Windows Media Player 9 for Mac OS X

[MacRumors]

ActiveWin.com (http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=18834&Group=1) references a WMTALK listserv email from a Microsoft employee indicated that support for WMA 9 Voice as well as all 9 Series codecs is coming to Mac OS X in the fall.

"We are definitely planning to support WMA 9 Voice in the upcoming release of Windows Media Player 9 Series for Mac OS X. We showed the new player running with Apple's Safari browser at their WWDC a few weeks back. We're shooting for fall release to web right now and we'll keep the list posted. Thanks for your patience"

[arn]

Previous replies wastelanded (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=41) for obvious reasons.

play nice.

arn

[york2600]

All I can say is about time. VLC can kinda play WMV files, but it tends to crash every few minutes.

[reedm007]

mplayer does a better job than VLC, in my opinion. Just another option.

While I'm not a big fan of WMP myself, this is good news in the sense that having more access to online media is always a good thing.

[Billicus]

It's nice to see continued Windows Media Support on the Macintosh platform.

[bobindashadows]

[ Admin Edit: let's leave that other thread to die. no need to revive it here :) ]

As for WMP 9... isn't that the one for Win that once you agreed to it, ms reserved the right to install DRM patches without your knowing?

Incomprehensible sentence grammatically corrected

[trilogic]

what is Windows Media Player ?


:rolleyes:

[solvs]

I'm glad the thread was restarted.

It was kinda funny though.

All I know is that when I installed WMP 9 on one of my Windows machines, it screwed up the system something awful. Required full OS reinstall. I couldn't unistall it. I know that this isn't typical, but that was my experiance. I have the codecs installed on my Win2000, but not the player.

Is it just me, or does this version look suspiciously like QT? Look real close, you may see some similarities.

[mislabeledstar]

I'm glad to see continued support on our platform from M$. I know alot of people have a hatred for them, but this release is a strong thing for us to be able to receive certain items that aren't recognized by QT yet. I'll be alot happier if/when Apple adds those codecs to QT rather than having to go to WMS.

Does M$ have the ability to not release the codecs if they want? And does anyone know if that is why they haven't appeared in QT yet?

[aristademis]

Maybe I'll be able to play avi files? Finally.

[arn]

Originally posted by aristademis
Maybe I'll be able to play avi files? Finally.

certain AVI files will likely never play. There are some old codecs around that haven't (and will likely never) been ported to OS X.

All new content shouldn't use these old codecs... and probably will play under the newest WMP.

arn

[rockman2023]

Originally posted by arn
certain AVI files will likely never play. There are some old codecs around that haven't (and will likely never) been ported to OS X.
All new content shouldn't use these old codecs... and probably will play under the newest WMP.

arn

With all the support that OSX has nowadays, it's a shame to see that the Indeo Video codec isnt ported to X. You cant even play Indeo Video encoded avi's in VLC, and we know that VLC plays almost anything (except .rm files). If i need to encode an Indeo avi, I have to boot into Classic :rolleyes:

[arogge]

"Apple: Windows Media Player shows anti-standards behavior"

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2002/09/06/quicktime/

[C14ru5]

Please correct me if I'm wrong:

I've heard from some Linux friends of mine that there are no Linux movie players that can play Sorenson 3 encoded files (because Sorenson 3 isn't an open standard). If so, then Apple also has some skeletons in the closet just like Microsoft has with WMV 9. :(

Any thoughts on this?

[Sheebahawk]

its embarrassing having to switch over to a PC to watch clips of dave chapells show on the comedy central website, (anyone ever see his switch ad spoof? Now I can look at more porn than ever!)

not having access to most streaming media is the only disadvantage I can think of using my mac on the internet, just hope I won't be getting assaulted with streaming adds... can safari block those too? can't wait to upgrade from 10.1.5 to panther.....

[tny]

Originally posted by C14ru5
Please correct me if I'm wrong:

I've heard from some Linux friends of mine that there are no Linux movie players that can play Sorenson 3 encoded files (because Sorenson 3 isn't an open standard). If so, then Apple also has some skeletons in the closet just like Microsoft has with WMV 9. :(

Any thoughts on this?

My understanding is that Apple doesn't own the rights to Sorenson's codecs, Sorenson does. One doesn't have to create QuickTimes in Sorenson (in fact I stopped doing so for precisely that reason, that Linux apps can't use Sorenson because it requires a license). Not sure what the IP status of the MP4 format is, haven't looked into it enough to know if there's a specific codec involved or if it's a multi-codec format. Somebody else?

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by tny
My understanding is that Apple doesn't own the rights to Sorenson's codecs, Sorenson does. One doesn't have to create QuickTimes in Sorenson (in fact I stopped doing so for precisely that reason, that Linux apps can't use Sorenson because it requires a license). Not sure what the IP status of the MP4 format is, haven't looked into it enough to know if there's a specific codec involved or if it's a multi-codec format. Somebody else? You are correct. Sorenson owns Sorenson. Apple is in no way responsible for Sorenson's business practices.

[hvfsl]

I hope then include some speed imporvements in this version since v7 on X was slower at playing MPEG4 than VLC.

Also people are saying iTunes is better than WMP9. Well the audio capibities are only slightly better than WMP9, but WMP9 can play just about any media file you try with it (except some quicktime and real files of course). Apple needs to do an all-in-one media player instead of the multiple apps they have at the moment. iMedia might be a good name.

[Nermal]

Time to change my sig :)

[deejemon]

*

[usersince86]

Since I live in Venezuela (but am a U.S. citizen), I use the internet to listen to radio stations and certain web broadcasts. Several stations support only WMP, not Real. So I'm glad that MS is continuing WMP development for the Mac.

At the same time, I like the idea of the Quicktime Player supporting WMP (and Real Player, if possible) standards. Would that be possible???

[reedm007]

Originally posted by usersince86
At the same time, I like the idea of the Quicktime Player supporting WMP (and Real Player, if possible) standards. Would that be possible???

Nope. There are specific agreements that all three software companies have signed that forbid any of them from doing that.

Otherwise, QT Player could be in trouble: QuickTime is available in Cocoa and Carbon for any app on the platform, so MS or Real could easily incorporate QT playback into their app. The agreements, however, restrict them from doing just that.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by reedm007
Nope. There are specific agreements that all three software companies have signed that forbid any of them from doing that.

Otherwise, QT Player could be in trouble: QuickTime is available in Cocoa and Carbon for any app on the platform, so MS or Real could easily incorporate QT playback into their app. The agreements, however, restrict them from doing just that.

Well Real Player One on the PC does that.

[Nermal]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Well Real Player One on the PC does that.

Yeah, RealOne on the PC will play almost anything you throw at it, including ASF, WMV, and I think MP4.

[solvs]

Originally posted by Nermal
Time to change my sig :)

Looks like you got your wish. ;)

Originally posted by hvfsl
Well Real Player One on the PC does that.

Yeah, it's too bad it sucks so much.

That's why I'm still using an old version on my Win2000 PC. And I only use it for .rm files. If I need to play WMP files, I use an older version with the new codecs. It may be older tech, but it's faster that way, and works better for me than the newer stuff.

Would be nice to have 1 program that plays them all well.

[VIREBEL661]

I think everyone here will agree that win media player for X is terrible.... M$ hasn't even tried to compete with QT in the Mac market.. I run into wmv and asf files all the time, and I do admit, mPlayer does a great job of showing these, but I would like to see a actual quality product from M$ to support their proprietary formats!!! C'mon guys, you can do it - make a decent win media player for Mac - integrate all the codecs... We'll see what happens, but hopefully this is good news...

[VIREBEL661]

Regarding codecs and OS 9, anyone notice that QT in 9 supports many more codecs than X??? I mean, it's obviously had a lot more time to develop - but I'd like to see a lot more codecs added into the X version of QT... I notice movies that won't play in X will likely play in 9..... OT I know - forgive me...

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by VIREBEL661
Regarding codecs and OS 9, anyone notice that QT in 9 supports many more codecs than X??? I mean, it's obviously had a lot more time to develop - but I'd like to see a lot more codecs added into the X version of QT... I notice movies that won't play in X will likely play in 9..... OT I know - forgive me...

Almost all codecs avaliable in 9 are avaliable in X. The only ones that are not avaliable in X are some very old ones. You may not be able to download them from the quicktime update, but if you search the net you should be able to find a QT6 Mac OS X codec for the media you want to play.

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by Nermal
Yeah, RealOne on the PC will play almost anything you throw at it, including ASF, WMV, and I think MP4.

And it can keep playing them...Without me. I refuse on moral and economic principles to PAY for a media player of any sort. Pretty much across the software industry, applications that only read files and cannot write to them tend to be free.

Real's player is pay-only, right? Am I correct in my belief that if one tries to update his free player, it will stick you with a demo of the pay-one and then die after x number of days.

Real always had an inferior product. It is the scourge of the industry and if its product is now better, that's just fine. But it SHOULD BE FREE.

