Old 17th June 2003, 23:57   #161
jtp755
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NC
Posts: 42
Send a message via ICQ to jtp755 Send a message via AIM to jtp755
Just Curious....Why is everyone that has the leaked beta complaning about whats in WA 2.92? We know it wasnt supposed to be released so therefore it wasnt ready to be released like Nullsoft had planned. Why cant we just be patient and wait till it comes out? I cant wait!

My opinion on the CD Ripper included in 2.92 is that its cool and a good idea. Yeah it might not be the best quality ripper out there but hey if theres no pops or skips or anything then its good.....be happy its free and we dont have to pay for a great program. Give Nullsoft a chance...they put it in now and they can develop it as time goes on.
jtp755 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 01:14   #162
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,878
Amen to that!
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 04:47   #163
Canar
Junior Member
 
Canar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 20
Send a message via ICQ to Canar Send a message via AIM to Canar
Quote:
Originally posted by UltraZelda64
How is Fubar2000 better than Winamp? I don't get it. Hell, Winamp, Sonique, WA3, QCD... anything I've tried is better than that. Maybe I just can't stand the plain Windows look (especially for an audio player). I'd really like to know what exactly makes this better than Winamp.
What makes it better:
  • Multiple DSPs as a first-party feature.
  • Arbitrary field name tagging on all formats.
  • Built-in, incredibly powerful tagging and renaming functions, so much so that I have not needed to switch to a separate program once since the feature was added to fb2k.
  • First-party support for dither on all formats.
  • 64-bit internal resolution on audio data.
  • Elegant, structured SDK.
  • Standard interface for quick learning. For an example, I presented my parents, when they bought their new computer with WMP9, Winamp 2.90 and FB2K. They decided that FB2K looked easiest.
  • Completely customizable keyboard shortcuts.
  • Perceptual run-time volume normalization (ReplayGain)
  • Bugfree Vorbis decoder/tagger.
  • Transparent conversion between tag formats during transcoding.
  • Clip detection/prevention.
  • Focus on audio quality, not cool factor.
  • Developer will trash backwards compatibility if old versions did something the wrong way and need to be changed for the SDK to be most elegant. Nullsoft can't/won't do that.

Note: Both programs exist peacefully on my computer, fb2k for high quality audio stuff, wa for movies and visualization.
Canar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 06:08   #164
nierke
Senior Member
 
nierke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 295
Canar you want to say that same mp3 file sounds better on fb2k than on Winamp?

...:::nierke:::...
nierke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 06:40   #165
Lion King
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally posted by Canar
What makes it better:
  • Multiple DSPs as a first-party feature.
there do exist third party plugins for winamp, isn't that possible in winamp3?
Quote:
  • Arbitrary field name tagging on all formats.
that depends on the format if you can write those tags to the file, eg. you can't write it to mods
Quote:
  • Built-in, incredibly powerful tagging and renaming functions, so much so that I have not needed to switch to a separate program once since the feature was added to fb2k.
mass-tagging actually
Quote:
  • First-party support for dither on all formats.
  • 64-bit internal resolution on audio data.
yeah
Quote:
  • Elegant, structured SDK.
but c++ only since the sdk changes often and nobody ports it to other programming languages
Quote:
  • Standard interface for quick learning. For an example, I presented my parents, when they bought their new computer with WMP9, Winamp 2.90 and FB2K. They decided that FB2K looked easiest.
lol
Quote:
  • Completely customizable keyboard shortcuts.
in winamp with third party plugins
Quote:
  • Perceptual run-time volume normalization (ReplayGain)
replaygain is not exactly normalization but this is true and cool, winamp3 has also something like this (less advanced and not supporting format specific implementations) based on wavegain
Quote:
  • Bugfree Vorbis decoder/tagger.
peter fixed winamp's
Quote:
  • Transparent conversion between tag formats during transcoding.
never tried that
Quote:
  • Clip detection/prevention.
yeah
Quote:
  • Focus on audio quality, not cool factor.
winamp is not sonique, maybe true for winamp3
Quote:
  • Developer will trash backwards compatibility if old versions did something the wrong way and need to be changed for the SDK to be most elegant. Nullsoft can't/won't do that.
a delevoper is supposed to do that when the product has beta status

