Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 18th Apr 2006 17:44 UTC, submitted by Fran Matell
Windows While most people won't be able to get their hands on Vista until next year, consumers will be able to get some of the media enhancements sooner. Microsoft is on track to release a Windows XP version of Windows Media Player 11 before the end of June, the company confirmed last week.
Order by: Score:
Question
by MikeGA on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:07 UTC
MikeGA
Member since:
2005-07-22

Looking through the article, something makes me wonder:

"Other sync options include synching a player to multiple PCs and filling a device with random tracks--a la Shuffle in iTunes"

I cannot believe this. Can WMP at present really not randomly pick songs for your MP3 player at present? I knew it was bad, but not that bad...

Edited 2006-04-18 18:07

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question
by Ronald Vos on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:14 UTC in reply to "Question"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06


I cannot believe this. Can WMP at present really not randomly pick songs for your MP3 player at present? I knew it was bad, but not that bad...


Odd..the last thing I remember of WMP is scowling at it because my songs played at random, and the unrandomise button was hidden in it's bloated corpse of an interface.

Maybe they mean they've put it under an accessible button this time ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question
by FreakyT on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:21 UTC in reply to "Question"
FreakyT Member since:
2005-07-17

"I cannot believe this. Can WMP at present really not randomly pick songs for your MP3 player at present? I knew it was bad, but not that bad... "

Most can't. In fact, even iTunes can only use AutoFill (as Apple calls it) with iPod shuffles.

Reply Score: 1

WMV Support
by Drune on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:11 UTC
Drune
Member since:
2005-12-04

As a 64bits system GNU/Linux user, it's a good new for amd64 community because there is not 64bits version of WMV (and others) codecs for GNU/Linux..
Dont know if it exists for XP 64bits. Can anyone point me about this.

Actually, i need to use a chroot env with mplayer to play some of wmv files.

Reply Score: 1

RE: WMV Support
by drewunwired on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:14 UTC in reply to "WMV Support"
drewunwired Member since:
2005-07-06

VLC on my Gentoo AMD64 box seems to be able to play non-DRM WMA. At least the binary itself is AMD64...

I haven't tried WMV, though. Your mileage will vary.

Reply Score: 1

RE: WMV Support
by jaypee on Tue 18th Apr 2006 19:52 UTC in reply to "WMV Support"
jaypee Member since:
2005-07-28

Depending on the distro you're using, you can install the 32-bit version of mplayer and mplayerplug-in and then install the appropriate codecs in /usr/lib32/win32 and /usr/lib/win32 (or just link the latter to the former) and you don't have to chroot. This is what I do.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: WMV Support
by Drune on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE: WMV Support"
Drune Member since:
2005-12-04

I'm using a full 64bits system. Not a 32bits one in a 64bits capable machine. 32bits codecs only works on a binary built to 32bits, not for a 64bits binary.
And..i'm using gentoo.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: WMV Support
by jaypee on Wed 19th Apr 2006 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WMV Support"
jaypee Member since:
2005-07-28

Actually, I'm using a AMD64 system on which is also 64-bit Gentoo. I am using mplayer-bin-1.0.20060408, mplayerplug-in-3.25 and win32codecs. I am able to play WMV on my box just fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: WMV Support
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Apr 2006 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: WMV Support"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Ditto here.

Not all WMVs are (easily) playable though, but this can be worked around. If everything fails I can always use a Windows-app in Wine.

Reply Score: 1

wmv support.
by Caspian on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:35 UTC
Caspian
Member since:
2006-01-01

Mplayer with the win32 codecs plays wmv just fine.

Reply Score: 1

RE: wmv support.
by vitae on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:40 UTC in reply to "wmv support."
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

I have found an occasional wmv that won't play on Linux, but most do play. The real problem here, of course, is that the industry can't seem to agree on a single open format for video and one for audio so users don't have to have multiple multimedia players or worry whether a file will play on their machine.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: wmv support.
by jaboua on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE: wmv support."
jaboua Member since:
2005-09-08

"The real problem here, of course, is that the industry can't seem to agree on a single open format for video and one for audio so users don't have to have multiple multimedia players or worry whether a file will play on their machine."

Or use one mediaplayer that supports all the formats you use - like gstreamer-, xine- or mplayer-frontends.

Reply Score: 1

RE: wmv support.
by Sodki on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:00 UTC in reply to "wmv support."
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

They're binary codecs, so they only work on a x86 platform. That's no good.

Reply Score: 2

Ummm... what?
by Unkemptwolf on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:43 UTC
Unkemptwolf
Member since:
2006-04-06

There is no mention anywhere in this article (or in the blurb) of (more/better?) WMV support coming to Linux. Did I miss something?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ummm... what?
by Hands on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:50 UTC in reply to "Ummm... what?"
Hands Member since:
2005-06-30

Yes, you did. There is a link that goes here...

https://helix-client.helixcommunity.org/2005/devdocs/windowsMedia.ht...

The helix media player is open source, and some use it for multimedia support in Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ummm... what?
by Robocoastie on Tue 18th Apr 2006 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Ummm... what?"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

great still no DRM support though. That means if we want to buy individual songs vs. the whole (and usually crap filled fluff) CD we have to continue dual booting/VMWareing to CD burn then rip again. Which begs the question - why keep using Linux then if it can't do the job? Don't get me wrong, I love the Linux movement but I believe Apple will ship the MacOS for all systems and at 300% cheaper than MSFT Winblows long before Linux gets 100% support for desktop use. I hate DRM too but I'm a realist - it's not going away, what IS going to go away is NON-DRM.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ummm... what?
by Ronald Vos on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ummm... what?"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't get me wrong, I love the Linux movement but I believe Apple will ship the MacOS for all systems and at 300% cheaper than MSFT Winblows long before Linux gets 100% support for desktop use. I hate DRM too but I'm a realist - it's not going away, what IS going to go away is NON-DRM.

You have to be a Microsoft-troll. Noone else shorts Microsoft as MSFT. That is: everyone who doesn't have MSFT stocks simply calls them MS.

And Linux can do the job. The job usually involves Amule though :p

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Ummm... what?
by vitae on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ummm... what?"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

And Linux can do the job. The job usually involves Amule though :p

Or allofmp3.com

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ummm... what?
by Tweek on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ummm... what?"
Tweek Member since:
2006-01-12

That is why I dont buy DRMed formats.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ummm... what?
by Lettherebemorelight on Tue 18th Apr 2006 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ummm... what?"
Lettherebemorelight Member since:
2005-07-11

I hate DRM too but I'm a realist - it's not going away, what IS going to go away is NON-DRM.

Actually it isnt. The retail stores are still full of DRM free music.

Then there is the low bit rates music downloads of online services like iTunes. Doesn iTunes use like 112Kbp/s ATRAC or something? I suppose that might cut it if your best piece of audio equipment is mediocre, but I am simply not willing to put up with less than CD quality. And why should I put up with lower quality when it doesnt cost me any less money?


(and usually crap filled fluff)

That totally depends on the artist. Perhaps the problem is you only listen to music written and produced by no talent losers who just couldnt come up with more than one decent song to put on their CD?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ummm... what?
by abraxas on Wed 19th Apr 2006 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ummm... what?"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Doesn iTunes use like 112Kbp/s ATRAC or something?

No. ATRAC is Sony's format. Apple uses 128k AAC.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ummm... what?
by Pseudo Cyborg on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:51 UTC in reply to "Ummm... what?"
Pseudo Cyborg Member since:
2005-07-09

'Also, liquidat wrote us: "While I searched for information about Alsa support for Real/HelixPlayer I came across the HelixPlayer v3.0 project overview and found that there is a group working on this. This means that we will sooner or later get native (and legal) Windows Audio/Video support on Linux. Windows DRM though will not be supported on Linux but on "devices", whatever that may be."'

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ummm... what?
by Unkemptwolf on Tue 18th Apr 2006 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Ummm... what?"
Unkemptwolf Member since:
2006-04-06

Ah, I see it now. Thanks.

Reply Score: 1

bad title
by berzerko on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:50 UTC
berzerko
Member since:
2005-11-11

I was about to post the same. there is no mention of linux+wmv in that article.
edit:
nevermind i didnt notice thr "read more" link.

Edited 2006-04-18 18:53

Reply Score: 1

RE: bad title
by Pseudo Cyborg on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:57 UTC in reply to "bad title"
Pseudo Cyborg Member since:
2005-07-09

Click the "Read more" link.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: bad title
by Pseudo Cyborg on Tue 18th Apr 2006 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE: bad title"
Pseudo Cyborg Member since:
2005-07-09

Nevermind. You found it. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Ignoring Linspire again
by Wes Felter on Tue 18th Apr 2006 19:03 UTC
Wes Felter
Member since:
2005-11-15

Linspire has been shipping legal, licensed Windows Media codecs for a while.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ignoring Linspire again
by Robocoastie on Tue 18th Apr 2006 19:16 UTC in reply to "Ignoring Linspire again"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

that was part of their suit agreement with MSFT, the license ends in 2007 if I remember right.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ignoring Linspire again
by Wes Felter on Wed 19th Apr 2006 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Ignoring Linspire again"
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

Supposedly Windows Media has RAND licensing, so they should simply be able to renew in 2007. Of course, RAND is not legally binding AFAIK, so maybe not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ignoring Linspire again
by egon_spengler on Wed 19th Apr 2006 03:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Ignoring Linspire again"
egon_spengler Member since:
2005-11-20

Lindows got the right to include codecs as part of the 20 million buyoff from Microsoft. They got the rights to distribute until 2008, and we all KNOW Microsoft will be MORE than willing to renew them, right?

Reply Score: 1

i wonder
by poundsmack on Tue 18th Apr 2006 19:21 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

in windows server 2003 media [;ayer 10 is included. i wonder if microsoft will make windows media plaer 11 avalible for server 2003

Reply Score: 1

RE: i wonder
by Trollstoi on Wed 19th Apr 2006 14:21 UTC in reply to "i wonder"
Trollstoi Member since:
2005-11-11

Why a server OS has a media player?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: i wonder
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Apr 2006 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE: i wonder"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Because it's a requirement? ;)

Anyway, Win2K3 is actually a quite nice Desktop OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: i wonder
by Ookaze on Wed 19th Apr 2006 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE: i wonder"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

I've heard this lots of time, people calling Linux a very specific OS. It can be "network OS", or "server OS", or "embedded OS", or whatever.
Some people just can't understand how Linux can be all that at the same time.
I think that's come from the fact that Linux is the first OS of its kind. An OS that can be as good at network, server, embedded or desktop.
Well, some people still argue about the desktop, I have no problem with people telling me I'm wrong on this. I keep telling Linux will wake up lots of people since 2001, when I switched entirely. I'm convinced it will spread even on the desktop (which is just fine to me), despite powerful road blocks put on Linux' path these last years.
I'm convinced because, even though I know Linux since 1999 only, I've been through lots of powerful FUD, and they have all been naturally destroyed by FOSS community.
Things like : "Linux will never gain share in the server space", same FUD with "datacenter", "business critical apps", "high end", "embedded", "multimedia", ...
All of this is shattered now, even though some still try to convey these feelings today.
All these improvements thanks to the competition, because they loved to put the finger on an area where FOSS lacks, and the community has always answered with improvements.
When you see no more things on which adversaries can put the finger, and all they have is red herring, you know FOSS has done it right.
And I find it amusing, every time I see someone spout years old red herring like "Linux is a server OS" ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: i wonder
by Havin_it on Wed 19th Apr 2006 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: i wonder"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

Uhm... dude, nice speech 'n'all, but the GP was talking about Windows 2003 Server.

Valid point all the same ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: i wonder
by Ookaze on Thu 20th Apr 2006 08:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: i wonder"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

My mistake then.
I took the wrong parent.

Reply Score: 1

WMV Next version ==> VLC?
by Haicube on Wed 19th Apr 2006 05:42 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

If Microsoft seriously wanna give a real offer to consumers, howabout putting VLC in the default install? Isn't that what everyone is using anyway?

How about native FLAC and OGG encoding and skipping all the other stuff. I'm CONFIDENT that people would consider this to be a winning idea.

(On a side note: Yes MS, I'm sure the VLC guys can offer you the possibility to skin VLC with a lot of the same waste that come with WMP).

Reply Score: 1

RE: WMV Next version ==> VLC?
by dylansmrjones on Wed 19th Apr 2006 11:00 UTC in reply to "WMV Next version ==> VLC?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Apart from power users and geeks most people use WMP *yuck* , or at least those ordinary users I know do.

If they are above the beginners level they tend to use WinAMP or VLC (on Windows) and VLC or mplayer on other platforms.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: WMV Next version ==> VLC?
by Haicube on Wed 19th Apr 2006 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE: WMV Next version ==> VLC?"
Haicube Member since:
2005-08-06

What kind of friend are you? If you know them, why not help them and simply show them VLC?

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Trust me I do, but many of these people will complain about it, and then they keep using WMP (no kidding!).

Just like they IE is much better than Firefox or Opera. Newbies obviously don't like changes. They are scared of them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: i wonder
by sbenitezb on Wed 19th Apr 2006 15:00 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

What server?

Reply Score: 1