Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format

Unofficial VirtualDub Support Forums > Off-Topic > Smpte Vc-1 Standardization Process

Posted by: i4004 Oct 23 2004, 11:24 AM

so, what was expected? that mpeg will let ms bite some of it's cake like it's nobody's business? (that's the explanation of this http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=50500181 ) wilbert says "What's bad about this?" (what's bad about ms being kicked out); let me tell you wilbert, what's bad; it means mpeg gets all the licensing and you can't choose another codec type for the content. for sure, it's better to have at least SOME choice over NO-CHOICE. mpeg codecs mean no-choice. if you have found mpeg choice to be inadeqaute for you, then you're not a happy camper. also, h264 should be a codec that's harder to encode to/decode from.(a slower codec) and we all know hardware encoders are still crap even for mpeg2, which is old standard by any merit. this also means i can watch (on PC) one resolution of wmv9 but i can't do the same res of h264: and will i buy the fastest cpu on earth to be able to do h264 properly? you know me, i'm cheap. (in other words if wmv9 is too slow for me, i'm too scared to even think about h264) tommy carrot said; QUOTE Or it would just increase the cost and the confusion. H.264 has undoubtedly superior quality to WMV9, so i cannot see any point to include VC-1 in the specs. but is he just one of those who don't use wmv9/don't know how to use it? where is the proof for these words? while dragongodz said; QUOTE if you need proof then look at wmv9(which is what vc-1 is based on, so i assume pretty much the same algoriths) compared to the immature H.264 encoders being worked on. how do you do that? where is a nice h264 codec to try? there is no h264! (don't make me post some mencoder h264 clips next to wmv9, because someone might get embarrassed, and it won't be the microsoft!) while wmencoder9 is 1995-2002(copyright:microsoft corporation) and anyone can try it, because it's a freeware! is everbody failing to understand that ms is offering best lo-bitrate video codecs always as freeware? but let's stop discussing politics already (but do remember that ms codec is a cheaper one to make and license! and that encoder is a freeware, so there will be no paying for tmpgenc ,cce or simillar crap;you'll just use wmencoder+some hd-dvd/bluray burning software...but ,then again i may ask "where is hdtv anyway...not in europe it's not!") and let's try to see what codec is better; i took player and a sample from here http://www.avc-alliance.org/downloads.htm i made simple directshowsource script, and encoded via wmv9-vcm (ie to .avi, so it means no b-frames of wmv/asf container) to same (or a bit less ) bitrate as the source h264 stream: now, can anyone convince me that h264 is better than wmv9? http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv9/h264_to_wmv9.part1.rar http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv9/h264_to_wmv9.part2.rar http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv9/h264_to_wmv9.part3.rar http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv9/h264_to_wmv9.part4.rar http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv9/h264_to_wmv9.part5.rar total filesize = 4,48MB (sorry for inconvenience of multivolume .rar, but it's more safe for me to upload it this way...i don't wanna upload 4mb just to find out connection broke down few minutes from finishing) try a blind test (no resizing , as avc dshow seems to broken if resizing is applied) with few people: how many of them differentiated the two? and then, remember that this is only the reencoding after all; so wmv9 is crippled, and yet it looks fine. notice that even this "official" avs dshow decoder is broken (as i said "there is no h264 to use!"); it doesn't initialize overlay as soon as you resize window (at least it doesn't do it on my machine) and search is impossible-duration shows some silly numbers etc. player is a laugh too! now compare this to ms decoder and player. also, watch the cpu usage on decoding the both clips. even when avc is ok (ie not cpu 100% because of failed overlay) it's much more complex to decode. my wmv9-vcm clip is not ideal at all; it is 1pass CBR encoding. is this yet another discussion where some people will never agree? i couldn't care less; i just wanted to post my reencodings and stop this crap where everybody that never tried wmv9 says it's crap, based on doom9 tests on medium bitrates; wmv9 is not excellent medium or a high bitrate codec. it is excellent low bitrate codec. there is no codec that performas well on all bitrates. i would like to ask someone (fcc or wilbert, i guess) to link this test to doom9 thread; let me see if someone can really prove h264 (which one? ) is superior to wmv9 as sure as hell avc-alliance didn't succeed. to finish this off, i'd like to link this post http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=734009656631&r=816004956631#816004956631 replace "Steve Jobs" and "Apple" with "mpeg"... mpeg is a consortium that is making big money on licensing mpeg's, remember that. microsoft is just looking what's happening at mpeg (as it is a part of it too) and taking the goodies and then offering them for free... please remember; i can't say which codec is better, as there is no h264 yet. i'm surprised to see some of doom9 forum members can: i wish i had their crystal-ball. so it is a batle of one codec against non-existant codec, where non-existant codec wins. look at the bond's lil list; http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?postid=461589&highlight=available+AVC%2FH.264+Codecs#post461589 (look under the table of avs versus mpeg4pt2 features) but there is none. /ivo

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 23 2004, 03:16 PM

Well, I donīt know the WMV9 encoder - so I wonīt say how good/bad it is. I do say though that I wonīt use it, out of dislike for MS. As for the topic, I think Iīd be rather glad if MS were out of the game, even if it meant that another company is without competition. I donīt trust MS, and Iīm sure theyīd soon ruin it to their advantage. While in general Iīd agree with the "some choice is better than no choice", I think that when MS is in the game, "no choice is better than a choice with MS".

Posted by: i4004 Oct 23 2004, 06:29 PM

can you explain why do you hate ms? i bet you can't. or, why do you hate a company providing the best free codecs, while you like company (companies) forcing us to pay for mpeg2/4? in essence i didn't asked you to tell me about your feelings towards ms, but to tell me if you know of a better lo-bitrate encoder at this time. if not, then you must admit ms's stuff is leading the way. http://virtualdub.everwicked.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=7514&st=0&#entry30426 are you too a windows user that attacks ms? i don't understand such behaviour. it is beyond me. if ms is an evil demon, i'll be sure to burn in hell with them; fcc will be there too.

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 23 2004, 06:47 PM

QUOTE can you explain why do you hate ms? i bet you can't. I think I can. Their programs are junk, most of the time. They sell buggy software and claim itīs the users fault for not constantly updating. They try to take every option from the user, forcing a zombie-like attitude, telling users they donīt have to think when using a computer. QUOTE or, why do you hate a company providing the best free codecs, while you like company (companies) forcing us to pay for mpeg2/4? Like when MS decided that their early Mpeg4 variant mustnīt be used in AVI, but only the junk format ASF? QUOTE in essence i didn't asked you to tell me about your feelings towards ms, but to tell me if you know of a better lo-bitrate encoder at this time. if not, then you must admit ms's stuff is leading the way. Yeah, I forgot that - I use DivX for all my encoding. QUOTE are you too a windows user that attacks ms? Could I be using VirtualDub otherwise? QUOTE i don't understand such behaviour. it is beyond me. Why? To me, there is no good alternative - I donīt like Linux, besides, most programs I use are Windows based. Being forced to work with Windows every day provides enough reasons to hate MS. Every other day I see some problem with default behavior by Windows or something not working is it should be. QUOTE if ms is an evil demon, i'll be sure to burn in hell with them; fcc will be there too. Iīm not sure if "evel demon" is the right word. To be sure of that Iīd have to know if Bill G. really thinks that what heīs doing is the best for the user or if itīs mere money-making. To get back on topic - DivX. Many DVD Players can play it by now, itīs Mpeg4, and (IMO) itīs great.

Posted by: i4004 Oct 23 2004, 10:17 PM

QUOTE I think I can. Their programs are junk, most of the time. They sell buggy software and claim itīs the users fault for not constantly updating. i guess you're thinking about the patching;i hate it too, but...imagine that linux has 90% of the desktops, and that security companies are really strugling to find every possible hole in the OS. what would you say, would they find any? same goes for mac. programs are junk? well, ms is mainly os maker, and thier os's are not crap, are they? and their codecs are not crap, are they? and i like IE much more than any mozila browser too. some people would claim that 'office' is a nice piece of software too. so i don't see ms programs as a junk at all. ms stuff i use is pretty cool. QUOTE They try to take every option from the user, forcing a zombie-like attitude, telling users they donīt have to think when using a computer. how so? zombies can't use a computer_period_. but u said u use divx because it's simple; does that make u a zombie? QUOTE Like when MS decided that their early Mpeg4 variant mustnīt be used in AVI, but only the junk format ASF? who cares what they decided? they can bite "my shiny metal ass" for all that i care; i put a codec i want in a container i want; and they can't touch me. oh..and btw. why is asf a "junk" format? you can't really prove avi is better container than asf, can you now? QUOTE Yeah, I forgot that - I use DivX for all my encoding. no mpeg4 codec can stack up to wmv9 at lo-bitrates. QUOTE Could I be using VirtualDub otherwise? yes.there are win emulators on linux. use linux. QUOTE Why? To me, there is no good alternative - I donīt like Linux, besides, most programs I use are Windows based. what do you mean why? you are saying that you hate ms for all other things beside the os? and ms is mainly an os maker. QUOTE Being forced to work with Windows every day provides enough reasons to hate MS. Every other day I see some problem with default behavior by Windows or something not working is it should be. so you don't like it, but still you use it because there is nothing better? if there is nothing better, what does that make microsoft? the objective of os is not to satisfy every user on defaults. but i have no objections to win2k whatsoever. it is an os from my dreams. QUOTE To be sure of that Iīd have to know if Bill G. really thinks that what heīs doing is the best for the user or if itīs mere money-making. if the users don't think windows works, then they won't buy it; they'll start using freeware linux; but it seems as if this is not happening. he is making money because users use his software. you make better os and users will use that and you'll have the money (if money is what you're after) QUOTE To get back on topic - DivX. Many DVD Players can play it by now, itīs Mpeg4, and (IMO) itīs great. mpeg4pt2 is dead meat; it will never happen. "mpeg4pt2" means "piracy" to hollywood. it also means piracy to mpeg la. if the industry needs better (than mpeg2) compression, they'll use h264/wmv9...but this won't happen soon at all (need for h264/wmv9 is driven by hdtv): untill then mpeg2 is all you'll be getting.ok, not really getting, but "all you'll be paying for". remember my words; mpeg4pt2 won't ever happen on a grand scale.

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 23 2004, 10:37 PM

QUOTE programs are junk? well, ms is mainly os maker, and thier os's are not crap, are they? Are they not? Did you see WinXP? Do you think about all the holes that are found every once in a while? QUOTE how so? zombies can't use a computer_period_. You know what I meant. QUOTE but u said u use divx because it's simple; does that make u a zombie? DivX is simple, but it isnīt made for braindead people. You donīt have to just click one button and the program does all it has to do. (Or claims so) QUOTE who cares what they decided? What I read, their media player cared. Making the codec a no-no if you plan on distributing the file. QUOTE they can bite "my shiny metal ass" for all that i care; i put a codec i want in a container i want; and they can't touch me. Can they not? What if the player refuses to play the file? QUOTE oh..and btw. why is asf a "junk" format? Well, all ASF/WMV files I saw had mediocre quality at best. You canīt really search(rewind/fast forward) in ASF files. Theyīre often larger than necessary, even streaming the content to AVI provided smaller sizes. QUOTE you can't really prove avi is better container than asf, can you now? AVI isnīt the best of choices, but itīs better than ASF. I can fast forward or rewind in the file, itīs often smaller(compared to ASF), and there are (apparently) better applications for it. QUOTE yes.there are win emulators on linux. use linux. I donīt trust emulators to simulate the OS that good. QUOTE and ms is mainly an os maker. Tell that to MS, I think they donīt know that. QUOTE so you don't like it, but still you use it because there is nothing better? Nothing that Iīd like to use. QUOTE but i have no objections to win2k whatsoever. it is an os from my dreams. It is a nice OS, granted. Better than Win9X and WinXP by far. Yet there are many things that could be made better. QUOTE if the users don't think windows works, then they won't buy it; they'll start using freeware linux; but it seems as if this is not happening. I hear that quite often. Doesnīt make it any more reasonable. A switch to a different OS would mean lots of trouble. For private persons as well as companies. The private persons would have to learn a new OS, completely different from the one they know. Companies would have to instruct their users on the new system, theyīd have to find software that works on the new system, etc... Also, thereīs the risk of interchanging data - what if the new OS doesnīt support the same files? QUOTE mpeg4pt2 is dead meat; it will never happen. "mpeg4pt2" means "piracy" to hollywood. it also means piracy to mpeg la. What is mpeg4pt2? DivX? If so, I donīt see why there should be a problem. QUOTE remember my words; mpeg4pt2 won't ever happen on a grand scale. Why not? Because thereīs no big company behind it, forcing others out of business? Or because the codec doesnīt have a "click this button for video" interface?

Posted by: i4004 Oct 23 2004, 11:15 PM

QUOTE Do you think about all the holes that are found every once in a while? read the first paragraph in my previous answer and answer it. QUOTE You donīt have to just click one button and the program does all it has to do. and ms programs do this? which ones, i want 'em! QUOTE Making the codec a no-no if you plan on distributing the file. that was solved pretty quickly though. just change fcc to "div3" QUOTE Can they not? What if the player refuses to play the file? see above for solution. QUOTE Well, all ASF/WMV files I saw had mediocre quality at best. so you didn't saw my asf/wmv files. i saw crappy quality from many avi files, so does that mean avi is a bad container? QUOTE You canīt really search(rewind/fast forward) in ASF files. that's true. QUOTE Theyīre often larger than necessary, even streaming the content to AVI provided smaller sizes. nope, it didn't. mpeg4 codecs have less quality than wmv7,8 and 9. QUOTE I can fast forward or rewind in the file, itīs often smaller(compared to ASF), and there are (apparently) better applications for it. you can rewind .avi? now that's weird! smaller?huhm...codecs compress, not the containers. avi has more apps which are better, yes;only as i always say, where's the need to tinker with encoded file anyway? i know i won't be reencoding it , that's for sure. QUOTE Tell that to MS, I think they donīt know that. but you sure do, as you're running ms os. QUOTE Yet there are many things that could be made better. let's hear some of those things. QUOTE What is mpeg4pt2? http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/ QUOTE Why not? Because thereīs no big company behind it, forcing others out of business? because they can choose better codecs now. would u use worse codec in a time you can pick better one? QUOTE Or because the codec doesnīt have a "click this button for video" interface? unfortunately wmencoder9 is not "click this button for video" at all. i find it too complicated to be of any use. click this tab, click this tab, go here, go there=overkill. (and these are not video quality tabs, but just the annoyance tabs) and the batch scripting doesn't accept the avs input (go on fcc, solve that one for me... ) this one http://nic.dnsalias.com/wm9enc.html is much better. but i said those are good codecs;not the smashing gui encoders.

Posted by: fccHandler Oct 24 2004, 04:07 AM

i4004 defending Microsoft? Wow, I hope Neo Neko doesn't see this! I don't agree that the ASF/WMV container is junk. Don't judge the format by the junk people put into it. All of the WMVs I've made are seekable, and of excellent quality. The ASF specs are public now. It can encapsulate all that AVIs can, and so much more. (In fact, I once argued in favor of ASF over Matroska.) Problem is, there hasn't been a lot of support from third party developers. I think it's mainly due to the complexity of ASF, plus the fact that it was originally a proprietary format. Also, it seems that a lot of open source developers hate anything that comes from Microsoft, just out of principle.