but you forgot some strong points of fb2k:
  • tagz (very customizeable global title formatting; there's a much less powerfull dummy feature (doesn't actually work) like that in winamp3)
  • powerfull search/sorting (tagz based)
  • excellent subsong support (no damn selection bar)
  • high quality eq (supereq is available for winamp, too)
  • unicode support on winnt
  • very modular (winamp's mb and cd ripper can't be removed even if unwanted)
  • zip/rar reading for every format (some plugins support it in winamp2 via read_file.dll but it's api isn't public)
  • buildin cue file support (there's a plugin for winamp2)
  • basic cd burner support through nero
  • buildin resampler for sblive fans (there are ssrc versions of peter's out_ds and waveout for winamp2)
  • low memory footprint
  • stable database
Lion King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 11:55   #166
Dr Satan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England
Posts: 128
Send a message via ICQ to Dr Satan
Hmm, I'll check out this program and report back. I've been a winamp user since about v1.2 so my opinion may be biased.

Oh, the home page for foobar also lead me to 7-zip - I remember seeing stuff about this program years ago, thought it was going to be vapourware.
Dr Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 12:39   #167
Dr Satan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England
Posts: 128
Send a message via ICQ to Dr Satan
My opinions on Foobar2000 as I made them:

Wow, an XHTML compliant site which doesn't overuse tables for design perposes (doesn't use them at all in fact).
Tripped up getright on download grr
Seekbar optional???

Downloaded, and opened...

Did I just open notepad?
MPC out of the box
Replay Gain very useful
Seeking with plugin useless
Fast
Simple I guess
Tag editing seems over complicated + no id3v2
Good preference set + 24/32/64 bit decoding
No fade on seek or stop/pause. A feature I really like in winamp.

Final thoughts:

Well, I'll keep it on my system. Probably use it to play my mp3s while I'm playing games since it'll affect game performance less. But, winamp it ain't. It's a lot less bloated yes, but I don't like the interface. I reckon they need something like the original mediaplayer (or 6.4) interface if they're still going for simplicity, but an interface they need.
Dr Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 12:41   #168
amano
Major Dude
 
amano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: where the llamas come from!
Posts: 952
@nierke: winamp and foobar have both excellent mp3 decoders. so both will sound pretty the same (noone will be be able to blindly distinguish between those - so every difference is placebo).

use winamp, because it's so incredibly handy. and winamp 2.9x ROCKS.

eeeee eeeeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88
8eee8 8e 8 8 8eee8 8e 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8eee8
amano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 14:51   #169
Lion King
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Satan
Seeking with plugin useless
use the arrow keys (ctrl+) <- ->
Quote:
Tag editing seems over complicated + no id3v2
foo_infobox_simple is for you, it's accessible through the right click menu
id3v2 has left out by design, a thrid party reader plugin for them is available

amano: the limiter and replaygain stuff might improve the soundquality in foobar over winamp2
Lion King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 15:28   #170
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,614
Dang...I must've clicked the wrong link...
I was looking for the Winamp 2.92 forum.
Why has this turned into a thread about foobar?
If I wanted to read about the differences,
and how much better foobar is, I'd go to HydrogenAudio.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 15:50   #171
amano
Major Dude
 
amano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: where the llamas come from!
Posts: 952
hmm. have a look at windows supporting sites. there you can post whatever you want and some will always cry "LINUX".
I guess the "FOOBAR" shouters in the winamp forums are just the same.
maybe they BOTH are not really sure about their CHOICE, so they have to convince all of us to change over to their prog first.
only so they can be sure to have made the ONLY REAL choice.

EDIT: @lion king: since all my mp3s are mp3gained and replaygain plugins are available for winamp it shouldn't be any problem. my mp3s won't quit.

eeeee eeeeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88
8eee8 8e 8 8 8eee8 8e 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8eee8
amano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 16:24   #172
Russ
Mostly Harmless
(Alumni)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,319
I'd rather we talked about Winamp 2 here. If you really want to discuss foobar here, then create a new thread, but I really don't see what's wrong with the foobar forums.

For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave.
|Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
Russ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 17:53   #173
prodangle
Major Dude
 
prodangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 718
I wish Foobar2k wasn't bloated with all these daft mass tagging features that I'll never use, and zip/rar reading ?!? Why the hell would I want to zip up mp3s. They shouldn't bloat the player with all that stupid stuff. And I don't like that option in prefs to have play/stop/pause buttons on screen. Why on earth would I want buttons when I can use keyboard shortcuts instead?

[/sarcasm]

For all you people complaining about bloat, you should uninstall windows and all that graphical buttons nonsense and useTom's Root Boot with mpg123. I think it will suit all of your needs.
prodangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 19:19   #174
Lion King
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,668
foo_masstag.dll + foo_unpack.dll but not (yet?) ml_cdripper.dll
Lion King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 21:14   #175
xtremeboat
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 20
I won't be changing from Winamp to a new fad. Winamp has amazing sound quality and is easy to use. Winamp is also more tham just a player - there are loads of useful plugins and a big development community. Whats the point of using another player?! (don't say sound quality because I KNOW that most players have very similar if not identical sound quality these days)
xtremeboat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 22:25   #176
amano
Major Dude
 
amano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: where the llamas come from!
Posts: 952
I am with you. let's wait for the final.

eeeee eeeeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88
8eee8 8e 8 8 8eee8 8e 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8 8
88 8 88 8 8 88 8 88 8 8eee8
amano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2003, 02:26   #177
Dr Satan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England
Posts: 128
Send a message via ICQ to Dr Satan
@Russ:

We were comparing foobar to winamp, so I guess it's relevent in these forums, perhaps not this thread, but it's where the conversation ended up.

@papadoc

Quote:
Dang...I must've clicked the wrong link...
I was looking for the Winamp 2.92 forum.
Yes you did, you've gone one link too deep and into a thread. The forum's right back where you came.

Quote:
Why has this turned into a thread about foobar?
Because features in 2.92 extreme leaked beta lead us to talk about bloat, then someone mentioned foobar as a player that does the opposite to bloat.

Anything else you can't be bothered to read yourself?
Dr Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2003, 02:33   #178
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,614
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Satan
Anything else you can't be bothered to read yourself?
Yes indeed.
Anything you post like this.
Thanks for asking.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2003, 02:43   #179
sanosuke
Major Dude
 
sanosuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Satan
Because features in 2.92 extreme leaked beta lead us to talk about bloat, then someone mentioned foobar as a player that does the opposite to bloat.
whats so bloat about 21k? if thats bloat then what it real player? super mega duper bloat?
foobar is nice, good for an advanced user but lacks a good gui, something that winamp is giving, in gui i do not mean flashy big skins and such.

Big-assed signature deleted by errr.. whats his name again??
sanosuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2003, 02:59   #180
Helkite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 133
Quote:
if thats bloat then what it real player? super mega duper bloat?
Yep.
Helkite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2003, 03:06   #181
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,878
Hey, I know, let's all start discussing and comparing QCD, JetAudio, TCMP, Sonique, UltraPlayer, Ashampoo, C-4, Gnome ammp, svcd, bsplayer . . . any others?
Hell, might as well throw RealOne, WMP9, Media Player Classic, MMJB, QuickTime, xmms, itunes & the works in for good measure....
Tell ya what! Let's not! Let's talk about Winamp instead.
But as you can see, there's plenty of competition out there.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2003, 11:54   #182
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Gone a bit too far off-topic in here now ...

