Consensus on Windows Media Player 9?

Stuart Kupinsky · March 5th, 2003, 06:46 PM

I like the incremental quality gains over the last version (picture quality for X bps, etc.) but have had a couple of strange problems with files over 2 Gig -- it just dies during encoding. I'm not using FAT32 or anything else that would limit file sizes and it's not consistent. Anyone else have similar experience?

Trey Perrone · March 13th, 2003, 04:53 AM

Although i use a PC, ive always been a big fan of the quicktime files...the quality is a lot better. In my experience though, you cannot beat the compression vs quality you get with the NEWEST WMP and WMEncoder versions...a 70 MB file turns into 2-3 MB with the WME9. I prefer using it over REAL anyday of the week, and QT files tend to be a little large. I typically do football/basketball type action where i cannot control any of the lighting though. Unfortunately, users of win98 cannot use WMP9, they must have win98SE or higher. The new version of REAL will now play WMP9 files, but you may need WMP9 installed for that to work. I haven't tested it myself. WMP9 (and previous versions) do seem to hog sys resources, but i wouldnt say too much more than any of the other major players (REAL or QT).

Will Fastie · March 13th, 2003, 08:16 AM

I think WMP9 is a huge jump over the previous versions. Eventually I'm going to need to stream some stuff from a Web site and, even though WMP isn't a universal format, I think it will meet my needs very well. I tested WME9. The compression is great and that's very important -- I will have to pay for all the bandwidth the streaming eats up!

My brother did some tests last year, before 9 was available. He rendered some video to AVI, QT, and WMP. In his judgement, the quality of the WMP files, especially relative to the sizes of the various streams, was superior.

He then sent CDs out to the family and some friends, asking for their playback experiences. He included WMP7 on the CD in case it was needed. To a person, everyone was able to play the WMP files well but had various problems with the other formats.

As for hogging or bloatware, that's pretty typical of Microsoft. But after a few years, no one notices. I've followed Microsoft for a very long time and have concluded that its software is often released too soon in that current technology sometimes isn't enough to run the software well. But after a year or so, no one notices any more.

March 5th, 2003, 06:46 PM	#16
Stuart Kupinsky Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 82	I like the incremental quality gains over the last version (picture quality for X bps, etc.) but have had a couple of strange problems with files over 2 Gig -- it just dies during encoding. I'm not using FAT32 or anything else that would limit file sizes and it's not consistent. Anyone else have similar experience? __________________ DVX100A/AT4071a/Vegas/After Effects Dual 2GHz Xeon PC

March 13th, 2003, 04:53 AM	#17
Trey Perrone Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Fredericksburg, VA Posts: 155	Although i use a PC, ive always been a big fan of the quicktime files...the quality is a lot better. In my experience though, you cannot beat the compression vs quality you get with the NEWEST WMP and WMEncoder versions...a 70 MB file turns into 2-3 MB with the WME9. I prefer using it over REAL anyday of the week, and QT files tend to be a little large. I typically do football/basketball type action where i cannot control any of the lighting though. Unfortunately, users of win98 cannot use WMP9, they must have win98SE or higher. The new version of REAL will now play WMP9 files, but you may need WMP9 installed for that to work. I haven't tested it myself. WMP9 (and previous versions) do seem to hog sys resources, but i wouldnt say too much more than any of the other major players (REAL or QT). __________________ Trey Perrone

March 13th, 2003, 08:16 AM	#18
Will Fastie Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Jarrettsville, MD Posts: 353	I think WMP9 is a huge jump over the previous versions. Eventually I'm going to need to stream some stuff from a Web site and, even though WMP isn't a universal format, I think it will meet my needs very well. I tested WME9. The compression is great and that's very important -- I will have to pay for all the bandwidth the streaming eats up! My brother did some tests last year, before 9 was available. He rendered some video to AVI, QT, and WMP. In his judgement, the quality of the WMP files, especially relative to the sizes of the various streams, was superior. He then sent CDs out to the family and some friends, asking for their playback experiences. He included WMP7 on the CD in case it was needed. To a person, everyone was able to play the WMP files well but had various problems with the other formats. As for hogging or bloatware, that's pretty typical of Microsoft. But after a few years, no one notices. I've followed Microsoft for a very long time and have concluded that its software is often released too soon in that current technology sometimes isn't enough to run the software well. But after a year or so, no one notices any more.