| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 31558 | 2003-03-25 11:53:00 | Foobar2000 | -=JM=- (16) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 130855 | 2003-03-25 11:53:00 | Great new free audio player out. Foobar2000 I've been using it since version 0.51a and its up to 0.586 now and I've had no problems with it. Quick to load, small footprint, easy to use and has a nice interface. It's key to success would be putting all effort into the sound quality. It features Kernel Streaming which means it can by pass the windows kmixer (kmangler) and you hear the music how its meant to be heard. http://foobar2000.hydrogenaudio.org |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 130856 | 2003-03-25 12:23:00 | I second that. :-) FooBar is a great no frills music player that beats Winamp hands down in my opinion. Thanks for putting me onto it JM. :-) BTW, Congratulations!!!! Post #2000 AT LAST!!! :D |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 130857 | 2003-03-25 12:28:00 | Ive been using WinAmp 2.81 for a while now, and I cant wait for WinAmp 5 to come out :-) | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 130858 | 2003-03-25 12:45:00 | Well 2.9 is due for release soon. THough it won't be foobar |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 130859 | 2003-03-25 12:56:00 | Hehe, True, and Ive heard nothing but good comments about this, I might just have to give it a try :-) | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 130860 | 2003-03-26 09:26:00 | Interesting. I finally got around to comparing the resources used by FooBar and WinAmp 2.8. The memory usage by FooBar for me 5784K compared to WinAmp's 9632K. That is with a much larger playlist loaded in FooBar than in WinAmp. Not a big deal on my Win XP with 512MB RAM but it should be noticeably smooth on the Win 98 with only 160MB RAM. FooBar will probably not trip up as much as WinAmp does. |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 130861 | 2003-03-26 09:40:00 | well i checked out the % of resources of both on my win98 system. both roughly the same (resource meter is not very accurate). concidering that winamp 2.81 (with heaps of plugins) has a way fancier interface i would have to say winamp is still better. i didn't notice any difference audio quality (winamp has high quality plugin). | tweak'e (174) | ||
| 130862 | 2003-03-26 10:00:00 | Yeah the interface does take a bit to get used to it. Though now it does have support for keyboard multimedia keys. | -=JM=- (16) | ||
| 130863 | 2003-03-26 11:02:00 | > Yeah the interface does take a bit to get used to it . That is actually what I like about it the most . :D It is nice and simple . With the WinAmp window made as narrow as possible all I can see are four songs on the playlist . Try as I might I cannot drag the window just downwards to see more of the tracks - it will drag itself sideways at the same time . FooBar can be resized exactly as I want it very easily . It will also move itself off my taskbar into the tasktray when I want it to . If WinAmp can do that I have not yet discovered how . I do not use plugins with WinAmp so I am not missing them . As for sound quality, the experts can debate that one as I am not qualified to . :-) Horses for courses - FooBar suits me and I like it . :-) |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 130864 | 2003-03-26 11:23:00 | ummm Susan, you can do that in WinAmp | -=JM=- (16) | ||
| 1 | |||||