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 24 2004, 07:52 AM

QUOTE and ms programs do this? which ones, i want 'em! An ASF encoder I once saw had an interface like that. It was no more than "open file" "set size" "do encoding". QUOTE that was solved pretty quickly though. just change fcc to "div3" Oh great - their codec is so good, you have to do a hack to actually use it! Not only has the FourCC to be changed, every player has to know it as well. Doesnīt sound like a good solution to me. QUOTE see above for solution. So youīre replacing "Must not play this file" with "Can not play this file". Whereīs the advantage? QUOTE so you didn't saw my asf/wmv files. i saw crappy quality from many avi files, so does that mean avi is a bad container? With AVI, there are more applications that allow for good encoding. Maybe there are good apps for ASF by now, I still donīt see the advantage of it. QUOTE you can rewind .avi? now that's weird! I meant seeking backwards. QUOTE smaller?huhm...codecs compress, not the containers. True, but the container also has some size - some have more, some have less. Iīve had several ASF files that were larger than their AVI equivalents(Direct Stream Copy of content to AVI). QUOTE where's the need to tinker with encoded file anyway? The question is how you encode it, not what youīre doing afterwards. The better the encoding application, the better the result. QUOTE let's hear some of those things. Well, what about that programs can overwrite DLL files without asking first? That can cause serious trouble if a program installs an older version than in use. Of course, thatīs mainly the fault of the application programmer, but I think a good OS should prevent that. Or the annoying accessing of the CD drive every time I start Windows Explorer(that the right name?) ? (I have to admit, Win2K is alot better than Win98, which I used before. There are less problems now.) QUOTE because they can choose better codecs now. would u use worse codec in a time you can pick better one? I donīt think that DivX is a bad codec. Also, I donīt think MS can be trusted, I donīt like the idea of being dependent on their codec. QUOTE unfortunately wmencoder9 is not "click this button for video" at all.  i find it too complicated to be of any use. click this tab, click this tab, go here, go there=overkill. (and these are not video quality tabs, but just the annoyance tabs) Well, Iīm honestly surprised. I would have thought that MS produces something for the braindead. Apparently Iīm wrong. [EDIT] Digged up an old thread: http://virtualdub.everwicked.com/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=3564&hl=streaming Did your attitude towards ASF change? [edit2] QUOTE Also, it seems that a lot of open source developers hate anything that comes from Microsoft, just out of principle. I canīt speak for others, but it may be because of too many bad experiences with MS products. As I said, Win2K is quite good, but Win98 was horrible(looking back at it).

Posted by: i4004 Oct 24 2004, 01:14 PM

QUOTE i4004 defending Microsoft? Wow, I hope Neo Neko doesn't see this! i will defend anything that i've found good. and neko may continue running vdub on linux; why not? i know i won't. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1236323,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532 QUOTE Also, it seems that a lot of open source developers hate anything that comes from Microsoft, just out of principle a nice things should be picked from all sides; think about it; real-video (for toons) in the asf container with speex sound. although i don't think anyone can really explain why ms made avery remove asf from vdub. if they didn't do that, we would have much more asf today. (probably even slo-motion capability...heh..) QUOTE An ASF encoder I once saw had an interface like that. It was no more than "open file" "set size" "do encoding". it makes simpler to produce video so that more people can do it:you don't honestly believe someone will use ffvfw mpeg4 once it sees all the options? but wmv tools i used always have the "quality" slider (sharper images with dropped frames or higher quantizer images without drops), KF span, framerate...i didn't tried their resizer, and i probably never will ,though. and if you know what you're doing, nice quality can be achieved, as fcc said. QUOTE Oh great - their codec is so good, you have to do a hack to actually use it! no you don't. you can use mpeg4v3 via wmencoder7. QUOTE Not only has the FourCC to be changed, every player has to know it as well. Doesnīt sound like a good solution to me. just dload divx3 and you'll be using mpeg4v3 in the .avi. as simple as that. for my content, mpeg4v3 really stood the test of time. what a wonderfull piece of software. advanced uses can try nandub to improve upon the simple concept of "smooth/sharp" slider by tweaking 2pass modes or by limiting the quants in 1pass mode (as i do) the mpegv3 codec ment to be a vehicle to launch asf, so that's why they removed it from .avi; although, i never really saw a perceptable difference between v2 and v3 on the bitrates i tried. QUOTE So youīre replacing "Must not play this file" with "Can not play this file". Whereīs the advantage? ms' attempt to remove ms-mpeg4v3 from .avi doesn't really mean they succeeded: there are no problems in finding a divx3 or hacked version of v3 (although that's the same thing, only v3 will have mp43 as fourcc) to put into .avi. or finding a player/dshow filter capable of playing it. so there is no real problem with that at all. and now you can even put wmv9 into .avi. while i believe support for both containers should of been maintained for all the codecs, i don't really see a big problem this way either. yes, ms makes mistakes, but it also makes excellent video-codecs. i hope h264 can beat wmv9 (as i don't particularly like wmv9's speed or artefacts it produces (the "shit" problem was solved via slowing down the encoding, but swimming wasn't; also sometimes walls look like they're gif..pretty nasty)) because even with the problems i just explained, wmv9 is at this time best lobitrate codec. if someone can prove me wrong, i'm listening (as always.) so untill/if this happens, wmv9 is best lo-bitrate codec. (ohh..yeah..that reminds me..gotta test the 'snow' codec of mencoder today....as there can never be such thing as "too efficient codec") proof, people,proof; existing codec is better than any codec that lives on paper only! prove to me h264 is better! but by real clips, not via cabac theory. QUOTE With AVI, there are more applications that allow for good encoding. avi itself doesn't do anything; codecs allow more options on encoding. QUOTE I meant seeking backwards. yeah, i ment the same thing; this doesn't really work on avi either.doesn't work with mpeg1/2 too. all you get is frame from here and then frame some time before. that's just skipping frames. you can skip in this way, but you can't really use this to find a particular scene with a decent precision. i just tried it with my wmv file and zplayer; rewind works, but 15sec KF doesn't really help things. and avi with same KF span would probably work equally crappy. the forward search works as expected, though. QUOTE Iīve had several ASF files that were larger than their AVI equivalents how much larger? i never measured, but i don't think asf has significantly larger overhead than .avi. fcc can probably answer that. QUOTE The question is how you encode it, not what youīre doing afterwards. nothing wrong with the quality of wmv codecs, as i said. QUOTE Well, what about that programs can overwrite DLL files without asking first? That can cause serious trouble if a program installs an older version than in use. which ones? i'm usually asked if i wanna keep the existing file if it's newer than the file i'm attempting to install. QUOTE Of course, thatīs mainly the fault of the application programmer, but I think a good OS should prevent that. and it does. it also asks when i'm uninstalling. it says the dll ma ybe shared so it may be wise to leave it there. QUOTE Or the annoying accessing of the CD drive every time I start Windows Explorer(that the right name?) ? so keep it on all the time, so that it accesses it onyl once per session. QUOTE I donīt think that DivX is a bad codec. Also, I donīt think MS can be trusted, I donīt like the idea of being dependent on their codec. how are you dependant on their codec? you can use any codec you like. ms is not stopping you. divx is not a bad codec, but on the bitrates where wmv9 still looks good, divx is crap. nobody is/was/will be dependant on ms codecs. i use them because i like them.and because i have tested other codecs which were worse than ms stuff. ms knows how to make a video-codec. QUOTE Well, Iīm honestly surprised. I would have thought that MS produces something for the braindead. Apparently Iīm wrong. i can only see that you're discussing a stuff you never used; bad, BAD cyberman! QUOTE Did your attitude towards ASF change? you mean this QUOTE also,i agree,i hate asf too.....(i have 56k modem,perhaps that's the reason..hehe) ? well..i still hate 56k streaming. but now i've find a way to record 150k wmv streams; well, looks better than your klingon lang. proggie. it is kinda tragic that most of the web-video is so poorly optimized. i mean in a time of wmv9 i still find many asf/wmv files with mpeg4v3, which is totally inadequate for a purpose. that goes for realvideo stuff too(usage of outdated codecs), and for qt it goes that they don't really have a nice codec to use. i hate bitrate wasting, as i'm on 56k modem.

