MPlayer for Windows (2019-10-15)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

In the Lite Installer when I check the UPX option, it requires 4 TB! :scared:

Fixed version is available now. Please re-download. Sorry for inconvenience!

(Note: The "Full Package" was not effected by this problem)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Here is an experimental release of MPlayer for Windows with multi-threaded decoders:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/kjzzk1mdmon/MPUI-MT.2009-05-28.Full-Package.exe

Note: As far as I can tell, multi-threaded H.264 decoding works fine. MPEG-2 is broken when multiple threads are used!
You can edit the "mplayer/config" file or simply use SMPlayer's preferences in order to adjust the number of threads.

[ikarad]

mplayer support BDsup (.pgs subtitle) or not?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

mplayer support BDsup (.pgs subtitle) or not?

No idea. Why not find out yourself? Won't cost you anything, except 5 minutes of time ;)

[roozhou]

Here is an experimental release of MPlayer for Windows with multi-threaded decoders:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/kjzzk1mdmon/MPUI-MT.2009-05-28.Full-Package.exe

Note: As far as I can tell, multi-threaded H.264 decoding works fine. MPEG-2 is broken when multiple threads are used!
You can edit the "mplayer/config" file or simply use SMPlayer's preferences in order to adjust the number of threads.

The easiest way is to use libmpeg2 as the default MPEG1/2 decoder. It consumes less CPU time and runs more stable than libavcodec's mpeg12 decoder.

And I cannot see any benefit from making MPEG-2 decoding multi-threaded. Any dual-core CPU is able to decode 30Mbps MPEG-2 by a single core w/o any problem.

[roozhou]

Hi MuldeR,

Have you tried playing videos with -vo gl or -vo direct3d from command line? If you press 'f' several times to switch between fullscreen and window mode, something weird happens. Size and position of the window keeps changing and at last it may move outside the desktop!

This bug occurs in all recent Sherpya builds. When I tried building MPlayer myself, the problem remains.

Finally i found that the problem should lie in libvo/w32_common.c.
At line 348
SetWindowLong(vo_window, GWL_STYLE, style);
And line 376
AdjustWindowRect(&r, style, 0);
These two API calls unexpectedly modify four global variables that indicate window size and position. I can't believe such things should happen.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I can't help you with such implementation details. But maybe this is required to make MPlayer work when embedded in a front-end application? Just an idea ;)

Probably you should refer to the MPlayer mailing list to discuss the issue. The MPlayer guys may be able to tell you why it is implemented that way...

[roozhou]

I can't help you with such implementation details. But maybe this is required to make MPlayer work when embedded in a front-end application? Just an idea ;)


No, because these codes will not be called when embedded in a front-end. I am sure this is a bug and it can be fixed by some simple hack. But I cannot understand why this happens.

[avih]

No, because these codes will not be called when embedded in a front-end. I am sure this is a bug and it can be fixed by some simple hack. But I cannot understand why this happens.
You chose to relate to the 1st part of his message, while the important part was actually the second ;)

[roozhou]

You chose to relate to the 1st part of his message, while the important part was actually the second ;)

I have already reported it to mplayer mailing list.
http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/2009-June/077071.html

Since most of MPlayer devels do not use Windows, Windows only bugs(the problematic code is Windows only) are less likely to be solved. I think it is easier to get help here.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Well, Reimar used to be very cooperative in the past:
http://forum.doom9.org/member.php?u=79288

[roozhou]

Well, Reimar used to be very cooperative in the past:
http://forum.doom9.org/member.php?u=79288

As long as you provide a patch. But this time I cannot provide a patch.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

MPlayer for Windows 2009-06-12 :)

[2009-06-12]
* MPlayer binaries updated to SVN-r29355
* SMPlayer updated to Version 0.6.7 (SVN-r3073)
* Fix buttons for Windows 7 and Vista (again)

[aaa3]

Hy!, my question is, that i have a quite modern amd cpu and im not sure which one i should select at installation: i chosen p4 (mmx sse sse2) instead of athlon (mmx mmx2 3dnow), but the cpu knows all of these and more.

I bet ideally i should compile an executable for myself with all of these enabled, but this is beyond my reach/will to do (+what about all others; and what about the purpose of providing a nice uptodate userfriendly installation:), so.... and btw, is this selection is only about enabling these instruction subsets, or does containing other optimizations too? Because it seems that if only instructions, then if the 2 sse's are stronger than 3dnow & mmx2 i did the right selection, but if other optimizations are also done, then definitely the wrong as the k10 is much more similar to the k7/8 than to the netburst...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Hy!, my question is, that i have a quite modern amd cpu and im not sure which one i should select at installation: i chosen p4 (mmx sse sse2) instead of athlon (mmx mmx2 3dnow), but the cpu knows all of these and more.

I bet ideally i should compile an executable for myself with all of these enabled, but this is beyond my reach/will to do (+what about all others; and what about the purpose of providing a nice uptodate userfriendly installation:), so.... and btw, is this selection is only about enabling these instruction subsets, or does containing other optimizations too? Because it seems that if only instructions, then if the 2 sse's are stronger than 3dnow & mmx2 i did the right selection, but if other optimizations are also done, then definitely the wrong as the k10 is much more similar to the k7/8 than to the netburst...

I only include the builds that are provided by Sherpya and of course we can't have a "perfect" build for every single CPU in existence.

In your case I'm not entirely sure whether SSE+SSE2 or 3DNOW would help more. I guess you will need to do some tests. Probably the difference will be negligible :p

(BTW: Note that MMX2 is just a subset of Intel's SSE. Older AMD's supported MMX2 before they fully supported SSE. So SSE will always include MMX2)

[clsid]

MPlayer will automatically use MMX/MMXext/SSE/SSE2/SSSE3/3dnow!/etc if your CPU supports them for all code that was written in assembly. Almost all performance critical decoding code in FFmpeg is written in assembly.

The optimization you guys talk about are for the pure C code in MPlayer. That will not make a big difference in decoding performance.

[aaa3]

thanx to everybody for clearing this up =)
i see now.

[Ghitulescu]

Why the need for an installer?
Are the users so stupid that cannot de-archive a ZIP while keeping the directory structure?
I've downloaded SMPlayer from inet, unzipped the file and it works perfectly well (I had to copy some codecs by hand since not present). Any installer I've tested so far requires ADMIN rights - why is it so? (I mean, of course I understand why is it like this, I don't understand why it should always be like this?)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Why the need for an installer?

Because many people like an "all in one" installer. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, don't use it! Nobody said you should...

Are the users so stupid that cannot de-archive a ZIP while keeping the directory structure?

Many users in fact are! Yes.

Keep in mind that the average user is extremely limited in understanding and not willing to spend much time for learning. People just want something that "works".

Furthermore even the more sophisticated users may prefer a complete "all in one" package rather than of putting together various ZIP packages from different sources.
Remember: Before you can find, download and extract all the required ZIP packages, you must learn about their existence first. That's the point!

Not everybody wants to understand that he needs MPlayer (preferably an optimized one for your individual CPU), plus a front-end, plus binary Codecs, et cetera...
Getting an "all in one" package that just works "out of the box" is so much easier and requires no understanding of how MPlayer works.

Another big point is updating: Updating all the binaries separately from different sources is much more work than getting everything updated at once.
On Linux you would use your package manager to do that for you, but on Windows there's no such thing. My "update" tool can be helpful here.

Last but not least: All components in my installer are tested to work together as expected. Before I release a new package, I test will it thoroughly on WinXP and Win7.

I've downloaded SMPlayer from inet, unzipped the file and it works perfectly well (I had to copy some codecs by hand since not present).

Applause http://www.soadfans.de/forum/images/armageddon/smilies/ugly.gif

Any installer I've tested so far requires ADMIN rights - why is it so?

Because any sane operating system doesn't allow "regular" users to create, rename, move or delete any files inside "C:\Program Files" respectively "C:\Program Files (x86)" !?!?

The same applies to writing to the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE registry key, to accessing the "all users" account directory and so on...

This is called a access control, a fundamental concept of security in computer systems. On Linux you would also need to work as Root (or use "sudo") to do administrative tasks ;)

UAC in Windows Vista and Windows 7 is even more strict and even harder to handle from an installer. My installer does take care of UAC properly.

[buzzqw]

i just don't like that on update it will re-associate all extension :(

BHH

[LoRd_MuldeR]

i just don't like that on update it will re-associate all extension :(

BHH

Then turn that option off, if you don't like it :D

(It's optional for a reason)

[buzzqw]

i have missed it... i will look better

is a check in installer ?

BHH

[LoRd_MuldeR]

i have missed it... i will look better

is a check in installer ?

BHH

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3620/fileassocs.th.png (http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3620/fileassocs.png)

[buzzqw]

got it! i always select FULL install.. not custom...

thanks LM!

