Which Music Player are you using?
- Thread starter Ice Rich
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
AcidHell2 said:
why?
AcidHell2 said:
ah you're only saying that because it does look pants by default. admittedly it does take a little effort to get it to look good.
also it has loads of nifty tagging/file conversion features builtin which can't be matched by any other player. (imho)
Last edited:
WMP on my main pc, nicest to use (looks best etc...), and works, had no reason to even try something else...
On my low spec lappy: foobar 2000, because its nice and small, uses less than 1% of the p3 600mhz cpu in it, and uses a small ammount of the total 192 mb of ram, wmp is too much of a hog for that spec...
On my low spec lappy: foobar 2000, because its nice and small, uses less than 1% of the p3 600mhz cpu in it, and uses a small ammount of the total 192 mb of ram, wmp is too much of a hog for that spec...
marc2003 said:ah you're only saying that because it does look pants by default. admittedly it does take a little effort to get it to look good.
also it has loads of nifty tagging/file conversion builtin which can't be matched by any other player. (imho)
exactly, whats the point of making overly complicated media players?
I wish I could get a light version of itunes all I want is it to have a decent media library and that's it, I use musicbrainz for tagging and nero for burning and cdex for ripping.
The media player is never maximized so it only needs to look clean, I just dont see the point in foobar, it's just too complicated for a media player.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 1,577
- Location
- PROPER Shields
Winamp 2.91, the best one.
I'd like to learn how to use FooBar2000 if anyone knows a guide. CHeers
I'd like to learn how to use FooBar2000 if anyone knows a guide. CHeers
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
AcidHell2 said:
i dont understand. its the simpliest looking playing you can get. literally a text window and a few buttons. its only when you start customising it that you can add to the complexity of the interface.
bigmouse64 said:
Know where your media is.
Right click it, open with...
Select foobar 2000
Done
Or if foobar is your default mp, just double click your media, done.
What's there to learn
?AcidHell2 said:
It works nicely from start, you don't have to do anything, you can change the looks if you want, but you dont have to do anything to it.
Imo wmp looks even nicer, is even easier to use than itunes, couldn't stand Itunes while love wmp 11's media library.Itunes is too much text, I immediatly miss wmp's album pic's...
Winamp is also good for a simple music player, but imo it takes too long to start, longer as wmp or foobar anyhow, so I prefer those instead.
Last edited:
james.miller said:
The standard is to simple, to get it working nicley you have to customize it which makes it complicated. As I siad a media player needs a good media libray which is itunes or winamp out the box.
Itunes looks clean, has genre, artist, album search along the top, smart and other play lists down the side, simple clean and easy, no customisation ect.
Ive gotta say i agree with AcidHell2.
Foobar's requirement, and lets face it, it is, of having to spend time customising it before its even useful sort of defeats the idea of a music player imo.
A music player should just have a simple interface, good library functions and be as mindless as possible, so you dont even have to 'think' about finding your music, you can just do it.
Sorta like the difference between an iPod and an iRiver (for example), both are good in their own respects, but the iPod wins over the masses because theres no faffing with extra features or interfaces that take learning to use. Its just mindless to use.
.
Foobar's requirement, and lets face it, it is, of having to spend time customising it before its even useful sort of defeats the idea of a music player imo.
A music player should just have a simple interface, good library functions and be as mindless as possible, so you dont even have to 'think' about finding your music, you can just do it.
Sorta like the difference between an iPod and an iRiver (for example), both are good in their own respects, but the iPod wins over the masses because theres no faffing with extra features or interfaces that take learning to use. Its just mindless to use.
.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
lol. the ipod wins over the masses because its form over function "oooh that looks pretty". irivers are, for the most part, plug and play devices (no itunes or other software is needed) and search by folder. it doesnt really get easier than that