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 24 2004, 02:48 PM

QUOTE it makes simpler to produce video so that more people can do it: "Simple" often means "mediocre". I donīt think that a codec or program could judge by itīs own how to encode it. I like to have some control at least. QUOTE you don't honestly believe someone will use ffvfw mpeg4 once it sees all the options? I donīt know that, but I donīt doubt it if you say so. As I said before, you can go too far in both directions. Thatīs why I donīt use XviD, for example. QUOTE just dload divx3 and you'll be using mpeg4v3 in the .avi. as simple as that. To you and me, yes. But what about the average user? Those who merely want to see a movie, and might be convinced to download a (legal) codec they donīt have. Do you think theyīd readily agree to download a rather illegal codec? QUOTE ms' attempt to remove ms-mpeg4v3 from .avi doesn't really mean they succeeded: there are no problems in finding a divx3 or hacked version of v3 The problem here lies in the word "hack". QUOTE how much larger? I donīt remember, but I think itīs been into megabytes. I still donīt know how or why that could have been, maybe the original creator inserted some junk into them. All I know is that I opened the files with VDub 1.3c and saved as AVI, with DSC both. QUOTE which ones? Damned if I know. All I know is I get this annoying "SetHandlerContext not found in Kernel32.dll" every once in a while. A search revealed that itīs because this function doesnīt exist in Win2K, but existed in Win9X. Some program must have replaced the original file(which is NOT the Kernel32.DLL) with itīs own, outdated, copy. QUOTE i'm usually asked if i wanna keep the existing file if it's newer than the file i'm attempting to install. Only if the installer is kind enough to ask you. Itīs not the OS. QUOTE so keep it on all the time, so that it accesses it onyl once per session. Huh? QUOTE how are you dependant on their codec? you can use any codec you like. ms is not stopping you. Not yet. But as I said, I donīt trust them. I wouldnīt be surprised if they found a way to create their own "standard" and force others to use it as well. Paranoid, I know. Still, I wouldnīt be surprised. QUOTE i can only see that you're discussing a stuff you never used; bad, BAD cyberman! Well, yes. I admit Iīve been drawing a conclusion only from my earlier experiences with MS. QUOTE well, looks better than your klingon lang. proggie. Not entirely sure what youīre refering to, but I can guarantee that the final videos look better than any previous file I might have shown. Besides, with source material that bad, itīs no wonder itīs not looking great. It ainīt exactly DVD material, you know... QUOTE it is kinda tragic that most of the web-video is so poorly optimized. web-video? You mean streaming videos? Perhaps itīs the fault of the encoding application? ;-) QUOTE i hate bitrate wasting, as i'm on 56k modem. Well, Iīve got ADSL, yet I still hate bitrate wasting. Everyone does. One of the reasonīs I included the lines: When you encode a video for distribution - for GODs sake, use an AUDIO compression too! and Cinepak, Indeo, Video1 - they all may once have been great codecs. Just as a horse once was a great method of transportation... as well as So, youīre going to use Cinepak for compression? Youīre joking, right? No, not Indeo either. Or are you still using stone tablets for writing? into my sig-pic.

Posted by: i4004 Oct 24 2004, 04:54 PM

QUOTE "Simple" often means "mediocre". I donīt think that a codec or program could judge by itīs own how to encode it. I like to have some control at least. i like nice quality video, no matter how it was achieved; if it was one click+nice quality, then even better! i hate to waste time on setting up a system for more than....10seconds... QUOTE As I said before, you can go too far in both directions. Thatīs why I donīt use XviD, for example. xvid is piece of cake compared to ffvfw: xvid only has checkboxes, and some are good for somethings and others for other things. simple. but ffvfw in itself is nothing compared to mencoder; http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/man/en/mplayer.1.html scroll down to "CODEC SPECIFIC ENCODING OPTIONS (MENCODER ONLY)" if this was the only encoder available, nobody would use it (although one might argue that almost nobody is using it now too.... ) but it also means a total control over codec. only way to control it more would be to mod the encoder itself. QUOTE Do you think theyīd readily agree to download a rather illegal codec? same goes for xvid and ffdshow; both "rather illegal". i said, divx3 is much less illegal than xvid or ffdshow. divx3 is just ms codec in a different container; really how would ms go on with a prosecution against me? please tell me. they would sue me for what? copyright infringment? QUOTE The problem here lies in the word "hack". a really big hack it was...lol! QUOTE All I know is that I opened the files with VDub 1.3c and saved as AVI, with DSC both. hm...make a test where you'll encode video with same bitrate witht divx and some wmv codec (ie same total bitrate); do these files differ? avi si smaller "by mb's"? or not? i gave you link to encoder gui, so you may as well try it. QUOTE "SetHandlerContext not found in Kernel32.dll" fcc shoudl answer this; he's a 'handler' after all. QUOTE Some program must have replaced the original file(which is NOT the Kernel32.DLL) with itīs own, outdated, copy. well..weird program can mess up the working os, you're right there. but is that os' fault? QUOTE Only if the installer is kind enough to ask you. Itīs not the OS. anyway,program flaw is not the os flaw. QUOTE Huh? you said explorer accesses the cdrom when you start it; so keep it on all the time. but don't try to use empty cd-rom all the time. heh... i'm using powerdesk and i don't see this. it accesses cd-rom when i say. windows explorer seems to be defaulting to "my documents" folder. so it doesn't access the cd-rom drive either. I QUOTE wouldnīt be surprised if they found a way to create their own "standard" and force others to use it as well. yeah, they'll bundle the mediaplayer with the OS and the EU will sue them; ohh wait..that already happened! what a bunch of euro-trash. user is profiting from the bundles! it means more choice. they did create their own standard (asf/wmv and avi is ibm/ms standard) and everybody is using it? horrible, isn't it? and you do too! QUOTE Well, yes. I admit Iīve been drawing a conclusion only from my earlier experiences with MS. if win98 was all there is i wouldn't be using PC today; as simple as that. that's my earlier experience with win. some people say win98 works; for me it didn't. i mean i'm sure it would work better if i installed 3-4 programs only, but...heh... plenty of stuff installed on win2k,and still going strong. (win2k , my baby... ) QUOTE Not entirely sure what youīre refering to, but I can guarantee that the final videos look better than any previous file I might have shown. i'm kidding;offcourse cinepak looks like crap and nobody can fix it. (it was cinepak, right?) QUOTE web-video? You mean streaming videos? Perhaps itīs the fault of the encoding application? ;-) i mean web-video and streaming. (ie files to dload and a streaming videos) it's the fault of humans doing the encodings. they use outdated codecs. QUOTE Well, Iīve got ADSL, yet I still hate bitrate wasting. Everyone does. no, not everyone does! internet archive doesn't hate it. http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=22366&PHPSESSID=6fac4f8a53b9c732514ba2270a45eff0 they say dvd over the web is cool and everything; i say they need to offer most efficient codec;wmv9 if you have flat rate, might as well dload few cc episodes for me (no harm in asking. ) QUOTE When you encode a video for distribution - for GODs sake, use an AUDIO compression too! yes, that happens too. QUOTE Cinepak, Indeo, Video1 - they all may once have been great codecs. Just as a horse once was a great method of transportation... i got some old intel commercials from '98 from here http://www.sightspecific.com/~mosh/ dear ohh..dear... please don't repeat my mistake.

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 24 2004, 07:16 PM

QUOTE same goes for xvid and ffdshow; Neither am I using. QUOTE i said, divx3 is much less illegal than xvid or ffdshow. divx3 is just ms codec in a different container; really how would ms go on with a prosecution against me? please tell me. they would sue me for what? copyright infringment? Something like that, yes. After all, youīre using a modified version of their codec, essentially circumventing their copy-protection. Mind, Iīve been using DivX 3 myself, because itīs been a good codec. But I wouldnīt want to put a video up(public) with that codec. At least not when my name is there as well ;-) QUOTE a really big hack it was...lol! Hack nonetheless. QUOTE well..weird program can mess up the working os, you're right there. but is that os' fault? Yes. The OSī purpose is to run and manage programs, make sure they get the resources they need and donīt do any harm. An OS that canīt even protect itīs own files is a bad OS in my eyes. Itīs not as if it were so hard - every program uses the OS internal functions to copy files, no? QUOTE anyway,program flaw is not the os flaw. The OS should be able to survive program flaws, otherwise thereīs no need for it. QUOTE yeah, they'll bundle the mediaplayer with the OS and the EU will sue them; ohh wait..that already happened! what a bunch of euro-trash. user is profiting from the bundles! it means more choice. Profiting from it? How? Because everyone getīs their player placed into the system without wanting so? Because many users wonīt even realize they could have a choice? MS could make their player downloadable instead. QUOTE (it was cinepak, right?) No, it was DUCK Truemotion 2.X . Not any better, though. Horrible quality, with artifacts because of not enough bitrate. A visible white-like grid, remains of rasterized dithering to reduce colors. Every second smoothing attempt results in complete loss of detail. QUOTE if you have flat rate, might as well dload few cc episodes for me (no harm in asking.    ) Flat rate? Not really, 4Gig per month - thatīs all. What is "CC" ? -- Say, could it be that something screws up the quoting system?

Posted by: i4004 Oct 24 2004, 08:22 PM

CC=Computer Chronicles i would like to see the episode where they use amiga for video. ( ) QUOTE Say, could it be that something screws up the quoting system? yes, you always do. what browser are you using? you are aware that you must use IE6, right?

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 24 2004, 09:22 PM

Computer Chronicles? Never heard of. Is it good? What do you mean "itīs you"? I am using IE6, yes. Why?

Posted by: i4004 Oct 24 2004, 10:26 PM

QUOTE Is it good? probably the best http://www.archive.org/movies/computerchronicles.php QUOTE What do you mean "itīs you"? becase it only happens to you. perhaps a wrong code-page detected by ie? QUOTE I am using IE6, yes. Why? that was a joke , as we're discussing ms world-domination and simillar schemes. so you must use ie6. bill told us so!

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 25 2004, 07:31 AM

QUOTE probably the best http://www.archive.org/movies/computerchronicles.php Looks interesting. And huge - 700MB for one file? Maybe Iīll download a few of them at the end of the month(thatīs where I can download virtually endlessly). QUOTE becase it only happens to you. perhaps a wrong code-page detected by ie? Hmm. Might be - but why isnīt it happening all the time? QUOTE that was a joke , as we're discussing ms world-domination and simillar schemes. so you must use ie6. bill told us so! Yeah, well, Iīm used to it, though Iīm seriously thinking about switching to Firefox or similar.

Posted by: stephanV Oct 25 2004, 08:00 AM

im using firefox... and the quoting here is messed up too "!" shows up as "&#33" and so on... not sure what the deal is here... it happens with me in IE6 too BTW...

Posted by: i4004 Oct 25 2004, 09:26 AM

QUOTE And huge - 700MB for one file? well, there is a choice, right? there is mpeg1,mpeg2 and mpeg4(although not always); in linked thread i was pushing for wmv9 encodings too, but ia is obviously running linux only. this http://www.archive.org/download/Amigaand1985/Amigaand1985_256kb.mp4 should be 17mb mpeg4 (although the 64kbit file has 34mb???? misnamed?swapped with 256kbit file?) i tried to get a small 64k file once, but it was in fact 114kbit file with half the bitrate wasted on 48khz stereo sound? a stereo sound for a human voice? 48khz? amateurs! as i said in the linked discussion (on ia forum) "(but for example, episode i wanted to dload was 114kbit/s clip that looks awfull, has commercials, and is 30mb; did anybody hear somebody actually paying money to watch commercials? (which is what would i be doing if i dload that stuff)) " i was getting the stuff via flashget; i just dloaded few mb's to preview the few files. if you find (it seems it has to be searched for!) 256 streams and dload one, tell me what you think. if you wan't, i'll try finding that amiga episode with acceptable quality (if you'll be willing to dload those 30mb or so) QUOTE Yeah, well, Iīm used to it, though Iīm seriously thinking about switching to Firefox or similar. been there, done that. it's this http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=190007506631&r=640009016631#640009016631 and i like IE's autohide unused favorites (ie show only recenlty used favs), and i didn't saw 'smooth-scroll' in moz-based stuff. for me, that's unusable browser. ie spoiled me.

Posted by: i4004 Oct 25 2004, 10:49 AM

while we're on the subject of web, i just found this; http://tinyurl.com/3s7nl

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 25 2004, 11:18 AM

QUOTE i tried to get a small 64k file once, but it was in fact 114kbit file with half the bitrate wasted on 48khz stereo sound? a stereo sound for a human voice? 48khz? amateurs! Real stereo? Not even Joint Stereo or itīs variants(M/S or what itīs called)? QUOTE and i like IE's autohide unused favorites (ie show only recenlty used favs), You actually LIKE that? I hate that. It hides every function youīre not using often enough - requiring you to search it again every time.

Posted by: i4004 Oct 25 2004, 01:40 PM

QUOTE Real stereo? Not even Joint Stereo or itīs variants(M/S or what itīs called)? that is beside the point;half the bitrate (ie cca.56kbit) was wasted on sound. so you have a hi-fi sound, but you don't really see the video (56kbit ffmpeg-mpeg4 video is hard to see!) QUOTE You actually LIKE that? I hate that. It hides every function youīre not using often enough - requiring you to search it again every time. not a 'function' but unused favs that i care less about anyway. http://i4004i4004i4004.bizhosting.com/autohide/ a real life-saver; if i didn't had it, i would need to make subfolders. and the more links i have the lazier i get to do that. (and some of the subfolder categories would get too big again) and when i need to find stuff i use rarely, well i just click that double-arrow. now i see all of it. wonderfull.

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 25 2004, 02:11 PM

Maybe itīs different in IE, but in Word it even rearranges the icons.

Posted by: i4004 Oct 25 2004, 03:37 PM

wait a minute; did i say that 56kbit sound on 48khz stereo is 'hi-fi'? well, it's not really. i would encode the sound at 16khz/16kbit mono with wma9 voice, or speex. i would still get everything they say. i had some success in making this clip (labeled 64kbit but really twice that) semi-acceptable. i used mplayer CODE mplayer  -vf noise=12ut,scale=512:384 D:\Tech\_web_elektronik_\06-CC\CC1301_windows_95_64kb.mp4 qtplayer is rather unacceptable crap! see some shots (on file properties and qt/mplayer playback screenshots for 64kbit file) here: http://i4004i4004i4004.bizhosting.com/CC/ i think i'll be dloading this stuff (i'll pick "256kbit" streams) bit-by-bit; in one hour i can probably get 18-20mb or so. and my connection is usually idle when i'm answering the forums etc. migth as well dload something in the background. and if i do 120hrs per month, i can probably dload 2,1Gb or so; and that's about 30 70mb episodes. 10% of http://www.archive.org/download/amiga_2/amiga_2_256kb.mp4 dloaded; let's see if this one looks better than "64kb" streams. edit/ corrected the transfer numbers; at 5kB/s it's more of a 18mb per hour than '8-10' as was stated previously...and and it usually goes somewhat faster than 5, so expected dload rate is 18-20mb/h. the quality of stream labeled "amiga_2_256kb.mp4" is not bad (infact, it's quite acceptable to me..still used mplayer to add a bit of noise, but now i can clearly see what's displayed on the monitors etc. ). it seems as if they're labelling according to the video-bitrate. (in this stream 256kbit is the video (31.3kB/s)...audio stayed the same bitrate as in "64k" stream, ie 7.7kB/s ) programme itself is real fun; gary kildall asking questions about the amigas, amiga's gui and the mouse-pointer (that pointer is too large, for sure!), and the mouse clicking that can probably be heard few rooms away. these programmes are a real treasure. well worth the 70mb dload.

Posted by: i4004 Oct 27 2004, 04:35 PM

and now back to the subject; lookin' at ms patents, guys at doom9 figured out that ms is responsible for at least something in the mpeg4 specs->block-skipping. that's kinda interesting; xvid has simillar stuff (cartoon mode) where some blocks are skipped, but xvid's cartoon mode is still not the same thing as divx3; xvid's cartoon mode does help on noisy stuff, but not always. i have seen sequences where CM yields pretty pleasant results(in stopping the walls from swimming), but sometimes it doesn't. (ie i still havent found a good xvid settings that would work well with any noisy source, while divx3 does it by default) in another post, skal says wmv9 is inferior to h.264; i am wondering; if i was in a process of making h.264 codec (like he is) what would i say? so far skal made mpeg4 codec which was nothing special; i think he'll have to make a pretty decent h.264 to compete with wmv9; let's see if he succeeds. he also said; QUOTE Oh, and yes: MS's patents in MPEG4 are ridiculous. i think he should of tried the block-skipping too, instead of making another dvd-ripping-ready codec (his version of mpeg4) that works well only on clean sources. (ie i believe at least part of the divx3 robustenss to noise is caused by block-skipping techniques->instead of wasting bits by trying to describe the noise by mv's or by encoding the prediction error, divx3 just skips it...and it still looks better than xvid/divx5...) and to answer wilbert's question: QUOTE Would it be possible for other companies to make a VC-1 codec (or people making an open source one)? offcourse; you dont' believe ms will be the one making the vc1 hardware? (i mean....you have the paper too; based on that paper encoders/decoders should be built.) open-source? anyone can buy the license and use it, but i doubt OS community will be buying vc1 license; they'll just steal the patented stuff as they've been doing so far. (a reason for linux and open-source crowd to fight against patent laws. in a sense, proves their lack of imagination to try to _make_ 'patents' better than the ones mpeg uses! recent 'snow' codec is claimed to use some sorts of wavelet compression, but who's patent is wavelet? i'm sure you understand the problems OS community is facing; they can't go the whole mile and make their own codec. so they must steal other people's ideas (patents)) this means mpeg-la can close down most of the OS mpeg4 stuff and the OS h.264 stuff that's starting to appear; they will do it if they feel it's endangering their profits (which are now centered around mpeg2 mostly, and that's why they closed down the ympeg mpeg2 encoding ...other freeware mpeg2 encoder are either hard to use, or producing crappy quality...for example , mencoder and bbmpeg) offcourse wmv9 may not be the best codec imaginable, but it's the best lobitrate codec available now. it is very easy to prove this via codec comparisons. ms said they tried to make less computational intensive codec, and if they didn't they would probably just copy the h.264 entirely. does ms take the mpeg patents and use it on their stuff? yes, and thats' why i like them;stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. one more thing as skal mentioned blurring; both h.264 and wmv9 use inloop filtering, as it seems (as i already said) codecs have faced a wall which can't be overcomed so easy; so they use dirty tricks. i really am wondering; the 'hand' sequence on wmv9 versus h.264 with and without inloop filter. i hope i'll get to do the test soon, and i hope something out there will be able to beat wmv9. untill then, wmv9 is best. (i'm tempted to upload the 'hand' sequence, so that everybody tries to compress it, but the ateme h264 codec owners (beta-testers) are not allowed to publish anything without asking the ateme folks; and even if they were, how will we watch it? and i can test the mencoder x.264 for myself; so untill a nice h.264 codec comes into existance there is no reason to spit on ms; when(and if) the codec comes, we'll compare it to wmv9) /ivo

Posted by: trknop Oct 29 2004, 11:41 PM

The fact that the H.264 open-source "substandard" and "steve jobs replaced with mpeg" beta versions would even have a comparison to a codec with age, and $$$$$ paying for the development should hint that there is something to look at with this. H.264, when examined deeply and closley, goes a bit farther than a "video" codec. I'm not saying that it will replace everything. As long as we have MS to provide unlimited budgets for what should be considered as "legacy" software...there will always be something newer and better coming up. I also have to bring up the point that Windows codecs are not free. Yes, you can download the player...their player. That only works on...their systems (or about 1/8 of the potential on other systems)...therefore forcing you to run their OS and most likely something of theirs within the OS to do simple daily tasks that should be free. Microsoft has ruined many of my close friends...directly. And because of the ethics within that company they will continually produce fatally flawed code and sell it assuming that "everyone" has a PC. I hope that they continue to do so......to lose the aesthetics of someone moaning about their machine with a virus that they got from a website or a graphic image in email......or to keep hearing people complain about the fact that something is always wrong and attempt to provide techincal advice (babble) to their not-as-technically-inclined friends, amuses me as well as most other people I know that can work with both machines equally but have chosen to not limit ourselves to one specific platform in the hopes that it will improve... Hail Longhorn...Windows Media 10...and the wonderful WinFS. Right.? Oh shoot forgot, Windows 10 is out sort-of. Already fully hacked and decrypted and awaiting service pack 99. I'll stick with my BeOS, Amiga, and for coding... scheme.

Posted by: i4004 Oct 30 2004, 11:55 AM

QUOTE The fact that the H.264 open-source "substandard" and "steve jobs replaced with mpeg" beta versions would even have a comparison to a codec with age, and $$$$$ paying for the development should hint that there is something to look at with this. no, not necessarily. to me, all this politics means zilch (i just hate people attacking ms for no good reason); if wmv9 is better lobitrate codec, i'll use it. if there is no h264, then there is no h264. i hope h264 can beat it, but untill this happens, wmv9 is the best. i see a battle of 2 codecs here and i say it is welcomed; let's not have only one codec/codec provider as we did with dvd/mpeg2. let them struggle to beat one another! customers profit this way. QUOTE H.264, when examined deeply and closley, goes a bit farther than a "video" codec. mpeg4pt2 also went much further..on paper, that is. same will happen to h264 ; it will only be used as video-codec. no video-objects no nothing; that's not being done, and it's good it's not being done, as that tech can only be used for few purposes; news broadcasts, for example; but for talkign heads (static backgrounds) mpeg's are already effective enuff as a video-codecs only. so "video-object" coding and the bunch means nothing; when i see the possibilites of a mere mpeg2 via satellite (dvb) and i see what is being used ; no, audio/video-formats are not really used to bring all other goodies; they are mostly used to bring video/sound. so you may as well forget about something will change because mpeg4 has many things in the specs. because mpeg2 has many things too; and most of those are never used. QUOTE As long as we have MS to provide unlimited budgets for what should be considered as "legacy" software... if wmv9 is "legacy" i'm asking you to provide a better (presumably new) codec that beats it. if you can't, then you are not honest. QUOTE there will always be something newer and better coming up. hopefully! i'm not a fan of wmv9 either; but still i can't say it's not the best lobitrate codec. if there is nothing better than it, it means it's the best. (vc1 standardization also means vc1 can also be improved, same as it happened with mpeg1/2 which were greatly improved over the years..specs stayed the same, codec was imporved.) QUOTE I also have to bring up the point that Windows codecs are not free. if somebody expects ms to make codecs for linux, then he's wrong. do you expect win to make codecs for realnetworks? QUOTE therefore forcing you to run their OS and most likely something of theirs within the OS to do simple daily tasks that should be free. well, if someone is into this kind of video, then win is surely the best solution anyway. i mean if we start to discuss video on linux, then you won't bring as many nice pieces of software as i will. or ? while it is true that we have a poor choice of os'es, it is also truth that anyone can try making the os, and if it's better than ms' then it will be widely accepted: but that is a problem, as ms is making operating systems for well over 20years. with win2k and xp, it seems so hard to beat them. linux command lines won't do it, that's for sure. apple won't do it either (but for different reasons_mainly their grab tight of the hardware and hardware prices) QUOTE Microsoft has ruined many of my close friends...directly. it's either that , or "microsoft is much tougher competition than my friends could handle" or "microsoft bought my freinds company and sent him home" , but in that case there was somebody that actually sold the company, right? i'm sure toyota has ruined many mercedes deals (that could be strucked), but do you attack toyota? so why do you attack ms? QUOTE And because of the ethics within that company they will continually produce fatally flawed code and sell it assuming that "everyone" has a PC. "fatally flawed"? which one? what piece of ms software is 'fatally flawed'? any linux/apple zealot will say ms stuff is fatally flawed, while his linux/apple box will be crashing more than my win2k, and we'll be doing the same things. if apple/linux had the desktop share the win has, they would probably be even less secure than win. QUOTE to lose the aesthetics of someone moaning about their machine with a virus that they got from a website or a graphic image in email as i said, there are viruses for apple/linux too; who would you attack, win(90%) or apple(5%) of users? virus writers wanna see their babies in the news, so why should they bother writing viruses for linux/apple? 10 people will get the virus and will never report it...heh.. QUOTE or to keep hearing people complain about the fact that something is always wrong and attempt to provide techincal advice (babble) to their not-as-technically-inclined friends, you have mistaked apple/linux for ms; where and how is apple/linux user support? does it exist? QUOTE can work with both machines equally but have chosen to not limit ourselves to one specific platform in the hopes that it will improve... limited? so win is limited and linux is limitless? linux is still a geeks stuff, while apple seem to be children's stuff (what the hell is that gui all about?) and they can't do video as win can do (they have chronic lack of software, because nobody is trying to make a software for 5+5% marketshare platforms) the market share peoblem of apple/linux is THEIR problem; not ms's! they must make easy to use stuff(linux) , but that can still be configured at a deeper level (apple). most of apple's software is made by apple; that's rubbish. QUOTE I'll stick with my BeOS, Amiga, and for coding... scheme. that's fine, but we won't be seeing nice lobitrate video-clips from you, that's for sure. btw. let there be no mistake; i'll use nice stuff regardless from which camp it's coming; i can use mencoder/mplayer for some things, while i can use wmv for other things. company name means less to me; but please, attack ms if you have a reason. the stuff you just said is no good reason to attack any software company. let's take qdos for example( an example from history); neo-neko said ms stole the ms-dos; yeap, that is correct, but qdos itself is a slightly modded cp/m. and? and who forced 'seattle computer products' (makers of qdos) to sell in the first place? bill gates came with a gun and pointed it to qdos maker? right,right... so, i'm still waiting a valid reason to attack ms. running their software on a daily basis, i don't see one.

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 30 2004, 02:25 PM

QUOTE let them struggle to beat one another! customers profit this way. Not necessarily. Think about what happened with Browsers. They tried to hinder each other by introducing new tags into the HTML code. The result? You canīt really make a site thatīs optimized for all browsers, even if you cling to the HTML Standard as defined by the W3C. QUOTE so, i'm still waiting a valid reason to attack ms. running their software on a daily basis, i don't see one. Ever used Win9X? Or a copy of IE that has the latest patches but still crashes every 20 minutes or so?

Posted by: i4004 Oct 30 2004, 05:34 PM

QUOTE Not necessarily. Think about what happened with Browsers. They tried to hinder each other by introducing new tags into the HTML code. and how will this happen to codecs? where's the simillarity? ms can't touch mpeg codec and mpeg can't touch ms codec. they can't introduce anything now the standard is finished. for web, this modifications may work(given the variety of web browsers at hand), but for hardware video-players they won't. a mod means particular dvd-player is unusable, so it's not been done/it won't be done. QUOTE The result? You canīt really make a site thatīs optimized for all browsers, even if you cling to the HTML Standard as defined by the W3C. well, optimize it for IE6 and you'll know i'll be there. QUOTE Ever used Win9X? Or a copy of IE that has the latest patches but still crashes every 20 minutes or so? yes i did use win98, but i never had such IE copy. infact i used win98 few hours ago, as some program i needed is not installed on win2k. but sure, win98 is not the best thing ms released. offcourse. anyhow, see this http://cliki.tunes.org/Microsoft%20Windows?source you will notice that win98 is the last os that had the legacy 16bit portions in it. all of the win98 poor memory management problems are redeemed by win2k.

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 30 2004, 07:28 PM

QUOTE where's the simillarity? ms can't touch mpeg codec and mpeg can't touch ms codec. they can't introduce anything now the standard is finished. They canīt? Why not? Whoīs going to stop them? They simply say itīs THEIR codec. Or they say that THEIR codec can only be used in THEIR programs/container. QUOTE well, optimize it for IE6 and you'll know i'll be there. Never! There is only one standard I will acknowledge! The http://www.w3c.org! QUOTE yes i did use win98, but i never had such IE copy. The IE is from Win2K. I have it at work. Itīs annoying as hell. QUOTE but sure, win98 is not the best thing ms released. offcourse. Thatīs an understatement. Every second day it crashed, froze up and wouldnīt restart unless you switched the computer off. Which is next to impossible when the on-off switch is one of those that let you wait endlessly until the computer is really turned off. QUOTE you will notice that win98 is the last os that had the legacy 16bit portions in it. So? That doesnīt make it any better, does it? QUOTE all of the win98 poor memory management problems are redeemed by win2k. Great! Now if they could give me back all the time I lost waiting for a dead system to respond, Iīd be glad. Why didnīt they fix these problems with Win9X? They had time(and money) enough, didnīt they?

