Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: hi.. i'm a foobar convert! (Read 5012 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

been using winamp from the beginning. tried QCD & foobar recently. foobar is simply the best & QCD a distant second. any chance we could have a rant???  anyone feels winamp's better or somethin?
everybody's a jerk. you, me, this jerk!

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #1 –
Winamp is technical a Mess (Pluginsystem, hacks, total overloaded Visualisations which nobody really needs). The only thing I miss from Winamp is the Searching-bar in the main window. But that don't hurt so much  Foobar is so great!
Celeron 1300 Tualatin @ 1589, 512 MB Micronchip CL2, 0,5 TB HD, Audigy 2 ZX Platinum Pro, Sony MDS-JE530 DAC, Sony STR-GX 311 Ampifier, Sennheiser HD 570 Headphones, Creative Inspire T7700 7.1

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #2 –
Well, you can configure the installation of Winamp to exclude components you don't need. I agree, AVS is a waste of space and time.
There are many different reasons for people to like either Winamp or Foobar, because both are of impressive quality and have strengths in their niches. However, I tend to use Foobar more because of its sophistication in audio playback. That, when it's only at version 0.61a too.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #3 –
Whoa... I can't believe there's another foobar user in Bangladesh. Although I'm Korean, I've been living in Dhaka for the past 10 years. Anyways, seems like it won't be too long before foobar becomes the standard audio player!

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #4 –
(is this kind of spammy/opinion thread allowed here?)

I also like foobar, but i think it won't ever be very popular (does that matter?). The average computer user would (based purely on the sound of the name) rather have a "winamp" than a "foobar", IMHO. A "winamp" sounds like a windows audio player with lots of volume, but a foobar sounds like a woolly animal, or a chocolate or something. Maybe a chocolate woolly animal.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #5 –
Having tried to convert a friend, I can say that many people would not like the ASCII oriented style foobar2000 sports; Weirdly they prefer the fuzzy WMP or winamp styles (! ?????). Most don't care how shitty their music sounds, they down 128kbs mp3's created by some unknown encoder which fills more bits with random noise then music. They care for pretty pictures (winXP style) and lazy interfaces; So in short foobar2000 is pretty secure in not becoming a mainstream player.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #6 –
Have to agree with LPTB there.  I have been using Winamp for a long time now and am alowly using foobar more and more.  I still don't think I will ever abandon Winap completely.

I definately think that Foobar is an excellent player and it does everything I expect from an Audio Player.  I still think that the majority of users will want some kind of fully integrated and  sleek GUI.  Although I am not sure wether Foobar is meant to be the PLayer for the majority of users in the first place.  Although that isn't meant in a bad way, but probably something very positive in a time of uniformity and comformity.  It shows that the Foobar developers believe in their concept and are willing to stay true to their Ideas.

It definately takes a while to get accustomed to all the features of the player and I am not sure wether the average user is willing to do so.

Winamp is definately the more appealing player to the average user and on top of that it really is an excellent player and has excellent support for most file formats.  The new Media Library is also very usble and will still keep me from using Foobar as my main Player for quite while.

Furthermore Winamp (2.91) does not, contrary to  most beliefs, use any more system resources then Foobar.  On top of that it is fully cutomizable during installation, so any unnecessary "bloat" is up to the user.

By stating these things I am not trying to say that Foobar lacks these features in any way.

At the end of the day I think that both Winamp and Foobar are excellent choices as a Media Players and wich one you like is as usual up to personal liking. 

If it comes to me I really like them both for their own reasons and will try to keep using them both.  Although I still have to get a bit more familiar with Foobar.  Willing to learn though.  Keep in mind that not everyone is.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #7 –
I have not used Winamp in years as my main media player. For the past several years I have been using QCD. It is much nicer and quicker than Winamp ever was for me.

Then 2 or 3 months ago I heard about Foobar and started to use it. It took a while to get accustomed to after using QCD for so long. Foobar is definitely the winner for the best audio media player. Right behing is QCD.

Thank God for these two media players. Without them, my audio experience would not be so bright. I am glad some other people use(s) QCD as well.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #8 –
I have barely touched WA 2.77 or 3 for a few months now. I have always preferred keyboard controls over a bulky GUI, and there are more than enough fine seek bar type plugins for foobar when I need to use them.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #9 –
I've been using Winamp since 1997 and i just switched to foobar about a week ago. I was quite happy with Winamp but there were a few features (ReplayGain, more customizable playlist) that I wanted but wern't there. But I found them in foobar. Switching wasn't all that hard for me as I never used skins and worked mainly in the playlist. So save for a few very minor features I wouldn't mind having (syntax-highlighting, title formating import/export to file) foobar is my audio player from now on.
RedawgTS
King of all the little people with really big swords.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #10 –
Quote
Having tried to convert a friend, I can say that many people would not like the ASCII oriented style foobar2000 sports; Weirdly they prefer the fuzzy WMP or winamp styles (! ?????). Most don't care how shitty their music sounds, they down 128kbs mp3's created by some unknown encoder which fills more bits with random noise then music. They care for pretty pictures (winXP style) and lazy interfaces; So in short foobar2000 is pretty secure in not becoming a mainstream player.

Hrm. I've witnessed the opposite. My girlfriend used Foobar instead of the Kazaa built-in MP3 player, because it's fast and straight-forward. I installed Foobar over top of WMP on my parents'/sister's computer and they like that it loads fast and they can see all of their music right away. I taught them a little, but after that, they all prefer it, and we're talking about non-technical users as well. That and there's no interface shock by using standard Windows GUI components, which makes it friendly.

