G'bye 3rd Party ASP/AVC Filters in WMP/MCE on Win7? [Archive]

LoRd_MuldeR

25th March 2009, 16:07

As Damien one of the FFMPEG Devs has found out... it looks like MS has blocked third party filters for MP4 and AVC when using WMP or MCE on Windows 7.

As far as I understood, M$ is switching from DirectShow to MediaFoundation. Their new MP4 and AVC filters for Windows 7 are written as MediaFoundation filters, not DirectShow filters.

Hence WMP and MCE will look for a suitable MediaFoundation filter first, before they fall back to DirectShow.

Consequently any DirectShow filter (including third-party ones) will be "blocked" (if you want to call it like that) by Microsoft's MediaFoundation filters. And AFAIK this cannot be overwritten.

One would have to provide a MediaFoundation filter, I guess. There also was some discussion about that in the ffdshow thread recently...

w00t? they still didnt get it? they CAN'T legally do that unless they remove WMP from the Windows installation.

In Windows 7 you can uninstall WMP/MCE as well as IExplore. It was speculated that this is because they want to avoid trouble with the EU commision...

BetaBoy

25th March 2009, 16:15

w00t? they still didnt get it? they CAN'T legally do that unless they remove WMP from the Windows installation.
the EU commision will have their work to do it this is true...

Yeah... my JAW is still on the ground here if this is true. Also.... how would this effect Silverlight's newly added H.264 support on Windows 7? ie; is Silverlight using an integrated AVC decoder or the media foundation filter?

albain

25th March 2009, 16:15

Hi there,

if you want more details :

For any codecs with no equivalent in Media Foundation :
=> Our directShow codec (FFDShow) is loaded correctly and runs into the graph

For any codecs with equivalent in Media Foundation (mpeg4/h264)
=> Our directshow codec is loaded, the input pin is connected (the media type is accepted by FFDShow), then an output pin is looked after, found, and... the filter is unloaded. No querying about the output media type, nothing. It is replaced then by MS DMO decoder

Tests done on Windows 7 build 7057 32 bits with WMP 12 and Media Center

Second step : I have built a dummy Media Foundation filter that declares all H264/MPEG4 media types.
=> It is not even consulted

Last step : I have built a dummy Media Foundation filter that is not a decoder but a transform filter (this is a different category).
=> It is not consulted either.

Reason : Microsoft maintains a list of preferred codecs in the following registry key : HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\MediaFoundation\Transforms\Preferred
This key cannot be modified even in admin mode (this is a protected area, like system files).
So this list cannot be modified.

Conclusion : decoder is not overridable, even if one develops a Media Foundation filter

Two leads :
1/ Develop a DSP filter for Windows Media Player. This will only do postprocessing, no decoding.
2/ Make the source filter (Haali) autoload with a configurable option FFDShow or any other compatible filter.
Maybe Haali could reproduce the DirectShow filters enumeration according to their merit and take the highest one which is compatible with the media type.
This will work for MKV/MP4 containers, not AVI, unless the AVI container is overridable in Media Center/Media Player.

LoRd_MuldeR

25th March 2009, 16:18

clsid

25th March 2009, 16:44

There is also a little bit of good news. Microsoft's H.264 decoder has DXVA support and it also works in combination with third party players.

Not being able to use third party filters is a pity. But what is even worse is the lack of subtitle support. VSFilter simply won't get loaded for external subtitle files. For embedded subtitles Haali's workaround still works, but only for Matroska files.

Snowknight26

25th March 2009, 19:56

For any codecs with equivalent in Media Foundation (mpeg4/h264)
=> Our directshow codec is loaded, the input pin is connected (the media type is accepted by FFDShow), then an output pin is looked after, found, and... the filter is unloaded. No querying about the output media type, nothing. It is replaced then by MS DMO decoder

Unregister the dll associated with the DMO filter? :p

leeperry

25th March 2009, 21:05

something tells me a lot ppl(including me) will stick to XP SP3 until the end of days :D

at least, if they would let us disable Cleartype...I hate blurry fonts :mad:

clsid

25th March 2009, 21:14

Brazil2

25th March 2009, 22:42

Reason : Microsoft maintains a list of preferred codecs in the following registry key : HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\MediaFoundation\Transforms\Preferred
This key cannot be modified even in admin mode (this is a protected area, like system files).
So this list cannot be modified.
How lame is that.
When will they understand that it is MY computer and not Microsoft's computer so I decide what to use on MY computer. No wonder why more and more people are switching to Linux.

Not to mention, as said already, the possible legal issues with this behaviour forcing the use some specific codecs.

something tells me a lot ppl(including me) will stick to XP SP3 until the end of days :D

at least, if they would let us disable Cleartype...I hate blurry fonts :mad:
Yep, same here, still on XP and will be for a long time I think.
The Clearype thingy is just another example of this madness thinking that the OS knows better than us what to do and what to use.

Anyway, I'm already on a XP-Debian dual boot for months. Enough is enough.

Dark Eiri

26th March 2009, 00:22

I posted some time ago about this. Since 7 Beta I can't use any external codecs or filters on WMP and MediaCenter.
The only way to use CoreAVC was to use MKV container, since WMP didn't have internal splitters for it, it went for Haali and then CoreAVC. MP4 and everything else was internal decoders only. New builds seem to already have internal MKV splitters, so... g'bye for good.

squid_80

26th March 2009, 01:56

New builds seem to already have internal MKV splitters, so... g'bye for good.
Wait, are you saying Windows 7 has built-in support for Matroska?

RunningSkittle

26th March 2009, 02:32

i can confirm that build 7000 and 7048 do not have native matroska support.

CruNcher

26th March 2009, 03:18

You can edit this key after adjusting its security permissions. First change the ownership from TrustedInstaller to Admin group. You can do that in the Advanced settings. Then you can give Admin group full access.

So virtually that fixes the problem now i wonder if that is Microsofts preferred (MSDN) way of 3rd Parties to do it or more like Register your filter @ Microsoft for usage in our Products first ;)
They not dumb they for sure didn't oversaw this problem so it suggests that they want you to call them for being able to use your filter in their framework maybe it's something that has to do with their new Security in Mind credo ;)
It also would fit to the 64 bit Kernel Protection Strategy would make 32 Bit also a little more secure, though of course the whole Open Source way is threatened by this, and im not sure if taking Security as a Shield to force these Practices further and further into their OS will hide the real intention (JailDows) i mean the normal user can't really see what's going on but we power user feel more and more restrictions and me being a over 10 year Windows user slowly get's tired of it.
Every year it's like we lose more and more control of our own machines and that's a steady ongoing thing and is being forced to the next level "Hardware" slowly and Software gets more and more prepared for it (.NET) and that all in the name of Security ? and in the same time Politics try to decimate knowledge about Security related stuff, it feels scary somehow really scary.

squid_80

26th March 2009, 03:29

i can confirm that build 7000 and 7048 do not have native matroska support.
That's what I figured. Let's save the "Windows supports MKV!" statements for April Fools. ;)

albain

26th March 2009, 08:19

Well with build 7057 Haali's splitter is used for MKV but the H264 decoder that is selected is the MS DMO one.

This is the reason why I asked Haali to implement an option to force a given decoder or even better to reproduce the decoder selection like old time : enumerating codecs according to the media type and their merit.

albain

26th March 2009, 10:24

djloewen

26th March 2009, 13:56

Well with build 7057 Haali's splitter is used for MKV but the H264 decoder that is selected is the MS DMO one.

Would this allow a person to add .mkv files to the Windows Media Player library, and organize them using metadata? 'Cause you sure can't on Vista...

clsid

26th March 2009, 17:47

You're right, but this is a hack and it won't work in an installer
With SetACL it is possible to take ownership of files and registry keys :)

Dark Eiri

27th March 2009, 02:00

That's what I figured. Let's save the "Windows supports MKV!" statements for April Fools. ;)

I've read it on that developing Windows 7 blog, it's in the post with the changes that have been made from Beta to RC. I highly doubt it will happen, but it seems to be true.

djloewen

27th March 2009, 03:04

I've read it on that developing Windows 7 blog, it's in the post with the changes that have been made from Beta to RC. I highly doubt it will happen, but it seems to be true.

I've managed to find this, which doesn't mention Matroska at all:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/26/some-changes-since-beta.aspx

If you can find the blog/post you're referring to, please pass it on, I'd be very curious to see exactly what it says.

albain

27th March 2009, 09:57

With SetACL it is possible to take ownership of files and registry keys :)

Good news, I will give it a try

cca

27th March 2009, 11:57

I just saw an article in neowin.net, here (http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/03/26/windows-7-build-7057-blocks-third-party-video-codecs)

Richardw322

27th March 2009, 13:53

For what it's worth, I uninstalled MCE in build 7048, and use GBPVR which is a third party media center app, and I get the same behaivior. I can set up GBPVR to prefer FFDshow for h264, but when I play a MKV, it still uses the built in decoder. Note this is with MCE uninstalled. I still have Media Player installed because I like the way it handles playing albums in MP3 format (I like my albums in album order, and don't want to make playlists for them.) If MPC-HC would read tag order for MP3's I would dump WMP in a flash!!

Leak

27th March 2009, 15:06

If MPC-HC would read tag order for MP3's I would dump WMP in a flash!!
I wouldn't hold my breath, as MPC-HC's playlist functionality is just to queue files and not much else. What you're asking for would be incorporating some kind of media library, which AFAIK nobody is interested in developing.

Why not just use foobar2000 or some other audio-specialised player for audio? Using a video player for that always seemed weird at best to me...

np: The Fireman - Dance 'til We're High (Electric Arguments)

RunningSkittle

27th March 2009, 16:19

I can try out 7057 with ffdshow later, thats the latest build available.

Richardw322

27th March 2009, 16:47

I wouldn't hold my breath, as MPC-HC's playlist functionality is just to queue files and not much else. What you're asking for would be incorporating some kind of media library, which AFAIK nobody is interested in developing.

Why not just use foobar2000 or some other audio-specialised player for audio? Using a video player for that always seemed weird at best to me...

Funny, I would like one media player to play it all. Actually, for me perfection would be if MPC-HC took over all Media Center functions. Like time shift TV, play back audio and video, etc. The pieces are all pretty much there. Different strokes I guess. Oh well, I guess I could always make playlists.
:thanks:

Shakey_Jake33

27th March 2009, 17:01

MPC's strength has always been it's simplicity, without sacrificing functionality. It was Microsoft's shift towards 'all-in-one' functionality with WMP7 that prompted the creation of MPC in the first place :)

BetaBoy

27th March 2009, 17:02

I just saw an article in neowin.net, here (http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/03/26/windows-7-build-7057-blocks-third-party-video-codecs)

Yeah.. its hit a few sites including Gizmondo (http://i.gizmodo.com/5185390/windows-7-might-block-third+party-video-codecs). But as I stated right from the get go (and everyone is trying to figure out) is seeing if we can confirm if there is an alternative way to add 'any' new ASP and AVC filters to Media Foundation. If we could guess... it would be that when Win7 hits final that MS would have some form of certification process for MF?

Lets see if we get an official response from MS as I know that the reporters that have called me said that they had already made calls to MS about it.

cca

27th March 2009, 17:11

Many users that visit this forum are advanced enough to use other player but let's not fool ourselves, the majority don't and don't really want to know about alternate players. So WMP and MCE win by default. And with the new DMO filters that play everything with DXVA, at least on nvidia cards, users will care even less. We are the minority :(

GrofLuigi

27th March 2009, 18:00

The problem with default security permissions on Vista (and I can't imagine they relaxed them on 7) for the Trusted Installer account is that they are set up initially in such a way that they don't propagate down. The keys owned by Trusted Installer are read only for Administrators.

That means - even if you had taken ownership of everything, for each and every subkey you want to delete (or modify!), you will have to grant yourself privileges - over and over again... It's not impossible, but it's very tedious. It's clearly an anti-tinker measure. :mad:

I haven't seen yet an icacls or setacl or... script that takes care of this. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

In the past there was just security by obscurity, now it's plain boobytrapping. :rolleyes:

GL

lexor

27th March 2009, 18:36

So, did anyone actually get a reply from MS about this? From what I'm reading here, no one developing DS components asked (one would think such developers would care), just some anonymous reporters (and there is no indication if they got a reply).

So far it looks like the same hysteria that surrounded OpenGL before Vista release.

lexor

27th March 2009, 18:40

The problem with default security permissions on Vista (and I can't imagine they relaxed them on 7) for the Trusted Installer account is that they are set up initially in such a way that they don't propagate down.

Read ArsTechnica coverage of changes in UAC in 7. Any app, with any access level can disable or circumvent it. I doubt anyone who cares about this will have UAC on in 7... there is no point.

Dark Eiri

27th March 2009, 20:16

I've managed to find this, which doesn't mention Matroska at all:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/26/some-changes-since-beta.aspx

If you can find the blog/post you're referring to, please pass it on, I'd be very curious to see exactly what it says.

Oh, I'm really sorry guys, I misread it. It's MOV, not MKV :(

GrofLuigi

28th March 2009, 01:10

Read ArsTechnica coverage of changes in UAC in 7. Any app, with any access level can disable or circumvent it. I doubt anyone who cares about this will have UAC on in 7... there is no point.

I was not talking about UAC, I was talking about security permissions (ACLs, security descriptors). UAC can allow or disallow operations onto ACLs, but doesn't affect them.

GL

Edit: You meant this (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/the-curious-tale-of-windows-7s-uac.ars)?

Shakey_Jake33

28th March 2009, 01:27

Lets be honest though, it's not an acceptable situation to have to be on some kind of 'trusted' list in order to be prioritised. I'm trying to avoid getting carried away with the hysteria here, but if the user doesn't have full control of what codecs they can use (hacks aside), then it's a problem.

BetaBoy

28th March 2009, 03:17

]if the user doesn't have full control of what codecs they can use (hacks aside), then it's a problem.

I think we can all agree to that!

benwaggoner

28th March 2009, 04:34

Yeah... my JAW is still on the ground here if this is true. Also.... how would this effect Silverlight's newly added H.264 support on Windows 7? ie; is Silverlight using an integrated AVC decoder or the media foundation filter?
Silverlight uses its own built-in decoders.

You see, lots of users wind up with all kinds of codec packs installed, and who the heck knows what might get called for a particular codec...

I haven't talked with the Windows team about this issue in particular, but I know that they're tracking a lot of problems users have by the "codec arms race" where codecs rate themselves much higher than they technically merit, and playback experience gets fragile or outright dysfunctional. The people here know how to debug those issues, but I'm sure you've all had to do a fair amount of codec pack fixing as well.

It's a goal of Win7 to have much broader built-in support for media files, so hopefully there will be much less need for 3rd party decoders for common technologies.

tre31

28th March 2009, 08:16

Silverlight uses its own built-in decoders.

You see, lots of users wind up with all kinds of codec packs installed, and who the heck knows what might get called for a particular codec...

I haven't talked with the Windows team about this issue in particular, but I know that they're tracking a lot of problems users have by the "codec arms race" where codecs rate themselves much higher than they technically merit, and playback experience gets fragile or outright dysfunctional. The people here know how to debug those issues, but I'm sure you've all had to do a fair amount of codec pack fixing as well.

It's a goal of Win7 to have much broader built-in support for media files, so hopefully there will be much less need for 3rd party decoders for common technologies.

While some of that is understandable, there are things that Microsoft decoders just don't do, and ffdshow does.

Still seems like a paint all with the same tar brush sort of approach when in reality there are quite good solutions out there that are not made by Microsoft, I think possibly the only Microsoft codecs/filters that I know I use regularily are the Mpeg-2 Splitter and the Video Mixing Renderer's.

Cyberlink's Powerdvd decoder's have been far ahead of Microsoft's for quite a while now ...

In the end closing things like this off too a specific few is not a good approach, unless you can certifiably say that your's are the best, and quite frankly I don't think you can - at least not yet.

(I am in no way affiliated with any development teams/codecs/companies .. this is all just my own personal opinion)

Shakey_Jake33

28th March 2009, 09:47

I don't think anyone's really critisising Microsoft for having codecs included with the OS, it makes things much simpler for the everyday user. Critisism is being directed towards that fact that it's harder for a person to opt to use their own codec if they would prefer to. Unless I'm misunderstanding things, it would require competing codecs from the likes of DivX, Apple, Nero, Cyberlink, CoreCodec to apply for a place on the trusted list, and open source solutions are basically out of luck.

ranpha

28th March 2009, 09:51

Cyberlink's Powerdvd decoder's have been far ahead of Microsoft's for quite a while now ...

In the end closing things like this off too a specific few is not a good approach, unless you can certifiably say that your's are the best, and quite frankly I don't think you can - at least not yet.

Microsoft video decoders for MPEG2 (Vista) and H.264 (WMP 12) are very good and comparable to third-party commercial decoders (like Cyberlink), if you ask me.

tre31

28th March 2009, 12:08

Microsoft video decoders for MPEG2 (Vista) and H.264 (WMP 12) are very good and comparable to third-party commercial decoders (like Cyberlink), if you ask me.

Their MPEG-2 for Vista may be ok (yes I have tried it, but not fond of vista), but their h.264 is limited at best, mp4 only - hence why this topic and debate exists (well that and the fact that they aren't providing an open framework to work with and haven't made any mention of how or if they will).

Until they can provide a solution that handles h.264 in .ts with ac3 or at least support mkv then no I don't think that they have covered a rounded h.264 solution at all, but hey that's just my opinion.

Rumbah

28th March 2009, 16:16

Why not use a blacklist instead of a whitelist? So faulty codecs can get a low priority.

Snowknight26

28th March 2009, 17:35

Their MPEG-2 for Vista may be ok (yes I have tried it, but not fond of vista), but their h.264 is limited at best, mp4 only - hence why this topic and debate exists (well that and the fact that they aren't providing an open framework to work with and haven't made any mention of how or if they will).

Until they can provide a solution that handles h.264 in .ts with ac3 or at least support mkv then no I don't think that they have covered a rounded h.264 solution at all, but hey that's just my opinion.

If anything, it's not the H.264 decoder, it's the splitter that's limited.

lexor

29th March 2009, 15:13

Well... if the point is to prevent codec hell, then limiting user choice is definitely not a solution. A solution would be to streamline GraphEdit and incorporate it into WMP and get rid of the merit nonsense.

