I notice that Windows Media Player 9 is now available from the Microsoft update site for Windows 2000 users. Have any other Windows 2000 users tried it out? Is it worth upgrading, or will it hassle my system? Any new exiciting features/capabilities? For those of you running a firewall like ZoneAlarm, does it contain spyware, i.e., is it constantly trying to send data over an internet connection, or does it ask for server rights? How much will it harass my GUI, changing settings, associations, adding icons, etc.?

Have any DVStorm users encountered problems after installing Windows Media 9?

Thanks in advance to any who post their feedback.

Robert,

I've had the beta version running on my W2k machine for a while now and haven't had any problems at all.

I hate WiMP now that it's bloatware.. I was much happier with the one that came with 98 way back when. It was so simple and easy-going on the memory.

on my XP Pro box (sorry I'm not running Win2K anymore) with zero issues.

You might also try out ZoomPlayer if you are on PC...

W2k SP3 and MP9.

Two weeks and no problems........problems................problems.

Just kidding works well though not a big supporter of MP.

Andrew

I'm not a big fan on Media Player myself, but apparently Microsoft is doing some amazing things with the Media Player 9 technologies. Just recently, you might have heard about a joint venture between MS and BMW where they were outfitting 25 theaters with a special digital projector for a special digital broadcast screening of a BMW short film and the doc. feature Standing in the Shadows of Motown.

A theater down the street from me, in Orlando, was selected as one of the 25. Regrettably I was unable to attend, but I hear it went well. And the whole thing was based on MS's Windows Media Player 9 technologies.

The moral? If MS is able to create 'screen-able' broadcast digital video with it, it won't be long before everyone's using it.

Windows Media player 9 supports up to 1280x720 and 5.1 surround audio at up to 24/96 resolution. All without paying those expensive fees to Dolby, DTS and the other DVD patent holders. Great potential option for Independent film makers.

this is a case where MS uis actually being the good guy, at least for consumers.

Now that it's been around for a while, have we come to a consensus as to whether Windows Media Player 9 is annoyware or not?

I loaded up the beta on day one and moved to the release version in January. I've also put two other users on it and on the whole I'm happy with it (and with the encoder too).

I use it quite extensively with no issues. Converted almost all my CDs to version 9 WMA (averaging about half the size of MP3) and use the encoder to do screen capture training videos.

I recently updated my notebook (P4, WinXP) to MediaPlayer9.

I don't have the specific details, but back when I was using the previous version on my main edit box (P3, Win2K), someone passed along info to me that the previous MediaPlayer had a setting in some INI file that was defaulted to sending back info on what file (or URL) you were playing. I'm over 20k miles away from that box, so I'm sketchy on how I found it, but I DO remember digging up the parameter and it indeed was there!

I got a chuckle out of installing MP9 because THIS TIME it asked me something about sending file info to Microsoft (or wherever).

As for harrassing the system or changing stuff without permission, it's been a good doggie in that regard. I always select "Custom Install" for any software whenever available and was able to maintain control over what MP9 has access to.

I've been using MediaPlayer9 to play MP3s and WMV streams regularly. I'll use MusicMatch only to convert my CDs to MP3s, but that's about it since it's always nagging me to upgrade to MusicMatch Plus.

MP9 can point to a webpage that shows some third-party plug-ins available for sale. One of the more intruiging ones is from InterVideo that enables MediaPlayer9 to play DVDs (instead of using a seperate program) Anyone have experience with this and can comment on whether it works as advertised? (smooth integration, no hiccups)

tia,
Carter

I tried downloading Mediaplayer 9, but couldn't. It seems that I didn't have the authority to install things on my machine. I think I have convinced everybody concerned, that I DO have the authority to install whatever I like, and just installed the new version.

It works pretty nice :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Taylor : I hate WiMP now that it's bloatware.. I was much happier with the one that came with 98 way back when. It was so simple and easy-going on the memory. -->>>

Alex, you probably still have that player installed (every Windows since 98 still has it, and just isn't on the start menu). Look on your hard drive in Program Files->Windows Media Player for the file "mplayer2.exe". It's the classic old media player, and it integrates with pretty much all the same codecs the new one does. No fancy skins or net connected bloat. Unfortunately no playlists either, but for a single file player it works great.

It seems ok. In fact it seems better when handling media libraries of thousands of songs like I have - it's more responsive. One thing though is that after upgrading from the previous version, winamp started to do funny things when i used it for playing MP3's. I am not getting skips and jitters when playing through Winamp so I just stick with WMP now (I always hated winamps playlist management anyway).


Cheers
Aaron

BTW: Does anyone know if there is a way to make WMP add ogg vorbis files to your library. Can't find anyway to add a filetype.

I like the incremental quality gains over the last version (picture quality for X bps, etc.) but have had a couple of strange problems with files over 2 Gig -- it just dies during encoding. I'm not using FAT32 or anything else that would limit file sizes and it's not consistent. Anyone else have similar experience?

Although i use a PC, ive always been a big fan of the quicktime files...the quality is a lot better. In my experience though, you cannot beat the compression vs quality you get with the NEWEST WMP and WMEncoder versions...a 70 MB file turns into 2-3 MB with the WME9. I prefer using it over REAL anyday of the week, and QT files tend to be a little large. I typically do football/basketball type action where i cannot control any of the lighting though. Unfortunately, users of win98 cannot use WMP9, they must have win98SE or higher. The new version of REAL will now play WMP9 files, but you may need WMP9 installed for that to work. I haven't tested it myself. WMP9 (and previous versions) do seem to hog sys resources, but i wouldnt say too much more than any of the other major players (REAL or QT).

I think WMP9 is a huge jump over the previous versions. Eventually I'm going to need to stream some stuff from a Web site and, even though WMP isn't a universal format, I think it will meet my needs very well. I tested WME9. The compression is great and that's very important -- I will have to pay for all the bandwidth the streaming eats up!

My brother did some tests last year, before 9 was available. He rendered some video to AVI, QT, and WMP. In his judgement, the quality of the WMP files, especially relative to the sizes of the various streams, was superior.

He then sent CDs out to the family and some friends, asking for their playback experiences. He included WMP7 on the CD in case it was needed. To a person, everyone was able to play the WMP files well but had various problems with the other formats.

As for hogging or bloatware, that's pretty typical of Microsoft. But after a few years, no one notices. I've followed Microsoft for a very long time and have concluded that its software is often released too soon in that current technology sometimes isn't enough to run the software well. But after a year or so, no one notices any more.