It has potential to eat into Winamp/WMP's market share if it's marketed properly, which probably won't happen for a while. I've shown it to technical users, explained all the nifty features, and they caught on right away, because a lot of them hate skinned interfaces (think Linux geeks), or like the higher technical sophistication. One person, though, hated the fact that there were no skins.

It would be nice if the SDK would allow for complete replacement of the standard user interface with something else, rather than keeping the old playlist kicking around. That way, a Winamp skin compatible interface could be created and foobar could really take over the world.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #11 –
Quote
It would be nice if the SDK would allow for complete replacement of the standard user interface with something else, rather than keeping the old playlist kicking around.


IMO skins are useless, why in the hell would anyone want those? It's a complete and utter bloat with no advantage, if you feel a lack of color put on pink/colored glasses.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #12 –
a good avs & skins are okay if you use the computer for playing music.

when i'm working, using an application, i'd like a player that doesnt take up a lot of system resources! foobar's perfect. fast, simple but still feature rich.
everybody's a jerk. you, me, this jerk!

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #13 –
Quote
Quote
It would be nice if the SDK would allow for complete replacement of the standard user interface with something else, rather than keeping the old playlist kicking around.


IMO skins are useless, why in the hell would anyone want those? It's a complete and utter bloat with no advantage, if you feel a lack of color put on pink/colored glasses.

Well, I have no desire to have a Winamp-style skinning interface, but I can see valid reasons to want the interface completely separated from the core.  (Think volumebar/seekbar)  There are a lot of things that can't be cleanly integrated using the current system.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #14 –
I've been using foobar2000 for months. 

The resampler and its sound quality attract me first. In addition, I know that the author of foobar2000 is a sound quality oriented one. So I believe that this can assure a high quality foobar2000 even in the future.  B)

[span style='font-size:10pt;line-height:100%']Congratulation to all of you using foobar2000![/span]

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #15 –
I've been a WinAmp addict long before it became freeware. However, a while ago I read about foobar2000 and decided to give it a go... The very same day WinAmp was already uninstalled
Foobar2000 was exactly what I had been looking for but couldn't find. WinAmp's skinning and visualisations are pretty, but do you actually need them? Most of the time my WinAmp was minimized to the tray so I couldn't see the fancy stuff anyway. Foobar2000 looks just like the rest of my Windows applications - I like that. The playlist can be freely configured to show exactly what I want. And thanks to the global hotkeys I can control foobar2000 without bringing the program to the front.

Foobar2000 = two thumbs up

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #16 –
Damn, I used Winamp for anout ten minutes today and then immediately switched to Foobar since Winamp can't read my APE tags properly.

Seems like this nifty little program is getting me as well. 

As I said before, the things in my previous post weren't so much my own opinion, but rather what I thought the general public would like.  I am glad to hear that even Novices really like Foobar after a short introduction to its features.  That again shows the need for a newcomer comprehensive tutorial as mentioned in another thread.

I personally love the minimalism of Foobar and it's focus on fucionality ( don't even know if that is correct English).  But then I also like cars with no frills.  (ie., no electric window openers, no airco, etc, just plain, light and fast.  You've definately won antother happy user here. 

One thing I want to say agin in defence of Winamp though, is that it DOES NOT use any more System resources then Foobar.  This seems to be a common misbelief, probably relating to the fact that Winamp is skinned, wich apperently immediately rings the bell Boat for most people.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #17 –
i don't think you can compare a media player with a car. a plain vanilla car isn't attractive, nor is it that comfy without the goodies. everybody wants a fully loaded car!

anyways, as i said before, i'm using some application & obviously wouldn't keep my media player in the front. it has to be minimized.

another thing, winamp3 uses a heck lot of memory. at this very moment i'm playing an mp3 on foobar & its using only 3.2MB whereas winamp3 is using up 9.8MB even when its not doing anything.
everybody's a jerk. you, me, this jerk!

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #19 –
Quote
Quote
another thing, winamp3 uses a heck lot of memory

No it doesn't.  There was a big thread about this not too long ago, and I believe the general consensus is that memory use in foobar/winamp is roughly equivalent in most cases.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=27&t=7959

Winamp3 does take a lot more memory than both foobar2000 and Winamp.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #20 –
Oops.  I missed the '3' somehow.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #21 –
Quote
another thing, winamp3 uses a heck lot of memory. at this very moment i'm playing an mp3 on foobar & its using only 3.2MB whereas winamp3 is using up 9.8MB even when its not doing anything.

No need to use Winamp3 then, especially if you take under consideration that it's far from perfection at the moment. I never had any problem myself with Winamp 2.81 though when it came down to recources and memory requirements.

I have been using Foobar2000 along with Winamp sometimes and I'm pretty satisfied by both. I do hate it when I see people trying to prove that Foobar2000 "sounds so much better" or that Winamp "is just crap", even though it was the same guys who used to love Winamp, when Foob2000 was not around. I'm not talking about participants in this thread...I just have seen such statements in other threads in the past.

hi.. i'm a foobar convert!

Reply #22 –
I switched to foobar2000 since a few weeks and like this player very much ..  esp. the archive playback feature.
Only feature I am missing is a plugin to playback mp3's gapless ... well actually more a mp3 format problem but in winamp I can playback them without gaps.
And of course a GPLed linux version would be nice  .. no chance I know...