As it is, this new blocking "solution" solves nothing (because no one will use it), and creates more problems for those who'll try.

clsid

29th March 2009, 15:57

The real solution would be to include an application in which the user can select his preferred source filters and decoders. Similar to the "Default Programs" functionality of Windows, where users can configure their preferred software and file associations.

Such app could default to Microsoft's own filters and label them as recommended or something. They could even add some filter management functionality for third party stuff. Or warn a user about "bad" installed filters. The possibilities are endless.

plonk420

29th March 2009, 21:03

first thing i did after installing Win7 (well one of the first few things) was download CCCP Project. it was only after some newbie troll on anandtech was moaning about WMP that i tried it in order to prove him wrong.

couldn't get it to run for more than 4-5 hours to save my life.

i never DID get MPC to crash ;) (closed it after 24-32 hours+)

truth be told, i THINK the first update to WMP got it pretty stable. can't remember tho.

*used a so-so test of just running 5 different media files endlessly for hours

tre31

29th March 2009, 23:01

lexor

29th March 2009, 23:02

clsid

30th March 2009, 00:21

If by GraphEdit you mean custom graphs, then no, I mean something more simplistic. The average PC user is an idiot compared to most users on this forum, so it should be relatively easy to understand. Something like choosing between filter A, B and C for decoding format Y. Kind of like the merit system of DirectShow, but simpler.

fastplayer

3rd April 2009, 09:20

withinwindows.com
Windows 7 to support third-party codecs… like all other Windows versions (http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/04/02/windows-7-to-support-third-party-codecs-like-all-other-windows-versions/)
As we move toward the release of Windows 7, we have worked to add more codecs and file types to allow for a better user experience. We also allow Microsoft experiences to use codecs and other format technologies from third-party companies, just as we always have. Third party applications can use the Microsoft codecs or their own. Microsoft does not restrict the use of third-party codecs. – Microsoft Spokesperson

clsid

3rd April 2009, 13:10

That quote talks only about third party applications. Microsoft's own players will use the native codecs whenever they can.

CruNcher

3rd April 2009, 17:17

Clsid no real problem most third party ISVs don't want to use WMP :) and a lot started allready to protect their filters from the normal Windows Directshow Chain since some time now virtualy every big Vendors Filters can't be accessed anymore so no Dshow Hell anymore for Arcsoft, Corel, Cyberlink and Nero :). The Windows Multimedia System becomes more closed now everyone is doing his own Chain that can't be interrupted anymore (everyone goes MPC style on demand loading and mplayer enclosed systems) with so also less support problems in the future, sure it takes away user possibilities to decide which Application to use but that's the price to pay after all these years. And most probably Windows 7 wont be released with WMP anyways in the EU. I don't see good times for ffdshow though also in the terms that it missed the GPU move so it will become slowly forgotten i think over the time, for normal playback purposes @ least i see some use of it in combined (GPU/CPU) editing though.

clsid

3rd April 2009, 17:43

Windows 7 will include WMP (also in the EU). Whoever told you otherwise was false.

Esurnir

3rd April 2009, 19:31

Windows 7 will include WMP (also in the EU). Whoever told you otherwise was false.

Well what's said is that people will be able to uninstall it if I remember correctly.

LoRd_MuldeR

3rd April 2009, 19:31

Windows 7 will include WMP (also in the EU). Whoever told you otherwise was false.

Well, in the EU they must offer the "N" versions of Windows, which do not ship with WMP. Don't think that will change with Windows 7.
Anyway, people who bought that version still can download WMP from Microsoft web-site.

Also I read that Windows 7 finally will allow the user to uninstall InternetExplorer and WMP/WMC. That won't be limited to "N" versions, I think.
But only the executables will be uninstalled, as other apps may still require some components of IE/WMP.

clsid

3rd April 2009, 20:24

The "N" versions have been around since XP. However, there is hardly anyone that uses them. All major OEMs ship the regular Windows versions with their hardware.

LoRd_MuldeR

3rd April 2009, 20:37

The "N" versions have been around since XP. However, there is hardly anyone that uses them. All major OEMs ship the regular Windows versions with their hardware.

At least the new uninstall capability will be available to everyone.

So the workflow for Windows 7 users will be: Uninstall WMP/WMC, install MediaPlayerClassic + ffdshow-tryouts, done :)

lexor

3rd April 2009, 20:58

At least the new uninstall capability will be available to everyone.

So the workflow for Windows 7 users will be: Uninstall WMP/WMC, install MediaPlayerClassic + ffdshow-tryouts, done :)

Except the people who want media centre... there really is nothing better for Windows.

clsid

3rd April 2009, 21:11

You assume that everybody likes MPC. I know for a fact that many people actually prefer WMP (despite its many flaws). It is still the most commonly used media player on Windows. Also the discussion in this topic is not about uninstalling WMP or using alternative players. Its about getting things to play properly in Microsoft's own players, preferably with the ability to use third party decoders and post-processing filters.

Snowknight26

3rd April 2009, 21:13

I wonder if benwaggoner has any updates about the issue.

avivahl

3rd April 2009, 21:35

What about SUBTITLES in WMP? Will I not be able to add another transform filter (e.g. VSFilter) to a working graph when using WMP?

clsid

3rd April 2009, 21:58

Support for VSFilter has improved in the pre-RC builds compared to the older builds. Subtitle support is one of the things I complained about to zachdms (another MS engineer here on the forum). He said they they would do their best to improve on that area. I assume DXVA is one of the reasons why intermediate filters are blocked in certain situations.

VSFilter now works with .avi files with MPEG-4 content on Win7. It also works for embedded subtitles in .mkv files if using the VSFilter workaround in Haali's splitter.

EuropeanMan

3rd April 2009, 22:57

Just wondering why noone mentioned VLC as a media player ... in your experiences/opinions what do you think of VLC?

I love it alongside MPC...hated MCE/WMP always

anrque

3rd April 2009, 23:28

Just wondering why noone mentioned VLC as a media player ... in your experiences/opinions what do you think of VLC?

I love it alongside MPC...hated MCE/WMP always

The conversation is revolving around MSFT not allowing 3rd party filters in the DXVA chain for WMP and Mediacenter. VLC does not use directshow, all codecs are built in. So this does not apply here.

EuropeanMan

4th April 2009, 17:53

Ok, I understand the conversation and have read all the posts...BUT if VLC has all the codecs built in, why even worry about other media players under W7? Why wouldn't one just use VLC then and not worry about the other media players that couldn't access 3rd party codecs?

Eragon4ever

4th April 2009, 18:01

Because may people (myself included) don't like VLC. And that is put mildly.

Leak

4th April 2009, 18:15

VLC is good for downloading streams.

But I couldn't for the life of me watch anything that's longer than a few minutes using that clunky interface, let alone a DVD...

np: Autechre - Djarum (Anti EP)

albain

5th April 2009, 16:11

BetaBoy

6th April 2009, 23:51

When this hit a week+ ago I was asked by a few press ppl to comment and decided it was better to wait. But while I was at CTIA I had the chance to talk to a few industry ppl about this situation some more and we spent alot of time noting MS's quote, as it did not help them at all:
"We also allow Microsoft experiences to use codecs and other format technologies from third-party companies, just as we always have. Third party applications can use the Microsoft codecs or their own. Microsoft does not restrict the use of third-party codecs. What about MF support for ASP or AVC filters within WMP and MCE? I mean that's what this is all about anyway, right?

So while the non-clarity and speculation continues till we see an RC/RTM.... I think that MS is now taking notes from Apple and potentially playing the 'closed ecosystem' hand in this case, hence the birth of MF but still keeping Directshow around to stay any antitrust concerns. Now that would suck as albain noted for WMP and MCE users. But if left 'as-is' by MS.... this could open the door to a new breed of applications to take their place.

CruNcher

7th April 2009, 00:24

Then be more innovative do more buzz and create better user experiences then they do :) a lot of ISVs (especially those that only sell codecs) have no other chance to survive as their codecs will be on the 2nd place in Microsoft own bundled products in the future what would you read out of the comment otherwise ?
Sure ISVs will be able to use their own developed codecs and stuff but only from within their Product running on Windows though Microsoft is going to prioritize their technology in their Applications and only leave the option for ISVs if they have no solution for the playback scenario in MF it's easy to read that out of the Microsoft statement (and they could anytime enlarge this now to for example post processing filters), if it comes to that it will fire some ice again but instead of fighting why not just create innovative products that people would like to use more then Microsofts own :). Ofcourse Microsoft can make their stuff very attractive with shitloads of hidden APIs from other ISVs that allow certain functions to work more efficient or less problematic then what the ISV can do (or have to pay a huge amount of money for it). If you followed Microsofts own development carefully you especially realize that their own Products are more enhanced then the previous generation also the times it took for a Microsoft Research development to hit Microsofts product cycle seems to have been lowered rapidly for example see how long it took them to fire up things like Expression,Silverlight,SmoothHD,Photosynth or Surface from Research to final (also of course with buying other ISVs again) definitely a lot changed over the years @ Microsofts own bureaucracy which is also not really surprising. Also seeing that MSR is now almost allways involved in any public show Microsoft does shows that they care more bringing Research faster into their Products and also publicly show them off and be proud see Surface or the next Surface Generation their Sensor research or recently buying 3DV Systems which technology will also become part of Surface i can promise you :)

73ChargerFan

18th April 2009, 21:02

Windows 7 RC has been released to OEMs, but it isn't in the wild yet.

BetaBoy

18th April 2009, 21:07

Thats the first news i've heard of it.... but I did get a tweet saying the the RC will change nothing and the MS is sticking with the way MF works for ASP/AVC filters in WMP and MCE. Guess we'll all see soon enough.

clsid

18th April 2009, 23:13

It will go public on May 5th.
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/04/18/windows-7-rc-coming-to-msdntechnet-soon-public-may-5

benwaggoner

19th April 2009, 01:40

I wonder if benwaggoner has any updates about the issue.
Nothing more than what's already being discussed here.

Microsoft's own apps will use Microsoft's own decoders when they're available for a given file. Codec packs have caused a lot of problems for a lot of users, and by providing high quality 1st party codecs in-box, Microsoft's 1st party media apps won't get messed up in hard-to-support ways.

But yes, anyone writing their own app can use whatever they want.

I wasn't at all involved in any of that decision process, but it makes sense to me.

clsid

19th April 2009, 13:04

It is great that MS now has a monopoly on causing multimedia playback problems for its users. And yes, I have already seen the new MS decoders fail.

For those who wish to use ffdshow or CoreAVC as their preferred decoder in WMP and Media Center, a hack can be found here:
http://www.hack7mc.com/2009/04/replacing-the-default-dtvdvd-decoder-without-breaking-live-tv-playback.html

This will work only for DirectShow playback, for example for .mkv files. It won't have an effect on files played though Media Foundation, such as most .m2ts, .mp4 and .mov files.

me7

19th April 2009, 13:36

Microsoft's own apps will use Microsoft's own decoders when they're available for a given file. Codec packs have caused a lot of problems for a lot of users, and by providing high quality 1st party codecs in-box, Microsoft's 1st party media apps won't get messed up in hard-to-support ways.

But yes, anyone writing their own app can use whatever they want.

I wasn't at all involved in any of that decision process, but it makes sense to me.

It would make more sense if they included a "safe mode" that locks out foreign codecs and an "advanced mode" that works like we are used to. If some codec pack causes problems, you can always revert to "safe mode".
Easy to support, user friendly and offers advanced options.

Richardw322

19th April 2009, 15:41

Also VLC (as well as MPC on some points) does not fit for many uses :
- Having a media (music, videos, photos) library
- Having a HTPC software all in one featured and managed by a remote control
- Subtitles management less advanced than FFDShow or MPC filter
- Postprocessing less advanced and customizable (with presets) as FFDShow
:angry::angry:
You hit the nail on the head for me, that's just why I want to use ffdshow. What do you use for a media library? I use GBPVR, and it still overrides my choice of decoder. I think GBPVR uses Media Player for playback. :(

Schrade

1st May 2009, 04:42

Looks like DivX did something:

http://labs.divx.com/mkvwin7preview
What's in this preview?

This technology preview introduces support for DivX Plus HD video in applications using the Microsoft Media Foundation, a new framework introduced in Windows 7. The package includes native versions of the DivX MKV Demux and the DivX AAC Decoder, as well as shell extensions that provide thumbnail images and detailed file information for files with either ".divx" (DivX 6) or ".mkv" (DivX 7) extensions for an enhanced experience.

Why is this cool?

Although Windows 7 maintains support for established frameworks such as DirectShow, there was no other solution for rendering content in an MKV container through the Media Foundation framework - until today!

The advantages of enabling MKV file support in the Media Foundation framework include the ability to use hardware acceleration for H.264 video decoding via the system H.264 decoder (where supported), as well as adding support for serving both DivX and DivX Plus HD video through Windows Media Center Extenders and the Windows Media Network Sharing Service for UPNP devices. However, be aware that transcoding creates an additional CPU load on the server, some loss of quality and potentially reduces picture resolution.

http://labs.divx.com/files/divx-plus-on-win-7_01.png
DivX Tech Preview enables thumbnails, playback, and detailed information for MKV files.

benwaggoner

1st May 2009, 05:36

It is great that MS now has a monopoly on causing multimedia playback problems for its users. And yes, I have already seen the new MS decoders fail.
Did you file a bug report for that?

clsid

1st May 2009, 14:50

No, but I did report a few other bugs/flaws which got fixed.

73ChargerFan

1st May 2009, 23:13

It is great that MS now has a monopoly

Did you file a bug report for that?

I think IBM did a few years back, but it didn't have much effect. :sly:

BetaBoy

2nd May 2009, 03:23

Looks like DivX did something:

I'm gonna play nice with DivX's tech preview only because it spreads MKV and we are all for that. But other then that, DivX's attempt is nothing more then a continuation of a hack/workaround that MS themselves provided to us on the Matroska Mailing list: See the thread starting with: http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/2009-March/003485.html

More specifically this still does _not_ allow you to use any third party AVC/AAC decoders within Media Foundation/Win7.... and imho is not a solution at all. Microsoft needs to come up with a better solution then this, and if we see this right... it looks like it maybe a battle for MKV with DivX/Haali splitters although I am sure DivX would argue it the other way in regards to just supporting their eco-system.

We do not want to add a hack support for just MKV without the ability to support other codecs in MF!? Fundamentally this is what Matroska and the Haali splitter are all about and why we created them!

Thoughts anyone?

SquallMX

2nd May 2009, 05:06

benwaggoner

2nd May 2009, 06:36

Is this the reason why on Windows 7 7100 x64 when i use AviSynth "DirectShowSource" Microsoft decodec is always used instead of FFDShow?, the only solution i found was to delete the DLL using Ubuntu since Windows don't let me do it.

My understanding is that any app can specify which decoder to use for a particular codec.

So, perhaps this is a feature request for AVISynth to be able to specify which one is used.

Which would be a highly awesome feature for tracking down and demoing the differences between decoder output...

I like the word "decodec" :) - working on my book the last bit I've struggled to find a quick way to distinguish between "codec that's an encoder" "codec that's a decoder" and "tool that's an encoder".

SquallMX

2nd May 2009, 06:43

I like the word "decodec" :) - working on my book the last bit I've struggled to find a quick way to distinguish between "codec that's an encoder" "codec that's a decoder" and "tool that's an encoder".

:helpful:, sorry my bad :p.

Thank you for the Answer :thanks::thanks::thanks:.

kemuri-_9

2nd May 2009, 08:37

I like the word "decodec" :) - working on my book the last bit I've struggled to find a quick way to distinguish between "codec that's an encoder" "codec that's a decoder" and "tool that's an encoder".

doesn't codec stand for coder/decoder already?

so codec should denote that it does both encoding and decoding
where as encoder and decoder should denote only having that single role.

squid_80

3rd May 2009, 05:43

My understanding is that any app can specify which decoder to use for a particular codec.

So, perhaps this is a feature request for AVISynth to be able to specify which one is used.

Which would be a highly awesome feature for tracking down and demoing the differences between decoder output...
Build a graph in graphedit using the decoders you want, remove the renderer, save the .grf file and load it in a script using directshowsource.

JK1974

4th May 2009, 11:11

You see, lots of users wind up with all kinds of codec packs installed, and who the heck knows what might get called for a particular codec...

[...]

It's a goal of Win7 to have much broader built-in support for media files, so hopefully there will be much less need for 3rd party decoders for common technologies.

Are you really sure that the codec hell is caused by codec packs only?

I don´t use any codec pack, instead I actually get e.g. "MainConcept (Adobe2) MPEG Decoder", "Canopus HQ Decoder", "Cyberlink Video/SP Decoder", "Cyberlink Video/SP Decoder (PDVD9)", "MainConcept (Demo) MPEG-2 Video Decoder", "MainConcept MPEG Video Decoder" etc. I currently don´t have the Nero and the InterVideo codecs installed, but to face the truth: All this has been installed by commercial (video) applications. And this will not chance with Windows 7.

So I think more that it is the fault of the 3rd party vendors and their wish to make their codec the system´s number one. And this will not change with the new architecture - instead you will block the open source codecs like ffdshow that might finally cause even less problems.

And maybe the new approach ignores codecs like the ones above if they are installed on Windows 7, but who guarantees that the windows replacement really works in all the cases? I can remember discussions some years ago when people tried to decode h264 streams with Avisynths DirectShowSource and had problems because the Cyberlink codecs did not return the actual frame number or timecode (?) correctly.

DigitAl56K

6th May 2009, 22:44

and if we see this right... it looks like it maybe a battle for MKV with DivX/Haali splitters

We don't do that now (in fact the exact opposite, our DShow filter installs with lower merit than Haali), and I hope that the MF framework won't put us in that position in future either. I personally haven't looked into the framework extensively yet.

BetaBoy

7th May 2009, 00:45

DigitAl56K... sure your merit is lower. I'm not knocking your efforts with Matroska for the most part (ok... on some level I am with the MKV work around). We think what you have done is the right thing considering the industry switch to AVC and your need for a container you can make work for you instead of against you. That's was the reason we created Matroska in the first place. What we see potentially happening though is MS might end up creating their own splitter solution for MF/Matroska because of the demand and then they wipe the need to not add third party decoders to MF.

