Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows Media Player 11 Released

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the progress-without-forward-progress dept.

365

filenavigator writes "Microsoft issued a press release today publicizing the release of Windows Media Player 11. Looks like the major updates in this version are for the Microsoft marketing engine. Features boasted by Microsoft include better integration with media players sanctioned by them, and integration with their new URGE music service. Additionally, and more importantly, this version contains the latest in Microsoft DRM software. Interested parties can download a free copy"

cancel ×

365 comments

Can't we wait? (5, Insightful)

mingot (665080) | more than 7 years ago | (#16652937)

Hey, can we wait until the comments before the anti-MS vitrol and fud? Does it have to start right in the article itself? Sheesh.

Re:Can't we wait? (5, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16652953)

Some of us are busy people, we have to get right to the bashing.

Re:Can't we wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16652973)

DRM is bad, do you not understand?

Re:Can't we wait? (1)

robogun (466062) | more than 7 years ago | (#16652989)

That was Submitter's point. The "features" that MS gets so excited about (i.e. stock will rise) are the same that make vomit rise in the throats of Slashdotters.

As for me WMP9 is more than enough.

Re:Can't we wait? (1)

Meatloaf Surprise (1017210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653071)

That was Submitter's point. The "features" that MS gets so excited about (i.e. stock will rise) are the same that make vomit rise in the throats of Slashdotters.

How does Microsoft's stock rise with the release of a free media player upgrade?

Re:Can't we wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653261)

Because of the "improvements" to their DRM system and a tighter grip on the media rights of windows users, this kind of thing is valuable to them.

Re:Can't we wait? (3, Interesting)

Meatloaf Surprise (1017210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653399)

This still does not make any sense. Can users still play non-drm'd music, such as: music taken off of bt, music from allofmp3.com, and music ripped from cds? If so, what have they accomplished? The only thing wmp11 does differently is that is allows users to play new kinds of drm music. So how does wmp11 have a tighter grip on windows users?

Plus, how does Microsoft's stock rise from this? Do they own a record label I don't know about? I really don't see how allowing to play new forms of drm music in a free upgrade to their pre-existing free media player helps their stock rise one bit.

Re:Can't we wait? (0, Offtopic)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653273)

As for me WMP9 is more than enough.
VLC [videolan.org] is ideal for my multimedia needs.

Re:Can't we wait? (1)

cptgrudge (177113) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653345)

As for me WMP9 is more than enough.

Same here, but I don't have a choice; I'm still using Win 2000. Guess I'm just old fashioned.

Re:Can't we wait? (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653437)

I think the best player in the market is currently AlShow, if you dont watch mkv there is no codecs needed. It's free and that same company also makes the free AlZip, perhaps the best decompressor I have ever seen.

If anyone has anything better please share some ideas.

Re:Can't we wait? (1)

skelator2821 (958729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653177)

Sorry Mr Gates but You Steve deserve the bashing TBH! Post under your real name Bill ..

Re:Can't we wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653317)

Yeah, M$ may be a money hungy monster, but isn't every other company?
Do you think Google would provide good service if they weren't making a s***load of money doing so? But they wouldn't make money if they didn't provide good service... but... [///paradox error 692, unit will now self terminate]
*boom*

Re:Can't we wait? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653499)

Linux needs to get its act together

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Re:Can't we wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653615)

This is my favorite troll ever.

Its not a bug... (1)

scenestar (828656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16652957)

Additionally, and more importantly, this version contains the latest in Microsoft DRM software. Interested parties can download a free copy"

You're saying it like DRM is a feature.

It is a feature for the publishers (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653163)

Digital restrictions management is a feature for residential end users only because it is a feature for the publishers: it makes publishers more likely to consider publishing works in the format.

Re:Its not a bug... (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653375)

On the contrary. I think he was banking on us all knowing exactly how much DRM sucks (doubly so when it doesn't even work right [flickr.com] ): and highlighting it in such a manner was a bit of subtle irony.

Weep with me now for the funeral of subtlety.

It's a feature if you're DVD Jon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653577)

... I mean, if you're an evil pirate.

Apt (5, Funny)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 7 years ago | (#16652959)

I tried apt, but it didn't work. Does anybody have the source packages so I can compile it myself?

Re:Apt (0, Flamebait)

yg5565 (992144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653183)

You must have typed it in wrong! Try apt-get install microshitdrmnewest

Re:Apt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653279)

Windows Media Player is for Windows. You seem to be trying to install it on linux.

Re:Apt (2, Funny)

mdhoover (856288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653395)

but the instructions said windows XP or better

Re:Apt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653303)

I had the same problem, but was able to find a workaround [mininova.org] and everything worked after that.

Integration with Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16652965)

Aside from all the new DRM stuff, it looks to me as though they wanted a new GUI to correspond with Vista's graphics instead of XP's graphics. The blue theme is gone, replaced by a black theme.

Re:Integration with Vista (2, Informative)

XoXus (12014) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653097)

From TFA, it's only for WinXP.

No thanks (1)

AddressException (187785) | more than 7 years ago | (#16652979)

No voluntary DRM for me. Not that I even run Windows anyway...

Slick interface (2, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16652981)

The big problem is that all the videos that I'm interested in are already uploaded to YouTube.

All the audio I'm interested in is uploaded to BitTorrent.

I prefer to live offline, away from my computer, so all the slickness in the world doesn't mean squat when I'm not going to be sitting in front of the monitor anyway.

?New? features (5, Funny)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 7 years ago | (#16652983)

Features boasted by Microsoft include better integration with media players sanctioned by them

I think these guys have got this one covered: http://www.apple.com/itunes/ [apple.com]

Not for Vista, apparently (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16652995)

Per TFA, "only for Windows XP." So does Microsoft itself admit Vista isn't ready for prime-time?

Re:Not for Vista, apparently (1)

MioTheGreat (926975) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653133)

Perhaps because, Oh, I don't know, maybe Vista hasn't been released yet, and WMP11 comes with Vista, so there is no need for a user to download it?

Free? (2, Funny)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#16652999)

"Interested parties can download a free copy" Richard Stallman has a word to say to the submitter.

Re:Free? (1)

debilo (612116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653111)

"Interested parties can download a free copy" Richard Stallman has a word to say to the submitter.
"Shave me" is actually two words, silly!

Re:Free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653203)

Richard Stallman is a common dick smoker. Who gives a fuck what that faggot thinks? Man, you guys are fucking lemmings.

Re:Free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653319)

Free as in Kool-Aid!

RAM?! (1)

JRWR (1001828) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653001)

Err, i hate buying a upgrade in ram JUST to run a media player, ill stick to mplayer command line interface. of course there is foobar

Re:RAM?! (1)

SnprBoB86 (576143) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653105)

I'm currently using a beta of WMP11 on Windows Vista RC2. I've got the artist view open, which has lots of album art shown, I'm playing a song, and paging around the library. It is using less than 13 megs of ram. When I minimize WMP 11, the ram usage immediately drops to under 6 megs of ram.

That's a half of a percent of my available ram... and my machine is getting dated.

Can you really not spare it?

Re:RAM?! Yes, Ram... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653331)

That's a half of a percent of my available ram...

Yes, and Vista is taking the other 99.5%.

What is this doing on the first page anyways? (0, Troll)

martonlorand (938109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653007)

Must be really "slownewsday"...

Re:What is this doing on the first page anyways? (1)

davecarlotub (835831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653095)

Since there have been only 2 stories posted in the last 5 hours, it would seem that you are absolutely correct.

Slashdot 'em! Quick! (4, Funny)

carlmenezes (204187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653015)

Save the world from WMP 11.

Re:Slashdot 'em! Quick! (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653287)

I think we're getting there.. I'm only getting a very slow 10KB/s download speed. M$ should be releasing the .torrent versions right now.

Re:Slashdot 'em! Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653481)

I had no speed issues when downloading WMP 11 as I was download at about 2MB/s.

I think you need to pause your pr0n downloads going on in the background.

What's with the GUI? (4, Interesting)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653017)

Can someone tell me what the deal is with WMP's GUI? I noticed around WMP 7 that they started breaking every Windows convention in the book. I stuck with Mplayer2 for a long time until I discovered Media player classic. Has the GUI improved? Does it blend in well with Vista's way of doing things and that's why its different? Or is it just poorly designed and confusingly implemented like I expect it is?

Re:What's with the GUI? (3, Interesting)

XoXus (12014) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653065)

I guess they're doing much the same thing that Apple did with iTunes on Mac OS X. It blends in, but it's full of widgets that simply aren't found anywhere in any other application.

Re:What's with the GUI? (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653165)

I wouldn't complain about that. There are a lot of examples of applications on other OSes that don't use standard controls to build their interface. Besides, I like UIs that at least look interesting. This is the reason that I'm still using Winamp instead of Foobar2000.

Re:What's with the GUI? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653207)

there are ways of making foobar look very interesting, you can move controls around and change what information is displayed, and how.
foobar looks very simple but is probably one of the most moddable music players out there

Re:What's with the GUI? (1)

lordvalrole (886029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653169)

I hear you on Media Player Classic. Just a far better player. It gets right down to the point on what you want and it is easy to find stuff. Everytime I open WMP I can't figure out where to go because the UI is crap.

The same principle goes with winamp. That is why I use winamp 2.81 before it got shitty. Sometimes updating isn't the way to go.

Re:What's with the GUI? (1)

stickyc (38756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653283)

Agreed - it took me several dozen seconds to figure out how to play a CD I'd inserted via WMP. Then another 60 or so to figure out how to get rid of the visualization and make it a smaller profile player.

Controls as bad as WMP 10? (5, Interesting)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653019)

If it's as bad as Windows Media Player 10, don't bother. What kind of crappy media player doesn't allow you to jump back and forth in the video/audio with keyboard controls? Whose stupid idea was it to make pause be CTRL-P? VLC's controls are the best, you can zip around with CTRL, ALT, or SHIFT- arrow keys to skip one minute, ten seconds, or one second respectively. Plus the space bar pauses and resumes.

Or maybe you'd rather try to slide a tiny dark slider along a tiny dark track and skip around that way.

Didn't *anyone* at microsoft take an HCI class in college?

Re:Controls as bad as WMP 10? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653109)

How about rewind a few seconds in VLC?

Re:Controls as bad as WMP 10? (4, Funny)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653167)

VLC's controls are the best, you can zip around with CTRL, ALT, or SHIFT- arrow keys to skip one minute, ten seconds, or ....

It must of been created for users that only have one free hand available - watching porno comes to mind.

Re:Controls as bad as WMP 10? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653579)

That doesn't help me when I'm only using a wireless mouse 10 feet away from my keyboard.

Re:Controls as bad as WMP 10? (1)

zigziggityzoo (915650) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653201)

Microsoft employees went to college?

Re:Controls as bad as WMP 10? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653223)

WiMP has been downhill for years. It's no match to winamp/foobar (for music) and ZoomPlayer/MPC/VLC for videos.

And it's not available for Windows 2003 either (nor 2000 AFAIK). And there's the nasty WGA checking stuff, which requires you to install MS spyware on your box (running legit windows of course) so you can even install it.

Or perhaps they just want to make it diffucult to install their DRM infested sub-par media player on your computer. Not XP? They think it's not legit (be they right or wrong)? Don't want the WGA spyware installed? No WiMP for you!

I think it's a win/win situation. I don't want their POS player, nor their DRM, nor their spyware on my PC, and funnily it's not available for it - can't complain!

Re:Controls as bad as WMP 10? (1)

JChung2006 (894379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653429)

Left arrow goes back, right arrow goes forward. Shift reduces the increment/decrement of the arrow. Ctrl increases it. Spacebar pauses and resumes. Next time, try it out before slamming it.

It can't be that bad.... (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653599)

otherwise it would have been called innovation instead.

Free ? (2, Informative)

Bibz (849958) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653047)

Interested parties can download a free copy
It requires a WGA check for installation...
I wouldn't call buying a copy of window a "free" upgrade ;)

Re:Free ? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653093)

give it say 3 days and it should be availible from your better "third party channels"

Re:Free ? (1)

Bibz (849958) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653235)

I checked after my post and it's already there!

Priorities (2, Interesting)

debilo (612116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653077)

So I have to go through an annoying and possibly bogus WGA check and pray it doesn't result in a false positive if I want to download Windows Defender, you know, a security tool, but I they impose no such checks if I want to download a simple DRM-infested media player? Nice priorities there, Microsoft.

Re:Priorities (1)

pdpTrojan (454023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653125)

The installer does a check.

Re:Priorities (1)

nighthawk127127 (848761) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653137)

You don't have to validate in order to download, but it does require it once you start the install.

Re:Priorities (1)

debilo (612116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653171)

You don't have to validate in order to download, but it does require it once you start the install.
I refuse to install it, so I wouldn't know, but thanks for the info. It's interesting to see how serious they take their *GA checks, what with WGA and soon OGA, and even having to validate for unimportant apps. I wonder where this will lead to.

Re:Priorities (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653225)

The do. WGA check is required to download Media Player.

Re:Priorities (1)

darkwind_2427 (964372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653609)

Actually, they do require a WGA check. Unfortunately I know this b/c it is installing right now...

Get it for codecs (2, Insightful)

GFree (853379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653079)

I might install it just to keep things up-to-date with the WMV support. I use Media Player Classic and VLC for most videos anyway, but I still installed previous versions of WMP so that the codecs it installed were complete, and I assume this will have newer codec versions too.

In other words, it's a back-end update for me. It sure as shit doesn't have the functionality/ease of use that something like MPC has.

OK, but ... (3, Funny)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653091)

I'll wait for the Linux version.

Why upgrade? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653123)

I'm still using mplay32.exe (still bundled with XP) and have found no convincing reason to change to wmplayer.exe

Parhaps someday MS will release a new version that is simpler to use and geared towards letting me listen to music without interuping my workflow, but not today.

It is faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653129)

It is a lot faster. When I just want to double-click a file to see what the hell it is - it comes up right quick now.

I would but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653175)

I can't remember the last time I used WMP for anything. Media Player Classic handles all the media I would ever bother downloading. So there is really no incentive, at least not for me.

Simple MP3 player needed... (1)

spagetti_code (773137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653189)

From TFA:
Does anyone out there know of a media player that just plays MP3s, and Wav files without in-your-face advertising for the media companies?

Its a fair question. Does anyone know of a simple player
that just plays the music and gets the heck out of the way.
It just keeps a list of your MP3s and will play and then minimise?

And for you apple fanboys, itunes is no better than WMP in this regard.

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653237)

How about Media Player Classic [sourceforge.net] ?

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (1)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653263)

It's a fair question. Does anyone know of a simple player
that just plays the music and gets the heck out of the way.
It just keeps a list of your MP3s and will play and then minimise?
For Windows: Winamp
For Linux: XMMS

Sure, there's stuff out there like Amarok, SnackAmp, and whatnot. But the two I mentioned are by far the best at just playing music, storing playlists, and staying the hell out of the way.

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653267)

BSplayer. (WIN) Totem. (LINUX) Xine. (LINUX) VLC player. (WIN/LINUX) MPlayer (LINUX)

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (1)

yg5565 (992144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653269)

amarok

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (1)

paganizer (566360) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653271)

winamp 2.91 for audio
MediaPlayer Classic for Video
can't really think of any other products needed.
query: does the WMP11 break your recorded videos after 2 days, like the beta did?

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653295)

MP3 Juke Box (Old but good/Windows Vb4) http://www.crbn.com/toys/ [crbn.com]

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653297)

Try foobar 2000: simple, effective, efficient.

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653299)

Evil Player is pretty teensy. Doesn't do Tags, though :/ I've stuck with Winamp in classic mode. Ftw.

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653391)

winamp. Small, neat, full-featured. Non-intrusive.

Freeamp (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653425)

Freeamp, which is now called Zinf [zinf.org] due to complaints from the Winamp people, is what you want. No ads. No phoning home. No DRM. No nonsense. Open source. Runs on Windows and Linux.