BHH

[Ghitulescu]

Because many people like an "all in one" installer. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, don't use it! Nobody said you should...

Last but not least: All components in my installer are tested to work together as expected. Before I release a new package, I test will it thoroughly on WinXP and Win7.

Because any sane operating system doesn't allow "regular" users to create, rename, move or delete any files inside "C:\Program Files" respectively "C:\Program Files (x86)" !?!?

The same applies to writing to the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE registry key, to accessing the "all users" account directory and so on...

This is called a access control, a fundamental concept of security in computer systems. On Linux you would also need to work as Root (or use "sudo") to do administrative tasks ;)

UAC in Windows Vista and Windows 7 is even more strict and even harder to handle from an installer. My installer does take care of UAC properly.

As I said I understand the reasons, the only point I was making is that while Program Files has indeed different access rights for each user on a multiuser machine, nobody asked the installer to use this path. I install my video programs under video or vsoft. Going to install the software in a user path, in a user account, for that user alone, is simpler than requiering ADMIN rights. Most people forget that an EXE first looks for DLLs in its own path than in SYSTEM32, so another ADMIN issue is easily solved.

The problem I wanted to point out was the fact that the developers use a "pre made" installer, not a custom one (or self made).

[LoRd_MuldeR]

1. Usually applications are installed to the "Program Files" folder, so the installer must be prepared for this (default) case. Hence "admin" rights are required.

2. Installing applications to a folder where "regular" users don't have write access is done for a reason! Installing applications to a "shared" location is inherently risky and should be avoided.

3. Limited users usually won't even have the right to install to "C:\Foobar" or alike. Only installing to %APPDATA% would work without "admin" rights in a reliable way...

[avih]

1. Usually applications are installed to the "Program Files" folder, so the installer must be prepared for this (default) case. Hence "admin" rights are required.

2. Installing applications to a folder where "regular" users don't have write access is done for a reason! Installing applications to a "shared" location is inherently risky and should be avoided.

3. Limited users usually won't even have the right to install to "C:\Foobar" or alike. Only installing to %APPDATA% would work without "admin" rights in a reliable way...
You seem to go around the issue, which is, a non-admin apparently can't use your package, and for no real need for admin rights or protected system resources by mplayer itself.

I didn't test if the installer indeed requires admin rights, but if it does, then I second the need for either a zipped "generic" build (as clsid noted, it mostly wouldn't affect decoding performance), or an installer that doesn't require admin rights.

My $0.02..

[LoRd_MuldeR]

You guys know that Vista and Windows 7 will detect installers and pop up an UAC dialog, even if the installer never explicitly request admin rights ???

Also: If you don't have admin rights on a specific machine (that must be a machine at work or at university/school), you should not be able to install applications on that machine! Plain and simple ;)

Last but not least: The entire point of my package is to provide a self-contained and self-running installer. Providing the a ZIP package takes the entire project ad absurdum.

We would loose important aspects of the installer, such as the CPU type detection part, the "Tweaks" section, the "Reset MPlayer settings" section, the "File Associations" as well as the UPX feature.

Remember: Nobody ever said that you must use my installer. If you don't like an installer (and installer's inherently require "admin" access), then don't use it! Your free choice :)

Enough ZIP packages are available from other sources. You can get them there. I don't want to host yet another ZIP package, I provide an installer that (hopefully) is useful for some folks...

[kypec]

I fully agree with LoRd_MuldeR, an installer is called installer for a reason!:goodpost:

[avih]

You guys know that Vista and Windows 7 will detect installers and pop up an UAC dialog, even if the installer never explicitly request admin rights ???

Also: If you don't have admin rights on a specific machine (that must be a machine at work or at university/school), you should not be able to install applications on that machine! Plain and simple ;)

Last but not least: The entire point of my package is to provide a self-contained and self-running installer. Providing the a ZIP package takes the entire project ad absurdum.

We would loose important aspects of the installer, such as the CPU type detection part, the "Tweaks" section, the "Reset MPlayer settings" section, the "File Associations" as well as the UPX feature.

Remember: Nobody ever said that you must use my installer. If you don't like an installer (and installer's inherently require "admin" access), then don't use it! Your free choice :)

Enough ZIP packages are available from other sources. You can get them there. I don't want to host yet another ZIP package, I provide an installer that (hopefully) is useful for some folks...
I'd say you have a good enough reputation of nicely packaging a complete set of the latest and greatest, and keeping it updated regularly. For me that's enough to use your package even as a zip, and I can guess I'm not alone.