But I think a better solution is a to have a MF certification process to ensure the quality of any decoder or splitter that could be added to the chain. But this also poses some real world questions on how to do this and the rules that decoders would have to abide by.... and I'm not sure MS (or all of us) want to go down that road.... but if that's what it takes.

DigitAl56K

7th May 2009, 01:25

My personal opinion is that Microsoft should not be in the business or locking people out of their own computers. I do not like the pains you have to go through to install unsigned drivers in Vista 64, for example. I think when it gets to the point that an end user is not able to easily install their preferred software for support of a media particular format then things have gone too far. MS have already had anti-trust problems in Europe due to bundling of WMP alone. A certification process for third-party decoders just to gain platform support would be a bit much and I would prefer not to see Microsoft move in that direction.

BetaBoy

7th May 2009, 16:48

Sure.... I think we all want that, but if left with no other choice? I'd rather go through certification to ensure that the decoders/splitters work as they should _IF_ they were to override the embedded WMP/MF decoders, ie; AVC, AAC, AC3.

G_M_C

7th May 2009, 17:40

What i'm curious about; Can you deactivate the the MS codecs altogether (through administrator interference or such) ?

If so, than other party (read: possibly better) products can be used of course.

benwaggoner

8th May 2009, 01:51

...So I think more that it is the fault of the 3rd party vendors and their wish to make their codec the system´s number one. And this will not change with the new architecture - instead you will block the open source codecs like ffdshow that might finally cause even less problems.
I think it's fair to say it's about 3rd party codecs randomizing things. Codec packs are the worst since their number of .dll to hours of testing ratio is problematic :), but DirectShow just wasn't architected to handle the explosion of different decoders.

And maybe the new approach ignores codecs like the ones above if they are installed on Windows 7, but who guarantees that the windows replacement really works in all the cases? I can remember discussions some years ago when people tried to decode h264 streams with Avisynths DirectShowSource and had problems because the Cyberlink codecs did not return the actual frame number or timecode (?) correctly.
Broadly, it's Windows who guarantees this. If there's cases where the decoders grab streams they can't decode, that's a bug and should be reported. I know those guys are testing with huge wads of different content, have multiple libraries of cleverly crafted corrupted content for fuzz testing, etcetera. I'm sure it'll be the most-tested decoder out there.

Although this is only locked-down with Microsoft's apps, as I understand it. AVISynth can use whatever decoders it likes.

LoRd_MuldeR

8th May 2009, 02:56

MS have already had anti-trust problems in Europe due to bundling of WMP alone. A certification process for third-party decoders just to gain platform support would be a bit much and I would prefer not to see Microsoft move in that direction.

It seems Microsoft still didn't learn the lesson :rolleyes:

The job of an OS is providing the interface through which the user can control his computer. It's not to take over control of the computer and lock out the user :rolleyes:

Also the proposed certification process for third party filter would be okay for commercial products, but completely excludes free OpenSource software :mad:

DigitAl56K

8th May 2009, 04:31

Also the proposed certification process for third party filter would be okay for commercial products, but completely excludes free OpenSource software :mad:

Not just open source software, but smaller developers in general. If MS really are going to restrict decoders in the most widely distributed media player on the most widely used consumer operating system that means wherever MS does provide their own decoder they will put a massive dent in the value potential for anyone else to trying to offer a solution. It's hardly pro-competition.

Example: What if CoreAVC, ffdshow, DivX H.264 decoders are faster that MS decoder, or have better error resilience, or support acceleration in ways MS decoder does not? Well, it sounds like your only choice as a consumer may be to find an alternative media player - which hasn't been the case certainly for as long as I've been using Windows. What would have happened if Microsoft had forced their own MPEG-4 ASP decoder 5 years ago? We'd have invested a lot of time in building a format in DivX that for some part of our user base we would all of a sudden lose any ability to influence playback performance, quality, backwards compatibility (patches for older encodes), etc.

What we see potentially happening though is MS might end up creating their own splitter solution for MF/Matroska because of the demand and then they wipe the need to not add third party decoders to MF.

Very broadly: If you're going to risk significantly diminished ability to influence the experience of any format further down the road why invest in it?

These are my personal opinions only, btw.

benwaggoner

8th May 2009, 06:16

Not just open source software, but smaller developers in general. If MS really are going to restrict decoders in the most widely distributed media player on the most widely used consumer operating system that means wherever MS does provide their own decoder they will put a massive dent in the value potential for anyone else to trying to offer a solution. It's hardly pro-competition.
I suspect that most 3rd party decoders are installed along with or for use with players beyond WMP/MCE, which would still be supported here. And of course decoders for unsupported formats and codecs will still be able to be added.

Example: What if CoreAVC, ffdshow, DivX H.264 decoders are faster that MS decoder, or have better error resilience, or support acceleration in ways MS decoder does not? Well, it sounds like your only choice as a consumer may be to find an alternative media player - which hasn't been the case certainly for as long as I've been using Windows. What would have happened if Microsoft had forced their own MPEG-4 ASP decoder 5 years ago? We'd have invested a lot of time in building a format in DivX that for some part of our user base we would all of a sudden lose any ability to influence playback performance, quality, backwards compatibility (patches for older encodes), etc.
Again, I think the consumers who'd care enough to install those components are probably using something other than WMP in the first place.

your Divx example is a little ironic, of course, as Divx itself started out as a hacked Microsoft .dll :). The whole point was to be able to use Microsoft's pt 2 encoder/decoder with AVI files.

The Divx player itself will continue to work fine under Win 7, so I'm not sure what the impact would be in your case.

Very broadly: If you're going to risk significantly diminished ability to influence the experience of any format further down the road why invest in it?
Well, we're talking about standardized formats and codecs here. There's not much ability for any one part to influence their future much. We're moving from an era of innovation to an era of implementation in terms of decoder stuff.

In the end, it's a tradeoff between robustness versus extensibility. And that's a classic in engineering. I've been yelled at enough by our external partners who have to support deployment to WMP that I'm very sympathetic to anything that can be done to make it more robust and reliable.

DigitAl56K

8th May 2009, 06:41

I suspect that most 3rd party decoders are installed along with or for use with players beyond WMP/MCE

I suspect many are installed with or for use with players in addition to WMP.

your Divx example is a little ironic, of course, as Divx itself started out as a hacked Microsoft .dll :). The whole point was to be able to use Microsoft's pt 2 encoder/decoder with AVI files.

It's ironic in what sense? I'm talking about MS locking down WMP after years of openness and limiting the experience users can have with a range of formats, where WMP is arguably the player that the majority of consumers will first be faced with on a Windows 7 system, and you're talking about someone unlocking a codec, which by the way predates the formation of DivX as a company.

The Divx player itself will continue to work fine under Win 7, so I'm not sure what the impact would be in your case.

I'm not speaking from the perspective of our case, but more so philosophically.

We're moving from an era of innovation to an era of implementation

Yes, limiting competition certainly tends to have that effect, doesn't it? ;)

In the end, it's a tradeoff between robustness versus extensibility.

In the end, it would be nice if WMP had a robust approach to extensibility, and if users had the option of making their own tradeoffs. Hence this thread.

clsid

8th May 2009, 14:11

I think it's fair to say it's about 3rd party codecs randomizing things. Codec packs are the worst since their number of .dll to hours of testing ratio is problematic :), but DirectShow just wasn't architected to handle the explosion of different decoders.Sorry, but that is a very n00bish statement of yours. The average video conversion/video editing/burning/mobile phone software bundle contain as least as many DirectShow filters as most codec packs. But the worst thing is that those software bundles install that stuff without its users being aware of it. If a user has a problem after installing a codec pack, it is obvious what the likely cause is, and he/she can simply uninstall it or seek help. Furthermore, most codec packs use filters that are also widely used outside of packs, so the testing argument is nonsense.

Certain codec packs are much more sophisticated than you seem to be aware of. For example the detection of known buggy codecs/filters, detection of incorrectly registered stuff, detection of stuff that is already installed on a users computer, etc.

Not all packs consist of dozens of codecs/filters. In fact some are pretty small, with just a handful of filters. Containing stuff that most users on this forum also use and recommend, such as MPC, ffdshow and Haali splitter.

It would be helpful if you could give specific examples of things that packs do wrong. And with specific I mean mentioning names of bad codecs/filters, wrong settings, and other behavior you consider bad. Then packs may get improved.

Now you are just saying: "Windows ME was bad, so Windows 7 must be bad as well".

benwaggoner

8th May 2009, 18:22

Sorry, but that is a very n00bish statement of yours. The average video conversion/video editing/burning/mobile phone software bundle contain as least as many DirectShow filters as most codec packs. But the worst thing is that those software bundles install that stuff without its users being aware of it. If a user has a problem after installing a codec pack, it is obvious what the likely cause is, and he/she can simply uninstall it or seek help. Furthermore, most codec packs use filters that are also widely used outside of packs, so the testing argument is nonsense.

Certain codec packs are much more sophisticated than you seem to be aware of. For example the detection of known buggy codecs/filters, detection of incorrectly registered stuff, detection of stuff that is already installed on a users computer, etc.

Not all packs consist of dozens of codecs/filters. In fact some are pretty small, with just a handful of filters. Containing stuff that most users on this forum also use and recommend, such as MPC, ffdshow and Haali splitter.

It would be helpful if you could give specific examples of things that packs do wrong. And with specific I mean mentioning names of bad codecs/filters, wrong settings, and other behavior you consider bad. Then packs may get improved.

Now you are just saying: "Windows ME was bad, so Windows 7 must be bad as well".
No doubt there are excellent codec packs out there. CCCP seems to work quite well in most case, although even there I've found some issues in practice with the ffmpeg it includes with some pro media tools.

The problem is we have to support the platform with all codec packs, not just the best ones. This has been a big ongoing support issue; we've got the logs (both complaints and crashes) to prove that.

I believe the thinking (again, I'm not part of Windows, so am not speaking for them in an official capacity) is that more users will be helped by eliminating the DirectShow codec priority wars in our 1st party apps than would be hampered by being locked into the new decoders. And since 3rd party apps can do whatever they want, there's an obvous alternative way to offer extensibility. Reading these forums, it seems like the users most likely to use codec packs aren't using WMP.

Dark Shikari

8th May 2009, 18:27

No doubt there are excellent codec packs out there. CCCP seems to work quite well in most case, although even there I've found some issues in practice with the ffmpeg it includes with some pro media tools.

The problem is we have to support the platform with all codec packs, not just the best ones. This has been a big ongoing support issue; we've got the logs (both complaints and crashes) to prove that.

I believe the thinking (again, I'm not part of Windows, so am not speaking for them in an official capacity) is that more users will be helped by eliminating the DirectShow codec priority wars in our 1st party apps than would be hampered by being locked into the new decoders. And since 3rd party apps can do whatever they want, there's an obvous alternative way to offer extensibility. Reading these forums, it seems like the users most likely to use codec packs aren't using WMP.So instead of having some users with good decoders and some with bad, you're going to force everyone to use bad decoders?

And don't tell me that they've "gotten better"; Microsoft has a decade-long record of producing terrible decoders. The real purpose of this is to try to destroy libavcodec's dominance on the desktop, something that Microsoft would absolutely love to do.

And it's done knowing full well that the people involved in libavcodec don't have the legal resources to call Microsoft on what is an obviously illegal monopolistic abuse (using OS dominance to defeat competitors in other markets). This isn't even a question--courts on multiple continents have already agreed that this kind of action is illegal.

benwaggoner

8th May 2009, 18:53

So instead of having some users with good decoders and some with bad, you're going to force everyone to use bad decoders?
Well, that's an emperical question. The decoders are all in the freely available RC. At this point, there's no way that Win 7 is going to change how WMP talks to MediaFoundation, but if you find a serious bug in the H.264 or other decoders, we need to know about that.

And don't tell me that they've "gotten better"; Microsoft has a decade-long record of producing terrible decoders. The real purpose of this is to try to destroy libavcodec's dominance on the desktop, something that Microsoft would absolutely love to do.
I think that's rather overstated :). We're talking about two apps here. All kinds of other decoders/demuxers can be supported in other apps. And the existing extensibilty model will work for new formats/codecs.

Anyway, the decoders are in RC right now. If that's what you're worried about, spend some time with the new decoders.

And if the built-in decodesr are simply terrible (which they aren't), then the codec pack vendors can just include their own media player ala Media Player Classic, which can then take over file type associations with user permissions. If someone makes a better WMV player than WMP, then users savvy enough to install a codec pack in the first place would be savvy enough to also install "SuperWMP" or whatever.

Remember, we're talking about the behavior of Windows Media Player here. The WMP team feels that their product will be better for most users by using specific decoders. VLC has made a similar determination.

And it's done knowing full well that the people involved in libavcodec don't have the legal resources to call Microsoft on what is an obviously illegal monopolistic abuse (using OS dominance to defeat competitors in other markets). This isn't even a question--courts on multiple continents have already agreed that this kind of action is illegal.
IANAL.

Dark Shikari

8th May 2009, 18:55

Remember, we're talking about the behavior of Windows Media Player here. The WMP team feels that their product will be better for most users by using specific decoders. VLC has made a similar determination.Good thing users can choose whether or not to install WMP rather than it being forcefully included in their operating system, right?

G_M_C

8th May 2009, 18:59

Good thing users can choose whether or not to install WMP rather than it being forcefully included in their operating system, right?

I think that's right for where the EU is concerned. So, in hindsight, a good call from the EC :)

(In the similar case where IE was concerned it has earned them some money too, cause they had to give a xx million dollars fine before MS conceded).

benwaggoner

8th May 2009, 19:03

In the end, it would be nice if WMP had a robust approach to extensibility, and if users had the option of making their own tradeoffs. Hence this thread.
Speaking of which, have you thought about using Silverlight for this?

Using the MediaStreamSource API, you could have a MKV demuxer, leverage the built-in decoders, and then translate the metadata to XAML objects for the on-screen display.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.media.mediastreamsource_members(VS.95).aspx

With Silverlight 3, you can even have out-of-browser apps on the desktop, still using the security model.

And we're also introducing the Raw AV pipeline, so video and audio decoders themselves can be built in managed code.

We're really positioning Silverlight as the solution for rich media presentation, particularly for web content. WMP is focusing more on local flie playback, library management, and device sync. And because it's supposed to be the safe home for your media library and partner to all your devices, the robustness bar needs to be really, really high. Your kid shouldn't be able to install some codec pack on your machine and have your camera videos start coming out with a different color space or something. Real consumers are having a lot of real problems with the current model.

Silverlight lets you tie extensibiltiy to a particular piece of media, and uses managed code in a sandbox, so it can allow much more flexibility in implementation.

benwaggoner

8th May 2009, 19:10

Good thing users can choose whether or not to install WMP rather than it being forcefully included in their operating system, right?
I believe Win 7 does allow you to uninstall WMP if desired.

I don't know if that would help in this case, since a new player with file time associations would be needed anyway.

clsid

8th May 2009, 20:35

Remember, we're talking about the behavior of Windows Media Player here. The WMP team feels that their product will be better for most users by using specific decoders. VLC has made a similar determination.It does not only affect WMP, but DirectShow applications in general. MPC is not affected because it uses its own graph builder instead the standard DirectShow one.

I was wondering, has anyone made any performance benchmarks yet? I would love to see a comparison of Microsoft vs. CoreAVC/DivX H.264 decoders (in pure software mode). If MS can deliver similar performance and compatibility as those decoders in RTM build, then I see no need for further criticism from my side.

clsid

8th May 2009, 23:10

For those that wish to change the preferred H.264 DirectShow filter that gets used by Windows 7, have a look here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146910

DigitAl56K

9th May 2009, 01:06

Speaking of which, have you thought about using Silverlight for this?

If I did think about developing for Silverlight I would certainly worry about the long term future of my work given these changes in WMP. But this discussion isn't about Silverlight.

I believe Win 7 does allow you to uninstall WMP if desired.

Which does not change the fact that by default it's going to be installed on all Windows 7 systems as the default player.

With regard to the limitations on simultaneous applications running on Starter Edition, is WMP excluded from the application count limit or not? I would hope it would be on equal footing with third-party players. I do read that there may be some exclusions, so I'd like to understand that situation.

For those that wish to change the preferred H.264 DirectShow filter that gets used by Windows 7, have a look here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146910

That's good information to have, but it isn't really practical for the masses, and as you mention doesn't change the media foundation behavior.

benwaggoner

9th May 2009, 02:10

It does not only affect WMP, but DirectShow applications in general. MPC is not affected because it uses its own graph builder instead the standard DirectShow one.
Sure, but any app who wants to use arbitrary codecs can go that route. It's up to the app vendor to either use the default stack or not.

If there turn out to be big deficiencies in the Win 7 decoders, I'm sure we'll see the community engaging there.

I was wondering, has anyone made any performance benchmarks yet? I would love to see a comparison of Microsoft vs. CoreAVC/DivX H.264 decoders (in pure software mode). If MS can deliver similar performance and compatibility as those decoders in RTM build, then I see no need for further criticism from my side.
I haven't myself, although the demos I've seen have been impressive.

Robustness is also going to be a big plus. There's a whole lot of fuzz testing that has gone into all of those decoders. Microsoft as an entity has terrible PTSD when it comes to buffer underruns in native code :).

benwaggoner

9th May 2009, 02:21

Which does not change the fact that by default it's going to be installed on all Windows 7 systems as the default player.
Sure, but so are different decoders. One way or another any of these options would require Admin authenticated modifications to the underying system.

It seems we have a difference in sense of the size of the audience who is able, willing, and interested in installing 3rd party DirectShow filters but who wouldn't be willing or able to use a different media player app.

I personally think that's a pretty small audience, and certanly smaller than the people who had support issues given the XP/Vista model. Thus, this seems lke a reasonable appraoch to improve the average user's experience with Windows, while still offering lots of flexibility for other applications.

And it sounds like people are already figuring out ways to hack around it, which was probably inevitable anyway.

With regard to the limitations on simultaneous applications running on Starter Edition, is WMP excluded from the application count limit or not? I would hope it would be on equal footing with third-party players. I do read that there may be some exclusions, so I'd like to understand that situation.
That I have no idea about.

Ramir Gonzales

9th May 2009, 05:45

Oh, It's just the usual Microsoft way of making us believe we have such a wonderful Windows experience thanks to them. Let them do their stuff, It ain't the first time they stole other people's code and called it their own. Let them restrict the users once more, let them shoot themselves in the foot like they did with Vista.

No problem for me, there will always be smart people that get us rid of all that crap microsoft trash.

G_M_C

9th May 2009, 09:54

Well, as my last remark into this discussion is we absolutely must not forget that the vast majority of people dont care at all what codec is used. It's almost the same vast majority that doesnt even understand what "codec" means. Those people use windows, got on the internet in general, and might even try out "bittorrenting" once in a while; And they will expect the clip/video/movie to work when they just double click on it.

The problem lies in the fact that that vast majority of people i'm talking about, easily outnumber us, the guys that do know what it is all about; And subsequently that majority pays the bills at MS headquarters. That's the reason MS feels it needs to do this.

The fact that WMP can be removed from my system is a good 1st step. But the removal of the codecs should be made (more easlily) possible too. Guys like us here on Doom9 will be able to tune their system, use other codecs.

But as an European; I feel another trust-case comping up. Cause i think vendors like DivX / CoreCodec can make a viable claim with our anti-trust commissioner Neelie Kroes; And she's not very taken with MS' businessmodel anyway.

DigitAl56K

9th May 2009, 10:49

I want to go back and discuss this:

Silverlight uses its own built-in decoders.

You see, lots of users wind up with all kinds of codec packs installed, and who the heck knows what might get called for a particular codec...

I haven't talked with the Windows team about this issue in particular, but I know that they're tracking a lot of problems users have by the "codec arms race" where codecs rate themselves much higher than they technically merit, and playback experience gets fragile or outright dysfunctional. The people here know how to debug those issues, but I'm sure you've all had to do a fair amount of codec pack fixing as well.

Microsoft designs the media framework. One of your fellow teams designed DirectShow, including critical pieces such as Intelligent Connect for the Filter Graph Manager, whose filter merit design is a big part of the problem. So you guys see the problem emerging and when it comes to designing the next generation framework, Media Foundation, do you:

Actually implement a proper preference management interface (UI+API), or
Lock many current technology providers out of WMP?

Microsoft controls the design of the media architecture, as well as the entire OS and all of its APIs. Why are we pretending that locking down WMP is an appropriate solution?

Should I bring up the history of "Set Programs Access and Defaults" at this point? And on that note..

It's a goal of Win7 to have much broader built-in support for media files, so hopefully there will be much less need for 3rd party decoders for common technologies.

Heh. Internet Explorer engine for browsing the web, everyone? ;)

BTW Ben I think it's worth mentioning that I understand these are not necessarily decisions you are personally responsible for, whether you stand behind them or not, and I appreciate the opportunity for discussion.

(Also, again, these are my personal thoughts)

turbojet

9th May 2009, 16:12

Well, that's an emperical question. The decoders are all in the freely available RC. At this point, there's no way that Win 7 is going to change how WMP talks to MediaFoundation, but if you find a serious bug in the H.264 or other decoders, we need to know about that.

Many people have found the same bug in the current VC-1 decoder which is completely freezing on some interlaced VC-1. I've let microsoft people know, including you, about it and it has gotten absolutely nowhere.

Not the type of support video enthusiasts or even people who just want to watch a bluray on their computer if WMP ever supports it appreciates.

Is this the type of support we are to expect?

LoRd_MuldeR

9th May 2009, 16:54

It's a goal of Win7 to have much broader built-in support for media files, so hopefully there will be much less need for 3rd party decoders for common technologies.

Built-in support for more formats than just WMV and MPEG-1 is a great thing, yes. I totally agree!
But locking out thrid-party filters at the same time is the wrong way of achieving this! I'd even prefer no native support for H.264 over being limited to the "built-in" H.264 decoders :rolleyes:
If every new "feature" comes along with two new restrictions, then better stop adding new features...

With the same logic you lock out thid-party filters, you could lock out Firefox from Windows, because InternetExplorer is already built-in. So there's no "need" for third-party browsers.
Or you could lock out OpenOffice.org, because with MS Office available, nobody needs to use evil third-party office software. And so on.

It's really time that Microsoft stops treating third-party software (especially none-commercial stuff) as something that tries to infect their nice "perfect" operating systems with infamous alien code.
Instead they should concentrate on what an operating system is supposed to do: Provide the platform to install, integrate and run third-party software!

(And like DigitAl56K I'm aware the Benwaggoner as a Mircosoft employee has to defend opinions that aren't necessarily his own ones. So don't take this personally, please!)

turbojet

9th May 2009, 16:55

I think they'll eventually see the errors of their ways.

I have a feeling it's going to be XP N x10 as far as lawsuits go.

benwaggoner

9th May 2009, 19:50

With the same logic you lock out thid-party filters, you could lock out Firefox from Windows, because InternetExplorer is already built-in. So there's no "need" for third-party browsers.
Or you could lock out OpenOffice.org, because with MS Office available, nobody needs to use evil third-party office software. And so on.
Locking out OpenOffice would be like locking out VLC or MPC, which is not what we're talking about, and would inarguably be a bad thing.

This would be more like, say, blocking out 3rd party Office plugins that used macros to reduce the thread of macro viruses. And in fact Office turned them off by default.

Or IE not making it easy to override the GUID for a particular ActiveX component.

It's really time that Microsoft stops treating third-party software (especially none-commercial stuff) as something that tries to infect their nice "perfect" operating systems with infamous alien code.
Instead they should concentrate on what an operating system is supposed to do: Provide the platform to install, integrate and run third-party software!

(And like DigitAl56K I'm aware the Benwaggoner as a Mircosoft employee has to defend opinions that aren't necessarily his own ones. So don't take this personally, please!)
Well, I'm actually (and only!) sharing my own opinions here; it's more that these are issues I'm not involved with personally or technically, so I'm trying to share the general Microsoft perspective on these issues but not that of Windows or the team who actually builds these components.

From a big picture, I'd hope everyone could take home that

This is something that is being done to address very real ongoing customer issues.
That any 3rd party app can do whatever with the media pipeline it likes.
That WMP can be uninstalled, or have its file associations replaced by something else, so if compellingly better 3rd party solutions exist, they can be used as the primary media player on the platform
We're expanding media extensibilty in Silverlight

Feel free to argue that we're not making the right balance between security/stability and extensibility, but I hope we can agree that a meaningful issue is being meaningfully addressed here, with meaningful attemps to miinimize the impact of that for a 3rd party ecosytem. And that this isn't about hostility to format extensibilty in general; the Raw AV pipeline in Silverlight is one of our top media features for v3, and already supported in the Moonlight 2.0 Preview.

We're a big company with some big products and a whole lot of different customers we need to serve, and so we make a lot of decisions that are balancing acts between the needs of different customers.

Feedback on how these issues could be further refined in future versions of Windows are always welcome - detailed customer feedback is a huge part of how Windows evolves, particularly when it comes from a very focused community like this one.

That ssid, Win 7 is in RC, so you're not going to be seeing big architectural changes. For the short term, if you're worried about poor decoders in Win 7, the best thing you can do is install the RC, test, test, test, and file bug reports.

I don't think x264 is capable of making a bitstream that would make Win 7 barf. Trying to prove me wrong could be entertaing for us all :)...

LoRd_MuldeR

9th May 2009, 20:28

Yoshiyuki Blade

9th May 2009, 20:34

3rd party decoders/splitters always looked sloppy to me, but they work better together. I never really cared to have coreavc or something working with WMP because WMP didn't have easy and direct access to the audio/subtitle channels. The chapters didn't work with the arrow buttons either (those had to be accessed by Haali media splitter on the tray). It's not a seamless experience unless you plan on modding the player a lot, at that point I might as well use a decent 3rd party player and be done with it.

benwaggoner

9th May 2009, 20:48

Technically there may be a difference between locking out thrid-party DirectShow filters and an applications like OpenOffice, because the former is an add-on to existing applications while the latter is a stand-alone application. But the way of thinking is the same! Instead of accepting third-party software as a desirable extension of their own products (may that be in form of an "add-on" or in the form of a stand-alone application), Microsoft tries to push their own software as a "closed" product - allowing third-party extensions only in places where they can't provide an own solution yet. Furthermore your argument that we still can use alternative players instead of WMP doesn't really apply. First of all Microsoft is heavily pushing their own solution (WMP) by bundling it with their operating system. So as a matter of fact, the majority of all Windows users is using WMP and very few people know that alternatives exist. This already is highly questionable and Micorsoft has been sentenced for that practice. Now they go one step further and lock out third-party filters from WMP. You see it? They tolerated third-party filters as long as they didn't have their own filters ready. But once they have their own solution, they lock out everything that they can't control themselves. Obviously they fear the competition between their own filters and the well-established third-party ones. By locking out third-party filters they avoid any competition from the very beginning. And they know very well that this will make third-party decoders/splitters MUCH less attractive for the average user! You should know that most people are extremely unwilling when it comes to installing new application and they dislike everything that doesn't look like the applications they are used to. So if they need to install some alternative media player just to use a third-party filter, they will rather choose they easy way and not use the third-party filter. Last but not least I'm very sure that people will be very confused when they update to Windows 7 and all of a sudden their favorite filter, which they have been using for years, doesn't work in WMP anymore. The developers of such filters will be bombed with error reports...
Again, a user who doesn't know anything beyond WMP exists isn't going to know anything beyond the build in MF codecs exist either.

It seems like any user who can install and use ffmpeg etcetera can install and use MPC or whatever.

If I'm missing an important scenario here, let me know, but it seems like that's a small audience, and certainly smaller than the poeple who wind up with multiple .dlls that can support the same decoder in the same way being in conflict.

So, as Micrososft we certainly think that 3rd party extension is a critical part of the platform as a general rule, and we're offering tons of entry points for that. However, on net, Windows feels that the aggragate consumer is more likely to be happy with the new and and highly tested built-in decoders than whatever random one systems wind up with in practice. We can't assume users would only install the current versions of the best ones; we know that's not what's happening in practice. And 3rd party filtes for new formats and codecs are still supported, so this doesn't lock out innovation on that front.

If you can point to a case where there's a decoder/splitter that does important things the built-in ones can't and WMP can't access, than absolutely bring this up. But it seems like we're weighing a very real support issue with a very theoretical potential advantage here.

While having a media player built into an OS is certainly an important feature, I don't think we're doing anything to dissuade customers from using other media players, particularly those that address specialized needs.

People have long complained that Windows didn't have good support for recent standards-based media formats, which Win 7 is addressing in a big way. And they've long complained about how WMP gets messed up by different .dlls trying to do the same thing. Both are getting addressed. And this is in the general context of wanting to make Windows a better platform out of the box, and a lot more robust. We don't like hearing poeple say they have to wipe their system every few months due to system stability or .dll hell or whatever, so there's a whole lot of different efforts going on to prevent that kind of system decay. If all our users were as technical as this audience, it could be a different story, but you guys are in the top 1%, so there's a lot of protecting users from doing this they don't understand that has to happen.

If you've got a particular suggestion about how those goals could be better addressed, please share them. But I think it'd be helpful to filter that through the goals that we're trying to solve here.

Ramir Gonzales

9th May 2009, 20:58

First of all, I can understand the way of thinking as Microsoft does it, after all they are a commercial institution with all the might and power of deciding who can do what, but I suspect, for the same amount of buzz they now spread with Windows 7, they will end up like Vista another time.

People should be aware that they are offering an operating system, which in a normal sentence means an environment for programmers to work with, but their ongoing trend of creating "everything" and as fast as possible, not interested at all in the functionality nor the openness of their brewings. They are simple trying to get as much patents as possible.

There may be not so smart people hoping Windows 7 will be a new milestone, but someone a little knowledged knows that they are just further burdening every user's option to choose what they like, and they will face the consequences once again.
And in all seriously, Microsoft already knows that this same day, they just will not admit.

I hope they find enough *newbies* (being users and new computer buyers) to get rid of their Windows 7 stocks, but more experienced users will not swallow it, and they have the perfect rights to do so.

LoRd_MuldeR

9th May 2009, 21:05

Again, a user who doesn't know anything beyond WMP exists isn't going to know anything beyond the build in MF codecs exist either.

Definitely wrong. Prior to Windows 7, the WMP was pretty much useless without third-party filters. No support for MPEG-4 ASP, no support for H.264, no MP4 spiltter, no MKV splitter and I could name more. So we can safely assume that the great majority of WMP users are currently using third-party filters like ffdshow, DivX Decoder, CoreAVC and Haali Splitter. All these users will be affected :(

(Also I'd assume that the majority of DivX and CoreAVC customers still uses WMP as their primary player. Maybe DigitAl56K or BetaBody could confirm that)

Shakey_Jake33

9th May 2009, 21:11

In fairness (not wanting to get involved in the debate), I think a huge amount of people install codec packs such as CCCP and don't actually know what they are using.

Eragon4ever

9th May 2009, 21:29

If you've got a particular suggestion about how those goals could be better addressed, please share them. But I think it'd be helpful to filter that through the goals that we're trying to solve here.
Add an option "Thanks, I'm an advanced user and know what I'm doing. Now unlock this player and use the decoders I want to use."
I don't mind if the player is locked down by default but please give people like me the option to use what they want (and unlike many here in this forum I prefer WMP over MPC).

benwaggoner

9th May 2009, 21:34

Definitely wrong. Prior to Windows 7, the WMP was pretty much useless without third-party filters. No support for MPEG-4 ASP, no support for H.264, no MP4 spiltter, no MKV splitter and I could name more. So we can safely assume that the great majority of WMP users are currently using third-party filters like ffdshow, DivX Decoder, CoreAVC and Haali Splitter. All these users will be affected :(
That is an illuminating example.

A huge fraction of Windows installs are corporate desktops where there users don't have admin rights. I doubt more than 10% of PCs in the world have ever had 3rd party DS filters, but a big chunk of that 10% had problems that were very hard to fix. So a good chunk of that 10% wound up getting a wipe or "WMP stopped working." That's a disaster for the user, and the aggragate of those experience drags down Windows.

It's very easy to focus on Windows the way you and the people you talk to run it, but there's a huge variety of different sub communities with very different usage models, experinces, favorite features, and complaints.

Lots of people just use WMP as is.

And lot of people get media extensitibilty via applications, like iTunes, QuickTime, Divx, VLC, WinAmp, Cyberlink, etcetera etcetera.

(Also I'd assume that the majority of DivX and CoreAVC customers still uses WMP as their primary player. Maybe DigitAl56K or BetaBody could confirm that)
Really? Doesn't Divx come with the Divx player and take over the file type?

Snowknight26

9th May 2009, 22:06

but if you find a serious bug in the H.264 or other decoders, we need to know about that.

Would the lack of honoring the SAR flag, or the apparently horrible deblocking/resizing be considered serious bugs?

benwaggoner

9th May 2009, 22:45

Would the lack of honoring the SAR flag, or the apparently horrible deblocking/resizing be considered serious bugs?
I'm not sure what issue you're talking about, but if you've got a repro, absolutely go ahead and file it.

DigitAl56K

9th May 2009, 23:33

In fairness (not wanting to get involved in the debate), I think a huge amount of people install codec packs such as CCCP and don't actually know what they are using.

You mean those people who, running as an administrator on their own system, install a package whose purpose is to load the system up with 101 random decoders they have no clue about? The results aren't really the fault of the codec pack, are they?

And has that problem actually been solved in the new framework? Sure, WMP will now ignore your administrative attempts to change its behavior, what do all the other players do?

It goes back to my question a few posts ago - Microsoft recognized a problem in the design of the old media framework, did they choose an appropriate way to tackle that problem? I suspect the same problem is still there and if anything they've set a bad example to everyone else. It's hard to tell though, because unlike with the DirectShow equivalent I can't yet find detailed information on how IMFTopoLoader::Load works.

Really? Doesn't Divx come with the Divx player and take over the file type?

IIRC we associate ".divx" to DivX Player, and offer to also associate ".mkv", by that's opt-in unless there is no existing association.

DigitAl56K

10th May 2009, 00:00

So, as Micrososft we certainly think that 3rd party extension is a critical part of the platform as a general rule, and we're offering tons of entry points for that. However, on net, Windows feels that the aggragate consumer is more likely to be happy with the new and and highly tested built-in decoders than whatever random one systems wind up with in practice.

As a monopoly OS vendor should Microsoft be allowed to make that call?

We can't assume users would only install the current versions of the best ones; we know that's not what's happening in practice.

Doesn't Microsoft run Windows Update? Aren't Opera and Mozilla currently asking for you to offer their browsers through it?

And 3rd party filtes for new formats and codecs are still supported, so this doesn't lock out innovation on that front.

As a monopoly OS vendor should Microsoft be allowed to dictate where innovation can occur?

If you can point to a case where there's a decoder/splitter that does important things the built-in ones can't and WMP can't access, than absolutely bring this up.

So we can help strengthen your position against the competition?

But it seems like we're weighing a very real support issue with a very theoretical potential advantage here.

The advantage is fair competition. It is the very nature of competition that you may not see in advance the potential benefits that others see. That is how competitive innovation occurs.

People have long complained that Windows didn't have good support for recent standards-based media formats, which Win 7 is addressing in a big way.

All that is being asked is not to lock down the default media player shipping on the OS.

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 00:06

You mean those people who, running as an administrator on their own system, install a package whose purpose is to load the system up with 101 random decoders they have no clue about? The results aren't really the fault of the codec pack, are they?
This is a "whole product" issue. It's not a matter of blame or fault. It's that there's an aspect of Windows and its ecosystem today that leads to a lot of customer pain. It doesn't matter what the cause of the problem is, it's happening on Windows, and customers blame us for it and yell at us to fix it.

Granted, now you guys are yelling at us about the fix, which happens most places where Windows removes old but insecure functionality. All we can do it try to listen to every stakeholder and make the change that works the best for everyone in aggragate.

And has that problem actually been solved in the new framework? Sure, WMP will now ignore your administrative attempts to change its behavior, what do all the other players do?
The right thing for the goals they're trying to achieve?

This is a self-correcting market to large degree. If there turns out to be some massive deficiency in WMP12 that makes it a poor solution, there will be lots of players jumping in to close the gap. If WMP12 actually delivers on its promise, then there wasn't a problem in the first place.

It goes back to my question a few posts ago - Microsoft recognized a problem in the design of the old media framework, did they choose an appropriate way to tackle that problem? I suspect the same problem is still there and if anything they've set a bad example to everyone else. It's hard to tell though, because unlike with the DirectShow equivalent I can't yet find detailed information on how IMFTopoLoader::Load works.
Well, that's another issue entirely; we ought to have good public documentation for all APIs. I assume you guys have MSDN and all that? Feel free to PM directly if you want.