Posted by: i4004 Oct 30 2004, 10:30 PM

QUOTE Whoīs going to stop them? They simply say itīs THEIR codec. once it's standardized, it's not their to toy with anymore. nobody is going to stop them, as they won't try it and they can't try it. finished standard is finished standard, and that's it. same as mpeg1/2. they gave the specs to smpte, and now they are unchangeable. QUOTE Or they say that THEIR codec can only be used in THEIR programs/container. nope. vc1 will be used as a video codec and hd-dvd/blueray provide the data-format/containers/file-systems. QUOTE Never! There is only one standard I will acknowledge! The W3C! few posts above you said you use ie6, right? QUOTE I have it at work. Itīs annoying as hell. i can imagine that "work" machines are kinda "whore" machines; everybody uses them. QUOTE Great! Now if they could give me back all the time I lost waiting for a dead system to respond, Iīd be glad. don't wait; just go to power options in the bios! QUOTE Why didnīt they fix these problems with Win9X? They had time(and money) enough, didnīt they? well, they did (to some extent) with win98se. sometimes i am surprised; yesterday i asked my nephew if his win98 system is crashing. he said it doesn't. i have 2 friends still running win98se too. i had no problems with win98 untill i connected to the web. after that it would usually crash after hour or so. perhaps it didn't like the particular web sites i was visiting..heh. but i believe i know a way to keep even win98fe running; just don't install too many programs, and keep systray as clean as possible. (the first day with a clean system, i was surfing for 4-5 hours (WOW!) without a crash on win98.) anyhow, my old installation of win98 is still in perfect working order.

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 30 2004, 11:04 PM

QUOTE once it's standardized, it's not their to toy with anymore. I wonīt bet on that, but letīs wait. QUOTE few posts above you said you use ie6, right? So? Even IE has to understand correct HTML. QUOTE i can imagine that "work" machines are kinda "whore" machines; everybody uses them. Not really. Only I work on that machine. Must be a rare combination of programs that causes these crashes. Not all computers have it, only some - mine is one of them. QUOTE don't wait; just go to power options in the bios! Yeah, NOW I know that too. I didnīt then. QUOTE but i believe i know a way to keep even win98fe running; just don't install too many programs, and keep systray as clean as possible. It may be a surprise(especially to MS), but itīs the OSī job to cope with many programs being installed/deleted and even faulty. We wouldnīt need an entire system otherwise - a simple loader with a huge runtime-library would suffice.

Posted by: i4004 Oct 31 2004, 10:56 AM

this QUOTE So? Even IE has to understand correct HTML. and this QUOTE The result? You canīt really make a site thatīs optimized for all browsers, even if you cling to the HTML Standard as defined by the W3C. is contradictory. if "even IE" understands correct html, then where's the problem? QUOTE a simple loader with a huge runtime-library would suffice. well, what is win than explorer.exe loading other modules?

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 31 2004, 11:03 AM

QUOTE this QUOTE So? Even IE has to understand correct HTML. and this QUOTE The result? You canīt really make a site thatīs optimized for all browsers, even if you cling to the HTML Standard as defined by the W3C. is contradictory. if "even IE" understands correct html, then where's the problem? "Understand" doesnīt mean "run well". It merely means it wonīt choke on it, and probably display it correct. Thereīs no guarantee that itīll be DISPLAYED correctly, though. QUOTE well, what is win than explorer.exe loading other modules? I hope itīs much more, because I donīt know where all the space is going to otherwise. Besides, it does work at times - disabling faulty programs and such. But it should work always, with no exception. [edit]BTW, you convinced me about that Computer Chronicles - Iīm downloading several episodes now, as today I have virtually no transfer limit.

Posted by: i4004 Oct 31 2004, 02:29 PM

QUOTE BTW, you convinced me about that Computer Chronicles i convinced myself too. "256kbit" streams are good enough for me, and i'll be dloading some of that stuff, so perhaps we can swap some episodes when we dload a bunch of them. it's a good programme. and as we know the present, and don't know what will happen in the future, might as well have some fun lookin' at the past. <smile>

Posted by: Cyberman Oct 31 2004, 08:05 PM

QUOTE (i4004 @ Oct 31 2004, 03:29 PM) "256kbit" streams are good enough for me, and i'll be dloading some of that stuff, so perhaps we can swap some episodes when we dload a bunch of them. Sure. Iīm downloading the 256K files too, as theyīre moderately sized and should be good enough. Details via PM, no need to spam the board ;-)

Posted by: ChristianHJW Nov 5 2004, 08:43 PM

QUOTE (fccHandler @ Oct 24 2004, 06:07 AM) It can encapsulate all that AVIs can, and so much more. (In fact, I once argued in favor of ASF over Matroska.) Why ? What can ASF what matroska cant do ? And why should M$ be rewarded from the opensource world, when they are normally doing anything to destroy it ?

Posted by: fccHandler Nov 5 2004, 11:58 PM

QUOTE (ChristianHJW @ Nov 5 2004, 04:43 PM) Why ? You remember! It was a long time ago when Matroska was still in its infancy. Anyway, my point is simply that I don't think ASF/WMV is crap at all. I expect soon we'll have DVD players which support it, perhaps even HD WMV DVD players (if Microsoft doesn't screw up their negotiations with SMPTE). Will we ever have Matroska DVD players?

Posted by: Cyberman Nov 6 2004, 08:25 AM

QUOTE (fccHandler @ Nov 6 2004, 12:58 AM) Will we ever have Matroska DVD players? Why not? Once itīs established enough to be recognized as a good container, I see no reason why DVD player manufacturers should not include it. The more the merrier, isnīt it? Sooner or later people will realize that a DVD player that "plays DVDs" isnīt enough. Theyīll look for those that can play more. -- @i4004: I recently had the chance to use WMV9. I have to admit itīs quite good, I used it on cartoon, with rather low bitrate. Better than DivX in that respect.

Posted by: i4004 Nov 6 2004, 05:18 PM

QUOTE I expect soon we'll have DVD players which support it, perhaps even HD WMV DVD players (if Microsoft doesn't screw up their negotiations with SMPTE). http://www.iodata.com/usa/products/products.php?cat=HNP&sc=AVEL&pId=AVLP2%2FDVDLA (this was recently posted by 'kurtnoise' in this forum) ms doesn't really need smpte (or aod or blueray) in order to make wmv9 tech available. it just needs support of chip manufacturers. (but making vc1 mandatory for aod and blueray won't hurt either, that's for sure; to make issue clear, these things were already voted for, and vc1 got support. will blueray or aod kick vc1 out now? it would mean less video made (on win platform)/less media sold. would you do it? ) QUOTE Will we ever have Matroska DVD players? this is interesting question; so far, do we have a hardware support for ANY 'standalone' (ie like "not copiez of mpeg et al.") opensource project? i think the opensource itself is a problem; if the code constantly changes (which is the foundation of os philiosophy-anyone can change the code), then one implementation may seem silly 5months or a year afterwards. with mpeg this can't happen. specs stay the same (for better or worse) there probably is a problem of suport for os projects too; let's say i'm hardware engineer that's trying to make a chip that supports some os project; i need help right away, and what if main developer is at his daytime job? QUOTE The more the merrier, isnīt it? cy, this isn't what you said when i said the more codecs the better. got you there. QUOTE Sooner or later people will realize that a DVD player that "plays DVDs" isnīt enough. Theyīll look for those that can play more. no they won't. look at vhs. look at...dvd. ( ) they need a dvd-player that plays dvds, and that's it. recently i was explaining why i believe mpeg4sp will never be a standard: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=67909965&m=672003727631 for same reasons mkv probably won't make it big time either; why would industry support mkv if they made their standards, AND they will make money selling their licenses. so no, you won't see mkv as a container for vc1 or h264 on hd-dvds. QUOTE @i4004: I recently had the chance to use WMV9. I have to admit itīs quite good, I used it on cartoon, with rather low bitrate. Better than DivX in that respect. well, you know i never lie. christian: QUOTE when they are normally doing anything to destroy it hmm? and the example for this is? but i can see that linux is using ms tech without asking anyone (ms-mpeg4,wmv codecs etc.), and without paying anything, so it means ms can take that away just like that. but they are not doing it, right? (if ms and mpeg-la were to make linux stop using their patented stuff, then what's left from video on linux? not much, i say...)

Powered by Invision Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)