Foobar2k users

Shadow Skill · #1 4th October 2004, 05:30 PM

For those of you who use Foobar2k I was wondering what made you choose Foobar over Winamp. Personally I have found that the memory usage difference between the two programs is quite negligable. Foobar only seems to be about 3megs lower on memory usage than winamp when playing the same song. Keep in mind that I am using transparency and a free form skin (Cat's Eye) with Winamp. Aside from that the two players seem to be equal in terms of interface. (Seems like all of the good audio players are windows only.

)

Jman · #2 4th October 2004, 11:11 PM

On Windows I use the 2.x Winamp. Earlier generation but small footprint.

What do you mean by good player? Skinnable and pretty? Winamp probably wins there. Cross platform? XMMS probably (which I'm listening to right now by the way). mplayer has a lot of formats, etc. etc.

At least there are some choices.

Ug · #3 4th October 2004, 11:15 PM

I tend to use iTunes when in Windows.

kosmosik · #4 4th October 2004, 11:20 PM

madman is nice. it is in fact a playlist manager and frontend to player (not player itself) but it is nice... on Windows I've always used WinAMP but there were no FooBar2K (no WinAmp 3.0, 5.0) aviable when I dumped Windows for good...

http://madman.sourceforge.net/

but right now if I were Windows user I will use WinAMP 5.0 with normal (not modern) skin due to loads of cool plugins aviable... memory and procesor footprint are non issues for me unles they are getting far from reasonable (but WinAMP does is OK with this...)

Shadow Skill · #5 5th October 2004, 12:31 AM

Jman:

Dude just look at the memory usage of winamp 5 and foobar2k there isn't a point to stripping down winamp when the difference is absolutely negligable even with all of winamp 5's extra's. Not to mention the Ipod support that is going to be built right in with the next release. That isn't to say what youre doing is bad just pointless, if you can run xp or even win2k you probably have more than enough memory. Don't forget you can turn off modern skins and use classic skins if you want....I know winamp 3 hurt our hearts but no reason to stay in the distant past

I hate XMMS its such a cheapo Winamp knockoff I would rather try and get foobar to work through Wine. I only use that thing because its the only one that wants to support my aac files. The main thing that makes it suck is the insane lack of global keyboard shortcut options.

Varkk · #6 5th October 2004, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow Skill

I hate XMMS its such a cheapo Winamp knockoff I would rather try and get foobar to work through Wine. I only use that thing because its the only one that wants to support my aac files. The main thing that makes it suck is the insane lack of global keyboard shortcut options.

Under windows I used foobar. I like the minimalist interface, I have a music player to play music, not to look good. Also what do you mean about the lack of global keyboard shortcuts under xmms? The multimedia keys on my kjeyboard at home work fine (I think you need to install and configure the itouch plugin for xmms) I believe itouch-xmms is yummified.

Shadow Skill · #7 5th October 2004, 01:41 AM

I dont really use the multimedia controls, I normally use various keyboard command like ctrl+alt+J to jump between tracks etc. Xmms doesn't have native support for that and I have not seen any pluggins to add in that sort of thing.

Jumping · #8 5th October 2004, 02:53 PM

I like the Core Media Player for windows.

I had problems when trying to watch some Anime that I leeched and needed a special codec they recommend the Core Media Player and its quite nice not sure if its less resource hungry than Winamp but it plays my Anime!

Shadow Skill · #9 8th October 2004, 04:36 AM

TCMP is a dammned monster but then again it IS playing video so it is forgivable. My main complaint about TCMP is the slight instability of the program. I personally use BSplayer when I'm playing video in windows, its slightly less brutal on the system resources.

rendered_one · #10 8th October 2004, 04:49 AM

Back in the day... when I used Mandrake and KDE... I really preferred noauton. It's simple, lightweight, and had some pretty good plugins... the best part was the fact that it's defualt skin was easy on the eyes and on the processor. And the lyric finder helped too

I think It works OK under GNOME too.

msimplay · #11 11th October 2004, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow Skill

Jman:

Dude just look at the memory usage of winamp 5 and foobar2k there isn't a point to stripping down winamp when the difference is absolutely negligable even with all of winamp 5's extra's. Not to mention the Ipod support that is going to be built right in with the next release. That isn't to say what youre doing is bad just pointless, if you can run xp or even win2k you probably have more than enough memory. Don't forget you can turn off modern skins and use classic skins if you want....I know winamp 3 hurt our hearts but no reason to stay in the distant past

I hate XMMS its such a cheapo Winamp knockoff I would rather try and get foobar to work through Wine. I only use that thing because its the only one that wants to support my aac files. The main thing that makes it suck is the insane lack of global keyboard shortcut options.

I use xmms regularly even though it was is a winamp clone it is just as good
also what are people in linux supposed to do when these developers that make programs for windows and not linux , i for one am glad that Linux does have xmms it can also be noted that its the best mp3 player for linux because of the quality of its sound

To be honest i don't care if its any player as long as the sound quality is the best available to me
so to dismiss xmms as a cheap winamp knockoff means that your really missing out

also using windows apps in linux doesn't really work that well as wine is only an api layer
native applications will always work better hence xmms is better than using foobar or winamp in wine

Shadow Skill · #12 11th October 2004, 09:12 PM

Look Xmms is so feature lacking in comparison to winamp its just sad, the only reason I even have that piece of crap is because it supports aac and mp3 [although I cant seem to get gtkpod to compile and I refuse to install any resource bastard java apps, so I haven't really been able to play my music lately since I can't get my playlists into xmms.] all in one. Right now it feels as though I am being punished for even using aac when it comes to Linux. The XMMS interface is absolute garbage, no built in global shortcuts (that is just completely insane.) and it just plain looks ugly with no option to even use freeform skins if one so chooses. XMMS plays the most files but its interface just doesn't compare with winamp.

foolish · #13 11th October 2004, 09:21 PM

If you like the iTunes library approach, go rhythmbox. If you like the classic winamp, go xmms.

If you have a lot of full albums and very good meta data (tags and such), you can give my favorite, muine a try. Currently there's no recent rpm available and it does require mono and gtk-sharp which is a quite difficult to get installed. If anyone is interested in how I did it, let me know.

crackers · #14 12th October 2004, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow Skill

I normally use various keyboard command like ctrl+alt+J to jump between tracks etc. Xmms doesn't have native support for that and I have not seen any pluggins to add in that sort of thing.

KDE has a very nifty utility (buried in the Control Center under "Regional and Accessibility") called KHotKeys. I've got the XMMS buttons mapped to WinKey+[zxcvb] and works great, especially if I've got Eclipse open full-screen on another desktop...