IIRC we associate ".divx" to DivX Player, and offer to also associate ".mkv", by that's opt-in unless there is no existing association.
So it seems like you should be in good shape then. I wouldn't think people would want to view .mkv in WMP anyway, since it wouldn't be able to handle.

I remain intrigued by the idea of a MKV demuxer/player for Silverlight, however. That woudl be pretty trivial.

Is anyone experimenting with MKV for streaming/progressive, or is it always just download-and-play? It seems like all that great structured metadata could be useful in a wide variety of usage models.

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 00:19

As a monopoly OS vendor should Microsoft be allowed to make that call?
IANAL. But obvious we have and need some latitude to make changes to make Windows better.

Doesn't Microsoft run Windows Update? Aren't Opera and Mozilla currently asking for you to offer their browsers through it?
Not that I've ever heard of. Firefox has its own quite good auto-update functionality; I haven't used Opera in ages.

As a monopoly OS vendor should Microsoft be allowed to dictate where innovation can occur?
Perhaps you mean to ask "where" not "if", but IANAL.

So we can help strengthen your position against the competition?
That's what this whole thread is about? Whether or not this change is good or bad for Windows and its users. The only way you could hamper our posiition if you gave us bad advice that we listend to :).

Anyway, if you're worried that Win 7 is going to yield a bad media experience, than help make sure that won't happen. 3rd party splitters aren't the goal, they're a tool.

The advantage is fair competition. It is the very nature of competition that you may not see in advance the potential benefits that others see. That is how competitive innovation occurs.
Agreed. And there's plenty of ways that someone with an innovative decoder and demuxer can validate it. That said, there really aren't a lot of companies who enjoy having to ship their own DirectShow components with their own players; the idea that Windows could include a much higher guaranteed baseline of functionality is rather appealing to them.

All that is being asked is not to lock down the default media player shipping on the OS.
Wasn't that addressed by making it uninstallable?

Again, I'm hearing a lot of very theoretical thoguhts on what the downsides could be, which from my perspective don't seem that compelling weighed against the robustness benefit to many users.

Perhaps it would be helpful if someone could point to a specific class of content or whatever that is known not to work here.

This kind of feels like the NZ guy's article on all the horrible things that the DRM in Vista could have done in theory, but turned out not to in practice.

DigitAl56K

10th May 2009, 00:43

This kind of feels like the NZ guy's article on all the horrible things that the DRM in Vista could have done in theory, but turned out not to in practice.

Except that this time it's not just about customer experience but competitive practice. You don't seem to acknowledge a problem there so it's fruitless for me to continue the discussion for now.

Have a great weekend folks! :)

CruNcher

10th May 2009, 00:51

IIRC we associate ".divx" to DivX Player, and offer to also associate ".mkv", by that's opt-in unless there is no existing association.

I wrote some pages back that you have to differentiate your product from others and imho DivX Player is far from user friendly nor !!warning buzzword!! "innovative" in any case for a avg user it's still a very complex dialog driven Player and in those regards MPC HC or Zoomplayer are the non plus ultra if you either think you are as advanced to use it or have the time to learn it :)
Finaly Microsoft understood that WMP needed a OSD interface tough still not enough options i wished for are accessible in a easy way but it's a improvement after all especially that you don't lose any Hardware Decoding capabilities since Vista and 7 (which i think are big improvements on the underlying Video technology that came with Vista from a Design Freedom point of view, so why thinking in the old BOX utilize them).
Mozilla shows quiet nicely how it can be done to promote a project even for avg user successfully and they gonna grow and there are some new Player on the Horizon that could be the next AVG joe hits if they done properly :) For us experienced users though we would never be happy with such easy to use Players except if they had also advanced modes to utilize that gave us full control back :)
Sure it's arguable what Microsoft does here btw they will say in front of court we try to improve the user experience, give better support as benwaggoner already mentioned and one essential reason that is like "the evil terrorism is guilty effect" protect users from Virus,Malware, Rootkit and other Malicious infections but of course it would endup in doing a certification process as always when Malicious code infections are called out as the EVIL and this would be again sort out a lot of free and os solutions because they could be potentially dangerous, so yep i want to say is all this happening out of pure coincidence or planed very carefully ?

PS: Autoruns just got Codec listing support in it's last version added, surprised ?
And if you don't like this future of Windows then i guess it's time for you to move Linux :) see the impressive improvements they made over the last 10 years you have a big alternative there now if you don't agree anymore with Microsofts politics.

kunkie

10th May 2009, 01:00

I can think of a great example of how this could go wrong.

Quicktime on Mac OSX.

Although Apple are making improvments, if you want to distribute content to Mac users running Quicktime you have to encode your files with crippled features. (No High Profile etc.) It also has a high CPU footprint when decoding. AFAIK it's not possible to properly replace Apple's decoder within Quicktime (I guess it could be possible with some reverse engineering)

End users lose out as a result of higher bitrates; content providers also have to pay for this extra bandwidth as well as reduced innovation. Users on lower end machines also have to fork out more cash to play higher-resolution video, when their current machine could have been ok.

A little OT... but does anyone feel like we do that this is getting worse? and that the Apple precedence in the industry for the closed eco-system's on the iPod, iPhone/Touch, which is now being followed up with MS doing the same (but in software)? Yes, it's 'potentially closed' since Windows 7/WMP are just RC atm and not final, but still.

Too many companies are getting bad ideas from the "walled garden software" concept that the iPhone brought in.

STaRGaZeR

10th May 2009, 01:04

benwaggoner, please respond to this:

Add an option "Thanks, I'm an advanced user and know what I'm doing. Now unlock this player and use the decoders I want to use."
I don't mind if the player is locked down by default but please give people like me the option to use what they want (and unlike many here in this forum I prefer WMP over MPC).

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 01:22

Except that this time it's not just about customer experience but competitive practice. You don't seem to acknowledge a problem there so it's fruitless for me to continue the discussion for now.
I'm mainly looking at it from the customer perspective, sure. But I'm not clear who the competitor looking to compete in this scenario is for for you. Most of the scenarios I can think of here would also involve a custom app . Does anyone have a business around providing .dls that are largely run inside of WMP?

Every new version of every OS includes some new things where commercial products already exist. DOS didn't even incldue a full-screen text editor for many years (man, did I hate edlin). That's really inevitable, and good, since we wouldn't want ot have to pay as much for a modern OS as it would have cost 10 or 20 years ago to buy all the products to offer equivalent functionality.

But OS integrated solutions are inevitably going to breadth tools more than depth tools, and it's important the OS make room for the depth tools. However, those breadth tools will need to find places where they can provide sufficiently differentiated features.

So, I'm not saying your concerns are invalid, but that the tradeoff here seems reasonable to me given the competing goals. We've made a big improvement in real-world WMP stability/robustness, and hence Windows user experience. Apps other than WMP can default to the new model, but can opt into whatever set of technology as they see fit.

As a practical question, it'll have an emperical answer. If there are classes of real-world content for which sigiificant numbers of real-world users on Win 7 see a regression in their media consumption via WMP in specific or Windows in general, then there's a problem. If not, there isn't.

Betsy25

10th May 2009, 01:31

I think this discussion is very important for future windows experience. I still believe Microsoft should not worry about 3rd party codec experiences, since users only interested in using WMP will not install 3rd party content anyway, but at least give the users who do want to use 3rd party contents the option to do it.

BTW, What does I ANAL mean ? :)

Sagekilla

10th May 2009, 01:38

@Ben: Can we get feedback on the possibility of having the ability to tell WMP what decoders/etc it should use?

@Betsy25: IANAL means "I am not a lawyer"

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 01:41

benwaggoner, please respond to this:
That's a reasonable general approach. The trick would be to make sure it's something the user could opt into but that could be something any authenticated app could silently set.

I don't know if that was considered and what the discison was. There's strong general pressure to reduce the amount of rarely used configuration options across Windows in order to make things less confusing for the user and to reduce the test hit.

It's roughly as expensive to make one feature with two modes as two features with one mode, so in terms of customer value per release, it's best to figure out the optimum way to do something once and do it that way than just not decied and offer multiple so-so ways. There are certainly plenty of places where the best experience is to have a few different modes, but those need to be judiciously chosen. In general, the value of the user getting the option right has to be greater then the risk from them setting it wrong.

And rest assured, any possible combination of configuartion settings anywhere in Windows will get set to every possible set by some users.

DigitAl56K

10th May 2009, 02:28

I'm mainly looking at it from the customer perspective, sure. But I'm not clear who the competitor looking to compete in this scenario is for for you.

CoreAVC, DivX, FFDShow, Xvid, Elecard, 3ivX, Nero, joe shmoe cooking up an alternative ASP/AVC decoder in his basement. I'm not looking at this from the perspective of any sole solution, but at a higher level.

Most of the scenarios I can think of here would also involve a custom app . Does anyone have a business around providing .dls that are largely run inside of WMP?

FFDShow, Xvid, CoreAVC, and of course many DivX users use WMP also, even though we do provide a player. Bundled products have a natural advantage in terms of branding, expectation, their ability to be fully integrated with the OS and media framework out-of-the-gate. Any third party, including those above, will now be limited in terms of the play they can have with the bundled product, WMP, where they were not before, and my opinion is that this stifles competition now more than ever.

Every new version of every OS includes some new things where commercial products already exist.

And it is not that Microsoft have included new things that most concerns me, it is that their bundled products, which used to be open, are now closed in key areas. It is not just that Microsoft is locking down WMP that is at issue, it is the position they are in as they do so.

As a practical question, it'll have an emperical answer. If there are classes of real-world content for which sigiificant numbers of real-world users on Win 7 see a regression in their media consumption via WMP in specific or Windows in general, then there's a problem. If not, there isn't.

Yes, there is a problem. The question is not whether the experience is regressed, it is how, given Microsoft's position, they affect the ability and viability for others to play in the space in future. If you can't understand the distinction then this discussion is futile.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE51N6OA20090224

In 2007, European Union courts upheld the European Commission's finding that Microsoft violated antitrust law by bundling its Windows Media player with the Windows operating system. It also found Microsoft used illegal tactics against RealNetworks real player.

The company has been fined more than $2 billion for its violations and for failing to carry out remedies imposed by the Commission.

And to be clear for others: This is a philosophical discussion only ;)

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 03:14

@Ben: Can we get feedback on the possibility of having the ability to tell WMP what decoders/etc it should use?
I can't imagine it'd happen in Win 7 at this point. It's in RC and so architectual features like this with a big potential test matrix aren't going to be changed without an extremely big reason.

Everyone testing Win 7 everyone who doesn't like this should please provide a bug report on it at the Connect site. That stuff is absolutely recorded and tracked.

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 03:21

CoreAVC, DivX, FFDShow, Xvid, Elecard, 3ivX, Nero, joe shmoe cooking up an alternative ASP/AVC decoder in his basement. I'm not looking at this from the perspective of any sole solution, but at a higher level.
Well, if Divx as a business feels there is a business risk to you from this, you should absolutely go through your formal channels you with Microsoft as an ISV to discuss this. I'm just another nerd on a message board here :).

FFDShow, Xvid, CoreAVC, and of course many DivX users use WMP also, even though we do provide a player. Bundled products have a natural advantage in terms of branding, expectation, their ability to be fully integrated with the OS and media framework out-of-the-gate. Any third party, including those above, will now be limited in terms of the play they can have with the bundled product, WMP, where they were not before, and my opinion is that this stifles competition now more than ever.
And the part I bolded there is very much on our minds when we think about robustness.

And it is not that Microsoft have included new things that most concerns me, it is that their bundled products, which used to be open, are now closed in key areas. It is not just that Microsoft is locking down WMP that is at issue, it is the position they are in as they do so.
Except it's not locked down anymore. It can be uninstalled, which wasn't true before. You could also look at this as an opportunity to build a complete WMP replacement if that's of interest.

Also, this is all academic, because it presumes that there can be compellingly better components than the built-in ones. There's a RC that's as free download now. How about people give them a spin and see if they think they still need alternate implementations for the built-in demuxers/decoders.

DigitAl56K

10th May 2009, 03:29

Well, if Divx as a business feels there is a business risk to you from this, you should absolutely go through your formal channels you with Microsoft as an ISV to discuss this. I'm just another nerd on a message board here :).

Same, but I have not been speaking with specific regard to DivX ;) Thanks for the replies :)

fields_g

10th May 2009, 05:19

WMP keeps being brought up. THESE CHANGES LOCK DIRECTSHOW, NOT WMP!!!!!

Couldn't WMP just disregard non-MS certified codecs in the existing merit structure? Then the points about Microsoft wanting to protect the users of their player would be defensible. Only WMP is hobbled/protected. 3rd party players and apps using directshow still have full opportunity to use MS and non-MS codecs as they currently do.

Don't like that.... Wanna protect everything directshow... Well here is another idea.....DON'T..... Just repair it!

If Microsoft is concerned about bad codecs getting high merit and disturbing the user experience, Microsoft could "graciously" provide a tool that would reprioritize the merits of MS certified codecs. Would this be that difficult? Oh.... and make the tool run only when the user requests, not like the "Default Browser" checks we get now with IE and Firefox.

gahz

10th May 2009, 07:04

this topic wouldn't happen to be the reason why my x264 transcodes using megui is going alot slower in win7 than vista would it?

i've reinstalled vista and win7 numerous times with the same settings to make sure it isnt a fluke occurance.

djloewen

10th May 2009, 07:15

This has turned into quite the debate, and without diverting the entire stream, I do want to throw one pebble in.

If I felt that this was just one step in some giant Microsoft scheme to dominate every aspect of the PC market (like everything they did in the 90's) I'd be concerned. But I don't think that's happening. I think Microsoft has legitimate reasons for doing this, and I think their current business practices generally reflect a desire to create a cohesive PC ecosystem that includes third party vendors, while minimizing the issues that arise from such open architecture (that Apple loves to use as weapons in their ads). I'm fine using MS's codecs in WMP, and I'm comfortable using 3rd party software + codecs if for some reason I want to. I do find it interesting that the topic has sparked such heated debate, and I suspect that the complaints largely fall into two categories: those who don't agree with the statement I just made about MS's business practices, and those who have a direct interest in the decoder market (primarily CoreAVC and DivX), or supporters of either company, who feel that they are being muscled out of the ring. Here is my general response to them. Before reading on, I'd just like to quickly mention that I mean no hostility toward any individual (or company). These are just my thoughts.

I don't think that DivX should be using the word "competition" in reference to what they do, compared to Microsoft. If they are thinking that way, I don't think that's particularly healthy. And the recent H.264 DivX/CoreAVC "competition", which is not often overtly mentioned, is a bit dated to me. The world is moving on, and the consumer-level H.264 decoder (and certainly the consumer-level MPEG-4 ASP decoder) is not something that people will need to deal with anymore.

CoreAVC, you've obviously got some great talent in your corner, but as I mentioned, the world is moving on. I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about H.264 decoding at this point. I certainly don't mean to imply "settle for mediocrity" or anything of the sort. If you guys really can code the fastest H.264 decoder out there, that is absolutely something to be proud of. But will it make you money? Probably not much, anymore.

As a consumer, what I like to see companies doing is to say "in what way can we improve the technological ecosytem in general, so that consumers benefit from it, and make some money in the process?". In DivX's case, the answer lies in the fact that there is no "video standard". I can confidently say that we all regularly deal with issues of compatibility between file types, codecs and devices. Personally, the videos I encounter are my own encodes of my movie and TV collection. Here's what I want: to encode each video once, in high quality (1080p/5.1 sound if available at the source), and be able to play that file on my computer, or anyone else's computer, or stream it to my television, or play it on my portable device, or output from my portable device to a hotel television, etc. One file, that's it.

DivX is potentially in a position to facilitate that with their certification program, which I think is great. So, Windows 7 has an H.264 codec built in. Fine. If they could get a matroska splitter in there I think that would be great too (particularly since there's currently no way of having matroska metadata show up in WMP - that's one giant, smelly problem if you ask me. Microsoft or DivX, if you can get this working by Christmas, I'll send you one big freaking fruit basket). Your brand is already recognized and you make nearly all your revenue from licensing and certification. Is there a reason a consumer should want to choose your codec over Microsoft's? If you point out that yours is faster, or has a better deinterlace filter, and Microsoft says "cool, we'll make ours faster and have a better filter", don't fight it, just roll with it. As benwaggoner says, if there is a strong reason why consumers would want your particular decoder in there then please do mention it. If theirs has bugs, please report them. But if all you can do is say "ours is 5% faster", just let it go. You're not making the world a better place. Find some other venue for your coding skills that will provide greater benefit to comsumers, and make you money.

I should add that it's late, and I'm typing this rather quickly. I'm open to alternate opinions on all points, and there is the very real possibility that I haven't accurately expressed my thoughts to begin with :). So if you respond, please be nice. I'd love to hear other peoples' thoughts on this.

DigitAl56K

10th May 2009, 07:29

djloewen,

There are some interesting points in your post :) My one request would be that you don't make the mistake of interpreting my comments here as being on behalf of or in the interest of DivX - i.e. ignore my avatar for a moment :) I'm personally very interested in the future of media, and along with that comes certain personal opinions/beliefs/philosophies. I've been speaking very much more broadly around those, that's all.

djloewen

10th May 2009, 07:45

(I should also mention that while I have no problem with Microsoft's codec-related decisions here, I do fully support removing WMP from Windows and, perhaps, adding it to the Windows Live family. At the very least, that might mean that it would get updated a little more often. WMP12, and some related media streaming features, are the only spot in the Windows 7 RC that I have found bugs - but now that it's RC, and the bugs aren't life-threatening, I don't even have a way of reporting them to Microsoft.)

Snowknight26

10th May 2009, 09:55

I do fully support removing WMP from Windows and, perhaps, adding it to the Windows Live family.

I think what people on the hall want is a functional out-of-box experience. How would your average user react when they found out that they can't play videos recorded with their camera without downloading additional software? Probably not too well, I can assure you. On the other hand, for technically-savvy people like the majority of those on these forums, it seems that flexibility and having more control over software are the main priorities. In this case, for example, for those that do indeed use WMP as their dominant player, adding some kind of system that allows for easily definining/interchanging decoders and what have you would hopefully be an acceptable (and impartial?) solution. At this point though, one can only dream.

I don't even have a way of reporting them to Microsoft.
I can definitely empathize in that respect. Somewhat unfortunate, too.

DigitAl56K

10th May 2009, 10:39

What are you guys talking about?

I just looked at Microsoft's support site for Windows Vista Home Premium (US), and I found out that after you activate Windows you get 90 days of free support! After that, or if you got your license through an OEM, it looks like you only have to pay $59 each time you have a problem if you want to talk to MS directly. So for example if you find a bug with the H.264 decoder in WMP rather than hoping that a fix will eventually come it might be nice if you could try the DivX decoder for free, or FFDShow for free, or CoreAVC for $15. But it's cool because what MS is doing with WMP just makes sense, right?

turbojet

10th May 2009, 11:10

Microsoft is in the business of making money and I'm guessing they are seeing dollar signs from WMF.

You may or may not be surprised after spending $59 to talk to someone in India that can hardly understand what you are asying and even if they can they'll probably dance around the issue and say it's something outside of their product. But it's more money in microsoft's pocket since these Indians are getting paid pennies on the dollar compared to an american that can understand everything.

No disrespect to benwaggoner or others that work for microsoft but I think they are trained to dance around the issue.

benwaggoner was nice enough to reply to me, a first from microsoft, about VC-1 interlaced streams not being decoded. But in the end I feel he either didn't understand the issue. With a clip provided is that possible on this forum?
Or danced around the issue by claiming that 1 year old hardware isn't good enough for BD VC-1 playback, which it clearly is and has nothing to do with the real issue. When I asked for a contact I got absolutely nothing, it's frustrating to say the least.

clsid

10th May 2009, 14:42

@turbojet
Contact zachdms about your VC-1 issue. He is part of the WMP team. Maybe he can help you better.

djloewen

10th May 2009, 16:06

@DigitAl56K:
I am not referring to bugs in a decoder. There are bugs in the library/organization functionality - it starts to break down when you get beyond a certain number of mp3s. Do I want to pay $59 to report this to Microsoft now? No. When I get Windows 7, and I can tell them for free, will they listen? Almost certainly not - "support" and "bug reporting" are two different things, and they just don't have a venue for users to report bugs (other than the Win7 beta, which I missed my chance on). Obviously I don't like that situation, and I wouldn't be the first to say that it's a symptom of a company being too big for their own good. But I don't want this to complicate the main issue - this has nothing to do with their current decoder state. If the library/organization functionality of WMP doesn't work for me, I don't have to use it. MS isn't forcing it on me.

I don't think it's fair to them to speak of hypothetical bugs in their decoder, because while their structure doesn't allow for much in the way of user feedback, it does instead allow for extensive testing on their own end, and I don't know of any bugs in their decoders. If there were indeed one, you would be right to say "their system sucks because I can't install my own decoder and theirs is broken", but 1) you'd still be able to use third-party software and decoders, and 2) this simply isn't the case.

turbojet

10th May 2009, 16:45

@turbojet
Contact zachdms about your VC-1 issue. He is part of the WMP team. Maybe he can help you better.

Thanks, I messaged him.

BetaBoy

10th May 2009, 18:18

CoreAVC, you've obviously got some great talent in your corner, but as I mentioned, the world is moving on.

Wow... Your post/interjection/pebble misses the fundamental issue at hand of CHOICE. Not features, not bugs, not anything other then CHOICE.

I for one as a consumer or company do not want my choices for something I have had the power over using within an application I use or develop for taken away without due cause. I don't want to hear excuses about the consumer experience as it would be the consumer looking for something better or well suited for their needs. I'm not even going to go down the road of features sets, third party technologies and the like this will/is affecting.

djloewen

10th May 2009, 18:52

I for one as a consumer or company do not want my choices for something I have had the power over using within an application I use or develop for taken away without due cause.

Perhaps there is a fine line between pulling some flexibility out of software to minimize the likelihood of problems for the average end-user, and antitrust issues. Microsoft must find it frustrating when millions of users install buggy codec packs on their machines, and then say "this isn't working, Windows sucks!" They get blamed for a lot of stuff that isn't actually their "problem" per se, and yet they obviously have an interest in helping to solve these problems. In recent days Microsoft has taken many steps to deal with that sort of issue, for example:
-delivering solid hardware drivers through Windows Update (this has/will probably cut blue-screens down by 95%)
-Morro, their upcoming free antimalware solution (because, it turns out, a lot of people just don't bother otherwise)
-getting more involved with computer vendors (such as training Best Buy reps to know a little more about the computers they're selling).

To me, this is just another point on that list. And yes, in this case it is closing off options that were previously available. But not big ones. Consumers are still welcome to use third-party players and codecs, and if they don't work properly, those users are welcome to say "grr, so-and-so's software sucks" as opposed to "Microsoft sucks", which would be the case with WMP.

And believe me when I say that if I ever think they're stepping beyond these reasons, and taking away end-user choice without "due cause", I'll be the first guy to throw rocks at them.

STaRGaZeR

10th May 2009, 19:46

I can't imagine it'd happen in Win 7 at this point. It's in RC and so architectual features like this with a big potential test matrix aren't going to be changed without an extremely big reason.

Fail. I'm not buying W7 if things work like this in the final version. I hope lots of people will do like me so Microsoft takes the hit where it hurts the most: money.

Microsoft already knows about this "issue", there is no point in reporting it, and you know it. It's in your hands, and you don't want to change it. I don't think this has to be discussed any more as others have said.

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 20:00

Microsoft already knows about this "issue", there is no point in reporting it, and you know it. It's in your hands, and you don't want to change it. I don't think this has to be discussed any more as others have said.
No, please, report it. Describe what you're trying to do, why this model doesn't work, possible ways to address it. Give specifiics, ideally with links to actual media.

That all goes into a big database that gets used in feature planning. There's a whole lot of codec pack related problems in those databases. If a small but passionate community like this wants to be counted amoung all that, then you've got to make the case.

This thread can be superheated, but there's a big difference in product planning between a request that fixes a problem that a dozen people have reported versus 500.

Software development can be viewed as optimizing for the maximum aggragate user value per hour of dev/test/PM. And user value is user number * impact.

If you want your voice to count, not speaking up won't have much impact.

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 20:18

Wow... Your post/interjection/pebble misses the fundamental issue at hand of CHOICE. Not features, not bugs, not anything other then CHOICE.
And choice needs to be judiciously weighed against robustness and user experience. Unfettered choice is no more viable in a product than complete lockdown; the challenge is to figure out the right mix that serves different goals.

I for one as a consumer or company do not want my choices for something I have had the power over using within an application I use or develop for taken away without due cause. I don't want to hear excuses about the consumer experience as it would be the consumer looking for something better or well suited for their needs. I'm not even going to go down the road of features sets, third party technologies and the like this will/is affecting.
Can we at least agree that there's a real reason for this? You're saying excuse like codec pack and multiple decoder issues aren't an actual problem, but there's plenty of evidence here at forums.doom9.org that the contrary is true :). And the people who can make it as far as here to ask for help with a problem are going to be the top portion of the audience who have tried.

Seriously, lots of people trying to install third party components wind up with a degraded or dysfunctional WMP, which is a real problem for them and for us. We can have interesting discussions about the right way to deal with that, but this is a real issue for a lot of people worth addressing.

turbojet

10th May 2009, 20:35

Most people wouldn't install codec packs if they could play iout of the box.

If WMP is the only real concern why not restrict it to certain decoders like media center but let these decoders also work over directshow and let people install third party decoders that can be used everywhere outside of WMP?

clsid

10th May 2009, 20:54

There is also plenty of evidence on Microsoft Technet that codec packs actually solve playback problems that users have.

There also is plenty of evidence that the changes that Microsoft has made in Windows 7 are causing users problems that did not exist in XP/Vista.

Brazil2

10th May 2009, 21:07

And user value is user number * impact.
I already knew that, being a Windows user for about 17 years since I started to use Windows with Windows 3.0 after using 8 and 16-bit computers. Microsoft tried many times to make their own way of doing things to become the standard de facto but fortunately had to step back many times.

The main problem is Microsoft's state of mind tinking that they are making the rules rather than following the existing ones.
For instance, they tried to make their own version of Java to become the standard but failed, they tried to make Windows Media to become the standard but failed, they tried to change the web standards with IE but failed and even today there are still some pages on the Microsoft's site which doesn't fully work on a non IE browser. And also untill recently it was not possible to get the full features of Hotmail on a non IE browser, Firefox 1.5+ was added some months ago and it's still not working fine with some browsers which are using the exact same engine as Firefox like SeaMonkey. Etc etc...

Windows is now a software suite and not only an operating system, hence the need for Microsoft to keep the customers to get used to their products.
It's OK to have some built-in decoders, I have no problems with that and it will be fine for the users who don't care about how it works but just want it to work out of the box. But locking other decoders is just unacceptable. Once again this is MY computer and not Microsoft's computer. Microsoft will have to find another excuse anyway because the times when most people knew almost nothing about computers is behind us now, for about 15 years people have grown up using computers so Microsoft won't be able to fool them anymore.
There is not only one model of computer, there is not only one use for computers, that's even the beauty of the thing: each computer is unique because we can make it like WE want.

So no more excuses, it's not about few (compared to the total number of Windows users) idiots who are installing codec packs but it's about Microsoft's state of mind of locking things as the goal is still and again the same: monopoly.

STaRGaZeR

10th May 2009, 21:51

If you want your voice to count, not speaking up won't have much impact.

Are you going to change it prior to W7 launch? I guess not, and you've already said that it's not likely (in practice that means it's impossible). Knowing that, I don't want to waste my time in something that has been already deprecated by the design team.

On a side note, you have a much bigger influence than any of us. Use it. With luck we might have something useful for SP1. It's funny that you, who works for Microsoft in aspects related to video, tell us to report something that you have messed up in the first place. I find it really funny.

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 22:13

There is also plenty of evidence on Microsoft Technet that codec packs actually solve playback problems that users have.
Largely due to limitations in Windows' built-in media format support, which is the primary new feature here.

There also is plenty of evidence that the changes that Microsoft has made in Windows 7 are causing users problems that did not exist in XP/Vista.
The more specific evidence and use cases you and others report, the better.

benwaggoner

10th May 2009, 22:22

Are you going to change it prior to W7 launch? I guess not, and you've already said that it's not likely (in practice that means it's impossible). Knowing that, I don't want to waste my time in something that has been already deprecated by the design team.
There's always Hotfixes, Service Packs, and Win 8. If it's important enough to write here, it's important enough to give your feedback to someone tasked to weigh that feedback against other feature requests.

On a side note, you have a much bigger influence than any of us. Use it. With luck we might have something useful for SP1. It's funny that you, who works for Microsoft in aspects related to video, tell us to report something that you have messed up in the first place. I find it really funny.
If I find a bug in an Office beta, I file a bug report on Connect just like everyone else.

There's definitley lots of backchannel discussions of these things, but they have more impact when there's been 1000 requests for something in the database than when there's 10.

Giving formal feedback in via formal channels is how you show this isn't just a handful of guys on a forum, but something of broader concern.

Snowknight26

10th May 2009, 22:42

If I find a bug in an Office beta, I file a bug report on Connect just like everyone else.

If only it were that easy. Where would you file bug reports for Windows 7, or say Windows Media Player 12? I don't see categories remotely close to either of those. Or maybe I don't have permission to see those categories, in which case I wouldn't have said 'just like everyone else.'

DigitAl56K

10th May 2009, 22:53

And believe me when I say that if I ever think they're stepping beyond these reasons, and taking away end-user choice without "due cause", I'll be the first guy to throw rocks at them.

In the future when you find you aren't getting exactly what you want or need out of a bundled product and turn around to find that there are fewer alternatives than there used to be because of the actual influence of product bundling, including bundling of closed products in place of open ones, don't be surprised. At that point you can test how well throwing your rocks helps to solve your problems.

STaRGaZeR

10th May 2009, 23:14

There's always Hotfixes, Service Packs, and Win 8. If it's important enough to write here, it's important enough to give your feedback to someone tasked to weigh that feedback against other feature requests.

OK. Then if I give feedback, is Microsoft going to change it? Or maybe the whole community (even those you're targetting this feature to) crapping on this decission are needed for Microsoft to change their minds like has happened lots of times before? Please be honest, my feedback will not have any effect based on history. Has Microsoft changed? Doubt it, and this whole mess is only confirming my doubts.

Giving formal feedback in via formal channels is how you show this isn't just a handful of guys on a forum, but something of broader concern.

Like I say above I think the only channel that works is public backlash. Sad but true. History has proven it.

SeeMoreDigital

10th May 2009, 23:53

BetaBoy

11th May 2009, 06:27

In the future when you find you aren't getting exactly what you want or need out of a bundled product and turn around to find that there are fewer alternatives than there used to be because of the actual influence of product bundling, including bundling of closed products in place of open ones, don't be surprised. At that point you can test how well throwing your rocks helps to solve your problems.

Ditto.

G_M_C

11th May 2009, 09:48

Hmm...

Not allowing "3rd Party ASP/AVC Filters in WMP/MCE on Win7" seems like yet another good enough reason not to "upgrade" from WinXP.

Microsoft sure likes to shoot themselves in their own feet :(

Yep, Í had planned to upgrade this year. In fact i'm already updating the hardware (CPU/MEM and mainly storage in the form of HDD's and SSD for system). But i'm going to hold off upgrading OS until this issue gets some satisfactory solution.

ChronoCross

11th May 2009, 18:34

I'm not sure what the problem is here. This conversation as far as I can tell has several points.

Situation
1) Microsoft has created a program (Windows Media Player)
2) Microsoft has created filters for media playback
3) Microsoft has decided it wants it's own filters to be used so long as one exists for that content.

Resolution
1) Use another player (there are tons of alternative players)
2) Let microsoft use their own filters for playback.
3) Give up on watching media.

@BetaBoy
Correct me if I'm wrong doesn't Coreplayer for windows prefer the built in filters for playback?

@ALL
Isn't this how VLC and Mplayer work?

turbojet

11th May 2009, 19:06

I think the real issue is microsoft forces you to use their filters for WMP and more importantly directshow even after installing third party ones.

MPC-HC, VLC and Mplayer have their own decoders indeed but they don't force you to use their decoders in or outside of the player.

clsid

11th May 2009, 19:06

me7

11th May 2009, 19:39

I think you guys underestimate how big the market for "fool-proof computers for non-technicians" is. Some poeple pay huge sums for overpriced compouters (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mco=MTE2NjM) that offer as little flexibility as possible, but also offer fewer opportunities for you to screw them up. The vast majority of Windows users will appriciate that WMP plays many formats out of the box and that is the audience that Microsoft targets its OS at. The sooner you get over it the better.

ChronoCross

11th May 2009, 19:54

Many people want to use Windows Media Player and/or Media Center. But suddenly they are no longer able to play their media files the same way as they did in XP/Vista with the same Microsoft players. The Microsoft filters don't always works properly. Problems vary from stuttering playback to having no audio. But people are forced to use them (without resorting to hacking the OS).

Do they have a place to report bugs? Do you think the average non-illegal downloading user will notice these problems?

So the situation has become worse compared to previous version of Windows.

What other players do is totally irrelevant.

I don't see how it's irrelevant. We should all go bitch slap VLC and Mplayer for not directly supporting CoreAVC as it's the default codec for my windows media player on vista and they should totally honor that setting.

Ramir Gonzales

11th May 2009, 20:15

Perhaps there is a fine line between pulling some flexibility out of software to minimize the likelihood of problems for the average end-user, and antitrust issues. Microsoft must find it frustrating when millions of users install buggy codec packs on their machines, and then say "this isn't working, Windows sucks!" They get blamed for a lot of stuff that isn't actually their "problem" per se, and yet they obviously have an interest in helping to solve these problems. In recent days Microsoft has taken many steps to deal with that sort of issue, for example:
-delivering solid hardware drivers through Windows Update (this has/will probably cut blue-screens down by 95%)
-Morro, their upcoming free antimalware solution (because, it turns out, a lot of people just don't bother otherwise)
-getting more involved with computer vendors (such as training Best Buy reps to know a little more about the computers they're selling).

To me, this is just another point on that list. And yes, in this case it is closing off options that were previously available. But not big ones. Consumers are still welcome to use third-party players and codecs, and if they don't work properly, those users are welcome to say "grr, so-and-so's software sucks" as opposed to "Microsoft sucks", which would be the case with WMP.

And believe me when I say that if I ever think they're stepping beyond these reasons, and taking away end-user choice without "due cause", I'll be the first guy to throw rocks at them.

Please stop your record on the "buggy codec packs" theme, there's a scratch in it, and it's hampering.

There are 2 widely used "codec pack's", One quite well known, and one second, but of these "buggy codec pack's" are quite refined, not as buggy as you make use believe, and 3, codec packs don't make a system unstable and slow.

I know clsid sticks to the most widely used codecs which most of us need, either through his codec pack, or install seperately, they get updated quite regularly, and clsid offers one hell of a helping hand at people asking for support.
It is a shame in trend we see people offering something for free taking the time for helping out others, while those wanting to get rich from something don't have much interest in helping their customers. They are, as already said here, only getting trained to dance around the subject, and if call these guys at $59 a piece, you won't get much more than whatever you read all around the place, and the usual things you know yourself since you started utilizing the PC all those decades ago.

What you are talking about is the so called "codecs" people install when being urged to view that specific porn scene from that specific porn site, or what gets dumped on their system with screenshot captor X or Y, or bloat Photo editor P or Q, but please stop referring to codec packs as the ultimate evil where all our problems lie. You're just going way to tight through the corner.

clsid

11th May 2009, 20:24

I think you guys underestimate how big the market for "fool-proof computers for non-technicians" is.The problem is that Microsoft's current solution is not fool-proof. I help many people with media playback issues, of which a large portion are novice PC users, any I foresee lots of dissatisfied Windows users once OEMs start shipping the final version of W7. Even when the MS filters are further improved, there are still open issues such as getting proper subtitle support.

Do they have a place to report bugs?Yes. Technet. Although that is more like a support forum.
Do you think the average non-illegal downloading user will notice these problems?Where people get their files is totally irrelevant. If a scene release fails to play properly, then your own backup might as well. A problem was mentioned in this topic with vc-1 video from a blu-ray disc.
I don't see how it's irrelevant. We should all go bitch slap VLC and Mplayer for not directly supporting CoreAVC as it's the default codec for my windows media player on vista and they should totally honor that setting.Those cross-platform players don't use DirectShow.

@Ramir,
You can report your problems here:
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itpromedia/threads

ChronoCross

11th May 2009, 21:17

The problem is that Microsoft's current solution is not fool-proof.

well neither is open source solutions either so the argument of perfection being an issue is probably not a good point.

I help many people with media playback issues, of which a large portion are novice PC users, any I foresee lots of dissatisfied Windows users once OEMs start shipping the final version of W7.

I don't particularly agree with you on this one. I believe the more all in one solution that microsoft is proposing has the possibility for being really great for novice users. Since a ton of legitimately purchased content should be throughly tested.

Even when the MS filters are further improved, there are still open issues such as getting proper subtitle support.

Something they can work on but I don't think it's something that should be a rallying cry for how horrible Microsoft is.

Where people get their files is totally irrelevant. If a scene release fails to play properly, then your own backup might as well. A problem was mentioned in this topic with vc-1 video from a blu-ray disc.

could you point this out in the thread. I'd like to read over it as I missed it. thanks

Those cross-platform players don't use DirectShow.

WMP in windows 7 user Media Foundation with a direct show fallback so technically it doesn't use directshow primarily anymore. So in reality media foundation is sort of akin to the closed platforms of VLC and Mplayer.

clsid

11th May 2009, 21:36

Brother John

11th May 2009, 21:42

cyberbeing

11th May 2009, 21:42

I would have assumed more of you guys would have gotten on the Tech Beta for Win7 and/or Media Center. Maybe Ben Waggoner could pull some strings to make it happen?

If not, and anybody who isn't on the Tech Beta wants to compile a list of bugs with reproduction steps (send them to me via PM), I would be happy to submit them as Bug Reports through Connect. By submitting them through Connect they have a much better chance of getting logged, tracked, and potentially fixed.

Just keep in mind that that at this point no major changes are likely going to happen. Since the Win7 beta is being run differently from the Vista beta, major changes like these would have had to happen before Tech Beta had begun and before Beta was even released. Now that they are to the RC the chance of anything major changing is slim to none. Bugs will be fixed, but no major functionality will likely change. It doesn't hurt to file a feature request anyway though.

turbojet

11th May 2009, 21:44

ChronoCross

11th May 2009, 22:34

I suggest you read this whole topic again. A few times. Then another few times.

It is not a bad thing that MS has added support for more formats out-of-the-box. In fact, that is great. The point of this whole discussion is that MS has locked out third party filters (both open-source and commercial) from being used by their players instead of the native filters. So if a user is dissatisfied with the MS filters for whatever reason (performance, compatibility, feature set), then no alternative filter can be used (without 'hacking' the OS). This applies to both DirectShow and Media Foundation.

I already read this topic. My point being is it's their right to do this. There are ways to not use Windows Media Player so it's not like they are locking out all other media players. Quicktime Player, Nero, PowerDVD, VLC, Mplayer all do this. While it's not nice for people developing directshow filters it's not the end of the world.

No. For two reasons:
1) VLC and mplayer are not an almost-monopoly OS vendor.
2) VLC and mplayer were standalone from the beginning. WMP was open first and now got locked down.

1) What does this matter? That'd be like saying the if firefox suddenly removed all extension support that we should just say oh well it's no big deal because they aren't a monopoly
2) What does this matter? They changed the application behavior with a version upgrade. This is not the first instance of a program changing the way it works.

clsid

11th May 2009, 23:01

*sigh*

G_M_C

11th May 2009, 23:16

I already read this topic. My point being is it's their right to do this. There are ways to not use Windows Media Player so it's not like they are locking out all other media players. Quicktime Player, Nero, PowerDVD, VLC, Mplayer all do this. While it's not nice for people developing directshow filters it's not the end of the world.

1) What does this matter? That'd be like saying the if firefox suddenly removed all extension support that we should just say oh well it's no big deal because they aren't a monopoly
2) What does this matter? They changed the application behavior with a version upgrade. This is not the first instance of a program changing the way it works.

The problem in this case is choice, to be specific: The lack of one. I don't like MS making choices for me, since i'm fully capable of making my own choice. MS even goes so far as to make it impossible for me to make a choice at all.

You'd be screaming if you were forced to use one kind of phone, and be forced to use it on 1 network only, without any ability to chance that; Even is you reception is terrible, and the damn thing wont work as intended.

LoRd_MuldeR

11th May 2009, 23:25

Isn't this how VLC and Mplayer work?No. For two reasons:
1) VLC and mplayer are not an almost-monopoly OS vendor.
2) VLC and mplayer were standalone from the beginning. WMP was open first and now got locked down.

That plus: They are OpenSource software! So the intended way of adding a specific "feature" is including the corresponding module and re-compiling ;)

So MPlayer/VLC are "standalone" in a sense that they don't rely on external decoders/splitters, but they are completely "open" to custom extensions/modifications at the same time.

In contrast WMP is a black box, where you don't even know what is going on inside. And you can only extend it through binary interfaces at places where Microsoft happens to allow it.

...until on day they decide to change their opinion, lock down the interface and say: haha! :rolleyes:

ChronoCross

11th May 2009, 23:51

The problem in this case is choice, to be specific: The lack of one. I don't like MS making choices for me, since i'm fully capable of making my own choice. MS even goes so far as to make it impossible for me to make a choice at all.

You'd be screaming if you were forced to use one kind of phone, and be forced to use it on 1 network only, without any ability to chance that; Even is you reception is terrible, and the damn thing wont work as intended.

Simple solution: Don't use windows media player. You still have a choice, your example doesn't quite fit with the situation as I could still choose to use linux, or I could switch to VLC to play my content. They haven't locked down the audio card and video card to only be use able by Microsoft products.

That plus: They are OpenSource software! So the intended way of adding a specific "feature" is including the corresponding module and re-compiling ;)

So MPlayer/VLC are "standalone" in a sense that they don't rely on external decoders/splitters, but they are completely "open" to custom extensions/modifications at the same time.

In contrast WMP is a black box, where you don't even know what is going on inside. And you can only extend it through binary interfaces at places where Microsoft happens to allow it.

...until on day they decide to change their opinion, lock down the interface and say: haha! :rolleyes:

Still has no effect on the argument that Microsoft should be able to make their software to behave how they want to. If they chose to close it off then so be it.

They are still giving the consumer a choice much in the same way that I can install firefox as an IE replacement.

LoRd_MuldeR

12th May 2009, 00:07

Still has no effect on the argument that Microsoft should be able to make their software to behave how they want to. If they chose to close it off then so be it.

Anyway, the behavior of explicitly inviting third-parties to extend your own player software as long as you can't provide a "complete" solution yourself and then all of a sudden locking out third-party extensions, because you finally have your own solution ready after years of inactivity, simply sucks :mad:

They are still giving the consumer a choice much in the same way that I can install firefox as an IE replacement.

That would be okay, if they wouldn't be aggressively pushing people to use WMP by bundling it with Windows and by closely integrating it into the OS :rolleyes:

Yes, theoretically you can uninstall WMP. Yes, theoretically you can use an alternative player. But will the average user do that? Nope. And this is something they know very well!

Snowknight26

12th May 2009, 00:59

Yes, theoretically you can use an alternative player. But will the average user do that? Nope.
Then again, the average user wouldn't use other decoders, so whatever's included with Windows 7/WMP12 would suffice.

LoRd_MuldeR

12th May 2009, 01:05

Then again, the average user wouldn't use other decoders, so whatever's included with Windows 7/WMP12 would suffice.

But the average user certainly will complain as soon as he runs into his first playback problem with the Microsoft decoders. And then we can't suggest the number one solution for playback problems in DirectShow-based players anymore: Use Haali + ffdshow! That's because there won't be an easy way to replace the Microsoft filters in case they don't work as desired.

Also there's a huge difference between installing an additional filter (e.g. ffdshow) to enhance the player you are used to and switching to a completely different player software.

You can easily get people to install a specific filter in order to fix their playback problems inside WMP, but it's pretty hard to convince an average user that he needs to switch to an alternative player.

12th May 2009, 01:12

Then again, the average user wouldn't use other decoders, so whatever's included with Windows 7/WMP12 would suffice.
As I understand from first posts, there is no mkv splitter and subtitle renderer bundled with system

Snowknight26

12th May 2009, 02:00

As I understand from first posts, there is no mkv splitter and subtitle renderer bundled with system

There also is no Ogg splitter, or FLAC decoder, or DTS decoder, or TrueHD decoder, or Real Video/Real Audio decoder or..

Heck, WMP11 had even less decoders bundled with it, but that isn't the point.

G_M_C

12th May 2009, 02:16

Simple solution: Don't use windows media player. You still have a choice, your example doesn't quite fit with the situation as I could still choose to use linux, or I could switch to VLC to play my content. They haven't locked down the audio card and video card to only be use able by Microsoft products.
[...]

Player yes, but i still dont have a choice to let my player of choice use the decoder I choose. AFAIK Win7 will default to using its own decoders no matter what player i choose, except whe i use a player with build-in decoders. So only switching player wont do if you'd like to use CoreAVC for instance.

benwaggoner

12th May 2009, 02:22

There also is no Ogg splitter, or FLAC decoder, or DTS decoder, or TrueHD decoder, or Real Video/Real Audio decoder or...
And since none of those ship in Win 7, WMP/MCE would use DirectShow/MFT versions of those for playback, right?

The issue is that WMP won't use 3rd party components for things it has built-in components for. If it's a new codec or format, the existing extension model, and probably the existing components as-is, should still apply.

Or am I misunderstanding here?

Leak

12th May 2009, 10:07

The issue is that WMP won't use 3rd party components for things it has built-in components for. If it's a new codec or format, the existing extension model, and probably the existing components as-is, should still apply.
How about instead of forcing this on the user just giving them a "Reset codecs" button that will reset all codec associations to the Windows default settings?

G_M_C

12th May 2009, 10:33

@ benwaggoner:

I know you have no influence in the choice that has already been made. But is it at least possible for you that give out signals to the WMP-team ?

Hopefully you can than signal that it would be desirable to build in a possibillity to choose; Be it in the form of a tool that can disable use of the build in codecs, or something like the merrit system in DS codecs now (but better ;) ). This not only from a user point of view, but also from a buisness point of view. Cause i wont be surprised if CoreCodec can make a viable claim to the EU commision about the misuse of a monopoly position, ending up that MS gets another multi-million euro's fine.

squid_80

12th May 2009, 11:06

Most people wouldn't install codec packs if they could play out of the box.
Snap. Right there is the reason why the "we're protecting users from themselves" excuse does not hold up. MS has given the customer a solution and additionally made sure it is the only one usable. Imagine the outcry if they blocked Firefox from being used as the default web browser, simply because it's possible to install plugins that crash every time you open it.

benwaggoner, how are CoreCodec and DivX meant to explain to people who have previously purchased their filters and used them under XP and Vista without issue that they won't work in win 7 unless they additionally install and use a media player that includes functionality to explicitly select the filter used for decoding?

12th May 2009, 11:38

Player yes, but i still dont have a choice to let my player of choice use the decoder I choose. AFAIK Win7 will default to using its own decoders no matter what player i choose, except whe i use a player with build-in decoders. So only switching player wont do if you'd like to use CoreAVC for instance.
It depends on how the player uses DirectShow: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1283085#post1283085
Advanced DirectShow players support (or will support, if Windows 7 behaves like this) custom graphs so they can use 3rd party decoders in place of Microsoft's implementations.

Doom9

12th May 2009, 13:05

1) Use another player (there are tons of alternative players) You're mistaken on that.. any DirectShow based player that doesn't has its own graph building mechanism is affected... meaning basically every player but MPC (HC).
Isn't this how VLC and Mplayer work? Both those players are not DirectShow based - they are completely self contained (if they were DirectShow based you wouldn't see them running on different platforms).

BetaBoy

12th May 2009, 15:18

benwaggoner, how are CoreCodec and DivX meant to explain to people who have previously purchased their filters and used them under XP and Vista without issue that they won't work in win 7 unless they additionally install and use a media player that includes functionality to explicitly select the filter used for decoding?
Even more to the point.... how is MS going to handle the backlash from all of the current Retail/OEM solutions (software+hardware), that provide those one-off 'bundled services' that utilize custom directshow filters for their solution? (Especially since most of them are now just adding/starting to migrate/release to AVC/AAC now)

ChronoCross

12th May 2009, 16:55

You're mistaken on that.. any DirectShow based player that doesn't has its own graph building mechanism is affected... meaning basically every player but MPC (HC).
Both those players are not DirectShow based - they are completely self contained (if they were DirectShow based you wouldn't see them running on different platforms).

This problem only affects Windows Media Player AFAIK. Even if it affects all directshow related there are still a few players stated earlier in this thread that are functional in windows 7 using custom filters such as CoreAVC.

I know the players don't use directshow....that was a sad point to point out. I was basing it mostly on the fact that those players don't give you a choice of decoder either.

People are only angry about this because there are existing third party filters that they use and that has been taken away. it's not the premise that windows media player uses it's own internal filters over all others.

BaRRoS

12th May 2009, 17:25

People are only angry about this because there are existing third party filters that they use and that has been taken away. it's not the premise that windows media player uses it's own internal filters over all others.
If WMP uses it's own filters, then people's third party filters are taken away....

After reading all this thread I'm now curious how Win7 Media Center will handle my media with it's internal codecs, but i'm going to install the RC on my 5 year old PC and test x264 playback in media center before I start bashing MS for having a slow decoder and not letting me install CoreCodec.

CruNcher

12th May 2009, 20:54

Yes, theoretically you can uninstall WMP. Yes, theoretically you can use an alternative player. But will the average user do that? Nope. And this is something they know very well!
Sorry but what ? you say that things like Firefox wouldn't have worked but it's wrong you just have to deliver a interesting enough solution to the masses like Mozilla did, for example DivX own Player is never gonna win a Price and doesn't deliver what Firefox for example vs IE8 delivers so with a bad non mass friendly application you won't win the majority of hearts that you need to compete.

Even more to the point.... how is MS going to handle the backlash from all of the current Retail/OEM solutions (software+hardware), that provide those one-off 'bundled services' that utilize custom directshow filters for their solution? (Especially since most of them are now just adding/starting to migrate/release to AVC/AAC now)

Not much backlash to expect there, many ISVs began years ago to change their Applications and shutoff their Core from inside interfering (using their own Graph building, some also do direct calling based on different criteria) many go as far that even outside usage isn't allowed anymore (or sell this as another solution for WMP, which obviously is now dead on Win7) it won't hurt Cyberlink, Arcsoft or Nero all have their Private ecosystem by now and now it seems we can add Microsoft WMP to that list too.
So yeah hard times for for many ISVs that only live from selling Codecs for the WMP crowd without having their own Player as sad as it is.
All this happened because Directshow failed what was once thought of to be a super flexible framework ended up in a support and interoperability horror for many with the time more and more filter started to interact on a machine the DLL Hell scenario repeated it became "Directshow Hell" it got out of control :)
Now many ISVs decision then was to close out all problematic areas and so the flexibility in the commercial world at least is dead by now, this is what happened over the last years im somewhat surprised to see that many missed that development it seems.

Brother John

12th May 2009, 21:21

They are still giving the consumer a choice much in the same way that I can install firefox as an IE replacement.
Actually they are *taking away* a choice that used to be there. That alone is something worthy of discussion. In this special case however it’s even worse. Effectively what’s happening is MS using their monopoly power in one market (OS) to stifle competition in another market (media playback). This is certainly very intentional. MS is not *that* incompetent to overlook such a huge issue! And they’ve got a history of usng the same strategy.

ChronoCross

12th May 2009, 21:34

Actually they are *taking away* a choice that used to be there. That alone is something worthy of discussion. In this special case however it’s even worse. Effectively what’s happening is MS using their monopoly power in one market (OS) to stifle competition in another market (media playback). This is certainly very intentional. MS is not *that* incompetent to overlook such a huge issue! And they’ve got a history of usng the same strategy.

I really hate it when people say that Microsoft is using a monopoly in every decision they make.

How many commercial filters can you name that don't have their own independent playback solution? I currently can only name coreavc (which is also included in their own COREPLAYER).

Yes ffdshow is getting pwned like a bunch of n00bs in this arrangement. Sure some people won't like it but it's not illegal and there are plenty of options open for people who don't want to use windows media player. If you use windows media player your just going to have to accept it's faults.

DigitAl56K

12th May 2009, 22:14

This problem only affects Windows Media Player AFAIK.

It depends. I'm still waiting for Microsoft to publish details of how the IMFTopoLoader::Load (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms693561(VS.85).aspx) is going to prioritize transforms (e.g. 3rd party vs Microsoft) without a custom implementation or wrapper class. If anyone has seen any documentation perhaps they can point me to it. Here's an example of the documentation they provide for DirectShow's Intelligent Connect (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd390342(VS.85).aspx).

Edit: I found this has been added to the Intelligent Connect page..

4. Starting in Windows 7, DirectShow has a list of preferred filters for certain media subtypes. If there is a preferred filter for the media type that is being rendered, the Filter Graph Manager tries that filter next. An application can modify the list of preferred filters by using the IAMPluginControl interface. Changes to the list affect the application's current process, and are discarded after the process ends.

Preferred lists in step 4 are checked before filter merit in step 5.

DigitAl56K

13th May 2009, 02:49

ChronoCross

13th May 2009, 07:45

73ChargerFan

13th May 2009, 08:58

Microsoft dropped this bomb, around 7 weeks ago - it was not in the public beta, and was not announced as one of their "improvements." Read the first page of this thread.

DigitAl56K

13th May 2009, 09:09

If we were not looking at the beta we could not have recently released the tech preview. We do not necessarily know every detail before the rest of the world though. I've been following this thread since it started and discussing the points that interest me from a personal perspective, which I've stated many times.

G_M_C

13th May 2009, 10:35

clsid

13th May 2009, 12:29

The preferred list for DirectShow seems to be maintained here:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\DirectShow\Preferred

Perhaps I misunderstood the thread earlier, but I was under the impression that the preferences were limited to Media Foundation only. In the RC I notice that when I use GraphEdt or GraphStudio for ASP content a Microsoft DMO is being attached to the AVI splitter even though I have an ASP DirectShow Filter decoder with higher merit on the system (which I can connect manually). Is this the expected behavior?
Yes, that is expected behavior.

