Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage? (Read 11283 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Since version 0.9 doesn't support Win9x and NT 4.0 anymore...perhaps on foobar homepage there should be also clearly visible download for 0.8.3 special installer? Foobar 0.8.3 is obviously still very fine player, and any user should have a chance of downloading 0.8.3 without much searching IMHO if he has OS/computer which generally works perfectly fine, but is incapable of running comfortably newer versions of Windows (for example one of my computers is dual p2 266, 128MB RAM, Windows NT 4.0 - still perfectly usable machine for WWW (Opera), IM (Miranda) and...music (foobar); and while for me this isn't a problem - I have installer somewhere...for some it might be)

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #1 –
Since no one replied yet:

Windows NT is now more than 10 years old and it is next to impossible to get it running directly on modern hardware sold today.  NT was withdrawn from sale sometime in 2002, and it's been more than two years since any security or bugfixes have been available.  It would be a burden to support such platforms.

I've found Windows 2000 when properly configured not only supports "new technology" like USB, but is also faster and uses less RAM.  There is no reason not to upgrade, and support will be available until 2010, giving you another 4 years to use your old hardware as-is.

I'm not a fan of "newer is always better" but when you are using a PC operating system that is more than 10 years old, I would not be surprised when software will no longer support it.

Edit: Either way, I'm glad you found your 0.8.3, but not being able to run new software should be expected with that configuration.  I've seen Windows 2000 running successfully on hardware many times less powerful.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #2 –
@zima: get yourself more RAM and kick NT4 off your hd in favor of win2k

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #3 –
yes NT is old but that doesn't mean it's not usefull. Heck even 95 can still be a usefull machine for the majority of most home users. He's not asking for v.0.8.3 to still be supported. Just available for download.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #4 –
I would like to use .83 because a lot of the plugins won't work. I've searched the forums but couldn't find it, so do you know where to download it? It's not on the foobar website, at least that I could find, as http://www.foobar2000.org/download.html doesn't exist on the website anymore.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #5 –
Quote
yes NT is old but that doesn't mean it's not usefull. Heck even 95 can still be a usefull machine for the majority of most home users. He's not asking for v.0.8.3 to still be supported. Just available for download.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=376010"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Not only is it not useful, it would be dangerous because there are many security holes that are well known and unpatchable.  Microsoft has announced on multiple occasions that bugs will remain unfixed in NT and this is true of Win9x as well. 

That is just like driving around a car with known safety problems and gas line leaks, when a fixed car has been available for more than a decade, and at minimal cost -- all after the manufacturer of your known broken, hazardous, and inherently dangerous car has not only urged you to get rid of it many times but has stopped making any attempts to even try to fix it any longer.

Maybe something a collector with a passion might want to attempt to maintain, but not something for someone who is trying to get from point A to point B.  When you fail to get from A to B, you have no rights to complain.

Windows 2000 Professional upgrade can had at less than $120 if you shop around -- or to put things into perspective, "free" if you put away twelve bucks every year since NT was released for future "operating expenses".  Once Vista comes out, 2000 will be nearly free.  You can find original copies of 2000 on eBay for as little as $49.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #6 –
Filesharing-Networks sometimes are a good source to get old applications. I once got netscape communicator 4.7 for website-testing via filesharing.

As for plugins, thats not really an argument, because this is just a temporary issue. 0.9 has been released just a few days ago, OF COURSE not all plugins are ported yet. Wait 2-3 weeks and the plugin-situation will look much more useful - and THEN upgrade, not before.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #8 –
Some of you missed my point...that's not a problem for me - I've had kept installer for a long time, and will be keeping it (BTW, and I have also "modern" PC running Win2k3). And this machine, based on Asus P2L97-DS/LX chipset can be problematic with Win2k - it uses older "multiprocessor standard", which isn't perfectly supported under Win2k (and finding more RAM isn't trivial - most of modules refuse to work in it). Besides, for the tasks it is used, it works perfectly. Actually...flies. But that's irrelevant.

The thing is...some people are still "stuck" with 98 or NT 4.0, in some small compamies for example, when there's no reason to upgrade if the computers/OS fullfils all needs (and the whole LAN is shielded from outside, so no big problem with lack of security updates). Or some home users that feel no need to upgrade/no need to spend money.
Is it better for those people to hunt old foobar versions on 3rd party sites? Or simply be able to download from official site old version (I don't say that 0.9 and up should support 98/NT...), working perfectly BTW (so no big support burden)

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #9 –
2 of my 3 main PC's are still running 0.8.3.  It will likely stay that way unless RMX gets ported to 0.9.  Without being able to use my remote properly I won't switch on at least one of the boxes.  I don't support or suggest the use of Win98 or Winnt, although NT is much better than 98.  Win2k is like WinNT, but with proper multimedia support and other things.  So keeping the old foobar around for win98 users doesn't make much sense, but at least keep it around for users who rely on certain components not available for 0.9.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #10 –
Quote
....., but at least keep it around for users who rely on certain components not available for 0.9.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=376222"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In our eyes this makes as little sense as keeping it around for outdated OSs.

It has always been known that fb2k usually breaks component api for major updates. This makes perfect sense since you can implement new features and get rid of old useless functionality without having to worry about backwards compatibilty.

We all know well enough of certain other players in the past that tried to hold backwards compatibility with their components for way to long. Hence new features never managed to get incorporated properly.

Also I am absolutely certain that all components that really make sense and are needed by certain people will eventually get updated. Either by their original developer or someone new. This has so far always been the case in previous fb2k versions. You just have to be patient for a bit untill those developments take place. After all the 0.9 sdk hasn't been out for that long. 

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #11 –
But...this isn't about keeping intact component API. Similarly, this isn't about making sure that new versions work on old OSes. Actually, this isn't about technical issues at all. (occasional support questions on forum wouldn't be a problem I guess...it's all community driven anyway)

The way I look at it...it's about respect for people who want to run perfectly good, last version of foobar that runs on their machine/OS (if they, for example, reinstall/brake something and find out they don't have setup file). Why make it harder for them than it has to be? Isn't foobar homepage the best place for such version? What guarantee they can have that install file found elsewhere isn't altered by somebody?

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #12 –
Quote
But...this isn't about keeping intact component API. Similarly, this isn't about making sure that new versions work on old OSes. Actually, this isn't about technical issues at all. (occasional support questions on forum wouldn't be a problem I guess...it's all community driven anyway)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=376322"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And how do you know this?  I can tell you for a fact there are always workarounds in place in the code for proper functionality on even Windows 2000.  There were outright hacks that were required in a few places to allow a single version that works properly on both NT and 9x based systems.  If you recall, previous to that, there was actually two different releases maintained -- one for NT/2K/XP and one for Win9x/ME.

If you think this change was made on just a whim, you are either incredibly naive or have no clue of the issues involved.  If this incorrect, prehaps you should offer your time to maintain support for older operating systems that, at this point, are difficult to even properly test on.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #13 –
Quote
Also I am absolutely certain that all components that really make sense and are needed by certain people will eventually get updated.



I certainly hope this comes to pass. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's lack of Speex file support that keeps me from upgrading to 0.9.

I'm not concerned by 0.8.3 no longer being available, however, for I do have two backups of the installer, and a 7-zip file of all my plug-ins.

It seems to me that new users would have no desire for 0.8.3, and I would hope those of us who continue to use it would keep a backup safely tucked away.

Jim

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #14 –
I can't believe some of the reply's in this thread. The op only stated that if for some reason a person want's to run the older version of foobar (for whatever reason) that it would be better to have the link to the file on the foobar download page than for them to have to hunt around the internet to find it (plus the person who is downloading it can be guarenteed that the file has not been altered/modifed in any way).

The op never mentioned anything about supporting the old version.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #15 –
Quote
And how do you know this?  I can tell you for a fact there are always workarounds in place in the code for proper functionality on even Windows 2000.  There were outright hacks that were required in a few places to allow a single version that works properly on both NT and 9x based systems.  If you recall, previous to that, there was actually two different releases maintained -- one for NT/2K/XP and one for Win9x/ME.

If you think this change was made on just a whim, you are either incredibly naive or have no clue of the issues involved.  If this incorrect, prehaps you should offer your time to maintain support for older operating systems that, at this point, are difficult to even properly test on.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=376329"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uhmmm...do you actually have a clue what I'm asking? Did you even read my posts?
This isn't about 0.9 or future versions. 0.8.3 exists and works perfectly fine.
Quote
...
It seems to me that new users would have no desire for 0.8.3, and I would hope those of us who continue to use it would keep a backup safely tucked away.

Jim
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=376338"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, in most cases (I have myself installer in safe place). But accidents/unforseen circumstances happen...
Perhaps we should look at it from other perspective. Would there be something wrong with putting a download "just in case"?

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #16 –
Wrong? No, but consider that the developer may feel that to do so would ultimately generate confusion and cries for support of 0.8.3.

We have already seen, in this very thread, that a simple request for continued AVAILABILITY of 0.8.3 has apparently been misread by some as a request for continued support of same.

If that could so quickly happen amongst us, imagine how much more easily such confusion might befall someone who was new to foobar.

Jim

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #17 –
That's not a very good argument since a simple "no longer supported" next to the link would sufice. most forum questions would get a that's no longer supported reply to things not quickly answered. Most people today are familure with software versions and the fact that old versions aren't usually supported. Besides taking down the link before the component port rush has settled is premature. Even without supporting old OS's it leaves alot of people in a lurch who's components haven't been ported yet. I suspect the real reason that it was removed is that it was just easier to change the link for the version than edit the page to add another link.

---------

The whole it's cheep so you should buy it is just crazy. My wife recently shared with me a stat out of one of her magazines that was something to the effect of a person making 30,000ish a year is in the top 6% wealthiest people in the world. While most american's can afford the upgrades alot of the world can't. Did you know that most millionaires when they make thier first million are driving old cars [wink] and are very thrifty shopers that only buy what they need. There is a perfectly valid reason to use old hardware / software, it works!

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #18 –
Quote
The whole it's cheep so you should buy it is just crazy. My wife recently shared with me a stat out of one of her magazines that was something to the effect of a person making 30,000ish a year is in the top 6% wealthiest people in the world. While most american's can afford the upgrades alot of the world can't. Did you know that most millionaires when they make thier first million are driving old cars [wink] and are very thrifty shopers that only buy what they need. There is a perfectly valid reason to use old hardware / software, it works!


This isn't about $30,000 or $3,000 or even $300.  This is about about an upgrade to Windows 2000 that costs about $100 (shop around) and you've had nearly 10 years to get done! 

On my stripped down install that I use, I've never seen it use more than 90MB of RAM under such 'normal' conditions (browsing a few web pages, using fb2k).  Normal RAM use is between 49-64MB.  I doubt you are using a machine with less RAM than that. 

You need a P133 to run Win2K.  I know for a fact its fine on less, especially with a little extra RAM.  Again, I doubt your "old" system is below these requirements.  This is also less bloat than even Windows NT for sure. 

This argument isn't going to go anywhere, as you've had nearly 10 years to purchase Win2K, or at least put away the $1.50 each month it would have taken so you could "afford" it today.  To mention "rich americans" or that "millionaires drive crap cars" has nothing to do with anything at all.  You probably spend more buying coffee in a year than you spend maintaing your computer.  Claiming you are poor is no excuse as this is also a non-issue.  You are here posting, which probably means you pay for Internet access.  You are not one of the 'world's poor".  It's wrong to use them to legitimize your side of the argument.

To be equally as obnoxious and off-topic, Local 10 news did a "special edition" report a while back just to see how much a panhandler/beggar makes in this "rich america".  It would seems if you spend one weekend begging on the streets, at least in Ft. Lauderdale, you could have a shiny new Win2K on your 64MB/P133/2GB computer you got for free. </sarcasm>

Quote
We have already seen, in this very thread, that a simple request for continued AVAILABILITY of 0.8.3 has apparently been misread by some as a request for continued support of same.


Quote
Perhaps we should look at it from other perspective. Would there be something wrong with putting a download "just in case"?


If you follow development, you would know that between 0.8.3 and 0.9 many components were rewritten instead of using third party code due to possible security issyes.  This is in the changelogs. 

If a developer feels an obsolete pre-1.0 version of his code is not safe to use, there is absolutely no reason he should be compelled to continue distributing it, regardless if it has some features that a small minority would find useful.  Whining on the forums will not change this fact.

Not taking any side, it would also be right to mention this is nothing new.  A new version comes out.  A beta series is posted.  The beta release becomes the new release and the old release is removed.  This is nothing new. 

There are likely other compelling reasons as well.  I think you have just as much of a chance of getting 0.8.3 put onto the home page as you do 0.4.1 or 0.2 or 0.7.x, all of which people wanted their old versions of for whatever reason.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #19 –
Quote
I can't believe some of the reply's in this thread.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Exactly - good christ - who cares whether or not everybody agrees with the rationale why someone would want the older version?  There are perfectly legitimate reasons someone might want it, so make it available and call it unsupported already.  The links in earlier posts now seem busted so it looks like you can get the special version here:
[a href="http://www.9down.com/story.php?sid=3233]http://www.9down.com/story.php?sid=3233[/url]

Personally, I want to stream to icecast/shoutcast and there is no oddcast yet for 0.9, so I guess this is what I'll use for now.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #20 –
is it that hard to host the .83 installer? this isn't a crusade against anyone's personal morals and princples for cryin' out loud. all they want is one little file that you were able to host for years. hell, you don't have even have to put a link on your website. you can just PM or email the link to users who want it, or even create a thread about and explain it's unsupported. all the users who would still want to use .83 well after .9 has come out will be familiar enough with foobar to know to come here and they'll find the thread.

Download of 0.8.3 on foobar homepage?

Reply #21 –
This has nothing to do with a crusade of any kind. We have moved on to 0.9 and for obvious reasons stopped hosting 0.83. Those reasons were explained numerous times in the thread above.

If anyone feels the need to still use 0.83 he is free to download it from various sources on the net. Hell if you can't find it immediately use your old friend google and I am sure you'll find a download location somewhere and stop whining at the developers around here. All this whining is about a non issue. Since those who want to use 0.83 will find it.

So to say it once more in clear words. 0.83 is outdated in our opinion and we do not support it anymore nor will we still host it anywhere. If you need it, go and dig it up somewhere. This should not be some kind of impossible task to accomplish.

So basically in all the time people spent whining about this non issue in this thread they could have found a download link to 0.83 by a long shot.