G'bye 3rd Party ASP/AVC Filters in WMP/MCE on Win7? [Archive] - Page 4

Snowknight26

10th May 2009, 08:55

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, 09:39

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, 10:10

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, 13:42

@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, 15:06

@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, 15:45

@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, 17:18

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, 17:52

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, 18:46

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, 19:00

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, 19:18

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, 19:35

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, 19:54

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, 20:07

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, 20:51

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, 21:13

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, 21:22

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, 21:42

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, 21:53

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, 22:14

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, 22:53

BetaBoy

11th May 2009, 05:27

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, 08:48

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, 17:34

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, 18:06

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, 18:06

me7

11th May 2009, 18:39

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, 18:54

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, 19:15

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, 19:24

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, 20:17

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, 20:36

Brother John

11th May 2009, 20:42

cyberbeing

11th May 2009, 20:42

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, 20:44

ChronoCross

11th May 2009, 21:34

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, 22:01

*sigh*

G_M_C

11th May 2009, 22:16

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, 22:25

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, 22:51

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

11th May 2009, 23:07

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

11th May 2009, 23:59

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, 00:05

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, 00:12

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, 01:00

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, 01:16

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, 01:22

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, 09:07

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, 09:33

@ 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.