Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

foobar...honestly...WTF?! WTF?!

<< < (3/15) > >>

Josh:
I've often wondered the same thing. I use ZP which is an all in one media player, which is what I need. I do not want a separate application for audio and one for video. I have no need for that type of setup.

Foobar is a nice app, but, its never been my cup of tea. I agree with you JJ, I do want to know if perhaps I am just missing something.

Lashiec:
WHOA! I planned to write a good post about what's great about foobar2000, but I'm so dense right now that I can't write anything... No, on second thought, I'm really angry, I've just received the results of the last exam I did in September and I'm really not happy with THAT results. Not to mention that the T3 used by the university (or T1, I don't know the type of connection exactly) feels like a 14,4 kbps modem. GREAT! Now I'm outrageous! I'll post something tomorrow >:(

superboyac:
So the question then is - if you don't have some crazy audio setup or automation needs or whatnot - what is the real advantage of Foobar? Why should I use this instead of say Winamp? Sure it's "lighter", but it seems a lot like the Opera vs. Firefox thing - in order to get all the Winamp functionality I'd want out of Foobar I'd have to use a bunch of plugins anyway, so it may not be so light anymore, and certainly is more difficult to setup. Opera and Winamp both work and have tons of functionality "out of the box".

I'm sure making converts of people isn't a priority with an app like that and I'm not asking for evangelism, but I do wonder sometimes if I'm missing something good. :D

- Oshyan
-JavaJones (September 26, 2006, 09:53 PM)
--- End quote ---

I'll answer this from my perspective.  I used Winamp for almost 10 years (until a couple of days ago!).  I've known about foobar for a few years, but like you, I had no real motivation togive it a good try because Winamp was pretty great.  But after seeing some screenshots of what people are doing with foobar, I just had to try it.  I don't think it's like Opera vs. Firefox, because while the plugins for foobar are important, the biggest advantage is the ability to script and essentially design your own music player.  Check out this thread to see what people have been doing with it:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=30988

I'm totally sold on foobar

f0dder:
superboyac: can you post some info on how you have configured foobar? I used to use winamp, but after realizing that I don't care about skins and don't use visualizations these days, I've switched to foobar. Default setup seems pretty okay to me, although I wouldn't mind albumart or something :)

JavaJones:
100 pages in that thread? Good god. Well, I looked through a few. Very little seemed particularly different or cool. I did like the album view in the playlist and the heirarchical media library (explorer-like). There was also mention of color coding in playlist as tracks end, for low bitrate files, etc. which seems novel but not really something I think I'd get much use out of.

My biggest question is whether you can easily save full configs. I mean let's say a "skin" or "template" or "config" consists of a layout, but the layout is dependent on several plugins I may not have. Can you easily package up all dependent files to share with others? I would imagine there's an easy way to share configs, but if it involves much more than equivalent Winamp skinning I can't say I'm inclined to fiddle with it. There just doesn't seem to be much real benefit.

Also of vital, vital importance to me: I'm sure it can read the Shoutcast directory, but does it have basically all the same online content as Winamp, like XM Radio? If not, no deal. Free streaming media rules. :D

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page