Why do people have gripes about foobar2000?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: aphex
Because people are too lazy to fiddle with the UI.
...or just like it too much. I'm hardly lazy; I was working on a WA3 modern skin that would have a thin row on the side with controls, and then the playlist to take as much room as possible. Then I got FB2K. All that work was already done :). Add in foo_winamp_spam, and it's basically perfect as a player. Drag & drop to playlist, multiple playlists, easy transcoding...all there.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because unlike some well designed apps like zoomplayer, foobar isnt even trying to help you out. It starts out barebones, and is quite possibly the most disorganized UI by default Ive ever seen in my life. Im sure its capable of great things, but I dont feel like spending 2 hours trying to figure out the simplest thing, when theres tons of programs out there that do 99% of what youll ever need to do by default.

Itunes is as bloated as it gets, but nothing can beat *browsing* by genre, artist, album. Id use WMP, but the fools that designed it dont let you do that simple thing. If theres a way to do this in foobar, it certainly isnt easy to figure out.

Playlist > sort > sort by...

Pretty tough.
Actually, it is, because it doesn't do multiple levels of sorting. It won't do it by artist (alpha), then album (date), then track (number). Maybe (probably) there's a plugin, but the base player doesn't do that.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: LS20
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
There is nothing "wrong" with foobar [debatable]
There is nothing "wrong" with itunes [debatable]

Foobar prioritizes function(ability) over form(ui).
Itunes prioritizes form(ui) over function(ability)

Which is better?
winamp. function, and form.
...and itty bitty buttons, takes forever to start up with larger ones (modern skins), and comes with a freaking browser shell. I have a feeling we'd all still be using Winamp if AOL hadn't bought Nullsoft.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: ndn mbc
I'm a iTunes user myself.

Sure it's probably not an audiophiles first choice, but...

1. Looks great
2. Organizing is beautiful
3. Real time search (I know many of this, but whatever) is awesome
4. Sharing songs on your network is also a really nice feature.

#4 is actually what made me jump from winamp to iTunes.

you can't share a folder?

He uses iTunes, did you really have to ask?
So if I want to share a playlist with iTunes, I can do it in two clicks. To do the same in foobar, I have to

(a) create new directory
(b) copy all the playlist files into it
(c) in all liklihood create a new playlist file (since presumably the files before were spread out over multiple directories since they were by different artists
(d) Share the directory in windows
(e) provide the UNC address to someone else who needs to get the files.

So I the end, I've wasted a couple of more minutes and now have duplicate songs gunking up my system. The sheer beauty of iTunes is that the UI makes common tasks completeable with one or two clicks - at the expense of some bloat, but really with 3 GHz of power and 1 GB I'm not exactly concerned over ~60 MB footprint
But then it only works for iTunes clients. Here's something that works for anyone:

1. Right-click folder, and to go 'sharing'.
2. Select the option to share the folder. Optionally, name it.
3. Click Apply.
4. If you have 'simple file sharing' enabled, disable it so that file sharing is actually simple, like in NT4 and Win2k.

This is a Windows-wide thing, and with Samba as easy to use and advanced as it is (including GUI browsers that auto-mount in Linux distros, like smb4k), there will be no trouble getting to it.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because unlike some well designed apps like zoomplayer, foobar isnt even trying to help you out. It starts out barebones, and is quite possibly the most disorganized UI by default Ive ever seen in my life. Im sure its capable of great things, but I dont feel like spending 2 hours trying to figure out the simplest thing, when theres tons of programs out there that do 99% of what youll ever need to do by default.

Itunes is as bloated as it gets, but nothing can beat *browsing* by genre, artist, album. Id use WMP, but the fools that designed it dont let you do that simple thing. If theres a way to do this in foobar, it certainly isnt easy to figure out.

Playlist > sort > sort by...

Pretty tough.
Actually, it is, because it doesn't do multiple levels of sorting. It won't do it by artist (alpha), then album (date), then track (number). Maybe (probably) there's a plugin, but the base player doesn't do that.

