Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

LIGHT

LIGHT
April 22, 2003 03:12PM
i first dl a 8472 version of cool player... because it was weighting onely 363 Ko.

i liked this soft so much that i dl the new 212 version... and my favourit little music sofware became an heavy 568 w/ and heavy looking play list editor that i never use,...

so i ask you if you could create on a hand this coolplayer w/ more and more features and on an other hand a very light version (<300Ko).just an easy mp3 (+ogg if it isn't too heavy) player w/ no features.

aniway, WELL DONE, GOOD JOB, AND THANKS!

jojo

Roj
Re: LIGHT
May 01, 2003 04:22PM
You have my vote on that. I personally think the playlist revision was the biggest mistake ever made with this player. My personal take on this is that if we had a rev of CoolPlayer with:

- the OLD playlist
- *NO* tag editing
- song times included in the playlist (read from the files - NOT the tags) with a total playlist time indicator
- the shuffle that worked with the old playlist
- the terrific overall OGG support we now enjoy (including seamless gapless playback) with a FULL implementation of whatever configuration options Monty allowed for in his spec
- the MAD MP3 support we have come to know and love with the addition of FULL configuration options a la the Winamp and QCD implementations of that best of all MP3 decoders
- configurable .wav and DirectSound output (by configurable I specifically refer to buffer sizes)
- a .wav writer

...we could call it George and Be Happy.

But noooooooooooo...

Forget the current playlist.

Forget tag editing.

Forget ASIO support (definitely NOT a "must have" regardless of what some folks would say) and "kernel streaming" (a total hack that isn't worth wasting cycles on anyway).

Forget Winamp plugin support.

Give us back the basic exercise in excellence this player once was.



____
Roj

&quot;Faith manages.&quot;
- jms
Re: LIGHT
May 01, 2003 11:50PM
double Pst'd by accident.



Post Edited (05-01-03 16:51)

&quot;You will never find a more wretched hive of scumb and villany.&quot;
Re: LIGHT
May 02, 2003 10:34AM
hi chums

i do NOT agree, spoiling the efforts of adding a playlist /w editor, amonst other features.
but i totally agree that the binary size of cp may be decreased by coding efforts, but not by detaching features.
otoh, feature list should be kept tiny, since cp works better than winamp, due to the overload of winamp features.

cheesr uemchen
NoCPU
Re: LIGHT
May 02, 2003 03:34PM
I've been using coolplayer for a ages now since it used to be hosted on daansystems.com, I have to agree with people here, keep it small and simply.

Coolplayer has been creeping up in size slowly now for a while, as soon as I noticed things like context menu support "coolplayer play and coolplayer queue" I just thought... well that was a waste of code.

I dont care about plugins myself but I think some form of plugin support would just clear up a lot feature request problems and coolplayer file size/stablity, and I dont mean winamp but coolplayer plugins if it can be coded small and efficiently, there are lots of things people want in a player and its impossible to satisfy everyone, its just not going to happen, and I'm sure there are plenty of requests you get that as a programer you just think, thats crap I aint putting that in there, well just give the plugins something to work with and you wont have to, and I wont have to use the next coolplayer release with lots of useless features smiling smiley

The point is coolplayer can remain small and stable, if people want new features most of them could simply exist as plugins and everyones happy, I'm sure this can be done with minimal fuss especially after looking at XMPlay program, it can do a lot more then coolplyer but is way smaller...

By the way thanks for making the program, people can do a lot of moaning about whats happening with coolpayer, bus its only because they dont want it to turn into a winamp smiling smiley
crazyinsomniac
Re: LIGHT
May 07, 2003 07:00PM
>i do NOT agree, spoiling the efforts of adding a playlist /w editor, amonst >other features.
>but i totally agree that the binary size of cp may be decreased by coding >efforts, but not by detaching features.
>otoh, feature list should be kept tiny, since cp works better than winamp, >due to the overload of winamp features

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to allow
for optional compilation of features.

why not?
Re: LIGHT
May 10, 2003 08:40AM
i agree about ditching the skinnable playlist, the original one was fine.
art
Re: LIGHT
May 10, 2003 11:13AM
erm, the original playlist was skinnable, its versions start 2xx that don't have the skinnable playlist.

Art
Re: LIGHT
May 12, 2003 09:07PM
by original i mean way down the line of the daansystem's builds... smiling smiley
Author:

Your Email:


Subject:


Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
       **   *******   ********  ********   **    ** 
       **  **     **     **     **     **  **   **  
       **  **            **     **     **  **  **   
       **  ********      **     ********   *****    
 **    **  **     **     **     **         **  **   
 **    **  **     **     **     **         **   **  
  ******    *******      **     **         **    ** 
Message: