IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> foobar2000 General Forum Rules

This is NOT a tech support forum.
Tech support questions go to foobar2000 Tech Support forum instead.

See also: Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service.

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
foobar2000 vs. MediaMonkey, At risk of my life among fb2k enthusiasts, I just wanted to ask...
Lyx
post Jun 3 2008, 14:53
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 3353
Joined: 6-July 03
From: Sachsen (DE)
Member No.: 7609



QUOTE (shakey_snake @ Jun 3 2008, 15:34) *
QUOTE (Horst Fux @ Jun 3 2008, 07:35) *

Aren't those "ready-set-go"-packages forbidden?
Without prior written permission, yes.

QUOTE (Horst Fux @ Jun 3 2008, 07:35) *
If they're, can someone explain me the reason?
Support hell. This was allowed before 0.9, then the license was changed to prevent it.

One more reason for that limitation may be, that in the past, this possibility was abused for defamation purposes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Horst Fux
post Jun 3 2008, 18:50
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 18-March 07
Member No.: 41593



I'm awared of it, that giving other people my config is allowed, was written a little bit cloudy by myself. However, especially for Panels_UI-Users it's very uncomfortable to use "packages" like br3tt's. I think it could make foobar more popular but this could have bad by-effects like it happened to WinAmp. Otherwise there would be more developers. Anyways, if foobar is getting developed constantly I'm happy enough. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kiteroa
post Jun 4 2008, 05:40
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 255
Joined: 17-January 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 39740



MM is extremely customisable for those that can/want to use SQL and VBScript.

See: http://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Scripting

For look and feel for out-of-box users there are many scripts (see: http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic...5e34bf73fe1787) and a few MM skins (http://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Skins_for_MediaMonkey_v3.0_and_higher) but, apparently, any winamp skin can be used.

I have recreated my Foobar customisations in MM with little difficulty (once I got back up-to-speed with SQL and VBS)! It was easier than setting up Foobar in many ways as different parts of the config. communicate.

I have not found it necessary to upgrade to the paid version of MM.

Nice to have some alternative... Tagging is much better with drop-down selection/entry from almost anywhere track(s) are displayed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mobyduck
post Jun 4 2008, 08:36
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 24-April 03
From: Italy
Member No.: 6159



QUOTE (Kiteroa @ Jun 3 2008, 20:40) *
MM is extremely customisable for those that can/want to use SQL and VBScript.
Wow, didn't know that. w00t.gif

SQL & foobar2000 is definitely a toy I'd like to play with!

Alessandro

This post has been edited by mobyduck: Jun 4 2008, 08:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shakey_snake
post Jun 4 2008, 09:00
Post #30





Group: FB2K Moderator
Posts: 4322
Joined: 1-November 06
From: Cincinnati
Member No.: 37036



QUOTE (Kiteroa @ Jun 4 2008, 00:40) *
MM is extremely customisable for those that can/want to use SQL and VBScript.

See: http://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Scripting

For look and feel for out-of-box users there are many scripts (see: http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic...5e34bf73fe1787) and a few MM skins (http://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Skins_for_MediaMonkey_v3.0_and_higher) but, apparently, any winamp skin can be used.

I have recreated my Foobar customisations in MM with little difficulty (once I got back up-to-speed with SQL and VBS)! It was easier than setting up Foobar in many ways as different parts of the config. communicate.

I have not found it necessary to upgrade to the paid version of MM.

Nice to have some alternative... Tagging is much better with drop-down selection/entry from almost anywhere track(s) are displayed.
Honestly, if you primarily used foobar because of panels UI's "interface customization ability" you were barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

How hard it was to setup something like someone else's should have been your first clue.

This post has been edited by shakey_snake: Jun 4 2008, 09:30


--------------------
elevatorladylevitateme
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LadFromDownUnder
post Jun 4 2008, 11:27
Post #31





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 90
Joined: 30-July 03
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 8083



@shakey_snake: The New Default UI has a Quick Appearance Setup feature. This is, practically speaking, exactly what you are talking about.

Actually, No. I'm was referring to more than just UI components for packaging.

This post has been edited by LadFromDownUnder: Jun 4 2008, 11:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 4 2008, 15:13
Post #32





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3350
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (mobyduck @ Jun 4 2008, 00:36) *
SQL & foobar2000 is definitely a toy I'd like to play with!
There's really not much point. foobar2000's database is not relational. It consists of one table, with one row per file (or track), with arbitrary field names, and is highly optimized to take advantage of its unique structure. Using a SQL backend or a SQL query language would serve no purpose and would probably be less efficient than the current structure.