Even Microsoft understands this, which is scary.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by themadchemist


Real's player is pay-only, right? Am I correct in my belief that if one tries to update his free player, it will stick you with a demo of the pay-one and then die after x number of days.



Real Player is free, it is just some of the content costs money to view. However Quicktime is not free, there is a free version, but it can't run movies in full screen. Like Quicktime, Real does a free and Pro version of its player. M$ does the only 'real' free player.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Real Player is free, it is just some of the content costs money to view. However Quicktime is not free, there is a free version, but it can't run movies in full screen. Like Quicktime, Real does a free and Pro version of its player. M$ does the only 'real' free player.

The comparison of Real One to QuickTime is a little off. By paying for Real you subscribe to content. By paying for QuickTime you get additional export options (audio and video codecs) and a couple of extra minor viewing options (present movies full screen). Buying QT Pro actually gives you an app you can create, edit and export digital video files with - hence the "Pro". Real player is for entertainment only.

[MTMacPhee]

I wonder if I could ask the experts here a question (it's strictly hypothetical). If I had a website, and I decided that I should include some multimedia content - edited videos of new products showing major features etc (with audio) for instance - what would be more cost effective:

1) Making a WMP 9 video, or
2) Making a Quicktime video?

Include everything I might need: decent camera/lights/mics/mixer etc (but I assume these would be identical). Software (editors, utilities, etc.). Whatever my server would need to stream my video content. Any fees payable to whomever.

In other words, does it make business sense to choose one over the other?

Over and above business sense, which format will be the easiest to use through the production process (I hope I know the answer to this one :-).

Mike

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by MTMacPhee
I wonder if I could ask the experts here a question (it's strictly hypothetical). If I had a website, and I decided that I should include some multimedia content - edited videos of new products showing major features etc (with audio) for instance - what would be more cost effective:

1) Making a WMP 9 video, or
2) Making a Quicktime video?

Include everything I might need: decent camera/lights/mics/mixer etc (but I assume these would be identical). Software (editors, utilities, etc.). Whatever my server would need to stream my video content. Any fees payable to whomever.
I'd say QuickTime hands down. You could edit on your current Mac, your Mac already has firewire, etc etc. Darwin Streaming Server is free on any OS (contrary to having to buy Windows Server for WM streaming).
In other words, does it make business sense to choose one over the other?
Most likely better business sense to do both if and only if possible. Otherwise, I'd stick with QuickTime.
Over and above business sense, which format will be the easiest to use through the production process (I hope I know the answer to this one :-).
Again, most likely QuickTime. You don't have to spend that much money to do DV editing on the Mac since it's mostly already there.

I used to run a major roller coaster website (since then resigned) that rendered 3D animations of popular roller coasters for people's recreation. We did it in QT and Windows Media. Guess what format most people downloaded? The QuickTime version and most of our visitors were Windows users. It really depends on the demographics, how you present it (we had buttons to direct people to download QuickTime, had some exclusive content in QT) etc.

But on the other hand, if you already have a PC, a Windows 2000/2003 Server, etc. It might be cheaper the other way. You really have to look at your demographics. For example, if your site is for hardcore Mac programmers, it's most likely better to use QuickTime.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by MTMacPhee
I wonder if I could ask the experts here a question (it's strictly hypothetical). If I had a website, and I decided that I should include some multimedia content - edited videos of new products showing major features etc (with audio) for instance - what would be more cost effective:

1) Making a WMP 9 video, or
2) Making a Quicktime video?

Include everything I might need: decent camera/lights/mics/mixer etc (but I assume these would be identical). Software (editors, utilities, etc.). Whatever my server would need to stream my video content. Any fees payable to whomever.

In other words, does it make business sense to choose one over the other?

Over and above business sense, which format will be the easiest to use through the production process (I hope I know the answer to this one :-).

Mike

Firstly Quicktime is the best format to use it you want it to work on Linux/PC/Mac (people have ported Quicktime to Linux). Although if you include Real, I think it is the best in terms of quality.

The cheapest option depends on which platform you use. If it is Mac then Quicktime is the best, Apple gives away everything that is needed for streaming for free. If you use a PC then Real is the best. You do not have to pay any fees if you are streaming to no more than 50 people at a time. Real on the PC also offers the needed software for free.

In terms of equipement, for the PC you need:
-DV Camera $500+
-Adobe Premier about $700
All other needed software can be got from real for free

For Mac You need:
-DV Camera $500+
-Apple FCP or Express $300 - $1000
Apple offers other needed software for free.