Why are so many of you so intimidated by Foobar2000?

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

I always read about how you guys think it's too difficult to use, which is weird considering we all know more than the average computer user.

So, what exactly is so hard about using Foobar?

[ViperAFK]

Actually im not ignorant at all. if anyone is ignorant is the foobar fan boys who wont accept anything other than the fact tht foobar is magically,wonderful, and amazing.

I read everything he said, it just didnt make any difference. A media player should play my library without breaking it as foobar has.

Winamp, windows media player, and even itunes (which i hate) all play audio in my library without breaking a single file. They might not be up to the glorious standards that wonderful foobar2000:rolleyes: is, but they at least work without having to hack/chop and learn how to use them.

Call me any name you want to make yourself feel superior, but i'll be the ignorant one ;)

Your files weren't "broken" Windows media player couldn't read them because of its outdated tag support.

And this isn't even a "new" tagging scheme ITS NINE YEARS OLD. Your angry at foobar for tagging your files with the latest NINE year old id3 standard that only wmp does not support.

[Preppy Veteran]

Um, I wasn't trying to incite pitchforks here. Merely pointing out that if WMP jumped on the Id3 v2.4 ONLY bandwagon and other players couldn't read the tags as a result, pitchforks would likely be aimed at WMP. Unless there's some explicit reason to be forcing v2.4, it just seems less compatible to do so.

If a document-viewing app upgraded the version number of my documents such that they couldn't open in older apps - and it's not like everyone would magically have Windows Media Player With ID3v2.4 Support if that was added tomorrow! - that'd suck pretty bad.

I'm with basketcase here, but that's a matter of application design. I would err on the side of compatibility and only break older apps if I had to.

To repeat, WMP12.x-whatever adding ID3v2.4 support tomorrow doesn't solve the problem for the three users still out there on XP ( ;) )without that support. They might not matter to you, but I like to think they're important too. :) I'd say suggesting a change to foobar here to default to more-compatible doesn't seem like a bad plan, but that's me and I'm a moron.

[shakey_snake]

Unless there's some explicit reason to be forcing v2.4, it just seems less compatible to do so.

AC/DC ?

I would err on the side of compatibility and only break older apps if I had to.

Yeah, and perhaps Office 2007 needs to start saving files in .doc by default instead of .docx for backwards compatibility's sake. :rolleyes:

Perhaps users should expect their folder.jpg files to be shrunk to 200x200 for backwards compatibility sake. :rolleyes:

Perhaps all websites need to be using tables for layouts instead of css for backwards compatibliity with random IE6 ****-ups. :rolleyes:

To repeat, WMP12.x-whatever adding ID3v2.4 support tomorrow doesn't solve the problem for the three users still out there on XP ;) without that support. They might not matter to you, but I like to think they're important too. :)

By not bothering to even include a id3v2.4 tag reader in WMP, you're not giving your XP users any reason to update.

I can see why Vista has sold so well with genius logic like this at work in Redmond.

Edited May 28, 2009 by shakey_snake

[protocol7]

Unlike WMP, foobar doesn't have any option to automatically fill in missing tags, so the only way any tags would have been edited is if you told it to edit them. And as has been said foobar defaults to ID3v2.4. When it comes to tag reading WMP (and Explorer) is still stuck in the glory days of the 20th century, so you have to enable compatibility mode to write your tags in v2.3. That's all there is to it. Just enable compatibility mode, and if necessary use the built-in freedb tagger to fix your incomplete tags.

This reminds me of when I moved to XP and WMP would alter mp3 tags when I played them. I use sfv files to check my mp3s for errors after moving them between drives, or off backup cds etc and suddenly whole albums were failing checks. I quickly realised that just playing a file in WMP changed the tags (I think it was writing in playback counts or ratings or some crap). I ended up making all my mp3s read-only as a cure.

[Preppy Veteran]

^-- Most likely volume normalization data, actually.

AC/DC ?

One band affects every other band? ;)

By not bothering to even include a id3v2.4 tag reader in WMP, you're not giving your XP users any reason to update.

I can see why Vista has sold so well with genius logic like this at work in Redmond.

That's nonsensical. So in your mind you insert an ID3v2.4 "reader" (only), then you edit the tags - then what happens? Do you write back to ID3v2.4, or do you mirror into ID3v2.3? What happens to your shared music folder that's used by multiple players? If you don't write back to v2.4, then you have a mismatched tag set. If you do, then either you're duplicating tags or you have the "XP" and other third party player/reader issue.

Sure, there are options and possibilities here, but there are absolutely some serious trade-offs with any approach. It is not a slam-dunk argument in any direction. :)

It is always kind and loving to insult others. It unfortunately tends to encourage short-sided thinking, though. How about we both politely agree that there are different ways to address this situation, and neither one of us is a j-ck-$$ for preferring particular implementations? I apologize that I have nothing whatsoever to do with this particular implementation and am merely a fan of people understanding multimedia and having it work well and easily for them.

It would seem like a pretty easy thing to do to prompt for which way to set the tags and explain the benefits of either approach, or to god-forbid default to compat mode. But that's just an observation, not a criticism. <3

[shakey_snake]

^-- Most likely volume normalization data, actually.

Ugh. Couldn't that be stored in a database somewhere, by default?

One band affects every other band? ;)

*wink* *wink* Indeed.

Since this isn't a thread about bashing WMP I'll assume you know what I'm talking about and we can leave it at that. ;)

That's nonsensical. So in your mind you insert an ID3v2.4 "reader" (only), then you edit the tags - then what happens?

I would assume it does what it does now, removes id3v2.4 and rewrites as id3v2.3.

If you don't write back to v2.4, then you have a mismatched tag set.

This is what happens now. Even by simply playing a file. :x

If you do, then either you're duplicating tags or you have the "XP" and other third party player/reader issue.

WMP/Zune software/Media Center are the only major players in the game to still have issues. iTunes doesn't, Winamp doesn't. Either way, I wouldn't expect this to be the solution, even though it should be.

Sure, there are options and possibilities here, but there are absolutely some serious trade-offs with any approach. It is not a slam-dunk argument in any direction. :)

I don't understand your argument; when compared to WMPs current behavior, no compromise or trade off is being made by adding v2.4 reading, at all.

It is always kind and loving to insult others. It unfortunately tends to encourage short-sided thinking, though. How about we both politely agree that there are different ways to address this situation, and neither one of us is a j-ck-$$ for preferring particular implementations? I apologize that I have nothing whatsoever to do with this particular implementation and am merely a fan of people understanding multimedia and having it work well and easily for them.

I don't mean to come off as douche-baggy, however if you were able to provide any semblance of a valid argument for not supporting v2.4 I would happily acknowledge it. :)

It would seem like a pretty easy thing to do to prompt for which way to set the tags and explain the benefits of either approach, or to god-forbid default to compat mode. But that's just an observation, not a criticism. <3

Just to clear something up here, by default id3v1 is written as well as id3v2.4 for compatibility purposes. The problem is that if id3v1 does not exist and id3v2.x does, id3v1 is presumed to be unwanted and therefore not forced upon the the file.

id3v2.4 is defaulted to for compatibility with iTunes as there was a time when iTunes when ballistic whenever UTF-16 was found in id3v2.3.

Edited June 11, 2009 by shakey_snake

[Preppy Veteran]

Ugh. Couldn't that be stored in a database somewhere, by default?

It's file-specific data and doesn't belong orphaned in the library. If you do it that way in the "shared music folder" environment each and every client has to scan the library in full. Non-optimum. :)

I would assume it does what it does now, removes id3v2.4 and rewrites as id3v2.3.

But then you potentially get into a lame version tug of war with the other app.

WMP/Zune software/Media Center are the only major players in the game to still have issues. iTunes doesn't, Winamp doesn't. Either way, I wouldn't expect this to be the solution, even though it should be.

Right: that's your perspective. There's a heck of a lot more players readers and other software out there that matter to somebody, even if it is Crazy Larry up in his shack in Topeka. These people matter. :)

Clearly you left out a lot of important players from your list, and even with a fuller "player" list, you're going to leave out a lot of things, such as MP3 car decks that read ID3. You have a narrow perspective: that's fine, but realize that some companies might be taking a more holistic approach. :)

I don't understand your argument; when compared to WMPs current behavior, no compromise or trade off is being made by adding v2.4 reading, at all.

Again, that's your perspective, and we can leave it at that. Just because you don't listen nor accept explanations doesn't mean that they're not valid. :)

id3v2.4 is defaulted to for compatibility with iTunes as there was a time when iTunes when ballistic whenever UTF-16 was found in id3v2.3.

Yeah - WMP tries to be very careful with how it writes ID3 for reasons like that.

I appreciate your alternate perspective and enthusiasm for your area of interest.

[shakey_snake]

It's file-specific data and doesn't belong orphaned in the library. If you do it that way in the "shared music folder" environment each and every client has to scan the library in full. Non-optimum. :)

So how ratings are handled by WMP is non-optimal?

But then you potentially get into a lame version tug of war with the other app.

You are again ignoring the fact that that is what is happening now...

Right: that's your perspective. There's a heck of a lot more players readers and other software out there that matter to somebody, even if it is Crazy Larry up in his shack in Topeka. These people matter. :)

Clearly you left out a lot of important players from your list, and even with a fuller "player" list, you're going to leave out a lot of things, such as MP3 car decks that read ID3. You have a narrow perspective: that's fine, but realize that some companies might be taking a more holistic approach. :)

I have a feel "the people" don't matter as much as ****ing of the manufacture's of those mp3 car decks and others matter. But that's kind of you to appeal to the masses. :)

Again, that's your perspective, and we can leave it at that. Just because you don't listen nor accept explanations doesn't mean that they're not valid. :)

I would hope you'd be willing to try to further validate them, but whatever. ;)

[Dead_Monkey]

- Sure foobar is quite easy to use oob, but I don't see any benefit using it if not for its skin capabilities, and I personnaly think that the vast majority of foobar potential users are first seduced by a screenshot of a beautiful skin. It usually goes like this : "Hey ! this player looks so awesome, I want it !" => Download => "Oh ... so in order to have a similar UI to what I've seen in the screenshot I have to read these complicated instructions and prey that the plugins are still available and compatible with my version" => Try => Fail => Try => Fail => Uninstall.

Personally I've been using foobar2000 since the first public releases. Switched over from winamp immediately because most of the useful development that had been going on in winamp had been done by pp for years anyway.

I run it without skins. I want the underlying functionality, not the surface crap.

[Miuku.]

Don't like the UI. End of story.

[kanpachi.kanpa]

I use foobar, but I don't customize it. I like it nice clean n' mean .

What i really like about it is the fact that it's a all in one application.

I find it very comfortable, since i rip all of my cd's to flac, any application that can rip to flac "out of the box" is a win for me :)

[Preppy Veteran]

So how ratings are handled by WMP is non-optimal?

There's a very pretty checkbox in the player entitled "Maintain my star ratings as global ratings in files".

I have a feel "the people" don't matter as much as ****ing of the manufacture's of those mp3 car decks and others matter. But that's kind of you to appeal to the masses. :)

Taking a step back, which is always a great idea, realize that these decks, one of many many examples, don't exist in limbo. People bought them and have them. These are some of the many many people you need to try to tailor your implementation for. The point is that these tags don't exist in a vacuum, which is why some applications would opt towards compatibility.

I realize that there are thousands of alternate views upon the subject. That's awesome. I think one relevant quote from a friend would be "Microsoft is not a garage company." Mull that over and think about what that means relative to implementations. The scale of affected peoples alone for implementations is eye-popping. Perhaps that's one element of your disconnect, and taking a step back and thinking about that would help you understand this area better.

And ... I actually do know these people, so ... respectfully, your feel is wrong. :)

I would hope you'd be willing to try to further validate them, but whatever. ;)

lol It's a foobar thread. Why continue to digress? The above comments such as your misunderstanding of ratings or your negative feelings about a team's reason for implementation just aren't interesting to foobar peoples. I already covered the rationale for alternative implementation earlier. If you don't grok that, I would suggest having a fellow techno-savvy friend explain it. I will go help other people, as I try to do, as opposed to bash my head in rehashing the same points. :)

You perhaps have mistaken me for a MS/WMP fanboy, which I am not. I enjoy helping people, have contributed to most players, and simply know more about the WMP implementation.

When one asks "why are so many intimidated by foobar", you have to admit it's hilarious to have people piping up with "wth does foobar destroy my tags": if that's a user concern, it would simply enough to adjust the defaults and perhaps handle that with more grace. But to point at another set of implementations as the only other monolithic piece of the puzzle is to miss the forest for the trees.

If you actually care about this issue, feel free to PM me (although I think everything you'd need to know has already been discussed). I think we've bored the other people here enough. :)

[phot0nic]

I'm not bored yet. Please, go on. :)

So, if I'm following this thread correctly, Zach's argument is that Microsoft chooses to stick to an ancient standard because otherwise some consumers who own old hardware might have to upgrade? The horror! It's good that they kept that mentality when they made Vista. Just imagine if some person had to upgrade their entire computer to take advantage of newer technologies. ;)

Additionally, your argument does not even address the possibly that the WMP team could implement an option, right next to that "pretty" ratings checkbox, that allows a user to switch tag versions. You know, how foobar does it.

[Preppy Veteran]

*nods* What functionality are you going to strip away so that you can go do that, since you have fixed 'n' resources available? How does that affect the test matrix? Does breaking compatibility with one thing always justify breaking compatibility with everything else? What's the perception if WMP stops MP3-ID3 from ""working"" in some places according to some definitions? Would my mom understand the difference between ID3v2.3 and ID3v2.4 and any such checkbox? (Hint: heck no.)

So at best you add a checkbox which forks off your test matrix ... and I already know of features that were pushed to the future because of that type of concern, so you're just making the product-for-the-world worse because of your narrowly focused feature request. Which is potentially grossly misunderstood by non-highly technical people and potentially greatly angers people you want to cater to and make happy. Beyond everything else I've already expressed.

Welcome to the world of hard and interesting choices.

Again, why this discussion is boring. Anyways, these are all pretty rudimentary design concepts looping back to:

It's all going to boil down to "there are different ways to implement things", which is why I'd think that most people would find this digression boring. I don't mind expanding the realm of knowledge, but this is pretty much retreading basic design principles and decisions that any decent computer design course should be teaching you. Perhaps you're not bored: I certainly am. You seem to be assuming I'm adversarial in this discussion, vs explanatory. I have no particular attachment to any given system of implementation, but part of being a reasonable developer is understanding design and design trade-offs. If you want an explanation, you have it... still. :)

@Hitch: My coworker is actually giving a talk upon this sort of subject (global design vs garage design, among other things) at UIUC in October. You might find that more interesting. PM me for more details if you care.

[Victor V.]

There is some difficulty if you want to program it to make it better with, say, ColumnsUI, but otherwise it's the easiest program to use ever.

Just download one of br3tt's skins and you are done with the most perfect player ever.

[ViperAFK]

*nods* What functionality are you going to strip away so that you can go do that, since you have fixed 'n' resources available? How does that affect the test matrix? Does breaking compatibility with one thing always justify breaking compatibility with everything else? What's the perception if WMP stops MP3-ID3 from ""working"" in some places according to some definitions? Would my mom understand the difference between ID3v2.3 and ID3v2.4 and any such checkbox? (Hint: heck no.)

So at best you add a checkbox which forks off your test matrix ... and I already know of features that were pushed to the future because of that type of concern, so you're just making the product-for-the-world worse because of your narrowly focused feature request. Which is potentially grossly misunderstood by non-highly technical people and potentially greatly angers people you want to cater to and make happy. Beyond everything else I've already expressed.

Welcome to the world of hard and interesting choices.

Again, why this discussion is boring. Anyways, these are all pretty rudimentary design concepts looping back to:

It's all going to boil down to "there are different ways to implement things", which is why I'd think that most people would find this digression boring. I don't mind expanding the realm of knowledge, but this is pretty much retreading basic design principles and decisions that any decent computer design course should be teaching you. Perhaps you're not bored: I certainly am. You seem to be assuming I'm adversarial in this discussion, vs explanatory. I have no particular attachment to any given system of implementation, but part of being a reasonable developer is understanding design and design trade-offs. If you want an explanation, you have it... still. :)

@Hitch: My coworker is actually giving a talk upon this sort of subject (global design vs garage design, among other things) at UIUC in October. You might find that more interesting. PM me for more details if you care.

Your mum wouldn't need to understand the difference if you just added support for READING id3 v2.4 tags you can keep whatever id3 version wmp uses to actually taag the files as default. Your argument is making no sense. Adding v2.4 support would do nothing but increase compatibility.

For example winamp reads my id3 v2.4 tracks fine, but by default it doesn't use 2.4 to tag files...

[phot0nic]

What functionality are you going to strip away so that you can go do that, since you have fixed 'n' resources available? How does that affect the test matrix?

Please understand, but I have a hard time taking this seriously. I don't know how large the WMP team is at Microsoft, however, take a good hard look at WMP's current feature set. Then, take a look at ANY OTHER media player's feature set. Why is it that these "garage developers" can make stable software with easily 10x the feature set of a program made by freaking Microsoft? I like Microsoft as a company, but I have always seen WMP as one of the company's weakest links, and I can't figure out why. Media is a very important part of many people's lives.

Does breaking compatibility with one thing always justify breaking compatibility with everything else?

No, it certainly does not. However, Microsoft originally earned my respect as a company who encouraged new developments in technology.

What's the perception if WMP stops MP3-ID3 from ""working"" in some places according to some definitions? Would my mom understand the difference between ID3v2.3 and ID3v2.4 and any such checkbox? (Hint: heck no.)

Though I know nothing about your mother, I'll assume that's an analogy for the less tech-savvy users out there. Why should technology cater to these people, rather than the developers who most certainly DO know the difference? These developer's and the tech-savvy community in general are the ones who allow technology to grow and prosper. Pardon me, but I'm guessing the only thing your mother did for the advancement of technology is bring you into the world.

So at best you add a checkbox which forks off your test matrix ... and I already know of features that were pushed to the future because of that type of concern, so you're just making the product-for-the-world worse because of your narrowly focused feature request. Which is potentially grossly misunderstood by non-highly technical people and potentially greatly angers people you want to cater to and make happy. Beyond everything else I've already expressed.

Welcome to the world of hard and interesting choices.

Yes, this particular request is very specific, and believe me, I've got a HUGE list of other things that the WMP team should be focusing on. But, once again, see my first response. I have a hard time taking this seriously considering the company we're talking about, and what other developers have done with only a mere fraction of MS's resources.

You seem to be assuming I'm adversarial in this discussion, vs explanatory. I have no particular attachment to any given system of implementation, but part of being a reasonable developer is understanding design and design trade-offs. If you want an explanation, you have it... still. :)

I believe you. However, when one has an opinion they feel strong enough about to tell others, I expect a certain degree of logical reasoning behind it. I kind of see where you're coming from, but can't see why you chose settle on your particular opinion due to the heavily flawed foundational reasoning.

@Hitch: My coworker is actually giving a talk upon this sort of subject (global design vs garage design, among other things) at UIUC in October. You might find that more interesting. PM me for more details if you care.

Expect a PM soon. I'll assume that you gathered I was a student there due to my location tag. I actually do try to attend many of the various talks around campus.

[Preppy Veteran]

Though I know nothing about your mother, I'll assume that's an analogy for the less tech-savvy users out there. Why should technology cater to these people, rather than the developers who most certainly DO know the difference? These developer's and the tech-savvy community in general are the ones who allow technology to grow and prosper. Pardon me, but I'm guessing the only thing your mother did for the advancement of technology is bring you into the world.

Nah, my mom is an analogy for the masses. You're in the top 5% or higher of people with computer skills. There's a huge other world of users out there. I hope you've seen "The I.T. Crowd" - hilarious, and also, if you've worked in a computer lab, often true. MS software generally should probably be usable by all. There's nothing preventing you from getting CrazyPlayerX if you like that better. Which gets back to: MS tends to focus on scenarios of benefit to the most and then work down that list to back the more narrow scenarios. Having to code up a ID3v2.4 reader necessitates a ID3v2.4 writer (as otherwise you get into tag wars with the other player) and then to maintain compat you probably need to write out both sets of v2 tags which annoys a chunk of those tech-savvy users you were aiming this feature for.... vs adding support for XXX. Have fun taking up pitchforks because Feature X isn't present, but again it is a trade-off that would strip Feature Y... So to reiterate "an alternate viewpoint" without regards to vendor:

Obviously if you're an ID3 v2.3 app, you have to ignore and can't read v2.4 tags.

If you're v2.4 aware editing a v2.3 clip, you either update the tag to v2.4, keep it as v2.3, or set both versions. If you update it to v2.4, v2.3 apps cannot read the metadata. If you add both tags, then that secondary v2.3 app only edits the v2.3 tag and you lose changes either way if both sets of tags are not always edited / kept in sync. And how do you know which of the tag sets is newer and should be relied upon?

The only way that a transition to v2.4 works cleanly is if every app and device in the world updates to v2.4 at the same time. We're already discussed how you're going to have the "XP" problem here...

... and then you don't really gain much by moving to 2.4 or 2.3/2.4 hybrid anyways.

And thus in some cases a vendor looking over this field might say "wow this is a nightmare" and move on to other features that cleanly benefit users. And users who run into a v2.4 app might say WTH - and you'd still have the 'old reader' case regardless if you used your magical powers to ensure that Windows 7 had full support for v2.4 tomorrow.

[ViperAFK]

You are making it sound like if an app supports id3 v2.4 it somehow can't also support 2.3...

You are making everything into an absolute. Plenty of apps can read my id3v2.4 tracks but by default they tag in 2.3 or an even older version...That's what wmp should do, it would increase compatibility...

Seriously what the hell would be wrong with having windows media player be able to properly read metadeta of v2.4 tracks? IT WOULD NOT MAKE IT LESS USABLE OR CHANGE ANYTHING, but it would make it more compatible.

[shakey_snake]

...Having to code up a ID3v2.4 reader necessitates a ID3v2.4 writer (as otherwise you get into tag wars with the other player)...

How long are you going to ignore the fact that this is what happens right now?

Wouldn't including an v2.4 reader-only on your end decrease the prevalence of "tag wars", since users would know that their files are in fact tagged when viewing them in explorer/WMP and they wouldn't try to re-tag them?

Edited June 13, 2009 by shakey_snake

[ViperAFK]

iTunes, reads id3 v2.4, writes an older version, so does winamp and pretty much every other modern media player. These excuses for keeping wmp in the dark ages are pointless.

[Preppy Veteran]

Seriously what the hell would be wrong with having windows media player be able to properly read metadeta of v2.4 tracks? IT WOULD NOT MAKE IT LESS USABLE OR CHANGE ANYTHING, but it would make it more compatible.

O_o

I've written multiple explanations now of how if you have forked readers you have tag freshness contention combined with taking away those devs and testers to go work on that project of negligible value as opposed to the things they did implement.

This gets back to why this tangent is boring. You're smart people, I've seen your posts. You might be 1000% right, but you didn't get to make this call and -- it's a little late now. So if you want to understand the why, you have all the information you need. If you want to argue the design, you're bringing up points that have been brought up before, and there's nothing new to your comments. If you want to change the design - it's probably way too late to change something like this.

To repeat, it would make it "less usable or change anything" because you have a fixed pool of resources, and you just had to kick something else off the feature list to go make this happen. Good stuff didn't make the cut already. Get in line. ;)

I did not make this call and am not interested in making excuses nor did I have a hand in "keeping wmp in the dark ages". This discussion may indeed be pointless because priorities have already been decided. I thought I was kindly helping y'all to understand the 'why' here. If you want to advocate for this feature: it's too late. Your passion is always appreciated, but you'll get farther by having rational discussions with me. I'm an advocate for user issues, but v2.4 just is too messy to knock off other things from the feature list. <3

[Medsas]

I use foobar because of its powerful tag reading abilities. The UI uses its own language so you can program it exactly the way you want it.

Case in point:

~70% of my music is asian: korean, japanese, chinese. I keep 2 sets of title, album, artist tags. The usual %title%, %album%, %artist%, and my own custom set %etitle%, %ealbum%, %eartist%. Those english tags are romanized, while the regular tags are written in the original language (korean, japanese, chinese). I do this so that the automated file renamer script will create folders and filenames based on the english tags if present, because I don't want unicode filenames. Also because I can't read korean lol.

In foobar, the UI displays both sets of info at the same time. It writes the original title, followed by the romanized version.

AFAIK, no other player can do that, hence it is the logical option.

[LUTZIFER]

Winamp lacks functionality??? That's almost the dumbest ****in thing Ive heard. It's possabilities and functions are endless.

[SyntaxError]

My preferred player is XMPlay, but I'm always on the lookout for something new.

I tried Foobar back in October and found it seriously lacking. I don't remember what version I tried but it was the latest at the time. I know it's been updated at least once since then, so it's possible whatever I didn't like has been rectified. However, I won't be using it again.

I don't remember much about it, but the biggest thing I didn't like was that it didn't support any internet streams at all without 3rd party plugins. That's a deal killer for me.

I found the interface to be rather useless to me for various reasons. Also, it wasn't stable at all and would regularly crash.

I also tried Winamp for the first time in years. What a huge letdown. It hasn't changed at all. It's less stable than Foobar and just as bloated as it's always been.

I compared Winamp's ram usage with XMPlay, don't remember why. Had the same track loaded but not playing in both players. Task manager reported 3 megs ram used with XMPlay. Winamp used just over 30 megs. Not a big deal when you have 6 gigs, but there's no excuse for it either.

Also Winamp and Foobar are not portable without a little work, which is also a deal killer for me. Nearly every app I use is portable right out of the box. I hate installing software as it's rarely necessary.