Winamp 5.55 vs. Foobar ..

Johnny

.. Commodore ..
Political User
#1
O.k Here is the post .. What is better, in your opinion?

I just installed winamp 5.55 and have to say that I am quite impressed with it. It is truly better than foobar in all regards. It is also probably the only thing that AOL got right, then, AOL didn't start it ...
 

Dark Atheist

OSNN Veteran Addict
Staff member
Political User
#2
i dont like the flash ads in the media library, i like foobar better now as it does what i need and doesnt have all the bloat, i mean what do you actually need to play a file, something small and compact that gets the job done :)
 

Johnny

.. Commodore ..
Political User
#3
That is the thing I like about Foobar as, <edit>. But with winamp, I can play all my media with one program .. That makes it more convenient :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rotjong

OSNN Senior Addict
#4
Out-of-the-box Winamp has more ablilities for playing formats but one can hunt down third-party components for foobar2000. In some cases, obviously, there is no such component. There are some very devoted people programming third-party stuff for foobar2000 but unfortunately, as I found out for myself, sometimes people lose interest. One of my favorite components was broken after one of the many updates which killed off old components and even though I provided the source code no one ever felt like recompiling it to work under newer versions.

I still prefer foobar2000 for being modular and simplistic but doing a lot. It has gained ground in the "pretty" department by allowing people to really play with the GUI but Winamp still rules in terms of simple ease. Winamp comes with more options upon install.

For the people who really don't much and don't care to learn then I still say Winamp is the better option. For people who actually like to dig into the software they use and be the one in control of things then I recommend foobar2000. They are aimed at a different user base but there is a point where the two overlap.

I must admit that my like of Winamp declined over the years. When AOL acquired Winamp it was frightening. AOL has a history of buying things and killing them. ICQ all but died off. Netscape is a thing of the past even with the Mozilla Project rising from the ashes. Winamp didn't seem to get a huge amount of promotion. With the departure of Justin Frankel I pretty much gave up. Sure, I always have a lean install of Winamp on my system but it gets used maybe 2 times every 365 days out of the year. The rest of the time I use foobar2000. I don't have anything personal against Winamp. I just don't like the direction the software went in. I'm just glad to see they are actively fixing things and adding more features even if I personally find them useless.
 

Dark Atheist

OSNN Veteran Addict
Staff member
Political User
#5
That is the thing I like about Foobar as, <edit>. But with winamp, I can play all my media with one program .. That makes it more convenient :)
can play ac3/dts with winamp - can with foobar :p there are many components to make it play files, plays all the ones i need out the box :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Johnny

.. Commodore ..
Political User
#6
I also like how you can play video files in it also ... :p

I do still think that foobar is a great player. But, in all regards, winamp is just a little better.
 

rotjong

OSNN Senior Addict
#7
I also like how you can play video files in it also ... :p

I do still think that foobar is a great player. But, in all regards, winamp is just a little better.
Actually, that is one direction that I disliked Winamp going. I never liked them caring about video support. I just wanted them to worry about audio. I never install the video support and thankfully they offer that option.

One of the most humorous things I see in many places are debates/arguments/discussions on which is better and quite often it's sad to see that people argue one is the king and the other is not nearly as good. I'm always glad to see when people can honestly, calmly, and objectively discuss the subject without turning it into a battlefield.

I have both installed and I do respect Winamp but foobar2000 just better fits my needs. For you Winamp fits your needs better and thats cool. :)
 

Johnny

.. Commodore ..
Political User
#8
It is like I said, rot. I like them both. I have winamp on my desktop, and foobar on my laptop :) ..
 
#9
The only point of interest for me in an audio player is how accurate it's output is. foobar gives me cleaner, sharper 24bit audio. Winamp muddies the sound a bit.

I generally prefer specialist applications than general all-rounders too.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Ep, glad to see you come back and tidy up...did want to ask a one day favor, I want to enhance my resume , was hoping you could make me administrator for a day, if so, take me right off since I won't be here to do anything, and don't know the slightest about the board, but it would be nice putting "served administrator osnn", if can do, THANKS

Been running around Quora lately, luv it there https://tinyurl.com/ycpxl
Electronic Punk wrote on Perris Calderon's profile.
All good still mate?
Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,969
Messages
673,295
Members
89,015
Latest member
arrangel