Started as "OMG I think I've found a Winamp v2.92 BETA!" to "Fuck Winamp, Foobar 2k, etc, is much better". Always funny how threads develop if you just let people talk .


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2003, 23:54   #183
dylman
Forum King
 
dylman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hawarden
Posts: 2,115
Winamp2 has enjoyed years of zero competition and incremental (at most) improvements.

In the six months since foobar was released, Winamp2 has progressed enormously, for the benefit of all.

Coincidence? Possibly, but I doubt it.

And I agree that the continual pimping of foobar over here is unseemly, so I for one will stop doing it immediately.

There's no need to tell me when I'm right;
I operate on that principle exclusively and with absolute certainty
dylman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 00:15   #184
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
Foobar 2k is a nice attempt of Peter, who formerly worked on most of Winamp's default input/output plugins. Foobar is developing nicely, even though I am not really fond with the interface. Time will show how it becomes .

Winamp 2 beats everything on the market, has no real competitior if you ask me .


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 02:56   #185
jtp755
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NC
Posts: 42
Send a message via ICQ to jtp755 Send a message via AIM to jtp755
I fully agree with Budgie!
jtp755 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 04:43   #186
Canar
Junior Member
 
Canar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 20
Send a message via ICQ to Canar Send a message via AIM to Canar
Sorry for raising any hackles; my first post was a snarky, somewhat useful response to a snarky comment, the second post was an informative response to a snarky comment and was only meant to highlight certain features Winamp presently lacks that are available elsewhere.

Snark, snark.

To rebut a point raised about my second comment: the latest MOD decoder will append APEv2 tags to them. I don't know how compatible this is, but it will.

I like the competition too. It's working great for me. The problem is not that there are too many MP3 playing programs out there. The problem is that there are too few innovative MP3 playing programs out there. The way I see things, Winamp was innovative at one point. Then, Winamp3 came around and the developers decided to make a player that looked good rather than a player that was functional. Winamp's looks have always been both secondary to its main function and did not detract from its ability to operate. Since all the resource drain went into Winamp3, it's stagnated greatly. Then, as was mentioned, foobar emerged and now it isn't stagnating any more.

Really, there have only been three truly great, innovative MP3 players:

Winamp 1 - the original, and best of the first-generation, creating the concept of a functional, bloat-free, non-standard interface (as much as I hate the idea now).

Sonique - innovative graphically, raised the graphics bar for the good-looking players.

Foobar - innovative technologically, raising the technological bar. The broad-scale technological innovation could lead to domination in other areas very easily and quickly.

I think Nullsoft's going to be hit hard trying to fill in the hole left when Justin resigned.

And for those of you who don't like the media library/cd ripper: uncheck the options in the installer, guys.
Canar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 05:12   #187
sanosuke
Major Dude
 
sanosuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally posted by Canar
And for those of you who don't like the media library/cd ripper: uncheck the options in the installer, guys.
it is not that it is they do not like the ripper IN BUILT into the media library.

Big-assed signature deleted by errr.. whats his name again??
sanosuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 05:46   #188
duh
Banned
 
duh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 290
Send a message via AIM to duh Send a message via Yahoo to duh
If you think Foobar2000 looks like Notepad you might want to have your vision checked, cuz you're gonna end up like that priest guy hitting a 260 lb man and thinking it was a dog, a cat, or someone through a rock at your window.
Attached Images
File Type: png fb2kornp.png (14.2 KB, 353 views)
duh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 11:57   #189
Canar
Junior Member
 
Canar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 20
Send a message via ICQ to Canar Send a message via AIM to Canar
@Sanusuke:

Hrm. Can't really rebut that. Still makes me think the ripper people are being a little immature about a feature-group, if nothing else, that is both fast and removable. But then again, this has been argued to death.