Exactly. AFAIK, the only player than can do this properly is itunes, and that single feature is so useful that it makes me use it almost exclusively. Sure, Id rather have a more full featured player, but what it does, it does right.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because unlike some well designed apps like zoomplayer, foobar isnt even trying to help you out. It starts out barebones, and is quite possibly the most disorganized UI by default Ive ever seen in my life. Im sure its capable of great things, but I dont feel like spending 2 hours trying to figure out the simplest thing, when theres tons of programs out there that do 99% of what youll ever need to do by default.

Itunes is as bloated as it gets, but nothing can beat *browsing* by genre, artist, album. Id use WMP, but the fools that designed it dont let you do that simple thing. If theres a way to do this in foobar, it certainly isnt easy to figure out.

Playlist > sort > sort by...

Pretty tough.
Actually, it is, because it doesn't do multiple levels of sorting. It won't do it by artist (alpha), then album (date), then track (number). Maybe (probably) there's a plugin, but the base player doesn't do that.

Exactly. AFAIK, the only player than can do this properly is itunes, and that single feature is so useful that it makes me use it almost exclusively. Sure, Id rather have a more full featured player, but what it does, it does right.
Unless, of course, you're a purist who doesn't want things to change between players :). Sort by file path does it just right :evil:. Really, though, each one (except path, since it is exact in itself) should have submenus for the order when metadata is the same between files.
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because unlike some well designed apps like zoomplayer, foobar isnt even trying to help you out. It starts out barebones, and is quite possibly the most disorganized UI by default Ive ever seen in my life. Im sure its capable of great things, but I dont feel like spending 2 hours trying to figure out the simplest thing, when theres tons of programs out there that do 99% of what youll ever need to do by default.

Itunes is as bloated as it gets, but nothing can beat *browsing* by genre, artist, album. Id use WMP, but the fools that designed it dont let you do that simple thing. If theres a way to do this in foobar, it certainly isnt easy to figure out.

Playlist > sort > sort by...

Pretty tough.
Actually, it is, because it doesn't do multiple levels of sorting. It won't do it by artist (alpha), then album (date), then track (number). Maybe (probably) there's a plugin, but the base player doesn't do that.

Exactly. AFAIK, the only player than can do this properly is itunes, and that single feature is so useful that it makes me use it almost exclusively. Sure, Id rather have a more full featured player, but what it does, it does right.

If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Originally posted by: lnguyen
because not everyone is software savy? You need to find a plugin to have a volume slider. I can bet you 85% of the ppl out there would be baffled by this concept (talking about in general.. not the AT community).

I wasn't baffled but I couldn't for the life of me figure out why there wasn't an easily accessible volume slider. Why would they omit that simple feature?
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: lnguyen
because not everyone is software savy? You need to find a plugin to have a volume slider. I can bet you 85% of the ppl out there would be baffled by this concept (talking about in general.. not the AT community).

I wasn't baffled but I couldn't for the life of me figure out why there wasn't an easily accessible volume slider. Why would they omit that simple feature?

Foobar2000 -> preferences -> playback.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because unlike some well designed apps like zoomplayer, foobar isnt even trying to help you out. It starts out barebones, and is quite possibly the most disorganized UI by default Ive ever seen in my life. Im sure its capable of great things, but I dont feel like spending 2 hours trying to figure out the simplest thing, when theres tons of programs out there that do 99% of what youll ever need to do by default.

Itunes is as bloated as it gets, but nothing can beat *browsing* by genre, artist, album. Id use WMP, but the fools that designed it dont let you do that simple thing. If theres a way to do this in foobar, it certainly isnt easy to figure out.

Playlist > sort > sort by...

Pretty tough.
Actually, it is, because it doesn't do multiple levels of sorting. It won't do it by artist (alpha), then album (date), then track (number). Maybe (probably) there's a plugin, but the base player doesn't do that.

Exactly. AFAIK, the only player than can do this properly is itunes, and that single feature is so useful that it makes me use it almost exclusively. Sure, Id rather have a more full featured player, but what it does, it does right.

If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)

Its actually well organized already, thank you. Foobar can sort, but itunes can filter. Simple as that. Filtering > Sorting. Sorting is so 20th century.
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because unlike some well designed apps like zoomplayer, foobar isnt even trying to help you out. It starts out barebones, and is quite possibly the most disorganized UI by default Ive ever seen in my life. Im sure its capable of great things, but I dont feel like spending 2 hours trying to figure out the simplest thing, when theres tons of programs out there that do 99% of what youll ever need to do by default.

Itunes is as bloated as it gets, but nothing can beat *browsing* by genre, artist, album. Id use WMP, but the fools that designed it dont let you do that simple thing. If theres a way to do this in foobar, it certainly isnt easy to figure out.

Playlist > sort > sort by...

Pretty tough.
Actually, it is, because it doesn't do multiple levels of sorting. It won't do it by artist (alpha), then album (date), then track (number). Maybe (probably) there's a plugin, but the base player doesn't do that.

Exactly. AFAIK, the only player than can do this properly is itunes, and that single feature is so useful that it makes me use it almost exclusively. Sure, Id rather have a more full featured player, but what it does, it does right.

If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)

Its actually well organized already, thank you. Foobar can sort, but itunes can filter. Simple as that. Filtering > Sorting. Sorting is so 20th century.

If it were you wouldn't be complaining ;)
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because unlike some well designed apps like zoomplayer, foobar isnt even trying to help you out. It starts out barebones, and is quite possibly the most disorganized UI by default Ive ever seen in my life. Im sure its capable of great things, but I dont feel like spending 2 hours trying to figure out the simplest thing, when theres tons of programs out there that do 99% of what youll ever need to do by default.

Itunes is as bloated as it gets, but nothing can beat *browsing* by genre, artist, album. Id use WMP, but the fools that designed it dont let you do that simple thing. If theres a way to do this in foobar, it certainly isnt easy to figure out.
Playlist > sort > sort by...

Pretty tough.
Actually, it is, because it doesn't do multiple levels of sorting. It won't do it by artist (alpha), then album (date), then track (number). Maybe (probably) there's a plugin, but the base player doesn't do that.
Exactly. AFAIK, the only player than can do this properly is itunes, and that single feature is so useful that it makes me use it almost exclusively. Sure, Id rather have a more full featured player, but what it does, it does right.
If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)
That also gives you the same structure across machines, OSes, and players. It would be kind of nice to be able to go by date or genre every now and then, though.
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: Gurck
If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)
That also gives you the same structure across machines, OSes, and players. It would be kind of nice to be able to go by date or genre every now and then, though.
You can make playlists based on anything; activate the columns UI & the DB, then: foobar2000 -> pref's -> components -> album list -> activate album list window -> view by (whatever).
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: Gurck
If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)
That also gives you the same structure across machines, OSes, and players. It would be kind of nice to be able to go by date or genre every now and then, though.
You can make playlists based on anything; activate the columns UI & the DB, then: foobar2000 -> pref's -> components -> album list -> activate album list window -> view by (whatever).
Does this require the columns UI to be in use?
 

LS20

Banned
Jan 22, 2002
5,858
0
0
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: LS20

winamp. function, and form.
...and itty bitty buttons, takes forever to start up with larger ones (modern skins), and comes with a freaking browser shell. I have a feeling we'd all still be using Winamp if AOL hadn't bought Nullsoft.

i dont use modern skin... i use the classic that loads quick and is stable... buttons are clear and legible ... all i have are the basic 5 buttons, load, shuffle, loop, eq, pl, volume, and balance slider.

dont have browser shell... you dont have to dl the entire w.amp 5 suite... get the basic player... low memory and cpu usage. good stuff
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: Gurck
If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)
That also gives you the same structure across machines, OSes, and players. It would be kind of nice to be able to go by date or genre every now and then, though.
You can make playlists based on anything; activate the columns UI & the DB, then: foobar2000 -> pref's -> components -> album list -> activate album list window -> view by (whatever).

Of course you can, and not many people are saying that you can't.

The thing is, to do that in itunes I just click "browse"

Does that make itunes better? not necessarily.

The thing I like about itunes is that it lets you get to your music FAST...faster than anything else. I'd proudly sacrifice other features for that.

 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because unlike some well designed apps like zoomplayer, foobar isnt even trying to help you out. It starts out barebones, and is quite possibly the most disorganized UI by default Ive ever seen in my life. Im sure its capable of great things, but I dont feel like spending 2 hours trying to figure out the simplest thing, when theres tons of programs out there that do 99% of what youll ever need to do by default.

Itunes is as bloated as it gets, but nothing can beat *browsing* by genre, artist, album. Id use WMP, but the fools that designed it dont let you do that simple thing. If theres a way to do this in foobar, it certainly isnt easy to figure out.

Playlist > sort > sort by...

Pretty tough.
Actually, it is, because it doesn't do multiple levels of sorting. It won't do it by artist (alpha), then album (date), then track (number). Maybe (probably) there's a plugin, but the base player doesn't do that.

Exactly. AFAIK, the only player than can do this properly is itunes, and that single feature is so useful that it makes me use it almost exclusively. Sure, Id rather have a more full featured player, but what it does, it does right.

If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)

That's quite an assumption there cowboi....

q]Originally posted by: Gurck
If you truly read my posts you'll see what I mean... I've never responded to an ipod thread by namecalling, making a personal attack against anyone or by stating my view on ipods without giving good reason. What more can you ask for other than me not stating my opinion (which isn't going to happen)? Without fail I get attacked for it; told that ipods are good not because of <reasons 1, 2 and 3>, but because I'm a <insert name here>, because I should "stfu", etc. I haven't changed my thesis, I've simply realized that if I call someone childish because their response to my debate points is "stfu ur dummyhed", I'll be lambasted for it due to their strerngth in numbers and have their assumption be that I'm calling them childish for liking ipods. I'd like to have more faith in the intelligence of my fellow man, especially on a tech board which should have the cream of the intellectual crop... but I've been let down :([/quote]

Yeah, sure....
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: Gurck
If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)
That also gives you the same structure across machines, OSes, and players. It would be kind of nice to be able to go by date or genre every now and then, though.
You can make playlists based on anything; activate the columns UI & the DB, then: foobar2000 -> pref's -> components -> album list -> activate album list window -> view by (whatever).
Of course you can, and not many people are saying that you can't.

The thing is, to do that in itunes I just click "browse"

Does that make itunes better? not necessarily.

The thing I like about itunes is that it lets you get to your music FAST...faster than anything else. I'd proudly sacrifice other features for that.
I felt the poster to whom I was replying was implying that it wasn't doable in foobar. As I said earlier, F3 -> type what you want will display search results in real-time. As fast as itunes, or faster if your PC is getting old or doing other things, since foobar doesn't have itunes' bloat.
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: Gurck
If your collection is properly organized, rather than 4,000 files haphazardly dumped in your p2p client's download directory, foobar will sort however you want it to. No wonder so many here like itunes ;)
HAAAARRR, that be quite the assumption yer makin' thar, matey!
Fixed :D

Oh and Cerb, you don't have to have columns enabled to utilize playlists; you can have them tabbed in the main window like this
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: LS20
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: LS20

winamp. function, and form.
...and itty bitty buttons, takes forever to start up with larger ones (modern skins), and comes with a freaking browser shell. I have a feeling we'd all still be using Winamp if AOL hadn't bought Nullsoft.
i dont use modern skin... i use the classic that loads quick and is stable... buttons are clear and legible ... all i have are the basic 5 buttons, load, shuffle, loop, eq, pl, volume, and balance slider.

dont have browser shell... you dont have to dl the entire w.amp 5 suite... get the basic player... low memory and cpu usage. good stuff
The classic loads stably, but has always had issues with Fitt's Law. It's also not all that good if you want a playlist next to it, and still want your controls. Either you give up a good bit of height, or a good bit of width. Worse still if you double size it.

...or I could just use FB2K and get all the functionality without those UI problems. I also get 90% of what I wanted, as well: a big playlist.

Aside: I need to find where I can get Vorbis 1.10 to try LAMIP.