36 replies to this topic

[nodles]

Someone might be interested; VLC 2.0 has been released.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

I mainly use MPC HC, but downloaded the portable version of VLC 2.0 for my USB drive.
Which media player do you use?

[TheWebAtom]

I use Windows Media Player primarily; with VLC installed for the (very) rare occasions that I find a file WMP can't read. Or when it freezes, which it does quite often.

[Winapp2.ini]

I used to use VLC, but became rather partial to (S)MPlayer sometime last year

[hazelnut]

It'll be even better when it gets a 64bit version.

[Winapp2.ini]

I'm holding out for 128bit support

[Super Fast]

I like VLC for the ability that it has to read DVD movies with menus stored inside ISO files.
_____

One day, I would like all my DVD's stored as a single ISO with a media player to handle it.
I like KM Player better than VLC, though because you can f5 to start & f6 to end the location to repeat an audio or video file.
The skin is awesome that is with it, & you can do high quality save from a movie as an AVI.

KM has a ton of features, & some are a bit hard to find, but there are sometimes skins that are made that resemble Windows Media Player 11 for XP that work great with a single click for photo or video save as well as other options.

I do NOT like how KM Player will go crazy if you try to play a DVD inside an ISO container file that has menus.
_____

Webatom, WMP, especially the version with Windows 7 will play a lot more content than the one included with XP, but it still has a large number of files it will not touch, which I believe may include .Ogg, .Flac, ISO videos, etc, etc, etc. I may be wrong on this list, but I know WMP just doesn't cut it on files it plays, nor does it to my knowledge, have a way to repeat a section of a video or music file. Just shuffle a collection, or repeat an entire song, etc.

Now, for users who use KM Player, you do have to select High Quality mode while setting it up, because "Good & recommended" will work, but it will leave videos being pixelated. If you want picture perfect videos, enabling the high quality mode (3 GHZ & higher) processors, it does look really good.
_____

I believe you can also install KazaaLite Mega Codec Pack to install support for WMP playing most formats you use, with no other video player needed.
_____

But again, the fact that WMP still could never play movies inside ISO files, nor do repeat selection, or save from a video or audio file, etc, makes it totally worthless for what I use it for. And I do not like having tons of files for a video. I am trying to universalize all my collections, & a great way to do it with videos is ISO format.

Added benefit, IMGBurn or Windows 7 can burn these with a single right-click to DVD media.

[Super Fast]

hazelnut, on 21 February 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

It'll be even better when it gets a 64bit version.

Sure! But I was wondering what possibly a 64 bit version would have advantage wise over just running a 32 bit version in a 64 bit OS. As far as I am aware, some applications will be so similar in speed to their 32 bits cousins, if not even slightly faster in some cases, just depending on the app being run.
_____

For instance, you could invent a 64 bit version of Windows Calculator, or even 64 bit wordpad. But do you really intend to write so much that you end up using the hardware limitation limit of 16 Exebytes (EB) of RAM for a word processing document, or Windows 7 Ultimate & Professional software limit of 192 GB of RAM?

I can't imagine the computing you must be doing! Haha!
_____

All joking aside, what is the advantage of 64 Bit VLC? I can see on Windows OS itself, as it does increase the speed by 10-20% in some cases if the software has been optimized for it. But in other cases, it is a negative gain with 32 Bit programs that work as fast, or slightly faster than their 64 Bit cousins.

Take Internet Explorer, for example. You cannot set 64 Bit Internet Explorer as your default web browser in Windows 7 according to Microsoft documentation. I personally tried 32 Bit version of Internet Explorer, then the 64 Bit version. The 32 Bit IE 9 version launches faster, every time, than the 64 Bit version. Sometimes, by almost 2x faster. (So, guess which version I use? I haven't seen a webpage requiring 192 GB RAM yet.... )
_____

I like 64 Bit Windows, & I like some 64 Bit apps, but given that 64 Bit architecture causes double the bandwidth allocation & causes some apps to slow instead of increase in speed, I will take 32 Bits versions every time if it so suits it for what I need.

I cannot for the life of me, imagine what on Earth size video file you must be needing that for!