@Duh:

Your comment won't help convert people at all; they know their options now. All your comment is doing is making you (and other foobar lovers, by proxy) look bad, and turning people off. If you wish to "help the cause", please drop the arrogance, especially when posting on other software's forums.
Canar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 12:15   #190
sanosuke
Major Dude
 
sanosuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally posted by Canar
@Sanusuke:

Hrm. Can't really rebut that. Still makes me think the ripper people are being a little immature about a feature-group, if nothing else, that is both fast and removable. But then again, this has been argued to death.
agreeded, i dont mind it really but i guess since people have been promoting winamp as modular, this really breaks the modularity thing.

hopefully the cd burner is not in built into the media library.

Big-assed signature deleted by errr.. whats his name again??
sanosuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 15:53   #191
Budgie
Major Dude
 
Budgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hell frozen up
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via ICQ to Budgie
I don't know how many times I have said this: People did not bitch about the cd ripper itself, yet about the fact that its gui is inside the media library, with, frankly said, sucks butt .

I wouldn't complain about the cd ripper if it was completely uninstallable.

Ah fuck this, lets just close this thread, and wait for v2.92 final .


Please consider the Forum Rules before posting utter crap. Thank you!
Budgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 16:08   #192
jtp755
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NC
Posts: 42
Send a message via ICQ to jtp755 Send a message via AIM to jtp755
Quote:
Budgie: Ah fuck this, lets just close this thread, and wait for v2.92 final.
I agree! We dont know what all 2.92 is gonna bring us or what we will be able to uninstall etc. Why cant everyone have patience and wait till 2.92 final come out and then yall can fuss and complain about it. Until you know what is in 2.92 then dont complain.

"Patience is a virtue!"
-Anonymous

Also...about Winamp vs. Foobar2k.....Maybe Nullsoft can see what everyone says is better about Foobar2k and implement it into Winamp. I still presonally think Winamp is better than any other on the market. Why cant yall be happy its free?
jtp755 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 16:42   #193
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,878
For the umpteenth time . . .

Uncheck support for "cd playback and extraction" and then you'll keep in_cdda.dll from 2.91 and the ripper won't be installed.
Sure, this is no good for first time users or fresh installations, but hey, at least it's a workaround.

I am also in agreement that the ripper should be optional, keeping in the true modular style, and that you should be able to install support for cd playback without the ripper.
It's been mentioned on the beta list a fair few times, so maybe/hopefully it will eventually become fully modular (but I doubt it for 2.92).

But hey, it doesn't bother me in the slightest, an extra 24k and a button in the ml, plus the fact that I find the output quality to be better than 90% of all other rippers, and almost as good as CDex, or as near as damnit. There's only really EAC which can outperform it, imho.
And that isn't bad for a first attempt. Agreed?

I find it especially useful to stick a new cd in, get the cddb titles, play it, then rip the trax of my choice, all conveniently in the same app.
If I've got a problem with an old scratched cd (which I haven't yet, and remember, I've got over 5000 of the buggers), then I'll use EAC.

What the people who are complaining could do, instead of simply whining, is to suggest constructive alternatives . . . eg. how to make it modular (ie. a separate dll), where the interface should be, how it can be improved, which options/features they'd like to see in future versions, (jitter correction, secure/paranoia mode, --alt -presets, etc).

And like true beta testers, which all of you are at the mo, please test the ripper extensively before condemning it.
Simply moaning won't help the dev team in the slightest.
How would you feel if people got hold of a leaked beta of your software and then started publically slamming it? Not good, I expect.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 16:53   #194
jtp755
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NC
Posts: 42
Send a message via ICQ to jtp755 Send a message via AIM to jtp755
i agree with what DJ Egg said!
jtp755 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 17:13   #195
Reverend Ike
Evangelical Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
Originally posted by Budgie

... Ah fuck this, lets just close this thread, and wait for v2.92 final
I don't really see what necessity there is to close a thread other than serious rule-breaking, such as flame wars, posting inappropriate images/links, etc. This is a discussion forum, and it has been emphasized repeatedly in the various forum guidelines and stickies that free speech is to be encouraged. Closing threads arbitrarily is not encouragement of free speech. Threads wither away on their own when people lose interest, especially in a forum as active as this one.

