Hey all !!


This is my first topic in this forum. I've just installed Foobar2000 (the latest), and must say, it is a very nice application, I just have two questions.



1. As first, and as the most important to me, now as ex-Winamp user:
As far as I know, Winamp is one of not many players, which reads mp3 file in manner, it can play it, even if file is currently downloading (or used in other ways). I surelly try this (for listening during downloading it). It was just refreshing file lenght, when some track started again from the beggining (I had set it to "Shuffle"), or if I would constantly click it to start over-and over again with play from the beginning of that particular track, that was still downloading at that time.

I suppose it (Winamp) use some kind of "pre-caching" method, like making a snap-shot of all file code, so it doesn't require any "exclusive read-file" access (Please, do not miss-understand me. I do not mean "exclusive-access" in original computing term, like for .log and .evt files in Config directory used by NT-system process, and other crucial files, used by system)

P.S., As I was told (by experience users and admins/mods on Soulseek forum), Windows Media Player (9 serial, dunno for old 9x's 6.4 version) DOESN'T support that, and files could get corrupted in that way.
So, the question is, does Foobar2000 also reads files in similar manner ??




2. More or less question because of my obsession with "no-setups" (see explanation below, to understand what I mean) ...


Will Foobar2000 will ever be available in "no-setup" form with all required files, i.e., executable and libraries, and other files in one single .zip file, with NO INSTALLATION PROCEDURE REQUIRED (i.e., wizard, bundled into self-extracting executable) ??



It is that I become almoust obsessed finding useful "non-setups", and replacing as many "setup-required" apps (I am currently using, and are somehow crucial for me), with "non-setups".

As mentioned, I prefer applications to be single .zip file (including all program required files, i.e. libraries, data files, etc.), extracted to somewhere and that's it (like it could be in case of Foobar2000). Or better just one, single .exe executable file, again as the most important - without "installation procedure", so only copied/extracted, and you can already execute it.
So the bottom line is - no installation procedure in general (why would you need installer for only copying files ??), no start-menu and desktop shortcuts creation, no installation wizards bundled to self-exec files, no ActiveX components and COM Servers/Objects registering, and other "supposely required" modifications in registry (not pointing directly to Fooobar2000 with this, rather to other "setup" applications), which are all the things that could go wrong, during installation or later during program usuage (I just don't trust instalers in general, from my own experiences), and I suppose Foobar2000 doesn't require that kind of "deep-system-integration", does it ??

I actually did succeed, and managed to replace most of my favourite "setup procedure" programs, I was using in past with "non-setups", though of course exept antiviruses, firewalls, and similar "low-level" applications, that require somehow more deep "system incorporation", and software registry modifications, and blah, usually that kind of software require also restart of system after install procedure finishes ...



I like that kind of software for MANY reasons, but to mention only the most important:

- some of them are/appear, like they DO NOT EXIST for system (no registry entries at all, all settings stored in local .ini file ...)

- some of them store ONLY BASIC SETTINGS in registry (like window position, excluded/included filters, like for example Mark Russinovich's utils from Sysinternals), and usually they make only one key, usually in HKCU\Software\, or in case of media players also few file-associations



The bottom line about those two points is:

- you can DELETE APPLICATION'S REGISTRY KEY and/or some, or all of ITS VALUES, and it will work normally after next execution

- you can MOVE APPLICATION to some OTHER FOLDER, or PARTITON and it will work normally after next execution (paths stored in registry, will be just overwritten)



Greetings, ten-ten

foobar2000 writes nothing into the registry, it stores everything in it's own config file and database file. (I remember there was one plugin a long while ago which wrote something in the registry, but not foobar itself)

File associations are of course another story These must be written in the registry to get them to work.

And I think starting the foobar setup with the /e switch skips any changes to the start menu and stuff (not sure if this is fully correct).

All these things was disscussed ealier.
1. AFAIK it's not possible due to the foobar's "new mp3 seeking code, slower but sample-exact" introduced in 0.6 version.

2. What's wrong with foobar's installer? All configuration is stored in foobar2000.cfg file and there is a switch (I don't remember it now, but searching forum will give you the answer) you can use with the installer to make 100% sure that nothing is stored in registry during installation.

