Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Announcements and Chat > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 19th August 2006, 14:18   #101  |  Link
bond
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodofaGap
They support in the Apple way. But they certainly don't support DivX.
of course it supports divx
__________________
Between the weak and the strong one it is the freedom which oppresses and the law that liberates (Jean Jacques Rousseau)
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

MPEG-4 ASP FAQ | AVC/H.264 FAQ | AAC FAQ | MP4 FAQ | MP4Menu stores DVD Menus in MP4 (guide)
Ogg Theora | Ogg Vorbis
use WM9 today and get Micro$oft controlling the A/V market tomorrow for free
bond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 10:18   #102  |  Link
GodofaGap
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 823
If you would have read two posts down a better explanation of my statement was given. I'm sorry for the inaccuracy in my first post about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodofGap
But AFAIK QT doesn't support any MPEG4 ASP feature and it certainly doesn't support DivX subtitles and chapters.
Is this wrong?
GodofaGap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 11:06   #103  |  Link
SeeMoreDigital
Life looks better in HD
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 11,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodofaGap
Is this wrong?
With the correct plug-in's QT can play MPEG-4 ASP video streams within AVI and MP4... From what I remember (but it's along time ago) 3ivx's (D4 4.5.1) codec suite offers this...
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
SeeMoreDigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 11:39   #104  |  Link
smok3
brontosaurusrex
 
smok3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,375
qt can play xvid in mp4 as well, when encode was done with some care

my old note says:
- no bframes
- only h263 quantization allowed
- simply put: nothing from "advanced simple profile" - like qpel, ect...

of course iam sure there is no way to play bastardized avi called divx, why would there be one anyway?

---

back on topic, quoted:
Quote:
Available data already show a clear trend in favour of WMP and Windows Media technology. Absent intervention from the Commission, the tying of WMP with Windows is likely to make the market "tip" definitively in Microsoft's favour. This would allow Microsoft to control related markets in the digital media sector, such as encoding technology, software for broadcasting of music over the Internet and digital rights management etc.
from http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressRele...guiLanguage=en

This is the fact, and you don't need to really study some sort of statistic to get there...., however in some other thread it is quite clear that some people do not understand the danger and also stupidity included in such monopolistic approach. I was told by such person that ms uses a 'special/not for normal users' encoding software for bigger studios which is imho another nice case to open for any decent Commission.

Last edited by smok3; 20th August 2006 at 12:02.
smok3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 11:39   #105  |  Link
GodofaGap
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 823
So now you make me quote the other part of my post. It's nice people actually read here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodofaGap
I don't want to get into hair splitting with this, but a component is not out-of-the-box support. You can also install a DivX DirectShow filter for WMP.
GodofaGap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 14:02   #106  |  Link
Sirber
retired developer
 
Sirber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital
I've got another. How about getting rid of WinXP's embedded CD burning software? That can't be fair!
Unfair and useless. Take twice the time to burn a CD (no DVD support yet) coz it's making a ISO first.

The firewall is weak too, only one way. Why bundeling things if they are weak and incomplete?
__________________
Detritus Software
Sirber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 16:09   #107  |  Link
SirCanealot
Aspiring l33tz0rz0rz0r...
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 88
Didn't MS have plans for a virus scanner a while ago?

It'd greatly amuse me if MS actually got it running decently and then the courts told them to remove that too
__________________
SirCanealot

And they shall know no fear....
SirCanealot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 18:02   #108  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,175
What exactly do you want? Every microsoft feature to come with a list of competitors' products that you can buy if you need more features or want non-microsoft?

smok3, um, not-for-consumers is a perfectly legal business model for high-end products, or hundreds of companies would get shut down overnight.
__________________
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. ~ Ed Howdershelt
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 22:35   #109  |  Link
zambelli
Doom9ing since 2001
 
zambelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 1,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyshadis
smok3, um, not-for-consumers is a perfectly legal business model for high-end products, or hundreds of companies would get shut down overnight.
Thanks. Indeed, it's any company's right to make their software products available only to select customers. I wasn't aware that companies were suddenly required by law to make all their software freely available to all interested parties.
zambelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 22:55   #110  |  Link
zambelli
Doom9ing since 2001
 
zambelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 1,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirber
The firewall is weak too, only one way. Why bundeling things if they are weak and incomplete?
Because some level of security is better than none?

If Windows shipped with a firewall superior to any other firewall product on the market - don't you think Symantec, McAfee, Zone Labs, F-Secure and others might find that, ummm, "abuse of dominant market position". At least this way you can say, "Sure, XP has a firewall, but if you want the best protection, you should get XYZ...", the same way you can argue that your new Honda Civic needs a brand new Sony CD-MP3 player because its stock one is "just OK".

I really don't understand this conflicting attitude where people want MS to ship an OS with every feature superior to anything currently available on the market, yet they complain whenever a particular area of the software market gets cornered due to this very same practice. You have to understand that for every person that complains because Windows doesn't come with an integrated RSS reader or Podcasting solution, there will be another person that will complain about the very same feature being integrated into the OS. How can any company win that battle?
zambelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 23:16   #111  |  Link
Sirber
retired developer
 
Sirber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by zambelli
Because some level of security is better than none?
True, but is allowing any running software to add itself to the firewall something "secure"? Best no security than a false sense of security. Same goes for uPNP
__________________
Detritus Software
Sirber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 01:18   #112  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,175
Does that happen when running as a normal, non-admin user? If not, then you forgot the first rule of computer security: If untrusted code is running in a priveledged account, it can do anything it wants, you've already given up all security. No checkbox can do more than slow its creator down while he figures out how to bypass it.

Any firewall that asks you whether software running as root should be allowed access, is doing it as a courtesy; any malware can instantly either add a trust for itself or shut the firewall down.
__________________
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. ~ Ed Howdershelt
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 01:22   #113  |  Link
Sirber
retired developer
 
Sirber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,978
Do you run in "normal, non-admin user"? Under NT it's not viable. Most software require to be run as admin, else all you get is My Documents
I'd love a linux-like desktop, where you have to enter root password to do system modifications, while in user mode. So you ahve the protection AND the power at the same time
__________________
Detritus Software
Sirber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 02:23   #114  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,175
Runas works, and tools exist to automatically prompt for runas instead of immediately failing whenever you perform a security-limited action.

It's actually getting easier as the years go on to run all but a few packages as non-admin, though it's still easier for me to regularly use 2 different accounts depending on what I need. (I'm willing to hunt down the registry permissions and even make appcompat shims for some vital software, like quickbooks for work, but for some things it's just less annoying to use switch user.)
__________________
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. ~ Ed Howdershelt
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 20:58   #115  |  Link
cabal09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
I wonder if the computers used by the EU during their investigation ran on Windows?
cabal09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.