BTW, I personally subscribe to the concept that threads are the property of the forum community - they are not "owned" by anyone. Most threads contain contributions (are "built by") many members of the community. It is rather presumptuous for a single member to request that a thread be closed or deleted, just because they don't agree with the tone or direction of the thread. And I am speaking here of threads in general, not just this one. In nearly all the forums I have encountered over the years, it is a foreign concept to close or delete threads at the mere request of a member.

Among other things, this thread has brought up a number of valid opinions regarding features that will be incorporated into v2.92. Some people don't like certain features, some do - there's nothing wrong with that. If a forum member finds themself on one side of the issue, that member is not required to rebut every post that presents an opposing opinion. Each person should respect every other member's right to post their views. Of course, if a particular argument point has been posted previously (sometimes more than once), a member might want to reconsider repeating the same exact point again, since it really doesn't add anything of value to the thread.

Remember, there is no panel of judges keeping score, and nobody will ever be presented with an award for "winning" a debate in a discussion thread. It would be nice if people could just make their points and keep a bit of good humor about them. I don't see a need for everything to be quite so deadly serious as it is too often around here.

BTW, I agree with DJ Egg also, but only because he is always right ...
Reverend Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 17:22   #196
Petepan@london
Member
 
Petepan@london's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Never Never Land
Posts: 69
Leaked Winamp 2.92 still crashes on exit for me.... I wonder if that will change when it is not Beta
Petepan@london is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 17:31   #197
sanosuke
Major Dude
 
sanosuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,891
works fine here...any error message?

Big-assed signature deleted by errr.. whats his name again??
sanosuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 17:31   #198
net-cruizer
Senior Member
 
net-cruizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: BC, CANADA
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally posted by duh
If you think Foobar2000 looks like Notepad you might want to have your vision checked, cuz you're gonna end up like that priest guy hitting a 260 lb man and thinking it was a dog, a cat, or someone through a rock at your window.
lol, In Notepad, change the background to black, and select "Veiw Statusbar" and it would look exactly the same.
net-cruizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 19:07   #199
vh1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 44
Send a message via ICQ to vh1
About Winamp 2.92, I had a couple of errors with it

a) Whenever I closed it with the PL window in winshade mode and opened it again, it wouldn't remember the height of the PL when I exited winshade mode, which got really annoying

b) [The reason I still use 2.81 instead of 2.91/2] Say I've got the Main window and the playlist window under that, when I put the main window in winshade the PL window moves up like it should, but for some reason it doesn't clear the bottom of the playlist (i.e the buttons). So I'm left with 2 sets of PL buttons, but only one set is clickable.

Sorry if that wasn't clear at all, I'm really tired
vh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2003, 19:17   #200
Atolibus
Senior Member
 
Atolibus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 132
Send a message via ICQ to Atolibus Send a message via AIM to Atolibus Send a message via Yahoo to Atolibus
Surprisingly, I haven't had any issues with the new Winamp and my system, which is startling, to say the least - my copy of 98SE usually gives me no end of hell. I've seen a lot of people complaining about the new CD ripping process, but for myself, I actually enjoy having it there - it makes a decent frontend to LAME, as well as coming along with an OGG encoder. (that and for some reason, my Creative Playcenter software that came with my Audigy no longer wants to work, so I can't rip shit... ) So the filesize comes up a little larger - big whoop, I've got an 80 gig drive, and I'm not likely to notice something that small. I think that when this version hits the streets as the full 2.92 (if this isn't, all ready), everyone will have something they can be happy about.

"Don't fear the reaper."
Atolibus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump