foobar2000 0.9 Public Beta
Posted by kl33per on 23 May 2005 - 13:54 · 47 comments & 885 views
- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by ozxar on 23 May 2005 - 14:28
- Great, been looking forward to a new release for awhile
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by slimy on 23 May 2005 - 15:03
- why a torrent, it's less than 2 megs. thx for the news

-
#3 Posted by VICTORT on 23 May 2005 - 15:08
- http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4003 ... download links... But im going to stay with 0.8.3 untill its final.. Almost no plugins work for the new version atm
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by n1g3lng on 23 May 2005 - 15:52
- o/ best media player of all time. very light on resource & very stable (so far)
-
#5 Posted by nic on 23 May 2005 - 15:58
- I'll have to try this one out. Its great for what its for!
-
#6 Posted by elliot on 23 May 2005 - 16:13
- Finally, I was beginning to think it would never be updated...
-
#7 Posted by smashguy on 23 May 2005 - 16:19
- Good program!

-
#8 Posted by Liaqat_ali on 23 May 2005 - 16:28
- I guess its a little toooooo early for the torrents to be used for just 2 MBs of files. It took me around 5mins to get it started
.
-
#9 Posted by kljs on 23 May 2005 - 17:09
- It took me a about less than a minute to finished downloading via torrent.

anyway, this beta has some feature turned off. probably will be turned on in the final version.
-
#10 Posted by illz55 on 23 May 2005 - 17:10
- Awesome player!
-
#11 Posted by kainashi on 23 May 2005 - 17:49
- love foobar.

-
#12 Posted by ev0| on 23 May 2005 - 19:05
- /me hugs foobar
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by jamatfu on 23 May 2005 - 19:30
- Is this as good as Winamp?
-
#13.1 Posted by 505 on 23 May 2005 - 19:51
- No, it's better. At least, in my opinion. Just try it out, but be prepared to invest some time in it to adjust it to your liking. After I did that I never though of going back yo Winamp.
-
#14 Posted by wuzz on 23 May 2005 - 20:41
- and this is better than winamp because ...
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by phobic on 23 May 2005 - 20:59
- No matter what I've tried, I haven't been able to make Winamp sound better than Foobar. Does Foobar use anything different from Winamp in terms of sound processing? I dunno, everything sounds so much cleaner on Foobar than Winamp. Kind of an odd complaint but Foobar has been my primary audio player ever since I realized sound is more important than the way my player looks
-
#15.1 Posted by kl33per on 24 May 2005 - 00:37
- Winamp will never sound better then foobar2000 and vice versa. They both decode whatever format your playing and output. There is no difference in audio quality. The only things that will change the sound are DSP's, but these won't make it sound better, just different.
-
(4 replies)
#16 Posted by 8-n-1 on 23 May 2005 - 21:17
- No matter how many times I try Foobar, I keep going back to WinAmp. Foobar has no intuitive way to configure connection to either FreeDB or CDDB, so you have to enter all of your tags by hand. Forget that...
-
#16.1 Posted by NyaR on 23 May 2005 - 21:48
- just because ur hesitant to look around the right click menu does not mean you have to manually enter tags
-
#16.2 Posted by Juan4Ever on 24 May 2005 - 04:11
- you must be kidding...

right click>free db>Get Tags.... -
#16.3 Posted by 8-n-1 on 24 May 2005 - 14:47
- There's no FreeDB option on my right-click context menu...
-
(5 replies)
#17 Posted by ev0| on 23 May 2005 - 22:21
- lol @ all the newbs. If you're not a savvy user with a brain, DO NOT USE FOOBAR stick to winamp and leave foobar to the pros kiddies !
-
#17.1 Posted by Jstphish on 23 May 2005 - 23:11
- You do realize the Pro's probably don't use Foobar. Who wants to mess around with settings when something else sounds just as good with better ease of use?
-
#17.2 Posted by kl33per on 24 May 2005 - 00:42
- Actually, a lot of people who are very serious about there music (Pro's as you put it) and a lot of casual listeners (kiddies) use foobar2000. Whilst it's configuration options are extensive, it is also quite usable out-of-the-box. I admit it has taken me time to configure foobar2000 to exactly how I like it, but I would never consider switching back to Winamp. foobar2000 allows more flexibility in how you display the songs in your library, as well as virtually unlimited power to rename, move, tag, convert, burn, etc.
-
#17.3 Posted by 8-n-1 on 24 May 2005 - 14:48
- Exactly. Maybe some of you have spare time to spend tooling around to get Foobar how you want it; the rest of us have actual lives.
-
#17.4 Posted by ev0| on 25 May 2005 - 17:31
- me points to the winamp door.
bye, don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out.
-
#17.5 Posted by bangbang023 on 27 May 2005 - 01:13
- I'm far from being a "newb" yet I prefer Winamp. Have you ever thought that it comes down to taste, not knowledge?
-
#18 Posted by hardgiant on 24 May 2005 - 00:41
- Foobar is great, to bad all the addons are broken.
-
#19 Posted by Juan4Ever on 24 May 2005 - 04:13
- i need a amip update for this... great for foobar...
-
#20 Posted by Galley on 24 May 2005 - 14:06
- Not impressed.
-
#21 Posted by chacho on 24 May 2005 - 19:04
- Meh, I like .83 better.
-
#22 Posted by maudit on 25 May 2005 - 01:48
- anyone have links for updated pluggins?
-
#23 Posted by mdew on 25 May 2005 - 03:43
- does it have a proper volume slider now?
-
#24 Posted by kl33per on 25 May 2005 - 05:26
- In response to the last four posts.
QUOTE Not impressed.
Thank you, that was so informative. Go back to Winamp.
QUOTE Meh, I like .83 better.
Why? Obviously doesn't have plugin support at this stage, but as soon as it goes final plugins will be updated. I see no reason why you would like .83 better over this.
QUOTE anyone have links for updated pluggins?
Plugins won't be updated until 0.9 goes final and the SDK is released.
QUOTE does it have a proper volume slider now?
It's always had a proper volume slider, it's under preferences. If you don't like that, use Columns UI and the Volume Slider UI Extension.
-
#25 Posted by mr_demilord on 25 May 2005 - 09:06
- foobar $uckz0rz long live winamp
-
#26 Posted by Spitfire_x86 on 25 May 2005 - 13:25
- Long live CoolPlayer
http://coolplayer.sourceforge.net
-
#27 Posted by entruce on 25 May 2005 - 18:07
- foobar has great potential for a player but i found it a headach messing with it
-
(1 reply)
#28 Posted by Ifoow on 25 May 2005 - 18:43
- foobar is a bloated piece of crap
-
#28.1 Posted by corrosive23 on 25 May 2005 - 21:51
- hmmm foobar is 2.4 megs, and winamp is 7.8 megs and still doesnt have half the functionality of foobar, yeah foobar is sure bloated huh?
-
#29 Posted by Shannon on 25 May 2005 - 22:22
- The 0.9 SDK hasn't been released yet, so we won't see any additional components until it goes final. However, musicmusic has released a pre-alpha of the much-loved Columns UI component that does work with 0.9 beta. Link.
-
#30 Posted by Cube on 26 May 2005 - 05:22
- its not bloated like some of you are saying its a headache to setup.. I stick with wmp10 its the best
-
#31 Posted by hardgiant on 26 May 2005 - 20:07
QUOTE hmmm foobar is 2.4 megs, and winamp is 7.8 megs and still doesnt have half the functionality of foobar, yeah foobar is sure bloated huh?
Winamp Lite is 820K and does pretty much everything a audio player should do except that it needs a databank of some sort.
I love foobar as well though.
-
#32 Posted by Staind on 27 May 2005 - 02:44
QUOTE Components made for v0.8.3 and older will no longer load. Please install into a clean directory.
Pity.
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
The installer will be be offered as bittorrent download exclusively for the first days to preserve server capacities. Later on, it will also be available as conventional HTTP download.
Components made for v0.8.3 and older will no longer load. Please install into a clean directory.
An SDK will be released to the public after foobar2000 v0.9 goes final.
Requirements:
foobar2000 v0.9 beta requires a Unicode capable version of the Windows operating system. It will not work on Windows 95, 98 or ME.
Components in normal version:
Components in full version:
New features (incomplete):