Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:59 UTC
Windows 7 has been out and about for little over a week now, and as it turns out, Microsoft's new baby is doing relatively well. That is, according to the figures by NetApplications: Windows 7 already reached the 3% mark this weekend, and is already closing in on the 4% mark.
Permalink for comment 392682
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
VLC doesn't suck on Windows. It works perfectly for me, on Vista; it's played every video I've throw at it. Granted, most of the videos I've watched with it have been captured TV signals, so they haven't exactly been high-resolution, but I have trouble believing it wallows as much as you're trying to make it sound like it does.
Low def signals means less likely to have issues. Are you running it fullscreen? What do you have for a processor? What target resolution? What's the bitrate of the in file? How much CPU is it consuming compared to playback with say... MPC and the Klite Mega codec pack?
You have a 2.4ghz or faster quad core, VLC probably runs fine, though the lack of vsync would drive me nutters (most people probably wouldn't notice) - so long as it's the only application running and you don't have anything else major going on for CPU use. (or have multi-core so that's a non-issue)
You go down to a sub 2ghz Celeron M with integrated video like say... many of the laptops sold over the past six years - that lack of overlay support can be the difference between smooth playback and dropping 3 out of every 5 frames and having the audio end up out of sync.
Like my HP NC8000, 1.8ghz Celeron M - VLC under windows or Linux cannot even manage DVD playback without dropping frames. Media Player Classic + proper codecs? I can playback H.264 Blu-ray rips!
Or my MSI Wind where VLC on either OS cannot even manage to play back standard def MP4 without choppy frame-skipping - While I can play DVD's off an external USB from WMP or MPC.
VLC does everything the hard way in CPU. That's not necessarily a bad thing when you've got CPU to burn since it means it's code is portable and you rarely have to go hunting for 'just the right' codec. That's a really good feature...
But it doesn't make it the best way to do something either.
Member since:
2005-07-12
Low def signals means less likely to have issues. Are you running it fullscreen? What do you have for a processor? What target resolution? What's the bitrate of the in file? How much CPU is it consuming compared to playback with say... MPC and the Klite Mega codec pack?
You have a 2.4ghz or faster quad core, VLC probably runs fine, though the lack of vsync would drive me nutters (most people probably wouldn't notice) - so long as it's the only application running and you don't have anything else major going on for CPU use. (or have multi-core so that's a non-issue)
You go down to a sub 2ghz Celeron M with integrated video like say... many of the laptops sold over the past six years - that lack of overlay support can be the difference between smooth playback and dropping 3 out of every 5 frames and having the audio end up out of sync.
Like my HP NC8000, 1.8ghz Celeron M - VLC under windows or Linux cannot even manage DVD playback without dropping frames. Media Player Classic + proper codecs? I can playback H.264 Blu-ray rips!
Or my MSI Wind where VLC on either OS cannot even manage to play back standard def MP4 without choppy frame-skipping - While I can play DVD's off an external USB from WMP or MPC.
VLC does everything the hard way in CPU. That's not necessarily a bad thing when you've got CPU to burn since it means it's code is portable and you rarely have to go hunting for 'just the right' codec. That's a really good feature...
But it doesn't make it the best way to do something either.
Edited 2009-11-03 22:48 UTC