Do tell us why you want 64 Bit! Curiosity killed the cat, & now it's working on me! LOL!

* P.S. Is it simply because you have an infatuation with everything on your computer becoming matching 64 Bits?

[Winapp2.ini]

Personally, I don't like seeing *32.exe in task manager

I also think that migrating to 64bit apps will help convince people to dump anything older than vista, such as XP.

[Super Fast]

Winapp2.ini, on 22 February 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Personally, I don't like seeing *32.exe in task manager

I also think that migrating to 64bit apps will help convince people to dump anything older than vista, such as XP.

I don't care what it says, as long as it works right.
_____

XP is great for older systems & can work well on newer ones. The main reason(s) I use 7 at the moment, are I found a way to import the XP Image viewer into Windows 7, so that I can view Animated GIF files, edit TIF, & smoothly enlarge pictures without pixelation. I am able to use it as the default image viewer instead of the trash that 7 included that royally made viewing images a displeasure.

Also, XP would crash on folders around 4 to 5,000 files in a folder. Windows 7 (even 32 bit) I am able to open a folder with more than 21,000 files inside it.
So, organization is easier.
_____

I hated the start menu initially, but Classic Shell fixes many of the flaws.

I would still use XP, except I found solutions to many problems in 7, including the folder tree not auto-expanding as you navigate folder directories. Took a while to do this, & I still got to update XP image viewer with a derivitive of .JPG as well as the auto installer I made for it.

XP is easier to use in some areas, & the animated network connections was a feature I loved since it made it easier to detect whether a file is leaving or arriving at your PC (helpful in diagnosing if a malware infection is still trying to access the web, or some other component, etc). I do have a fix for this, but then, XP also made it super simple to right-click a connection & fix it, where-as if you try this in 7, it will generally not be able to fix it, but give you a cryptic error.

7 has a problem sometimes with wi-fi resuming connections if allowed to enter sleep for say, an hour or two, or maybe even 20 min or so. Fails to wake it back up & has to be rebooted to fix it. This does not happen in XP.

So, yes, 7 is great in some areas, but there are also areas where XP kicks 7's butt. And that is sad to say, but it is true!
_____

P.S. For many, Royale Visual Style for XP is an excellent alternative to Luna default skin. Glassy, & definitely much better looking!
_____

Edit: Although I know a way to self activate 7 (which i shall NOT list here), a lot of people do not. I suspect that the license agreements are one reason that people do not use 7, since the license agreements are prohibitive! And if you do not know how to self activate your personal copy, that means that every time you change enough hardware, test enough software/malware samples/whatever, you WILL have to "re-activate" all over again for the copy that you already bought & own.

Too much trouble for the average Joe to be treated like a common criminal, simply because they only want to test & see how things work. I love to see how things work, cause I am curious & knowledge isn't a crime.

*** Some people will hang onto XP till the day they die. Software, after all, isn't like food that can expire. That's a lie people buy into. Doesn't happen. If this were so, then the English language, having existed as long as it has, is terribly outdated & in need of a new language, & change all over again, & more incompatibility, etc.

Hopefully, they will finally fix enough bugs in the future, that they can stop expecting people to change OS like a winter fur coat & cause ruinous million dollar messes for businesses who already have things working perfectly with their present OS.

[Winapp2.ini]

To be fair, English is a complete mess, and one of the hardest to learn once you're past something like the age of 14

[TheWebAtom]

Quote

Some people will hang onto XP till the day they die. Software, after all, isn't like food that can expire. That's a lie people buy into. Doesn't happen. If this were so, then the English language, having existed as long as it has, is terribly outdated & in need of a new language, & change all over again, & more incompatibility, etc.

But unlike operating systems, languages evolve over time. Try reading English literature from a century or two ago and see how much sense it makes to you. Colloquialisms are constantly being invented, then *officially* integrated into our language as its use becomes more mainstream.

[Alan_B]

Winapp2.ini, on 22 February 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

To be fair, English is a complete mess, and one of the hardest to learn once you're past something like the age of 14

So those over the age of 14 should be less ambitious - and learn American  

[Super Fast]

TheWebAtom, on 23 February 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

But unlike operating systems, languages evolve over time. Try reading English literature from a century or two ago and see how much sense it makes to you. Colloquialisms are constantly being invented, then *officially* integrated into our language as its use becomes more mainstream.

