Why isn't there one? Somebody should be working on this. OS X is a growing platform, and is certainly better than windows. Foobar 2000 is perhaps the only reason I am still using windows.

it has been mentioned a million times that other platforms most likely are not going to be in the mix anytime soon.


prepare for flame war...

yeah, bugger off

there is no need for a flame war... windows is crap. it hasn't improved much in 4 years, and it has horrible issues. its a mucky/dirty/insecure/etc/etc OS. the only argument for it is perhaps that it has more software, but OS X and linux can run ALL linux apps, which is quite a bit.

hopefully longhorn will be better, but until then linux and OS X are necessities. its just a shame the best mp3 program doesn't exists on any of the best OS's.

Ok before the thread is locked, let me say one thing: DirectX. That's why Windows is better. Yes I am a UNIX lover (sorry OS X is not the most reliable/powerful UNIX out there nor it is not the best OS. Same goes for linux ), but I can admit this much. And fb2k depends on DirectX (did you know fb2k is more than just a mp3 program?).

I don't think fb2k will be natively available on OS X, ever. I wish it could be natively run on BSDs and linux but unless they have something as strong as DirectX it doesn't seem likely.

according to your logic i could do something like this: run winex on linux and then run fb2k on winex. i don't have a mac so i can't do this.

btw, i think your logic some how wrong.

the thing that's really going to hold up foobar from being cross-platform is the plugin issue, unless we can figure out a way to have plugins that work on windows, mac os x and linux at the same time without recompiles, its not likely to happen, i don't think zzzzzz is up for rewriting foobar in java, and i don't even know how possible that would be.

No thanks. I'll wait till OS X is supported on the x86 platform first...

It does? That's news to me..


Either way, your best bet would be to donate an OSX box to Peter if you want to have even a slim chance of him porting fb2k to OSX..

He probably meant DirectSound, which is one of options for output...

Direct Sound is a part of Direct X.

I think the real issue is that foobar is based on the various Windows APIs. Stuff like the decoding plugins, the APIs plugins use and other things could be ported, but everything from the UI, to hotkeys, to outputs, and so on would need to be rewritten. You'd end up with more or less another player that emulated foobar's plugin system.

Peter:

If you happen to read this, how open would you be to sharing stuff with someone intersted in porting foobar to Linux or whatever? Just curious what your thoughts are, since afterall its your code everyone is talking about.

Because you know damn well fb2k would make a hostile takeover in the *nix world. Xmms and zinf just don't compare.

Yes, I was wondering too... Is there any other standard foobar component than Direct Sound output that depends upon Direct X...???

On a side note, I just got foobar2000 to run with WINE on my xbox today
XBOX + 120 GB external HD = nice music player/server (sure, not that fast through USB 1.1, but more than fast enough for MPC/MP3).

Directsound is one of the worst output options for foobar 2000. Kernel Streaming, waveout, and ASIO seem to be regarded as the best output options.

They all sound the same to me... plus with DirectSound you get track fading

No.

Output are chosen because of issues, not quality.
Please post if you can ABX difference of audio quality of output....

EDIT:
Now I simply mean difference between mode of output, e.g. direct sound, wave out, asio or kernel streaming.... not bit/samplerate or dithering etc.

It is certainly possible (http://www.javazoom.net/jlgui/jws/jlgui.jnlp) but very time-consuming, because java uses totally different sound API (with SPI - Service Provider Interface). I don't think anyone would beinterested in rewriting foobar from scratch and "stepping on a new ground" in many aspects (i.e. vis).