I have posted a tool for changing the preferred filters here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146910

It currently only supports H.264, allowing to switch to ffdshow, CoreAVC or DivX H.264 decoder. I will add other mediatypes later, maybe this weekend.

BetaBoy

13th May 2009, 14:18

I'm kind of surprised about the utter lack of information from two major media companies (DivX and CoreCodec). It really seems like neither party has done much in way of looking at Windows 7 Beta's.

Is there any communication between you guys and Microsoft at all?

CC.... If you read through here at D9 and the threads with Albain we have looked at the Pre-RC's and the RC itself for Win7. Some things are more implied then documented at this point as DigitAl56K has said. Microsoft has been contacting us through the Matroska mailing list on and off as I mentioned earlier in this thread (but they can contacted me directly: betaboy AT corecodec DOT com .

As far as clsid tool.... it does what MS indicated to do, and its a nice tool to have 'now'. But that type of feature needs to be added within the splitter/codecs themselves and as clsid noted it does not affect Media Foundation at all, and this is the fundamental discussion on this thread (well that and the priority of the preferred codecs, ie; DS Vs. MF).

I'd also like to note that we are all learning here in about the capabilities of what is possible, so we remain open minded.... and thank Ben for sticking around ;-)

ChronoCross

13th May 2009, 16:59

Hypothetical;
What if i just delete the Ms codecs from my system folder ? (delete the file "abcdefg.ax" for instance). Then those codecs wont ever be choosen, or is this a very much too simplified way ;)

your system will probably blue screen if you start doing stupid things like that.

CC.... If you read through here at D9 and the threads with Albain we have looked at the Pre-RC's and the RC itself for Win7. Some things are more implied then documented at this point as DigitAl56K has said. Microsoft has been contacting us through the Matroska mailing list on and off as I mentioned earlier in this thread (but they can contacted me directly: betaboy AT corecodec DOT com .

Microsoft doesn't have some sort of official contact other than a mailing list? Seems kind of unprofessional.

As far as clsid tool.... it does what MS indicated to do, and its a nice tool to have 'now'. But that type of feature needs to be added within the codecs themselves and as clsid noted it does not affect Media Foundation at all, and this is the fundamental discussion on this thread (well that and the priority of the preferred codecs).

Until someone writes the "Ultimate codec pack" which overwrites every internal filter to media foundation. They might as well just go back to exclusive directshow use if it's going to be easy to change codec priorities.

Although it'll be interesting to watch codecs duke it out for control.

P.S. Corecodec is missing a great opportunity to push their coreplayer technologies. If only it had AC3 it might be a player I could consider purchasing.

clsid

13th May 2009, 17:11

your system will probably blue screen if you start doing stupid things like that.
Instead of making silly and wrong guesses maybe you should stfu until you have got something sane to say.

BetaBoy

13th May 2009, 18:25

P.S. Corecodec is missing a great opportunity to push their coreplayer technologies. If only it had AC3 it might be a player I could consider purchasing.

Not to get too OT.... but 2.0 is around the corner and we have now added Directshow support for Windows Mobile and Windows... so add your favorite AC3 filter ;-)... oh and for OS X we added support for the native Audio Queue codecs (like AC3). So we now have multiple codec layers: Internal, DMO, Directshow, and Audio Queue (no less hardware accelerated ones as well).

ChronoCross

13th May 2009, 18:44

Instead of making silly and wrong guesses maybe you should stfu until you have got something sane to say.

yeah because lord knows deleting dll's is a smart thing to do. Guess that's why computer repair companies are still in business.

Sorry that you seem so insulted you found it necessary to blurt out "STFU" just because I don't agree with your whiny argument on how ffdshow is so awesome and media foundation and WMP are screwing it over. Next time I'll remember to just fall in line with random microsoft outrage.

benwaggoner

13th May 2009, 19:41

Microsoft doesn't have some sort of official contact other than a mailing list? Seems kind of unprofessional.
We have a whole lot of mechanisms we work with ecosystem partners on.

Anyone actually working on software produdcts this impacts and who don't have any direct contacts with Microsoft, feel free to PM me and I'll see if I can track down an appropriate contact for whatever issue you've got.

G_M_C

13th May 2009, 22:01

yeah because lord knows deleting dll's is a smart thing to do. Guess that's why computer repair companies are still in business.

Sorry that you seem so insulted you found it necessary to blurt out "STFU" just because I don't agree with your whiny argument on how ffdshow is so awesome and media foundation and WMP are screwing it over. Next time I'll remember to just fall in line with random microsoft outrage.

I'm not that stupid; I'll research the correct filename, delete the codec only, and than run a registry cleanup removing unlinked/unreferenced codecs. Works fine on XP also, when used as a last resort. Never had a blue screen since i stopped using Win 98SE, and my current system has an install-time of several years now. So please do not patronize me ...

clsid

13th May 2009, 23:04

yeah because lord knows deleting dll's is a smart thing to do. Guess that's why computer repair companies are still in business.

Sorry that you seem so insulted you found it necessary to blurt out "STFU" just because I don't agree with your whiny argument on how ffdshow is so awesome and media foundation and WMP are screwing it over. Next time I'll remember to just fall in line with random microsoft outrage.
You need to get your facts straight. I never ever said anything in this topic about ffdshow being awesome. I never said that randomly deleting dlls is a good idea. I only said that your BSOD remark is total nonsense. So STFU indeed.

ChronoCross

13th May 2009, 23:52

I'm not that stupid; I'll research the correct filename, delete the codec only, and than run a registry cleanup removing unlinked/unreferenced codecs. Works fine on XP also, when used as a last resort. Never had a blue screen since i stopped using Win 98SE, and my current system has an install-time of several years now. So please do not patronize me ...

I'll patronize you because your talking about doing something on an OS you have never used nor do you even know the full extent of the possible damage that it could do. Your pretty much saying that hey since it worked before I might as well do it now. That's a piss poor way of administering a system.

You need to get your facts straight. I never ever said anything in this topic about ffdshow being awesome. I never said that randomly deleting dlls is a good idea. I only said that your BSOD remark is total nonsense. So STFU indeed.

the ffdshow is the only free 3rd party codec really being discussed so I used it as a generalization for your argument. I'll use "third party codec x" from now on.

Also how is a BSOD nonsense. it is a perfect possibility if someone goes dicking around with system files. Who knows at this point what consequences could follow, hell even if it results in WMP crashing it's still an unintended result. So please don't tell me to STFU based on your thought that a BSOD might be absolutely absurd when it is still a possibility.

BetaBoy

14th May 2009, 02:29

How ironic/funny I got a BSOD when messing with the registry for WMP/DS on Win7 today. Yes, I did submit a crash report on it ;-)

G_M_C

14th May 2009, 08:34

I'll patronize you because your talking about doing something on an OS you have never used nor do you even know the full extent of the possible damage that it could do. Your pretty much saying that hey since it worked before I might as well do it now. That's a piss poor way of administering a system.
[...]
even if it results in WMP crashing it's still an unintended result.[...]

That would not be a problem. I'm in the EU, and EU versions are forced to have WMP as an option.

Deleting + cleaning from registry is actually more,- or less the same thing as an uninstall-programm would do; Only you do it "by hand". But originally it was a question if this was even possible, not a question about the possible things that you think might happen as a consequence.

ChronoCross

14th May 2009, 17:00

That would not be a problem. I'm in the EU, and EU versions are forced to have WMP as an option.

Glad I don't live in the EU. Eventually the only windows your going to have is Windows 7 command line edition because someone in the EU is going to complain that Microsoft is using their monopoly to force you to use their GUI.

Deleting + cleaning from registry is actually more,- or less the same thing as an uninstall-programm would do; Only you do it "by hand". But originally it was a question if this was even possible, not a question about the possible things that you think might happen as a consequence.

Sure you can remove the dll's. You can technically delete the entire Windows directory. But then again if you think about the potential problems that it might cause, might make you think twice. You should always think about the consequences of every action. Just asking if something is possible would be rather flawed.

G_M_C

14th May 2009, 18:24

Glad I don't live in the EU. Eventually the only windows your going to have is Windows 7 command line edition because someone in the EU is going to complain that Microsoft is using their monopoly to force you to use their GUI.
[...]

No, dont think so.Think we get a possibillity on an "advanced option" during install, where you can select the options you need/like. If you dont plan on using IE, but FF; Dont install IE. Likewise you can de-select WMP when you plan on using MPC-HT and so forth.

You get less clutter on you HDD's, and more choice. Dont mind both at all.

Might be useful for sysops too; Why install AVC codecs if your employees are supposed to use your own proprietary system for writing letters ? Helps you in making shure they do their task in stead of watching youtube (other than firewall measures). In other words, you get a more versatile system, with more control over the features you need/want/use; More tailored to your situation.

I'm all for this.

Dark Shikari

15th May 2009, 13:52

And the game is up.

Sorry, Microsoft, your decoder sucks. (http://www.cccp-project.net/forums/index.php?topic=3547.0)

You can no longer claim that it benefits us to use your decoder because it is "better" when it cannot play 1080p H.264 on a Quad-core Phenom II Black Edition 3.2Ghz.

And now your decoder is (blatantly illegally) hijacking playback throughout Windows 7. I suspect the rest of the world will have no choice but to actively break your decoders in order to provide useful media playback.

How am I not surprised?

kumi

15th May 2009, 23:25

Add an option "Thanks, I'm an advanced user and know what I'm doing. Now unlock this player and use the decoders I want to use."

That's a reasonable general approach. The trick would be to make sure it's something the user could opt into but that could be something any authenticated app could silently set.

Here's an idea.

During playback, if a DirectShow decoder is registered for the same mediatype a MediaFoundation decoder is supposed to handle, pop-up a confirmation dialog upon loading the video: "WMP has detected you have untested third-party decoders installed for this media type. Do you wish to use the default WMP decoders instead? Yes(default)/No"

The dialog would only appear for users that have dared to install third-party decoders. A tiny minority, if Microsoft really does deliver with a reliable and comprehensive set of MediaFoundation decoders. I believe most users will attempt to install codecs only when playback goes wrong.

Don't be greedy, Microsoft: you can make your decoders the best they can be AND allow third-parties to play in the game when your stuff doesn't work.

ChronoCross

16th May 2009, 01:15

Snowknight26

16th May 2009, 01:48

The decoder also seems to force the use of hardware acceleration for H.264 videos with more reference frames than L4.1 allows. ATI card, of course.

http://i43.tinypic.com/fp31mv.jpg (http://stfcc.org/misc/windows7ati.png)

STaRGaZeR

16th May 2009, 01:59

ranpha

16th May 2009, 04:59

benwaggoner

18th May 2009, 02:40

And the game is up.

Sorry, Microsoft, your decoder sucks. (http://www.cccp-project.net/forums/index.php?topic=3547.0)
How am I not surprised?
If I'm parsing that thread correctly, he's reproducing this problem with ffdshow as well, no?

I think whatever's happening there is a different issue.

Looks like they also figured out a way to make ffdshow work on Win7 with MPC-HD anyway. Nice to see a 3rd party app demonstrating that works.

Shii

22nd May 2009, 10:56

Found universal solution to disable forced Microsoft H264 codec in WMP12 and WMC.

First, and this is main step, backup and delete key HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\MediaFoundation\Transforms\{62ce7e72-4c71-4d20-b15d-452831a87d9d}
Second, change key value HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\DirectShow\Preferred\{31435641-0000-0010-8000-00AA00389B71} from {212690FB-83E5-4526-8FD7-74478B7939CD} to preferred h264 decoder ({09571A4B-F1FE-4C60-9760-DE6D310C7C31} for CoreAVC or {04FE9017-F873-410E-871E-AB91661A4EF7} for ffdshow)

If you need to allow any other decoders in WMP12/WMC, like ffdshow Audio decoder and AC3Filter, add decoders CLSID to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MediaPlayer\FilterExceptions (create new keys with decoder CLSID name) and add key 'Capabilities' to needed CLSID`s in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{083863F1-70DE-11D0-BD40-00A0C911CE86}\Instance This 'Capabilities' key must contain REG_DWORD value with name: {374ac4df-7c98-4257-b13d-36087dbee458} and value: 1

lexor

22nd May 2009, 23:34

If I'm parsing that thread correctly, he's reproducing this problem with ffdshow as well, no?

I think whatever's happening there is a different issue.

Looks like they also figured out a way to make ffdshow work on Win7 with MPC-HD anyway. Nice to see a 3rd party app demonstrating that works.

What now? Hold on, I thought the justification was that MS doesn't want to support arbitrary number of decoders/etc in their players. Is MPC-HD an MS player? I don't think so (could be wrong, I don't know who develops it). Why was any amount of effort required to get it to work at all?

If something had to be done to make MPC-HD work with FFDShow under Win7RC, that seem to dismiss the claim that the change is just to protect MS players from non-MS decoders.

ranpha

23rd May 2009, 04:00

What now? Hold on, I thought the justification was that MS doesn't want to support arbitrary number of decoders/etc in their players. Is MPC-HD an MS player? I don't think so (could be wrong, I don't know who develops it). Why was any amount of effort required to get it to work at all?

If something had to be done to make MPC-HD work with FFDShow under Win7RC, that seem to dismiss the claim that the change is just to protect MS players from non-MS decoders.

MPC-HC has their own graph builder, and there are no problem whatsoever using ffdshow with it (works just like it is in Vista or XP).

lexor

23rd May 2009, 04:56

MPC-HC has their own graph builder, and there are no problem whatsoever using ffdshow with it (works just like it is in Vista or XP).
That is demonstrably false:

First, benwaggoner said that MPC had to be fixed.

Second, I stay with the beta precisely because my friend jumped the gun and went to RC and now MPC+ffdshow is broken. We did get it to connect, but there is no picture only sound (and even that ~30sec delayed). Same exact combo (a series of latest svn builds for both) works out of the box in beta and older windows.

CruNcher

23rd May 2009, 08:22

Are you absolutely sure lexor ? i mean you have to be ultra sure about this claim (better triple check) as if this would be true and Microsoft has now began to even wider the spectrum of this and that even after being criticized for their "We have to protect our own Apps from evilness and dumb users" move it would be outrageous, though this is still RC not final and maybe Microsoft want's to make people and 3rd partys shaking in their shoes a little (to show them who the boss is) and then on RTM day they gonna say "hey was just a joke" ;)
Though seeing that Win 7 RC is out for a while now and no one else on the .Net saying Microsoft tightened it even more in terms of 3rd party media playback behavior makes me not wanna believe in this story somehow, common sense forbids it ;) i would rather believe they changed something about the Graph building that had a bad effect and now it broke entirely with some filters ;)

Shakey_Jake33

23rd May 2009, 11:23

I can't say I've had a single problem getting ffdshow (or any other 3rd party codec) to play nice with MPC-HC in Windows 7 RC tbh.

saint-francis

23rd May 2009, 12:30

Same here. I use FFDShow with MPC HC every day on Windows 7 RC. I haven't tried any other players but I can say for certain that when ever I render any file in graphedit it always uses MS filters.

benwaggoner

23rd May 2009, 21:32

That is demonstrably false:

First, benwaggoner said that MPC had to be fixed.
If it has its own graph builder, it shouldn't need to be fixed.

I'm getting unclear info here on what is or is not working. If there's an app developer who thinks they should be getting access to 3rd party filters but can't make it work, that's a bug and they should file that on connect or PM me.

Any app developer should be able to use any DirectShow or MFC that they want to in their media pipeline.

Some may require an update to do so, of course.

Snowknight26

30th May 2009, 06:47

Why the horrible image quality for Xvid files? It's almost as if the Microsoft decoders are skipping deblocking.

MPC-HC's internal decoder:
http://stfcc.org/misc/sample.MPC-HC.png

WMP12 using Microsoft decoder:
http://stfcc.org/misc/sample.WMP12.png

Sagekilla

30th May 2009, 07:31

It looks more like they're going overkill on deblocking and killing fine detail. There's barely any from the WMP decoded one.

LoRd_MuldeR

30th May 2009, 21:56

Why the horrible image quality for Xvid files? It's almost as if the Microsoft decoders are skipping deblocking.

Xvid uses MPEG-4 ASP. And MPEG-4 ASP does not have any kind of deblocking!

Yes, many MPEG-4 ASP decoders have a deblocking filter. But that is optional post-processing. It's not an integral part of the decoder ;)

Micro$oft's decoder apparently doesn't offer that option. This is yet another reason why allowing the user choose his/her preferred decoder is so important!

As if there weren't enough already :rolleyes:

clsid

30th May 2009, 22:53

MPC-HC's internal MPEG-4 ASP decoder uses no deblocking at all. As Sagekilla said, the MS decoder uses too much post-processing, making things look worse.

LoRd_MuldeR

30th May 2009, 23:49

MPC-HC's internal MPEG-4 ASP decoder uses no deblocking at all. As Sagekilla said, the MS decoder uses too much post-processing, making things look worse.

No matter whether too much post-processing or missing post-processing is the problem, fact is that MPEG-4 ASP doesn't have any pre-defined deblocking. That's why different MPEG-4 ASP decoders offer different type of post-processing (or no post-processing at all). And we must allow the user to decide what he/she prefers! If the M$ decoder uses a type of post-processing that I don't like, but I cannot easily adjust the decoder's post-processing or choose a different decoder, then that makes the entire player useless for me. Who would use a player that screws up the video?

Manao

31st May 2009, 11:16

And we must allow the user to decide what he/she prefers!Not at the cost of complexity. Most of windows users don't even know what deblocking is, so from microsoft's point of view, there is no need to add complexity.

If the M$ decoder uses a type of post-processing that I don't like, but I cannot easily adjust the decoder's post-processing or choose a different decoder, then that makes the entire player useless for me.Indeed, but you have alternatives. Microsoft has alienated you - but you (and me, and most of Doom9 users) are not mainstream users. I do think the lack of configurability was done on purpose, and is the good choice, from MS's point of view.

Who would use a player that screws up the video? Somebody that doesn't know the video is screwed up. Roughly 95% of people. Hell, my parents watch TV with an incorrect aspect ratio, as most people with flat screens do. They have the option not to do so, and they don't use it because it's too complicated.