It is a request you know :) your arguments are all valid but there's always room for improvements that some of your users think of as beneficial.. If you can/willing to manage the extra work, there WILL be people who would prefer the advantages or a regularly updated package in a zip file, even at a cost of unoptimized non-codec sections and with the exclusion of few system aspects...

From here on, it's obviously your choice what to do next, but arguing the usefulness of a zip packaged specifically by you is irrelevant because it's a personal opinion, and apparently at least few think it will be useful ...

[Ghitulescu]

This is the last post of mine concerning the debate ZIP vs Installer.

I work on a PC with limited rights, because it's not mine, it belongs to the company I work for.

The software I look for is of genera Thinstall or Portable, ie things that can be deployed with the aid of WinZip/WinRar in a user chosen folder (if not a single EXE), does not install thousands of DLL in SYSTEM32, does not fill up the registry with billions of CLS-IDs and associations, and it's self contained (via local DLLs, plugins etc.). The "print" on the system should be minimal. The "commercial" installers (including the ones usually found in the SDKs) usually fill up the registry with unnecessary data, I remember I used once a SystemWatcher that filled up a log of about 300kB only entries in registry for a simple installer of a very simple software.

It was done in the 80s and 90s, why is not possible anymore?

If a user wants FLAC support in Nero, he has to download a ZIP file, unzip the DLL and place it by hand in a specific folder (differs from v8 onwards). The same is valid for VDub and countless other software.

It's not a critic, not even a request, just a personal desire.

[buzzqw]

i use "UniExtract" :) able to extract even from installer -> http://legroom.net/software/uniextract

BHH

[clsid]

As an experienced installer creator I totally agree with LoRd_MuldeR. An application installer should always administrator privileges. Period.

A zip package would of course be useful for those who want a 'portable' version. Usually that are people with above average computer skills.

[roozhou]

As an experienced installer creator I totally agree with LoRd_MuldeR. An application installer should always administrator privileges. Period.

A zip package would of course be useful for those who want a 'portable' version. Usually that are people with above average computer skills.

Do you mean unzipping and launching program from Explorer instead of shortcuts on the desktop requires above average computer skills?

[DarkZell666]

Do you mean unzipping and launching program from Explorer instead of shortcuts on the desktop requires above average computer skills?

I think he meant the fact of wanting a "portable" version of something, more than using an actual zip file ... or maybe he did mean using a zip file ? :cool:

The average is lower than you may think, I keep being surprised myself about how little people around me know about using simple stuff, even amongst colleagues ... who are software developers ! o_o"

[roozhou]

The average is lower than you may think, I keep being surprised myself about how little people around me know about using simple stuff, even amongst colleagues ... who are software developers ! o_o"

I am also working with software developers, and almost everyone has these skills. Most of them know how to use command line and batches.

[clsid]

The average PC user is more like the kind that says " my Internet has changed" when a new version of Internet Explorer has been installed.

[roozhou]

The average PC user is more like the kind that says " my Internet has changed" when a new version of Internet Explorer has been installed.

It seems even my parents are above-average PC users:)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

i use "UniExtract" :) able to extract even from installer -> http://legroom.net/software/uniextract

BHH

Also 7-Zip can extract NSIS installers. It even produces a disassembly of the installer code. NSIS doesn't "protect" your files and never was supposed to do! That was discussed at the NSIS forums more than enough. Also it never was my intention. The question is how much is left of the installer, if you only extract the files. You even won't be able to reconstruct the directory structure correctly in many cases.

[Ghitulescu]

As an experienced installer creator I totally agree with LoRd_MuldeR. An application installer should always administrator privileges. Period.

I totally agree with you.

The issue I was signalling was that too many software come with an installer, even if's one EXE + one INI (or CFG or HLP or CHM, you got the idea), because the installer does among other things create a custom path (directory). You don't need an installer for placing an EXE in a folder. You need one for something complicated, like MS Office, Visual C etc. with hundreds of files and directories.

Thanks god I see now a tendence in Portable applications (because the USB sticks are now so accessible) ;) which is a "return to mother nature" of simpler applications.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

The issue I was signalling was that too many software come with an installer, even if's one EXE + one INI (or CFG or HLP or CHM, you got the idea), because the installer does among other things create a custom path (directory). You don't need an installer for placing an EXE in a folder. You need one for something complicated, like MS Office, Visual C etc. with hundreds of files and directories.

I never said there is anything wrong with using "ZIP" packages. But people expect some more from a "properly installed" software. They want shortcuts in the Startmenu and on their Desktop, they want the files (in Windows Explorer) associated with the newly installed applications and they want an Uninstaller to be available in the Control Panel. This all takes much more work than just "unzipping an EXE to a folder". You wouldn't belive how many times my dad was in panic, because his favorite application suddenly had "disappeared" from the computer, just because the Desktop icon was missing and he couldn't find the application manually. You also wouldn't believe how many people complain that a file is "broken" or "unusable", just because it doesn't open/play when double-clicked in Windows Explorer. The same for uninstallers: Unless there's an explicit uninstaller, people won't believe that deleting the install folder is sufficient. This is the kind of "average Windows user" you have to expect. Sad but true...

[clsid]

Even as an expert user one might prefer using an installer for a simple application. Quicker than choosing a location yourself and manually creating shortcuts.

[Ghitulescu]

I never said there is anything wrong with using "ZIP" packages. But people expect some more from a "properly installed" software. They want shortcuts in the Startmenu and on their Desktop, they want the files (in Windows Explorer) associated with the newly installed applications and they want an Uninstaller to be available in the Control Panel. This all takes much more work than just "unzipping an EXE to a folder". You wouldn't belive how many times my dad was in panic, because his favorite application suddenly had "disappeared" from the computer, just because the Desktop icon was missing and he couldn't find the application manually. You also wouldn't believe how many people complain that a file is "broken" or "unusable", just because it doesn't open/play when double-clicked in Windows Explorer. The same for uninstallers: Unless there's an explicit uninstaller, people won't believe that deleting the install folder is sufficient. This is the kind of "average Windows user" you have to expect. Sad but true...

I "have" to agree with this too. This is the way democracy works: the majority wins ;)

[roozhou]

You wouldn't belive how many times my dad was in panic, because his favorite application suddenly had "disappeared" from the computer, just because the Desktop icon was missing and he couldn't find the application manually. You also wouldn't believe how many people complain that a file is "broken" or "unusable", just because it doesn't open/play when double-clicked in Windows Explorer.

My dad prefer launching programs from Start->Run, even if there is already a shortcut on the desktop.

And an installer itself is a program. All it does is detecting system settings, copying files, creating shortcuts and writing to registry. Since MPlayer does not require thousands of entries in registry or hundreds of dlls to system32, you can make your own simple installer for MPlayer that won't be detected by Vista and Win7.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

My dad prefer launching programs from Start->Run, even if there is already a shortcut on the desktop.

And an installer itself is a program. All it does is detecting system settings, copying files, creating shortcuts and writing to registry. Since MPlayer does not require thousands of entries in registry or hundreds of dlls to system32, you can make your own simple installer for MPlayer that won't be detected by Vista and Win7.

If you look at my installer script (https://opensvn.csie.org/traccgi/mulder1984/browser/MPlayer/Setup/Installer.nsi), you will notice that it isn't as easy as one may expect :)

[roozhou]

If you look at my installer script (https://opensvn.csie.org/traccgi/mulder1984/browser/MPlayer/Setup/Installer.nsi), you will notice that it isn't as easy as one may expect :)

I mean an "installer" just a little more complicated than a self-extractor.

[travolter]

could be possible a "double framerate" / "framerate interpolation" feature into mplayer?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

could be possible a "double framerate" / "framerate interpolation" feature into mplayer?

If you are talking about deinterlacing, then "Yadif" should do what you want. Implemeneted in MPlayer and available from SMPlayer.

For anything else please refer to the MPlayer mailing list, because this thread is not about developing MPlayer itself...

[tatoosh11]

can mplayer play movies while in record?
i use vlc to play this fiels (i record through Hauppauge ÜVR-250 with WintTVCap) and need a good palyer for playing these MPEG2 files.
only vlc can play it when recording is in progress.
i tried smplayer but it crashed :(
will there be a fix in future releases ??

[LoRd_MuldeR]

can mplayer play movies while in record?
i use vlc to play this fiels (i record through Hauppauge ÜVR-250 with WintTVCap) and need a good palyer for playing these MPEG2 files.
only vlc can play it when recording is in progress.
i tried smplayer but it crashed :(
will there be a fix in future releases ??

What did crash? The SMPlayer front-end or MPlayer itself?

In both cases you must report the problem to the individual developers...