Arrgh, kalmark was faster

There's the key. With Foobar2000, this process would involve unpacking the files, then arranging the install yourself. The only key differences are:

1) The executable and basic components would be in one folder
2) The utf8api.dll for NT and for 9x would be in separate folders
3) Extra components would also be in their own folder

I suppose a solution would be to waste bandwidth by providing separate flat archives for both Windows 9x and for NT, even though the only difference is the version of utf8api.dll. Feel free to assemble these archives and host them for the masses.

As for file sharing, basically, Winamp components just open the file themselves and allow other applications to do whatever they want in the meantime. They might work if something modifies the file in the meantime, and they might not.

Forcing read-only sharing affords a sense of security to the developer, who doesn't need to worry about the file changing by another process while it is opened. If you absolutely must preview your mp3z while you are leeching them from KaZaa or whatever, I believe the client has an option to copy the files to a temporary file/folder for previewing.

Sorry, but because I am really new to foobar app, so I do not know what was the changes during foobar developement. And therefore the "new mp3 seeking code, slower but sample-exact" thing is still unknown to me.

As I understand you (at least I am trying to ...), it DOESN'T support that kind of file reading (the one similar to Winamp, as I wrote above) ??






Yeah, I know, it is just my personal "computing philosophy" (ehm, or better obsession), though, I think I wrote few true facts about "setup" and "non-setup" app difference in general ...






Again, sorry, I've hidden my statement to much between other text.







Thanks again for all your quick responses !!

The fb2k "installer" basically is only a selfextracting archive with a built-in list to choose from which files get extracted. I dislike installers myself and prefer archives. However, in the case of fb2k, i prefer the installer. ESPECIALLY since it remembers which files you installed the previous times. So, lets say i upgrade to a newer fb2k-version, than all my installed components will automatically be checked and the not-installed ones unchecked and i dont need to go through the whole damn list of components again.

Also, i think there is an "extract" switch..... so, if you want to, then you can indeed use the installer just like an archive from which to unpack files.

Reading a file which is currently written sadly isn't possible right now. I'm using soulseek myself, so i can tell you first-hand that it doesn't work. You CAN preview incomplete files, but you cannot preview files which are currently transfered.

As a sidenote - it would be nice if fb2k would just create a backup-copy in the system temp-folder if a file is in use already. fb2k could change the copied filename in a way so that its clear that its a temporary copy. That way fb2k would have his exclusive write-access and people could still preview files.

- Lyx

Why would you trust an application if you don't trust its installer?

dev0: while your question is a very reasonable one, it misses one important point: i think the reason why people distrust installers isn't because of security-reasons, but instead its a form of "being sceptic against anything which is too automatic or try-to-be-intelligent". When keeping in mind the OS and how many of its applications act, i think this scepsis is well reasoned.

But because of the reasons i wrote in my previous post, i think this scepsis is unreasoned in the case of foobar, because its basically just a "dumb" self-extracting archive with a list from which too choose which files to extract. So, there isn't much there for the installer to screw up.

- Lyx

edit: what i was trying to say is that windows installers are famous for doing stupid things and therefore the scepsis is reasoned.

Well, if I do not trust some installer (which is usualy made by different author), it sure doesn't mean, I do not trust software that installer should install (properly)


It is because my own experiences. For example Sousleek p2p sharing app. The program didn't work with original/official installer (for quite many users, with no "rule", like computer or OSs they were using), and they needed to download an "alternate" installer for app to work at all. Well, but the question remains, maybe this "alternate" installed "opens" some other "holes", or better makes other "mistakes" ...

And why more installers for doing THE SAME THING ??



Just feeling is not right about all this, if it is possible (saying that, casue some more low-level apps, e.g., firewalls, antiviruses, etc. require more deep "system-integration") to only extract that .zip file, and voila !!

Changes made during foobar's development are listed in this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5064

About "new mp3 seeking code...": AFAIK foobar needs to know the length of the playing song to sample-exact seeking and it's not possible when file is not all downloaded.

As mentioned in my previous post: playing incomplete tracks is possible with fb2k. But it isn't possible to play tracks while another app has write-access to them (so, while downloading).

- Lyx