Discussion
right - how the feck do i know what codecs i have? whenever i watch pistonheads tv through the little web window i get sounds, whenever it's through windows media player i get no sound. it's the same with other movies. they work on quicktime but you can't watch pistonheads tv through that can you..? or am i being a spaz..?
If you go to www.free-codecs.com and install the all-in-1 codec pack, that should end your codec concerns.
baskey said:
by jingo it seems to have done it! thanks.
it's xp (bought in june) so i don't know why it struggles with some older stuff (doesn't it have all the files to be 'back compatible?').. whatever it seems to work now. cheers.
The codec thing is something that its quite impossible for MS to keep up with. A codec is, effectively, a map of how to play a video or audio file, so that the bits it has squished, or skipped over, to keep the file size down are put back in the right place. A lot of the codecs out there are ummm unsanctioned by the MPAA and their ilk, so MS cant be seen to support things like DivX movies. They can write Media Player in an "open and extendable" manner, such that you can simply install a codec and it all works though. Which is nice, when you think about it.
randlemarcus said:
by jingo it seems to have done it! thanks.
it's xp (bought in june) so i don't know why it struggles with some older stuff (doesn't it have all the files to be 'back compatible?').. whatever it seems to work now. cheers.
The codec thing is something that its quite impossible for MS to keep up with. A codec is, effectively, a map of how to play a video or audio file, so that the bits it has squished, or skipped over, to keep the file size down are put back in the right place. A lot of the codecs out there are ummm unsanctioned by the MPAA and their ilk, so MS cant be seen to support things like DivX movies. They can write Media Player in an "open and extendable" manner, such that you can simply install a codec and it all works though. Which is nice, when you think about it.
What's not so great, is that they dont provide a scheme that allows you to find out what codecs you have, and don't have. Don't get me wrong, I'm a great believer in MS, but media player has to be one of the worst examples of user interface design from microsoft yet. It's truly awful.
I still use it, and in the end it does what I want, but the reality is that I often don't have a clear understanding of why it works, what I did and what was wrong.
[quote=dilbert
What's not so great, is that they dont provide a scheme that allows you to find out what codecs you have, and don't have. Don't get me wrong, I'm a great believer in MS, but media player has to be one of the worst examples of user interface design from microsoft yet. It's truly awful.
I still use it, and in the end it does what I want, but the reality is that I often don't have a clear understanding of why it works, what I did and what was wrong.[/quote]
Fair enough. I'm not convinced that when MP10 went out to market, they had a clear idea of what it might be used for, and therefore how to do the UI. Its easy enough for soemthing like Word, and thats what all the usability labs seem to be deisgned around. User walks in, sits down, writes letter, prints letter goes away.
When you add in the expectations heaped upon Media Player - my iPod does it this way etc , then it becomes a little trickier. Throw the inevitable backlash against "dubious" codecs (Did you know DivX was the lovechild of released WMV9 codec code?) and it becomes a little clearer as to why everything is not well oriented. PS Tried Real Player or Quicktime recently. Damn, they stopped trying to win, didnt they?
What's not so great, is that they dont provide a scheme that allows you to find out what codecs you have, and don't have. Don't get me wrong, I'm a great believer in MS, but media player has to be one of the worst examples of user interface design from microsoft yet. It's truly awful.
I still use it, and in the end it does what I want, but the reality is that I often don't have a clear understanding of why it works, what I did and what was wrong.[/quote]
Fair enough. I'm not convinced that when MP10 went out to market, they had a clear idea of what it might be used for, and therefore how to do the UI. Its easy enough for soemthing like Word, and thats what all the usability labs seem to be deisgned around. User walks in, sits down, writes letter, prints letter goes away.
When you add in the expectations heaped upon Media Player - my iPod does it this way etc , then it becomes a little trickier. Throw the inevitable backlash against "dubious" codecs (Did you know DivX was the lovechild of released WMV9 codec code?) and it becomes a little clearer as to why everything is not well oriented. PS Tried Real Player or Quicktime recently. Damn, they stopped trying to win, didnt they?
It's funny isn't it.
I don't use RealPlayer because it often isn't capable of what I want. But I do accept that WMP tries to do everything and is confusing as a result.
I'm not sure that the standard application framework is that straightforward. I don't know if you've ever tried managing the keyboard focus directly, but when you get into the detail, it's often not what you would have expected, and MS have always made that intuitive.
I honestly believe that their standards have gone down. It's just that their existing applications for Word and the like ARE the standard by which programmers work out what they have to do. I often wonder if, as time passes and the standards get more and more fudged, we'll end up back with something like the sort of software that you used to get for Solaris!
Obviously if they do anything radical, there's nothing much to reference it against.
I downloaded the Vista programmers guide a while back, and it goes on (ad infinitum) about how transparent windowframes are more "fun". I think it's just an excuse for MS to show off the fact that GDI does 24bit colour with an alpha channel!
Function over form, every time for me! It's a sign of the times.
I don't use RealPlayer because it often isn't capable of what I want. But I do accept that WMP tries to do everything and is confusing as a result.
I'm not sure that the standard application framework is that straightforward. I don't know if you've ever tried managing the keyboard focus directly, but when you get into the detail, it's often not what you would have expected, and MS have always made that intuitive.
I honestly believe that their standards have gone down. It's just that their existing applications for Word and the like ARE the standard by which programmers work out what they have to do. I often wonder if, as time passes and the standards get more and more fudged, we'll end up back with something like the sort of software that you used to get for Solaris!
Obviously if they do anything radical, there's nothing much to reference it against.
I downloaded the Vista programmers guide a while back, and it goes on (ad infinitum) about how transparent windowframes are more "fun". I think it's just an excuse for MS to show off the fact that GDI does 24bit colour with an alpha channel!
Function over form, every time for me! It's a sign of the times.
aldi said:
If you go to www.free-codecs.com and install the all-in-1 codec pack, that should end your codec concerns.
Had one or two downloads where all I get on my video player is the noise* but no pictures (just get graphic equalizer wavey davey nonsense).
Used the site you mentioned, and it seemed to have sorted it.
I will gladly buy you a pint the next time I see you (your profile says NW, so money should hopefully stay safely in my pants).
*Not porn, I hasten to add. text
aldi said:
If you go to www.free-codecs.com and install the all-in-1 codec pack, that should end your codec concerns.
Hey, cheers for that! Solved all my problems!
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff