Talk:Windows Media Player 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

[edit] Bugs

I just found something last night as i was playing songs via my WMP11 for XP. When I scroll down my library page, the song playback starts weirding out - slowing down in parts, becoming choppy and sometimes outright pausing. Has anyone else experienced this peculiarity? If so, it might make for an interesting anecdote for the WMP 11 article.

Red marquis (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not because it is not reproducible, and secondly this is not BugZilla. It seems like at that particular time, your CPU or hard drive was under stress. Try boosting the priority of WMPlayer process for glitch-free playback. --soum ^talk 08:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release date for final version of WMP 11

The article states that the expected release date for the final version is October 30, 2006. Is there a source for this date? It used to say October 24. There doesn't seem to be any official release date provided by Microsoft.--24.205.148.23 10:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely, I think tomorrow will release WMP 11 for Windows XP... –210.213.83.120 08:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you give us a source regarding this? I was expecting it on 24 Octoer 2006, but then I thought that is the same time that Windows Vista will be released to manufacturing (RTM), which also delayed. I might think if it is not tomorrow, then it will be 8 November. but who knows?--W Tanoto 15:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 30 October, not released yet. I will edit the article. --Anas Salloum 17:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it was released, a little late though. --Anas Salloum 01:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarity to iTunes

Im not trying to be a troll or anything but isnt WMP 11 a little reminiscent of iTunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.106.75 (talk)

Sorry, but its the other way round. WMP11 betas came out with the art-heavy library view before iTunes 7. When iTunes 7 came out, even I was shocked to see a near pixel-perfect rendition of the WMP library view. But, why does it matter? Just because a software implemented some good things first, does it mean users of competing software should be left out of its benefits? And be assured, using WMP11 doesn't feel like iTunes, neither is the other way round. --soum^সৌমোyasch 08:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try. If anything itunes took notes from WMP's heavy use of graphical interface. Furthermore your argument is already flawed in that WMP still contains core features from previous versions, like wmp 7, 8, 9 and 10. The added graphical interface is for user friendliness and a new modern edge, it does not look anything like itunes. Itunes is still regular ass itunes with some graphics at the top. I saw my roommate download the new itunes long after I had been messing with WMP11 and he even remarked how itunes looked like WMP11.--129.1.192.82 19:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

iTunes looks like WMP, WMP looks like iTunes either way I was just trying to point out that they look similar 67.35.106.75 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any similarities. The interfaces are different. I use both of them, and love them both.--W Tanoto 22:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur: WMP11 is not much like iTunes. I don't like Apple, but I can't stand WMP11 and like iTunes a lot more, sadly. I prefer good old WMP9. Nothing they did in 10 or 11 improved it, IMO. It's prettier now, but I think WMP9 actually worked better. For me, anyway. RobertM525 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMP screenshot?

Could somebody change the screenshot to WMP 11 please? PureLegend 20:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done - Ben174 22:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if the other screenshots be updated too. Thanks Ben! :) --Anas Salloum 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the WMP11 images are still of the beta version, they still need to be updated =P --UkNegative 16:47, 31 October 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, all but the gallery screenshots were updated. I just updated the gallery screenshots. Everything is up-to-date now. :)↔ ANAS - Talk 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Validation

I download it from windows media website, and no validation required. I was a bit confused, because normally they asked validation. So, I tried again by using microsoft website, then click "more popular download", and searched for "11". Validation is required. Anybody know about this?--W Tanoto 22:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems Microsoft's learned their lesson; validate once, not twice. They've removed the need for download validation on this version, but it's built into the installer file. Go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/download/download.aspx and click download. It should work from there. -Mysekurity 04:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, actally if you download it from download. microsoft.com, you have to validate it when you download, then again when you install. While from windows media http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/, then you only vaildate it when you install.--W Tanoto 13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 64-bit edition

Hi. Just found out that the 64-bit edition just released. I did not find anything about it yesterday, when I downoaded the final 32 bit version. I think it might be worth to talk about this as well.--W Tanoto 02:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The 64-bit edition is actually the same as the 32-bit edition but with an installer that makes sure the player files end up in the right place. There has never been a 64-bit edition of WMP for XP x64 or Server 2003 x64. The first 64-bit version of WMP is the one in Vista x64, and even there 32-bit WMP is still the default WMP. You have to manually launch the 64-bit WMP from the 64-bit program files folder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.1.138 (talk) 21:27, February 4, 2007

[edit] Quick Access Panel removal

User:Some guy made this edit:

A pulldown menu that allowed the user to access files, discs, and playlists without entering the library tab has been removed, eliminating the ability to change playlists while Windows Media Player 11 is docked on the taskbar.

This is not technically accurate and should be amended if it is actually needed: you can still change playlists in WMP11 when docked to the taskbar by dragging/dropping playlists onto it. Quick Access Panel was removed from full and minimized views, but does not eliminate the mentioned functionality. Preppy 08:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] windows 2003 server

any word on the compatibility with wmp11 and w2003 server? i tried instaling on my computer w/w2003 and it didnt work. thats the last time i pay $1000 for an operating system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.20.176 (talk) 22:44, November 3, 2006

I heard it's only for XP, and future windows vista--147.197.190.40 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mov

why not makes windows media player play mov files so they can wipe out quicktime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.13.120 (talk)

Because there are licensing, copyright and antitrust issues involved. But you can have third party alternatives to do that. Check out QuickTime Alt, just don't expect the blessings of Apple or Microsoft. --soum^সৌমোyasch 05:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Media Player Icon

Introduced with the Windows Vista RTM are a set of new icons for popular Windows programs including Windows Media Player. The new icon can be seen at http://winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_office2007_packaging.asp but it has the "shortcut" icon attached to it...Darn...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.20.176 (talk) 22:44, November 3, 2006

To make things very clear, this: Image:WMP11-icon.png is not the new icon for vista!!! So please stop changing the icon! If you would like to see the new icon it can be seen at the link above. Unfortunately, it can't be place up until some of us get our hands on the vista rtm, which wont happen until at least later this month. So don't expect to see it until then. Be Patient.--Phnx2ashes 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in Windows Media Player 11 logo for Windows XP, the logo (

) is just the same from WMP 9!!! Can you please change the icon above? It can be obsolete. — Jigs41793 ^Talk 13:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Version 10 November 2006

I thought the final version was released 30 October? Somebody changed it to 10 November?--w_tanoto 00:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How does WMP decide what a song will be automatically rated? (three/four stars...)

-dogman15 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It starts with 3 stars by default and the more frequently you play it, the higher rating it gets. Of course, thats until you override with a manual rating.--Ayleuss 14:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UI Problem

I use Windows Media Player 11 'final' for Windows XP but there's a little bit of its interface. Some 3 edges of the window without classic menus and not beening maximized the window, there's was a white non-tranparency problem over the desktop when I resize it. Have a look. Could somebody fix this? --210.1.91.237 22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No length videos

Windows Media Player 11 is fantastic, there's just one thing I can't stand: some videos I have in the library have no length. That is: I can normally watch them, but I can't go forward fastly and/or jump to different moments with the navigation bar. Help...--Stefano 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter headings

How do I get rid of them? Like, it shows the letter "A", and underneath the letter is everything that starts with A. How do I get rid of these friggin letters?!?! I had no letters earlier and my albums were in a neat square. Now they're ugly!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richei9999 (talk • contribs) 23:50, January 14, 2007

Play with the views (The button to the left of search box). Also select other categories in the library (from the left pane). --soum^সৌমোyasch 13:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironically

"Ironically, the Council of the European Union requires the use of Windows Media player 6.4 or above[6] in order to watch their live streaming media service."

Isn't ironically a POV word? I think it should be changed. --Kupo03 04:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to say "ironically". So long as both sides of the argument are presented, it isn't a POV violation. —Remember the dot (t) 18:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this part should be removed from the article, it is not relevant. The FAQ section from the Council of European Union clearly states the following: "The open source community can follow the public events in the Council, broadcasted through video streaming on the Internet, via means of an open source player like VLC which is available at no cost on the Internet and which is running on several platforms as e.g. MS WINDOWS as well as several LINUX distributions." Please keep the wikipedia articles neutral! -- edit : Tursday, March 22, 2007 at 6:59:31 PM EET (Standard time zone: UTC/GMT +2 hours) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.32.129.170 (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Merge in Media Player

The About dialog on Media Player in Windows 3.11 states "Microsoft Windows Media Player". To me, this says that Media Player and Windows Media Player are the same program, just in later versions the word "Windows" was emphasized. So, I would like to merge the short article Media Player with the article Windows Media Player under the Release history section. —Remember the dot (t) 04:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Media Player and Windows Media Player are different programs. Therefore, the articles should not be merged. Themodernizer 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember the dot is right. It was only a name change with a stronger emphasis on Windows. Even the versioning remained the same.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.1.138 (talk) 21:30, February 4, 2007

If that is correct, if they are just subsequent versions of the same code-base, then why did Microsoft continue to ship Media Player 5 (mplay32.exe) and Media Player 6 (mplayer2.exe) along with Media Player 7 (wmplayer.exe) in Windows 2000? Or Media Player 5 and 6 along with 8 in Windows XP? AlistairMcMillan 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source that states that Windows Media Player was a new program. Themodernizer 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Real Audio Player 4.0 - An odd addition, given that the 5.0 version of this player is readily available. Worst of all, users with Real Audio Player 5.0 will be dismayed to find it overwritten with this older version when they upgrade to Windows 98. Microsoft will soon ship a new media player that works with Real Audio and Video, making this player obsolete anyway. The beta version is now available from the Microsoft Web site.

This source doesn't explain whether the "new media player" refers to a new program or a new version of the same program. —Remember the dot (t) 23:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hotlinking and the http referer info

Finally, media player now relays referer information to content sources when embedded on a web page. This aids in preventing hotlinking, where as before, no referer information was sent. I haven't found any docs or research on the subject, so maybe somebody can dig something up? 67.174.33.110 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bias in the article

i personaly think that the article has a biast towards microsoft. while the article does touch on anti-trust issues with reguards to windows media player. however it does not cover any technical difficulties or bugs in the system. or the size of windows media compared to other media players. as well as issues such with requiring third party software to play certain files extentions--Dr noire 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So, what you're saying, is this article should bash Microsoft more? Like most articles on Microsoft products? You don't, by chance, use Linux or a Mac, do you? ;) RobertM525 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is very biased toward MS. It is not a case of bashing MS, it is a case of stating facts about issues in software, the WMP11 has plenty:

* does not recognise my PMP unless it is already running BEFORE the PMP is plugged in

* not even a mention of the way "Recently Added" randomly show nothing, everything, recently added

* strange slowness on deleting items on a PMP

* syncing lock-ups

* auto plays audio CDs inserted even when auto-play disabled AND WMP is not associated with audio CDs

* associates with some file types when installed even when told not to associate with any file types

These are all FACTUAL behaviour, but strangely not mentioned..... a touch of hypocracy creeping in? Reszerve 06:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribute the facts to Reliable sources, and they can be put in the article. If you write it from your experience, without backup from notable secondary sources, its Original research and not suitable for inclusion. --soum (0_o) 06:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is called spin doctoring. If a fault is reproducible, but only appears as complaints in various user forums, we can pretend it doesn't exist? Shouldn't it at least be mentioned that there are people complaining about a wide range of issues. Do a Google on WMP11 faults, and true you have to sift out the beta issues, but what's left is breathtaking in scope. WMP11 is simple poorly finished software. 125.238.70.72 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying it should not be mentioned. I am saying it cannot be added without a proper reference and citation as per wikipedia policies. Also, saying "some people..." is not allowed (see WP:AWW). If I get some issues, I cannot add them (as that would be disallowed under WP:OR). Also Google will primarily spew forth forums, blogs et al (which is not allowed under WP:RS). So, I do not see any way to add it unless it is mentioned in some reputed reviewer's column. Also, IMO saying breathtaking is just your point of interpretation. By other yardsticks of statistics, it definitely can be made to look less menacing. --soum (0_o) 21:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not freeware

The Mac version may possibly be freeware, but the PC version definitely is not. It's simply licensed along with MS Windows at no extra charge. If Windows Media Player were freeware, you could run it under Wine (software). There's no technical barrier to this, but Microsoft forbids it. Windows Media Player (for Windows) is not freeware any more than other parts of MS Windows are. --Reuben 06:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Freeware article states that The only criterion for being classified as "freeware" is that the software must be made available for use for an unlimited time at no cost. Windows Media Player fits this definition perfectly. --soum^সৌমোyasch 11:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just the point: it's not made available at no cost. It's bundled with the operating system, so you pay for it as part of the purchase price of MS Windows. Just because it doesn't have a separately itemized price doesn't mean it's free. --Reuben 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I used WMP 9, 10 and am using 11 on my machine with Windows XP Pro. None of the versions came bundled with the OS. And, depending on the version, they span across multiple versions of Windows as well. I can name many other freeware which run only on Windows. By your definition none of them are free. As you need to buy Windows before you can run them. --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The license to use Windows Media Player did indeed come bundled with the OS, even if you weren't aware of it. There is plenty of freeware that's written for MS Windows, but I can run it under wine if I like. That is not the case with Windows Media Player. Many operating systems are technically capable of running it using wine, but Microsoft forbids it. You can ask Microsoft. They don't call WMP freeware, they call it a component of the MS Windows operating system. Please don't confuse licensing with technical ability to run the program. Technically, you can run most MS Windows software (including WMP) without needing a copy of Windows. But the EULA for Windows Media Player declares that it's not freeware, it's an operating system component that you may not use at all apart from MS Windows. --Reuben 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

EULA for WMP10 also said, Microsft grants you the right to reproduce, install and use one copy of the Client OS Components on each of your computers that is running a validly licensed copy of the Client OS Software.. According to the term definition in that EULA, Client OS Software means certain Microsoft client operating system, while Client OS Components mean WMP (and its related documents/services). --Ans 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The grid on the page is unaligned

Below is the code that can be pasted in. The date "May 9, 2007" is data from the Windows Mobile page with the stable version date.

May 9, 2005		Windows Media Player 10 Mobile for Pocket PC and Smartphone. Included in Windows Mobile 5.0

Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 3/14/07

[edit] Shuffle

The shuffle on WMP 11 is awful. I have probably 6,000 mp3s, I turn on shuffle while I work and will hear blocks of 4-5 songs in the same order at least twice in a 3 hour span along with hearing individual songs from 2 or 3 times in that span. This happens every day I'm at work. Looks like their shuffle algorithm is messed up. Not only that, but their are certain songs I hear everyday and tons of songs I never hear. Ryratt 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a consequence of randomness, and definitely not necessarily an indication of a flawed randomising algorithm. See Misconceptions & logical fallacies related to randomness. -- simxp (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

I uploaded the Windows Media Player 11 for Windows XP by scratch (see it here) and however that my uploaded screenshot is appropriate as now. The older screenshot (Image:Windows Media Player 11 XP.png) of Themodernizer's version is now orphaned and should be deleted. And now, could you please keep my uploaded screenshot as is. Jigs41793 ^Talk/_contribs 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a screenshot showing some content rather than just the vanilla chrome. I think it can the current version can be kept. If even this is not permissible, I think we can conjure up a fake media library (with free images for album art) and arbit song titles. --soum (0_o) 14:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jigs, there is no reason why we could not just just concluded the discussion on the original image. Creating an extra copy of the same thing and ignoring the original discussion on the original image is not very proactive at this point. Please, leave the original one and return to the original image's discussion and make your point in why your new image should be used and doesn't violate any rules. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 15:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a second time. My image has a fair use rationale -- and my screenshot has no customizations at all. Why you revert to the original image by Themodernizer? Please do not revert to the Themodernizer's version. Jigs41793 ^Talk/_contribs 23:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:FU and WP:CON ↔ ^tz (talk · contribs · autographs) 01:09:27, Friday, April 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In use

Hello, I noticed that some of the screenshots are of the software in use, and some are of it simply loaded. I think in use is much better, and replaced the WMP 11 screenshot (which was not in use) with one of my own. If anyone could get "in-use" pictures of the other versions that aren't, that would be great. McSmeagol 01:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your screenshot is that it shows thumbnails of album art, which might be copyrighted, and as per fair use rules, they cannot be used in an article except of which the album is the subject. --soum (0_o) 07:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section: FLAC

This data has been added twice as a "Criticism" section:

Some media codecs, like that of FLAC and others, have problems playing in Windows Media Player. Mostly because of proprietary problems with WMP's code, FLAC is unable to skip around using illuminibles codecs and has problems with tags and others. Native support has been requested but nothing has come of it.^[1]

This seems best summarized as "Windows Media Player does not support FLAC files natively" if this is needed. The source article makes no conclusions as to the cause of any issues here, and there is no supporting data to indicate this is a common criticism worth noting. Perhaps this issue could be wrapped up in a criticism that Windows Media Player is not a "Universal Media Player", if that's the contention at hand. But given that there's a number of other media players that do not support FLAC (just as there are many that do), criticism leveled about problems with integration of a 3rd party file filter seems generally less interesting than other possible criticisms. Just my two cents. Preppy 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am with you on the removal. WMP does not support any media format/container natively. Everything needs to be plugged in. And WMP provides ample support for plugging in the functionality required by the codec. If all, its the criticism of the codec, not the player. --Ayleuss 14:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Visualizations

I upgraded from Media Player 9 recaently and lost the Ambiance, Particle, Spikes and Plenoptic visualizations. Should this be included? --75.163.165.95 (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)