Hi

I know this is long winded but here it goes.

I am a music buff and have used Winamp for ages, but I have been reading nothing but great things about foobar2000, some of the technical aspects a little beyond my comprehension at this time such a sound shaping and dithering.

Could someone clarify the what the differences and the advantage/disadvantages between WA and foobar are?

A little background info that may help:

My Winamp is barebones (even use the original skin) since I only use it for "listening" to music. I do not use visualizations nor do I use it for any form of streaming or video playback. I have always liked the program and never considered deviating from it until lately. foobar is the cause of my reconsideration.

I see foobar has many plugins that are inticing to me, UI customizations, tagging options, audio playback tweaks, etc. I am drawn to the fact I am able to "adjust" foobar to suit my needs. I like that in any program, to have it do only what it is intended it to do, no more no less. I do not mean this as a knock against Winamp since they have never asked anything of me other than to use the program, so I have a high respect for it. One other aspect that brought me to inquire about foobar is that I came to learn that the man behind it was a once with Nullsoft.

Finally, incase this helps, I am on an older PC, Win98SE/PIII667mhz/128ram and will not be able to upgrade to a newer system in the foreseeable near future.

Thank you for your time and input.

RnR

First of all, read why people have chosen fb2k:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=20322

2.: 0.9 is w2k, wxp only. But this shouldn't be a problem, as it will take some ages till all plugins have been ported to the new sdk...

In case you come to the conclusion that fb2k is for you, then read the pinned threads in the subforums, because some of them contain lots of valuable info.

The advantages for foobar for me, is most definitly that you can make a lot of things automated (Autoplaylists in 0.9 and playlist tree in 0.83). Easy customization aswell. The plugins are all a big plus

foobar2000 is not just a music player, it's a music tool. Of course, you can confine yourself to use it for listening only, but if you need to convert, rip, tag or do other stuff with your music files, then all this is just a few menu entries or shortcuts away. No need to install other apps, instead have a look at the many plugins for fb2k, there might be one that does the job, too. Even if you only do these things occasionally you will be glad to have fb2k instead of three and a half other programs.

Unfortunately fb2k version 0.9 won't be comaptible with older windows versions. Since it was nicely overhauled, it would be a pity if you had to stick to 0.8. But with your hardware (P3-III@667mhz) I would consider upgrading to Win2k anyway, it's less cpu hungry than XP so it should be no problem. But I would recommend a RAM upgrade to 256 or even 512, I'm sure you will find some cheap older RAM at some online PC shops or even at eBay.

I appreciate all the help. I will tinker with foobar that I have now and see if I can become more comfortable with it. I do intend to replace this dinosaur of a system (though it has been good to me), but when???...I have no idea at this time.

ps. I like that fb is a tool than just a toy.

Oh one last thing before I forget. I have .0.8.3 and was wondering if the newer version was/will be radically different. I would hate trying to learn one only to find out that I am lost again with the newer.

0.9 won't be radically different from previous versions. However, there will be some small diferences with the TAGZ language that foobar uses. Seeing as there are hardly any 3rd party plugins available for 0.9, I would suggest you learn 0.8.3. To change to 0.9 later won't be a problem.

I heart foobar2000.

Man alive! This is nothing less than a brilliant piece of software. The more I use it the more I find and learn about it. I am more than pleased. Goodbye winamp.

I found the manual written by a French fellow superb in lower the learning curve with fb2k. Kudos to him.

I fell in love immediately with the depth of customization fb2k allows, though I am not that far down the road yet with it. I looked through some of the way some people formatted their fb2k and most are stunning. I am excited about the possibilites I have with fb2k.

If you're talking about my website, thanks

Dis you find it sufficient and well explained?

(don't hesitate to detail it into the corresponding topic .. or here if you prefer)

Yes, indeed.

I thought you did a wonderful job of getting us new with fb2k off and running. It was perfect in the layout. I opened fb2k and saw you began right at the top and worked down, allowing me to follow your guide and fb2k very easily. You worded it very well so anyone can understand. You supplied plenty of images so I knew exactly where I should be every step of the way. I thought the links you provided were a great asset for us to begin "customizing" fb2k.

A superb job for a marvelous program. I believe it should be the foundation for an "official" user's manual.

When I was using your manual and setting up fb2k I found that it was actually enjoyable seeing it take shape, especially in the way I wanted it to.

Thank you for the time and effort to assist us this way.

Keep up the good work.

ps. I did not know where the thread you spoke of was or I would gladly have placed my response there. If you want, feel free to move it to it's proper place.

wow, thanks for this comment

I was talking about this topic: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=33755 but it's not important