Talk:Comparison of media players

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of media players article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4


Contents

[edit] MMS protocol support

The mms (= microsoft media stream) protocol support should be partial for most of the players. For instance there is no working seek (fast forward, rewind, goto 50%, ...) in mplayer and xine at least. And my guess is that the most of the other players will fail the seek test as well, because its very hard to implement. Only players I know that do seek are MS media player and vlc. The seek property is a must for playing internet streams, because if your connection breaks you cannot continue where you left and have to start all over again. 88.195.116.109 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amarok filetypes support

At first amarok can't play any audio (http://amarok.kde.org/wiki/FAQ#What_media_types_does_Amarok_support.3F) it is using backends - xine, helix and NMM, so why according to this article xine can play audio files that amarok can't? Aaron LoveP 22:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, there is 2 Amarok entries in the "Protocol Support" table -- Pior 23 Sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.210.68 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMP free video not

Windows and WMP do NOT come with a free video decoder, and so are NOT able to play video, free.-69.87.203.181 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't WMP play MPEG1, WMV7, WMV8 and WMV9 (VC1) out of the box? --CE 192.35.241.121 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Menu

Does the player display the menu of a DVD or not? This is a very important minor question!

[edit] Container formats

I think RealMedia container format should be added to the comparison. 88.196.38.179 21:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Quicktime and mp4 are the same, real media should be in there. --Compn 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split page

Okay, we're way beyond recommended article length at this point. We should probably move all the audio tables to their own article. Chris Cunningham 11:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My vote is no. The articles would be too specific then. Yes, a disambiguation page would help, but that kills the whole point of splitting up the page. BlueCanary9999 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999
i agree with splitting the page into audio and video pages Acasperw 12:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with splitting audio and video, but "split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page" seems a bit unnecessary. That would spoil the whole point of having a comparison page. Isn't that what categories are for? GeiwTeol 22:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What part of "move all the audio tables to their own article" do you guys not understand? That sounds reasonable to me. SamB (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, unless audio players have features exclusive to themselves, I don't think it's an absolute must to split the article. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|17-12-3 20:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
From a user's perspective I vote no. Consider this: many of the video players also play plain audio files. The resulting audio page would either end up about half as long as the current setup, or just as long to include the audio capabilities of the video players, and then the video page would either be nearly as long as the current article, or lose half of the relevant data! Therefore, in the end it would be a large net increase in the size of the article across the two pages accompanied by a hit to ease of use and organization. I say reorganize the list into a more compact and efficient format(by sacrificing or simplifying the OS compatibility list, for instance), and leave it one article.Moonlightfox (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not think this article should be split!
Having all this information in one place is rare and should be maintained —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.121.231 (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should be kept in its current form. However, I suggest that other articles be added in addition to this one. If someone is looking for a video player, the audio player tables are useless, but not too difficult to skip over. If someone is looking for an audio player, there is a lot of interspersed information about features only applicable to video players, which is much harder to ignore if not relevant. For example, time-stretching obviously applies to both, but colour controls do not. However, some video-players may support e.g. time-stretching only on audio or only on video (becoming out-of-sync), and that would further complicate the table with features that do apply to both. I realize this would be harder to maintain, but I believe it makes it more user-friendly. Kaldosh (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not think the audio and video should be seperated but the tables should be on seperate pages from a disam. page. i.e. one for the audio features, one for vid features, one for the OS list, one for format support, and so on. 71.87.24.2 (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also say "No". I came specifically looking for a media player which would handle both video and audio. (I have several "music videos" in my collection.) Having lists for both features on the same page is handy. Kf7xm (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote "No", too. I totally agree with the guy above me ("From a user's perspective..."). 85.127.158.255 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not split it into three pages... ? Video, Audio & Hybrid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.233.49 (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that going to result in a fair amount of duplication of data, and with the problem of version drift - ie, some piece of data is changed on one page but not another. And we will need a full alphabetical, or by OS, or both, table of contents page (or disambiguation page) so that people can find the player they are interested in. Seems like a lot of work to set up and to maintain properly. Also we loose the comparison feature across all players. Not dead set against it, just pointing out potential problems. In either case, the page needs work, although I'm leaning more towards keeping it as one article. — Becksguy (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my first edit in Wikipedia, so please be patient. While I understand the potential problems associated with splitting the page, right now it just seems bloated. And I think part of the problem is that, as others have pointed out, many players play both audio and video content. So...option (1) would be to split the page into two, with one page concentrating on video players and the other concentrating on audio players. In the video page, there could be an additional column to indicate whether the player also played audio files (if yes, the "yes" would link to the audio page); in the audio page, there could be an additional column to indicate whether the player also played video files (again with links). Option (2) would be to leave all the info in one page, taking out the alternating headers of "video" and "audio." Just say what features the various players have, and this would obviously include whether the player handled audio files, video files, or both. I guess that's what bothers me about the page as it is--by splitting the page into "video" and "audio" sections, it begs either to be split or to be rewritten.... Personally, I favor option (1), as I tend to be more interested in audio than video, but that's just me. :-) Ddgdrs (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know, every video player has got audio playback capabilities. Also, you have things like Media Database and Skins that doesn't really fit in either category. So, as I see it, you either split the article right of with only media players capable of video playback in the video players article and the rest in the audio players article; or you make video player and audio player the main categories in this article and the current main categories are placed as sub-categories to them. I don't really care either way, as long as you get the ability to actually see what part of the article someone has edited... --Execvator (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo

What's about Apollo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.179.38.88 (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloatware analysis?

How about some statistic on how fast each player is? I know this kind of thing is hard to rate, but it also happens to be one of the most useful aspects of defining a video player. Perhaps, attempting to run the five most popular video formats through each one?

Also the size of the install should also be a factor, again as another statistic, as well as how fast the program loads. --Skytopia 14:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoom, speed, frame step stats...

More important statistics which this excellent page doesn't yet offer would include:

1: Zoom options (such as, touch border from inside/outside, ignore aspect ratio). 2: Frame step (backwards and forwards, preferably with cursor keys) 3: Speed of play (not time or pitch stretch, just basic speed up/slow down - the sound as well as video would go proportionally faster/slower). --Skytopia 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Aspect Ratio - more important that which allow ignoring it, which players support it (i.e. notice aspect ratio is set and respect it). Cefu (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SACD

Shouldn't SACD be deleted? The wikipedia article claims there are no drives for PC hardware, so how should any software play this back? --CE 192.35.241.121 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed --CE 192.35.241.121 (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page layout

A couple of things:

  1. Why, for the first four sections, are audio and video players in separate tables, but not the other sections? We should do one or the other. Personally I would prefer that we had separate tables for all sections.
  2. Any objections to making all tables sortable?
  3. For the features set, wouldn't it be better to group the two audio tables and two video tables together. So instead of V1, A1, V2, A2 it would go V1, V2, A1, A2.
  4. Wouldn't it be helpful to mention if it can rip CDs to mp3/ogg/whatever? Either have a single yes/no column in the features section for if it can rip to anything, or another table with a column for each of various formats. Koweja (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. I concur, either that or two separate sections altogether, with subsections. Maybe with the exception of the 'General' section?
  2. Can't really see a reason not to.
  3. I believe this would be preferable over how it is now.
  4. How about, one section for formats it can write to and add 'disc media' riping and streaming media riping to the features section? --Execvator (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FLV player(s)

The link to FLV Player has many external links, none of which are GPL-licensed. Hence, I am changing its entry to "Proprietary". FSHero (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last.fm

In audio player features a Last.fm column should be included. If you really want same size tables, then move one column from features (continued) to features and add Last.fm and Gerpok to features (continued) for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BerVi (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "Free" to describe Xware

It is this user's opinion that adware is not free. Bloatware, nagware, crippleware, and the like are also not free. They are not libre(free as in free speech), as they lack vital features, may have malicious effects, restrict what you can do with them, or do things without the users explicit consent. Implicit consent clauses in the license, i.e a screen that shows up after you have already downloaded or finished installing it and says "if you download or install this, you agree to forfeit all of your rights and your eternal soul to the developer", are legally dubious/ethically indefensible and are not considered to be "consent" by this user in this context. They are not gratis(free as in free beer), as their only purpose is to make money from advertisements, or to make you buy the paid version. Also, bloatware that fills the hard disks of new computers, adware and the additional infectious agents invariably carried in served ads, and repeated nag screens in programs, can take hours to mitigate, and sometimes cannot be entirely removed. Time is money- those hours spent dealing with it, if spent working even at US minimum wage, would amount to enough to actually purchase a full software product, maybe several. Even if the developer receives no profit, you still pay when using these programs.

This user suggests changing the software labeled "free" but also having a paid version or having unwanted behaviors be relabeled. Possible options include "demo", "*ware" where * is a descriptor of its limitations or negative behavior, "crippled trial", "limited functionality" etc. I have not used most of the players listed, so I can not make claims about individual programs. It is the nature of tiered software to sell the user up to the next tier, but I recognize that there may be software that does this without using these tactics, so each item should be changed by people who have used the program personally.

Also, Windows Media Player communicates with the internet and Microsoft without the user's explicit consent, collecting identifiable information and tracking usage, has integration with music stores and other paid services that cannot be removed as well as occasionally interfering with other uses, and I personally suspect the software as a whole may be downright spyware. Also, it is my opinion that it should be listed not as "windows-license needed" but as "WGA protected" with WGA linked to the appropriate page, since this more specifically and concisely describes it.

In conclusion, my neutrality on the topic is obviously compromised, therefore no changes have been/will be made by this user. Moonlightfox (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Free is incorrect verbiage, many of the products listed as free are in fact marketware. and Wikipedia should not recognize malware products beyond identifying them as such. I think you're a bit too paranoid about WMP though. They can't be THAT evil, they're just microsoft. 71.87.24.2 (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Miro?

Why isn't Miro in this list? 89.214.25.177 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

because it's too much of a pain in the ass to add anything. article is a total mess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Resume for iTunes

I don't know if anybody knows this (maybe you all use something other than iTunes) but iTunes has an auto resume for podcasts and individual media files and has had it for a while now. Not DVDs, but it certainly has it for video files and audio files. And automatically adds that capability to podcasts when it downloads the podcasts. You can get to this option for individual files by right clicking on a song or video file and choosing "Get Info" and in one of the tabs (I'm not sure which since I'm not on Windows right now. I think it's the Playback tab) it'll let you check a box next to an option for that.--FazzMunkle (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)