?

Only to make standard DSPs optional again?

Re: windows support

Reply #8
I understand that with the existence of an internal DSP package, calling an external library would probably mean considerable extra work, but I didn't want to think that way at all.
FB2K is installed in some audio ecosystem, of which this library is a part. Therefore, I was just wondering if it is technically possible to use it in the case of fb2k, as it has good "operational" properties in speed and transparency. Taking advantage of the possibilities offered by the system, that's all.

I have nothing against the standard DSP package, even though two resamplers "shine" there. I respect that, both are transparent, but I don't use either of the pair ... one is hungry and the other is more or less obsolete.
I'm using your tuned SoX-based resampler, just on the sidelines.

Bud ok, it is probably just Peter's decision, though to call this src can be (still no direct answer) possible. Maybe in the future, who knows..

Re: windows support

Reply #9
I'm curious: what is now the exact reason windows xp is not suppported anymore?
Is it wasapi being used and not being available on windows xp?

I read online the hearable audio quality difference between directsound and wasapi is almost not existing.
So I don't understand why directsound has to go suddenly as default?
Foobar2000 - It Really Whips ALL Llamas' Ass!

Re: windows support

Reply #10
Replying to you seems pointless as you don't seem to read the replies. The known reasons Peter has expressed were told in my earlier reply.

Changing DirectSound to WASAPI has nothing to do with audio quality. It's hoped the interface is less buggy than DirectSound.

Re: windows support

Reply #11
Sorry! I read all replies now
Foobar2000 - It Really Whips ALL Llamas' Ass!

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020