It isn't that bad, really. A lot of it is very similar. I imagine that as the world education systems mature, & they settle on a master language, it will settle down somewhat. Who knows how long that will take, but eventually...

[Winapp2.ini]

Alan_B, on 23 February 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

So those over the age of 14 should be less ambitious - and learn American  

Don't encourage them!

[login123]

nodles, on 21 February 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

Someone might be interested; VLC 2.0 has been released.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/  . . .

Thanks, nodles, got it.  It seems a bit faster.  I mostly use WMP with VLC as a backup

Super Fast, on 22 February 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

...
Also, XP would crash on folders around 4 to 5,000 files in a folder. Windows 7 (even 32 bit) I am able to open a folder with more than 21,000 files inside it.
So, organization is easier.
...
*** Some people will hang onto XP till the day they die....

Yep, then pass it along in my will.  

Seriously, though, I have a question about that statement about wxp crashing at about 5,000 files.  On my external usb drive there is 1 folder, 168 gb, ntfs partition, with 143,696 files in 13,319 folders.  I have worried for a long time that the drive's capacity might exceed WXP's ability to keep it sorted.  Not quarreling you know, just asking.  Is there a practical maximum?

[Alan_B]

login123, on 23 February 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

On my external usb drive there is 1 folder, 168 gb, ntfs partition, with 143,696 files in 13,319 folders.

I had a 300 GB External with 6 partitions and less than a total of 100,000 files in 10,000 folders using its own power supply.
I found that Windows XP started up in half the time if I left that 300 GB powered down.

Each morning I had to decide whether to live without using my external utilities,
or whether to wait till lunchtime whilst XP inventoried what was available

[Super Fast]

login123, on 23 February 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Seriously, though, I have a question about that statement about wxp crashing at about 5,000 files.  On my external usb drive there is 1 folder, 168 gb, ntfs partition, with 143,696 files in 13,319 folders.  I have worried for a long time that the drive's capacity might exceed WXP's ability to keep it sorted.  Not quarreling you know, just asking.  Is there a practical maximum?

Probably try for around 3,000 to 3,500 per folder, maybe less.

If you exceed XP's ability to open, do not worry. Your files are still there. You can use XP search to search that folder & move enough files out (based on file size/other attributes) to filter them so that you can select whatever you need to move to another folder so that it can open that folder again.

If you have a folder XP cannot open because you have too many files on it, do NOT delete it. Just use XP search, or even something like Locate32 to index all your files & move what you have to to another folder till XP will open it again.

Just be careful that the files that you are moving do not  belong to another folder, & are individual files.

Example: If you have folders, say, like a startmenu launcher that has a copy of VLC in it, then VLC will no longer launch from that program till it is placed back in the folder it came from. So be sure you are moving individual files that are not part of a program inside of a folder should you do this.

[Andavari]

I've found out that new version 2.0.0 in the PortableApps.com version "may cause an issue" if burned unpacked onto a disc because ImgBurn now barks loudly about folder depths being too much for ISO9660 - although I enable and use each and every available file system for maximum compatibility.

[Super Fast]

Andavari, on 26 February 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

I've found out that new version 2.0.0 in the PortableApps.com version "may cause an issue" if burned unpacked onto a disc because ImgBurn now barks loudly about folder depths being too much for ISO9660 - although I enable and use each and every available file system for maximum compatibility.

I think I used a workaround sometime back. I have to check to see what it was. It was either some option concerning the folder levels, or using a different ISO type.

It has been a while, so I forget the option I had used, but I think that the creator of the program can also send you the answer if you email Lightning UK.

There is a workaround, as I once had this exact issue as well.

[Andavari]

Super Fast, on 26 February 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

There is a workaround, as I once had this exact issue as well.

On Windows systems XP and newer it shouldn't matter too much since I always also enable Joliet and UDF. Typically I always ignore any ISO9660 and Joliet error dialogs since when UDF is used that's how Windows XP and newer will read the disc, although I know some hardware players still rely on old file systems.