After it was released, the music player became extremely popular because of how customizable it was. The controversy is only at its beginning and will probably last for a long time.Foobar2000 was created by one of the former developers of the Winamp program, which many are familiar with. Some people also say that an eye-candy player is useless as it remains in the taskbar while others say that they use a screen especially for foobar. moving songs in the playlist with drag n' drop is not possible.It's rather complicated to understand how the scripting panel works with a general layout and then sub layouts.Those skins require perfectly tagged files if you want to have really eye-candy things (but it was already the case with columns UI, and in the major configs, you have a single mode available).On a more ideological point of vue, this plugin has attracted newcomers, but those newcomers do not understand the main features of foobar2000 (Replaygain, masstagging, DSP, etc.).Already made skins require a lot of plugins and sometimes fonts.It's normal but will annoy people using foobar2000 for its footprint. And when the window is visible, it consumes 2-5% of CPU resources (Pentium 2,8Ghz) and it could go up to 25-35% on start or when you bring the application to front. The amount of RAM used increases with problems of memory leak (24 Mo could go up to 60 Mo). Saying that foobar is lightweight is no longer exact truth with this plugin (the core is as lightweight as usual).Even modding an existing skin is time consuming. As a consequence, you are nearly doomed to use other's skins. Very hard to create your own skin, the increased complexity makes it (as usual) really harder than for columns UI scripting.Some panels are now useless (albumart, lyrics panels, track info).Ability to create a mini player mode available in one click.Ability to create a setup panel to make skins more customizeable.
Playlist filter to enhance the management of the media library.
0 kommentar(er)
