SillyDog701

[Don_HH2K]

I wonder why you keep claim it supports so.

It does if you install a proper MOV/MP4 splitter and codecs.

I just tested the RTSP link with RealPlayer, and it plays fine. Someone's beloved Windows Media Player did a worse job than Real. Ha.

Once again, Windows Media Player is NOT my "beloved". And furthermore, RealPlayer uses the system's implementation of QuickTime, so in theory you are using QuickTime, just with a different interface.

You know that WMP9 for Mac is ancient, and Flip4Mac does a much better job, right?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

I wonder why you keep claim it supports so.

It does if you install a proper MOV/MP4 splitter and codecs.

So WMP itself is less than adequate, except you've been trying to make it sound like it supports nearly everything.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

[Don_HH2K]

What's the difference between supporting it natively and supporting it through plugins? QuickTime doesn't support WMV unless it's through a plugin, and vice-versa: WMP doesn't support QuickTime unless it's through a plugin.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

What's the difference between supporting it natively and supporting it through plugins? QuickTime doesn't support WMV unless it's through a plugin, and vice-versa: WMP doesn't support QuickTime unless it's through a plugin.

Now, you see the difference. I never emphasised that QuickTime can play WMV, unlike you, trying to give people a false impression that WMP, as most people won't be bothered to install additional codecs.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Don_HH2K]

Then they can use QuickTime, if they don't want to (or don't know about) the existence of installable codecs. Since I do, why not use them? It's when QuickTime-specific techniques such as are apparently used here are employed, that make such videos unplayable in WMP, mplayer, and so on, that you completely defeat the purpose of an open standard.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

you completely defeat the purpose of an open standard.

I did not. I carefully coded the code to work for what it's designed for.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Don_HH2K]

If a video based on open standards can't play in anything except QuickTime, it isn't much of a standard video, is it?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

I detected insulting tone.

Apple's QuickTime Player was the first major player that supports playing back H.264. To date, shipping version of WMP still does not support H.264 yet. Someone insisted on using WMP to playback any formats, when he fails, he blames the container and proper HTML coding. How ironic.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Pu7o]

And since when is calling the QuickTime plugin directly "proper HTML coding"?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; pt-pt) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Don_HH2K]

H.264 is completely playable in WMP through the use of ffdshow or a similar decoder. You break it when you decide to directly call QuickTime in your HTML code, which is not proper HTML coding. Keep in mind: I did not blame the container, I'm blaming a direct call to the QuickTime plugin.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

And since when is calling the QuickTime plugin directly "proper HTML coding"?

The movie is designed for QuickTime playback, hence using the correct HTML code for embedding is "proper".

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

[Antony]

H.264 is completely playable in WMP through the use of ffdshow or a similar decoder. You break it when you decide to directly call QuickTime in your HTML code, which is not proper HTML coding. Keep in mind: I did not blame the container, I'm blaming a direct call to the QuickTime plugin.

Now, you shift the topic. I did provide a direct link to the media file. If your WMP fails to play it, there's no need to blame container or me.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

[Don_HH2K]

And since when is calling the QuickTime plugin directly "proper HTML coding"?

The movie is designed for QuickTime playback, hence using the correct HTML code for embedding is "proper".

Why make if specifically for QuickTime if it uses open video standards?

Now, you shift the topic. I did provide a direct link to the media file. If your WMP fails to play it, there's no need to blame container or me.

A link that rejects WMP and mplayer, yes. Why not actually link a file archive, instead of a streaming video?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

And since when is calling the QuickTime plugin directly "proper HTML coding"?

The movie is designed for QuickTime playback, hence using the correct HTML code for embedding is "proper".

Why make if specifically for QuickTime if it uses open video standards?

Why must use WMP when the shipping version of WMP does not support it yet? I fail to see the point of writng a complicated article on how to get WMP able to play media files that designed for QuickTime Player?

Now, you shift the topic. I did provide a direct link to the media file. If your WMP fails to play it, there's no need to blame container or me.

A link that rejects WMP and mplayer, yes. Why not actually link a file archive, instead of a streaming video?

The direct link to the media file does not reject any player, your WMP failed to launch that link for whatever reason. If your WMP refuses to play the file I encoded, what's the point of providing the file again?

If I were you, I'd blame the blocking of Donzilla (which blocked launching of iTunes Store from SillyDog701 before) or the blocking (and complaining) attitude that user.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

[Don_HH2K]

Why must use WMP when the shipping version of WMP does not support it yet? I fail to see the point of writng a complicated article on how to get WMP able to play media files that designed for QuickTime Player?

I didn't say you had to use WMP at all. I said that you've somehow made a movie that won't work right in anything but QuickTime, despite the fact that it uses standardized audio/video codecs and a standardized container format, on a standardized streaming protocol.

The direct link to the media file does not reject any player, your WMP failed to launch that link for whatever reason. If your WMP refuses to play the file I encoded, what's the point of providing the file again?

It's not just WMP. That video also rejects Videolan and mplayer, with the same error. It's worth noting that all three of these players can play back every single video you posted before your sudden switch to streaming.

If I were you, I'd blame the blocking of Donzilla (which blocked launching of iTunes Store from SillyDog701 before) or the blocking (and complaining) attitude that user.

You know that I haven't even been using Donzilla for the past month, right?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)