This post has been edited by Canar: Jun 4 2008, 15:14


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mobyduck
post Jun 4 2008, 15:25
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 24-April 03
From: Italy
Member No.: 6159



QUOTE (Canar @ Jun 4 2008, 06:13) *
QUOTE (mobyduck @ Jun 4 2008, 00:36) *
SQL & foobar2000 is definitely a toy I'd like to play with!
There's really not much point. foobar2000's database is not relational. It consists of one table, with one row per file (or track), with arbitrary field names, and is highly optimized to take advantage of its unique structure. Using a SQL backend or a SQL query language would serve no purpose and would probably be less efficient than the current structure.
Yes, I was suspecting foobar2000 data structures are not RDBMS-based, so mine was more the expression of a dream rather than a request.

SQL might be handy for grouping, gathering statistics, filtering and things like that, but I understand it's probably something that doesn't fit in the current architecture.

Alessandro
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kanak
post Jun 4 2008, 15:36
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 1190
Joined: 12-January 06
From: Cambridge, MA
Member No.: 27052



QUOTE (mobyduck @ Jun 4 2008, 10:25) *
SQL might be handy for grouping, gathering statistics, filtering and things like that, but I understand it's probably something that doesn't fit in the current architecture.


Hmm... Facets has statistics that leverages the current database structure, and it performs REALLY well. So I doubt that the architecture is preventing any features.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 4 2008, 15:39
Post #35





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3350
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



If you've ever used the album list, you'll realize that foobar2000 has found an equivalent that probably outperforms the SQL query technique and is much lighter and user-friendly in terms of user configuration. Title-formatting-based grouping and queries are quick, effective, and easy to understand. That saves on stuff like this:



Long table is long.

Also, try pulling all songs added in the past week out of that table structure. Oh wait, that data isn't stored. And there's no place to store it. Install one component in foobar2000 and you're golden.

Edit: Post was made before the requisite morning dose of caffeine and thus contained minor, if someone silly, errors.

This post has been edited by Canar: Jun 4 2008, 16:39


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kiteroa
post Jun 5 2008, 08:16
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 255
Joined: 17-January 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 39740



QUOTE (shakey_snake @ Jun 4 2008, 20:00) *
Honestly, if you primarily used foobar because of panels UI's "interface customization ability" you were barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

How hard it was to setup something like someone else's should have been your first clue.


I can't disagree, it was like banging my head against a brick wall - but it feels really good now I have stopped!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mobyduck
post Jun 5 2008, 10:33
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 24-April 03
From: Italy
Member No.: 6159



QUOTE (kanak @ Jun 4 2008, 06:36) *
QUOTE (mobyduck @ Jun 4 2008, 10:25) *

SQL might be handy for grouping, gathering statistics, filtering and things like that, but I understand it's probably something that doesn't fit in the current architecture.


Hmm... Facets has statistics that leverages the current database structure, and it performs REALLY well. So I doubt that the architecture is preventing any features.
I meant the current architecture prevents the usage of SQL, not the collection of those data. And Facets is a great tool indeed, but if you use ColumnsUI...

Anyway, all my "ranting" is probably due to the fact that I feel more comfortable setting up an SQL query than fiddling with foobar scripting language (let alone write a plugin in C). Not that I'm expecting to see a RDBMS for foobar any time soon...

Alessandro
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
~*McoreD*~
post Jun 5 2008, 10:47
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 568
Joined: 10-July 03
From: Australia
Member No.: 7693



Customizable to the max.

$if3($if($stricmp(%genre%,Classical),%composer%,),%band%)

That's a just View you can have using Facets UI.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PredUK
post Jun 5 2008, 12:31
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 98
Joined: 24-May 05
Member No.: 22270



QUOTE (Lyx @ Jun 3 2008, 10:35) *
QUOTE (PredUK @ Jun 3 2008, 02:59) *

Simply being limited makes MediaMonkey bad IMO. It's okay, but foobar is for my needs perfect.

There are so many things unlogical with that statement, that i dont even know where to start.
Why? What makes my opinion illogical? I don't like using shareware, and a program that wants you to pay for the full feature set yet still has the menu entries for the options and features that are off limits isn't one that I want to use. If they took everything that had to be paid for out of the free version then it would be a lot better. Besides, it's for my needs bloated. Foobar does what I need it to do.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd August 2014 - 04:44