SillyDog701

[Don_HH2K]

Так Я.

What?

Just like me. In Russian, since I don't speak English either.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061030 BonEcho/2.0 (mmoy CE K8N-X02)

[Antony]

Do you have an MPEG-4 decoder? I use ffdshow, which handles just about every format I've heard of, but there are also other lighter packs like Xvid, which only does MPEG-4.

Why do you want people to install extra decoder?
Why not just playable straight out of QuickTime or your favourite Windows Media Player?

Also, DivX is not supported by any major industries, for the history associated with it: DivX gained its market due to used in illegally ripping movies for illegally sharing online.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Don_HH2K]

Do you have an MPEG-4 decoder? I use ffdshow, which handles just about every format I've heard of, but there are also other lighter packs like Xvid, which only does MPEG-4.

Why do you want people to install extra decoder?
Why not just playable straight out of QuickTime or your favourite Windows Media Player?

If I distribute it as a QuickTime video, you need an extra decoder to play it in Windows Media Player. If I distribute it as a Windows Media video, you need an extra decoder to play it in QuickTime. And with MPEG-4, you need an extra decoder for both players, unless I make it an MPEG-4 stream that's only directly compatible with WMP or QuickTime and not the other. It's all a trade-off.

Also, DivX is not supported by any major industries, for the history associated with it: DivX gained its market due to used in illegally ripping movies for illegally sharing online.

Did I say it was a DivX movie? It's an MPEG-4 bitstream, DivX happens to be bit-for-bit compliant with MPEG-4, and you can decode it with DivX, Xvid, Windows' MPEG-4 decoder (with appropriate hacks), ffmpeg/dshow/X, VLC, and so on.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061030 BonEcho/2.0 (mmoy CE K8N-X02)

[Antony]

Do you have an MPEG-4 decoder? I use ffdshow, which handles just about every format I've heard of, but there are also other lighter packs like Xvid, which only does MPEG-4.

Why do you want people to install extra decoder?
Why not just playable straight out of QuickTime or your favourite Windows Media Player?

If I distribute it as a QuickTime video, you need an extra decoder to play it in Windows Media Player. If I distribute it as a Windows Media video, you need an extra decoder to play it in QuickTime. And with MPEG-4, you need an extra decoder for both players, unless I make it an MPEG-4 stream that's only directly compatible with WMP or QuickTime and not the other. It's all a trade-off.

What are you talking about?

Who told you that I don't have Windows Media Player? You were able to it a strict "MPEG-4", but you chose not to, and what's the tradeoff? There's no need to defend for your beloved Windows Media Player.

Further, the video clips I provide never requires additional component or hacks, just the specified player. Simple as that.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Don_HH2K]

What are you talking about?

I'm saying that no matter whatever distribution method I use, it's going to need an extra decoder in some player.

Who told you that I don't have Windows Media Player?

Did I say anything about you having Windows Media Player or not?

You were able to it a strict "MPEG-4", but you chose not to, and what's the tradeoff?

That is a strict MPEG-4 bitstream. It's just not in the MPEG-4 container, which is perfectly acceptable; you can put an MPEG-4 into a .avi or a .mkv or even a .mov, and it'll still be the same compliant bitstream.

There's no need to defend for your beloved Windows Media Player.

WMP is not my "beloved", and if I may ask, where was I defending for it?

Further, the video clips I provide never requires additional component or hacks, just the specified player. Simple as that.

They do if your preferred digital video player isn't QuickTime. if I distibute a Windows Media/VC-1 video, you'll need a separate decoder to watch it in QuickTime, and if I distribute it as a QuickTime video, you'll need a separate decoder to watch it in WMP. Telling people to use a player other than the one they prefer, IMHO, is rather pushy if there are alternative options available.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061030 BonEcho/2.0 (mmoy CE K8N-X02)

[Antony]

That is a strict MPEG-4 bitstream. It's just not in the MPEG-4 container, which is perfectly acceptable; you can put an MPEG-4 into a .avi or a .mkv or even a .mov, and it'll still be the same compliant bitstream.

Are you so sure about that "perfectly acceptable" thing?

They do if your preferred digital video player isn't QuickTime. if I distribute a Windows Media/VC-1 video, you'll need a separate decoder to watch it in QuickTime, and if I distribute it as a QuickTime video, you'll need a separate decoder to watch it in WMP.

If you distribute it in Windows Media video, what would I insist on watching it in QuickTime.
If you distribute it iin QuickTime, what do you have to be so stubborn on using WMP when QuickTime is available for Windows.

Telling people to use a player other than the one they prefer, IMHO, is rather pushy if there are alternative options available.

