Topic: Why Windows Media is included in 9.1 beta (Read 4389 times)

JimH · « **on:** July 15, 2003, 05:09:08 am »

I'm moving Raistlin's post here to start a new thread.

Jim

---- begin Raistlin ----

Quote

9. Changed: Added Windows Media re-distributable to installation package.

It is a tradeoff between usability and download size, and we think usability is the right choice. We wish there was a better answer.

Expecting users to download an additional 4 MB stub if they try to play a video or WMA file isn't acceptable.

In the future, we may issue smaller "upgrade" versions.

Maybe, but donwloading additional 4 MB with EVERY UPDATE even without ever playing crappy quality WMA/WMV is even worse!!

PLEASE REMOVE THIS AGAIN!

Even if someone wants to play such WMA-crap, he only has to download it once & not several times!!!

If I continue your arguments, you could also integrate into the installer quicktimeplayer & Real player, for playing those formats inside of MC!!

And I'm sure you won't add these two, so WHY DO IT WITH M$?

JimH · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2003, 05:15:04 am »

I've moved the post above from the bug thread to keep the discussion separate.

Since last night's build, 9.1.214, we're including the 4MB of Windows Media codecs. We're not happy about it either, but we decided it was the least objectionable way to proceed.

WM is here to stay. It is a standard we can't ignore. But it is also creating a lot of problems, and especially for new users. When we didn't include it, we had to stop any import that found anything WM and download the codecs, install them, then resume. It was ugly.

For now, we're including WM (the codecs, but not the player) in the build. In a few weeks, we will find a way to provide update builds that don't include it.

For the record, we're not trying to promote WM as a standard. We're just trying to keep MC fit for the times as they change.

Your patience will be appreciated.

JimH · « **Reply #2 on:** July 15, 2003, 05:28:27 am »

Moving another post by Raistlin:

Jim

---------- begin Raistlin ----------

Ok, this is very easy, get winrar & install it, if you don't have it yet.

Extract the setup into a new folder with the same name via context-menu of the exe.

Go into Support folder & delete wmfdist.exe.

Voila, now you can install this perfect tool without WM, just click on installwizard in the root-folder of teh extracted files.

PLEASE, everybody vote here against Microsoft if you want to get it removed from MC-setup again.

Raist

TimB · « **Reply #3 on:** July 15, 2003, 05:42:08 am »

Quote

For the record, we're not trying to promote WM as a standard. We're just trying to keep MC fit for the times as they change.

Your patience will be appreciated.

Smart decision. Ignoring standards, whether you like them or not, is not smart.

-=Tim=-

Doof · « **Reply #4 on:** July 15, 2003, 05:46:17 am »

Here's my thoughts...

First of all the extra 4 MB download doesn't bother me, but only because I am on cable modem. If I were on dialup, I'd absolutely hate it.

Secondly, it's safe to assume that everybody that's actively beta testing MC already has these codecs installed, since they've been included in numerous builds in the past, along with this latest one. So the only people you're really concerned with are brand new users who have never ever used MC or MJ before, or haven't run Windows Update in a while.

So why not seperate the two into seperate downloads and put a link to the codecs in the build thread?

"If you have never used MJ or MC before, you may need to download these codecs to listen to .wma files or view .wmv videos. Alternatively, MC can download them automatically for you if it determines that you need them. This download only needs to be done once. If you're sure you don't have any .wma or .wmv files, you can skip this download and download only MC instead."

Or something like that. There's only so much handholding you can do. The build thread already has warnings up the wazoo about it being beta software. If they're brave enough (read : computer savvy enough) to continue anyway, they'll know to download the codecs as well.

Either that, or offer two downloads. One with the codecs and one without. A lot of sites do this for the VB Runtimes. It seems to be working ok for them.

Just a thought.

KingSparta · « **Reply #5 on:** July 15, 2003, 06:16:56 am »

I am no a cable modem also so the extra 5 seconds does not bother me but it might to a user with 56k modem that really works at 28.8 baud would have a problem with it taking 15-30 mins

not everyone is on a T3 connection (dreaming now...)

Kurt Young · « **Reply #6 on:** July 15, 2003, 07:06:06 am »

I'm on a modem. XP reports that it connects at 28.8. Everything I do on the internet is agonizingly slow and horrible... it's the nature of the speed.

That being said, I respect y'all's decisions and don't mind the extra 4mb... it just means that I'll download fewer builds.

Putting options on the table as we've been doing, I like what I see:

1. Offer two installer packages, one with codecs for "clean installs" and one without for "over the top installs." And not just Windows Media codecs, but all of 'em... the "over the top installer" would be way way waaaay smaller than the other'n. Fast, easy, and just screams "we treat beta testers well."

2. Figure out a way for an installed copy of MC to update itself when a new beta build comes out, and then just have it download the updated code, not the whole package. Mayhap even a sub-option on "Check for newer versions": "Newest Stable Build" and "Newest Beta Build".