Pushy? When I provide videos in QuickTime format, I told people it's for QuickTime Player, then I list the QuickTime Player requirement. I detect the same attitude as blocking every single ads, demanding the latest that can get hold of as well demanding using something that is NOT designed for, then whinge.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Don_HH2K]

Are you so sure about that "perfectly acceptable" thing?

AVI supports all of MPEG-4 Simple Profile's features, so yes. It's if you use some Advanced Simple Profile features like B-frames that you have a problem, and I didn't.

If you distribute it in Windows Media video, what would I insist on watching it in QuickTime.

Because QuickTime your preferred digital media player.

If you distribute it iin QuickTime, what do you have to be so stubborn on using WMP when QuickTime is available for Windows.

Because WMP is my preferred digital media player.

Pushy? When I provide videos in QuickTime format, I told people it's for QuickTime Player, then I list the QuickTime Player requirement. I detect the same attitude as blocking every single ads, demanding the latest that can get hold of as well demanding using something that is NOT designed for, then whinge.

What, might I ask, is the problem with using unsupported methods of playing back a video if the video plays back? You should know that your streaming video embedded in SD701 was not compatible with browsers that didn't have a QuickTime plugin available to install, such as Firefox for x64.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061030 BonEcho/2.0 (mmoy CE K8N-X02)

[Antony]

Are you so sure about that "perfectly acceptable" thing?

AVI supports all of MPEG-4 Simple Profile's features, so yes. It's if you use some Advanced Simple Profile features like B-frames that you have a problem, and I didn't.

Sound like it was the conclusion you drew. MPEG-4 is designed and commonly distributed in .mp4.

If you distribute it in Windows Media video, what would I insist on watching it in QuickTime.

Because QuickTime your preferred digital media player.

I don't insist on doing so.

If you distribute it iin QuickTime, what do you have to be so stubborn on using WMP when QuickTime is available for Windows.

Because WMP is my preferred digital media player.

You forgot the difference, Microsoft officially provides WMV Component for QuickTime for users to watch WMV videos on QuickTime. Not the other way round. Therefore, using WMV Component for QuickTime is as recommended by Microsoft, hence, it shouldn't be considered as a hack.

Apple provides QuickTime Player for Windows, providing an official way for playing back QuickTime movies.

However, a certain stubborn person, who must hack/tweak settings, then at same time trying to give people false impression that Windows Media Player can play all codecs not designed for WMP.

Pushy? When I provide videos in QuickTime format, I told people it's for QuickTime Player, then I list the QuickTime Player requirement. I detect the same attitude as blocking every single ads, demanding the latest that can get hold of as well demanding using something that is NOT designed for, then whinge.

What, might I ask, is the problem with using unsupported methods of playing back a video if the video plays back?[/quote]What is that problem? That would be that user's stubbornness to be blamed.

You should know that your streaming video embedded in SD701 was not compatible with browsers that didn't have a QuickTime plugin available to install, such as Firefox for x64.

Your advanced Firefox or Windows failed to comply, please do not blame it other way round.

The code was coded carefully and is preferred by official document. If there is any error in the code, please feel free to report.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Don_HH2K]

MPEG-4 is designed and commonly distributed in .mp4.

"Commonly distributed". That doesn't mean that other formats aren't compatible too, and there are plenty of MPEG-4 videos in .avi containers out there.

I don't insist on doing so.

Well, that's your decision to make. I happen prefer using WMP to view and organize everything.

Therefore, using WMV Component for QuickTime is as recommended by Microsoft, hence, it shouldn't be considered as a hack.

Did I say it was a hack? I was referring to Windows' built-in MPEG-4 decoder, not the Flip4Mac one, that needs a hack to play back MPEG-4 using identifiers other than "MP4S" or "M4S2".

Apple provides QuickTime Player for Windows, providing an official way for playing back QuickTime movies.

However, a certain stubborn person, who must hack/tweak settings,

Is there really a problem with using hacks and tweaks if the end result is the same? "Official" software is not necessarily what must be used.

then at same time trying to give people false impression that Windows Media Player can play all codecs not designed for WMP.

The way I see it, if you have the appropriate decoders/splitters installed, WMP supports it, as does any DirectShow-enabled app. So if it's designed for DirectShow or VfW, it's also designed for WMP.

What is that problem? That would be that user's stubbornness to be blamed.

So you label a personal preference that deviates from what's common as "stubborn"?

Your advanced Firefox or Windows failed to comply, please do not blame it other way round.

It's a problem with the codec not being available for x64. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame Apple; they haven't built an x64 QuickTime plugin for Windows yet.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061030 BonEcho/2.0 (mmoy CE K8N-X02)

[Antony]

although Vista does not understand human voices, it is capable of [sdt=12913]deleting files[/sdt].

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[cutecub00]

I don't think it got along well with my accent, the same thing happens with those voice-automated phone services.....

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091102 Firefox/3.5.5 GTB5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)