At the end of the day, I'll still be okay if nothing changes from how it is, but it's good that y'all are open to discussion.

nila · « **Reply #7 on:** July 15, 2003, 07:38:50 am »

I say small version (basically rip out ALL codec's, skins (unless specifically changed by you etc). and put that as an 'update' one.
then a FULL one with all the codecs and stuff in it.

The first one wouldn't really be too tricky to do from what you have now.
U just remove all the skins (saving space), all the codecs (saving even more space) and maybe any .dll's that dont change between builds.

It'd just update the core .exe and anything else that needed to change.

I'd imagine that even by just removing the skins and codec's u'd drop the size by at least 5 megs.

Also - not too sure that including them as default is the smartest move right after the CNET review which claimed ur software was bloatware - now ur making it 150% of the size?

Herakles · « **Reply #8 on:** July 15, 2003, 08:34:18 am »

The way i would like to see it:

-The official release posted on the web should include all the codecs. (for first time users and those who want to do a reinstall).

-The check for updates option in Media Center should download the new versionm but without codecs.

-On the boards, post 2 beta versions: one with and one without codecs.

Mat

phelt · « **Reply #9 on:** July 15, 2003, 08:51:59 am »

It's funny how the word "standard" apparently has a different meaning in computing than in the real world. My take on the current state of computer audio is that there is no true standard, but competing cabals

Doof · « **Reply #10 on:** July 15, 2003, 09:07:45 am »

I'm just wondering when MC will include the DivX codecs...

Kurt Young · « **Reply #11 on:** July 15, 2003, 09:49:44 am »

Quote

I'm just wondering when MC will include the DivX codecs...

Here's one big giant HECK YEAH for including the DivX codecs!! And XviD. And a DVD-decoder. That'd be three less Setup.exe's that I'd have to run next time I formatted.

Ingo · « **Reply #12 on:** July 15, 2003, 10:43:37 am »

How about including it in release builds? The ones you get from the download page.
Everyone who downloads a beta build should be aware of additional hazzels. Including having to download codecs.

just my thought. personally I don't care too much. DSL is my friend ;-)

Ingo

Omni · « **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2003, 12:09:36 pm »

Quote

How about including it in release builds? The ones you get from the download page.
Everyone who downloads a beta build should be aware of additional hazzels. Including having to download codecs.

I think if you read between the lines, what they are saying is that they are coding the application with the assumption that the codecs are installed. (This makes the error handling subsystem much easier to implement on the application level.)

Unfortunately, since the release of 9.1 beta, nearly everyone has turned vicious with all their whining, complaining, and ranting. In one thread, people (to remain nameless) complain that all these new bells and whistles should come to a halt so that the developer's focus will be on fixing the current bugs; yet, that same user will start a new thread asking for new features!

(What follows is pure speculation.)

[speculation]
Anyway, since WMA codecs are now a requirement for the application, they (JRiver) are probably just trying to prevent all future beta release threads from being filled with things like "This doesn't work!", " MM works fine, why doesn't MC?", "Everything worked fine a few builds ago. What happened?", etc.
[/speculation]

Quote

just my thought. personally I don't care too much. DSL is my friend ;-)

Sure. Rub it in.

Well, I can't speak for any other dial-up user, but this one is not going to be downloading betas any more unless there is some significant change or bug fix.

Omni

JollyJim · « **Reply #14 on:** July 16, 2003, 02:55:54 am »

I'm on a dial-up and it normally takes about 45-60 mins for the 9mb jobbie. Another 4mb every day is more than my nerves can stand.

So, maybe I'll just download once per week or whatever - shame really, I kinda like keeping up to date !!

Have a nice day everyone - Jim

jleerigby · « **Reply #15 on:** July 16, 2003, 04:24:20 am »

Quote

I'm on a dial-up and it normally takes about 45-60 mins for the 9mb jobbie. Another 4mb every day is more than my nerves can stand.

So, maybe I'll just download once per week or whatever - shame really, I kinda like keeping up to date !!

Have a nice day everyone - Jim

I agree JollyJim. I've just taken the plunge and upgraded to the beta version but it took that long (I had to do it twice 'cos my ISP cut me off half way through) that I don't think I'll be able to keep it up to date. I only have a couple of hours to 'play' when I get home from work so can't afford to spend 75 mins downloading. That time would be much better spent evaluating the software.

I wish I could get broadband but can't as I live too far away from the nearest British Telecom Exchange.

nila · « **Reply #16 on:** July 16, 2003, 04:38:02 am »

JLee - have u looked into cable modem?

Also - if your on dialup you NEED to install getright or something.

I had it when I was on dialup and it was a true lifesaver.

Basically when you get cut off it'll resume the download where it stopped when you re-connect. It'll do it for all things you download - a NECESSITY when on dialup.

scott_r · « **Reply #17 on:** July 16, 2003, 04:53:06 am »

Heres my vote for a Media Center "lite" update package.

I'm completely for including WM9 codecs (and others) in the release version, but certainly not in every single beta release.
Even if they get included in release versions, it might be nice to implement a "dynamic installer" which only downloads and installs the codecs/skins/whatever that the user chooses. Most of the code for that would be easy enough to port to a "dynamic updater" which would then update Media Center as it needs to be, eg, when somebody tries to import a WM file without the codecs.

Just my two cents.

Scott
the poor dial-up user.

JollyJim · « **Reply #18 on:** July 16, 2003, 05:15:57 am »

As a secondary issue - I've not got many WMA files left anyway. I used this format quite a lot in the past and must admit to liking the bright sound of it. However, there's been quite a lot of rumours in the past of WMA/M$/Music Companies trying to put some sort of block on copying/playing various formats. I've kept the WMP7 and not upgraded to WMP9 as there were stories of DRM within that release. Recently, I've been unable to play/convert some WMA tracks and getting a message to say that I'm unlicensed. It then takes me to a M$ page to get the license. This I don't want. So, I'm gradually getting rid of WMA formats and therefore don't really need the extra 4mb anyway.

Maybe I've read all the signs incorrectly - I'm neither a PC or Music Industry expert and have no great desire to be either. I just wanna carry on building, cataloguing, playing and enjoying my collection, hence my love of MC.

Getting really hot here in Peterborough, England. What's the weather like where you are ?

Up the 'ammers ! he he he

Jim

Raistlin2000 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 16, 2003, 05:42:43 am »

DivX is really a good point, I guess that DivX is much more popular than WMV, so why is there no DivX-Decoder but a WMV-decoder in here?!?

It has really nothing to do with the fact the Microsoft is a big company??!?

Raist

nila · « **Reply #20 on:** July 16, 2003, 05:46:42 am »

The weather here is hot too - Newcastle England right now

Jolly - there's no problems with DRM right now that I'm aware of. I've heard all the rumours but they're mainly just rumours right now.

The problem is though that there is DRM in there and so if they do change their minds later, the music is already in a format that allows them to instantly control it.

Formats without DRM however they have no way of controlling no matter what changes they have in the way they want to play it later (other than totally not letting us play any music without DRM which there has been rumours of and on that day I buy: 'Teach yourself Linux in 24 hours' and set that up as a music server on an older computer with no DRM built into the hardware (there currently is none but there are talks of adding it).)

JollyJim · « **Reply #21 on:** July 16, 2003, 06:05:17 am »

Hi Nila...thanks for the info...

>>> The problem is though that there is DRM in there and so if they do change their minds later, the music is already in a format that allows them to instantly control it.

Yeah - that's what worries me.

Wot ya doing in Newcastle? Are you a Geordie Boy ?

Dunno if ya remember him, but I saw an Alan Price concert on Saturday. I've seen him several times before and he's amazing. I'm not sure I like all his songs but I love to hear a real pro at work. His Jarrow Song really brought the house down with an amazing piano solo at the end that must have lasted 10 minutes or so.

If you're not a Geordie, kindly disregard the previous paragraph ....

All the best - Jim

nila · « **Reply #22 on:** July 16, 2003, 08:20:03 am »

Not Jordie,

Sorry - from London. Just up here doing a contracting, building a few websites, making a catalogue for this company and stuff.

Um - I'm having problems with my WMP all of a sudden - it used to work fine and is no longer doing so since installing the latest builds of MC - coincidence? Not sure but I'd rather not have to download WM each time and keep reinstalling it no matter what.
If I have a more updated version of WM than ur installing it's going to cause similar problems I'd imagine to what I'm getting now.

JollyJim · « **Reply #23 on:** July 16, 2003, 06:50:29 pm »

Hi Nila...

>>> Um - I'm having problems with my WMP all of a sudden - it used to work fine and is no longer doing so since installing the latest builds of MC - coincidence? <<

Yeah, that's what happened to me 2 or 3 weeks back. I get a message on the lines of ' you're unlicensed to use the playback engine' when trying to access mp3's (strangely enough, not all of them though but I can't see a pattern) and then takes me to a M$ site to get the license. This I object to, I've been ripped off by M$ and the music industry more than enough and don't intend getting ripped off again that's why I decided to convert the remaining WMA files and then dump WMP. Funnily enough, about a week later, WMP7, which I'd been using quite happily, crashed and was lost forever....coincidence?? I dunno, but I ain't gonna instal WMP9.

Me from London too - Walthamstow. Been in P'boro since 1987 but still get back down regularly to see family.

Enjoy the beer up there !!

Jim

Superag · « **Reply #24 on:** July 16, 2003, 11:52:09 pm »

DivX is really a good point, I guess that DivX is much more popular than WMV, so why is there no DivX-Decoder but a WMV-decoder in here
======================================
I think so!!!
Divx is more important than WMV

and I think this way may be better:
Everyone can choose which one ther are want to install!

nila · « **Reply #25 on:** July 17, 2003, 12:20:09 am »

I'm from a town called Watford - end of the Jubilee line.

I dont drink so wouldn't know about the beers

WMP 7 was the worst version of WMP that ever existed.
9 was actually/is actually not bad and I use it for all my film playback on my computer.

It's pretty reliable and has a very nice clean GUI when in fullscreen mode as well as good controls over contrast, brightness, playback speed etc.

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Why Windows Media is included in 9.1 beta (Read 4389 times)

nila

phelt

jleerigby

nila

nila

nila

nila