Re:Freeamp (0, Troll)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653517)

Wow. The FAQ's sound like they were written by a very pimply faced, virginal 16 year old boy with a listhp. Not only that, but it doesn't sound like a very good product from a purely factual standpoint. Can't rip CD's? Yuck.

Re:Freeamp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653593)

Dumbass. The GP wanted a simple mp3 player, not a Microcrapish do everything busybox. You're a troll

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653479)

...called QuickTime. iTunes can't steal the entire show for us "apple fanboys."

But I will admit that its lack of features in an unregistered version is about as bad as WMP's...maybe even worse because no fullscreen.

Re:Simple MP3 player needed... (1)

larvyde (1020575) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653511)

CoolPlayer.... coolplayer.sourceforge.net

Mplayer2 (1)

novafire (263854) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653251)

I am sure I am not the only one who still uses mplayer2 (Media Player 6.x) for most stuff.

Bloat just plain sucks and when mplayer2 is no longer useable I am pretty sure I will seek a 3rd party media player because MS players pretty blow.

Oh and another thing, when was the last time the media player codec download actually found the required codec and installed it for you? I do not think I can think of a single time personally.

Re:Mplayer2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653337)

It only works for Microsoft-sanctioned codecs. So no MPEG-2/4, no Ogg Vorbis, no AAC, no VP-6 and so on, but it will happily download the latest WMV / WMA codecs for you.

I know of no company that has a deal with Microsoft to auto-distribute their codecs. They all seem to prefer charging people for them, or bundling them with their own software (like QuickTime or RealPlayer). Free codecs are never, ever going to be Microsoft-sanctioned.

Is syncing fixed? (4, Informative)

Mike_K (138858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653289)

I have a Sandisk Sansa e270. For some reason, I just don't want to buy an iPod Nano. Guess I'm just cheap? This is the next best thing - 6gb of flash, small, similar interface, half the price.

I used to use WMP10 to sync my files. It wasn't the most convenient method, but it beat doing the sync by turning the Sansa into a USB drive (it reboots forever, updating some databases). Selecting which files to sync up was fairly simple, and the syncing was fast. The biggest complaint I had was that it didn't really understand the concept of syncing on multiple computers (home and office). One has to become the main computer and the other... I dunno.

I installed the WMP11 beta, because I was hoping that that part of syncing would have been fixed. Well, I regret that decision now. Luckily, I'm going to reinstall this computer soon anyway.

Basically, syncing is incredibly slow now, the interface much less intuitive and for some reason it keeps uploading copies of the same files. I gave up on getting that sync right. I'm downloading the final version, I'll install it probably tomorrow.

m

NTY Microsoft (1)

getUsers().me (1020565) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653291)

Nice try M$, but I think I'll be sticking with AmaroK on Gentoo. I'd rather not have DRM pushed down my throat.

Feature, or... (0, Redundant)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653293)

Microsoft may consider their latest DRM a Feature, however I consider it a Bug.

Re:Feature, or... (1)

GFree (853379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653305)

I consider it a necessary evil to get what I want, if the content's worth it.

Overzealous use of buzzwords (1)

Mr_Tulip (639140) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653311)

What's up with the made up terms like 'Reverse sync', 'gas gauge', 'visual navigation' to describe what are very basic features.

Should we start applying them to general computer use too?

'Hey Bob, I need you to reverse sync that report to my computer, so you don't run out of gas, check the gas gauge, and you'll receive a great sync experience.'

Winamp? Hello? (5, Insightful)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653315)

Sorry, but I think that the PC media player was perfected win Winamp 2.8. Literally. I think it's about as easy to use and powerful as you can ever get. iTunes is impossibly bloated and buggy. Windows Media Player is the most confusing interface I could ever imagine. Winamp is tiny, very powerful (if you want it to be), and *very* easy to use. I don't care how many shiny buttons MS MP and ITunes add, they both just get continueally worse with every version (and admittedly, so did the early Winamp 5.x versions). And really, how many different possible ways do you need to play music? How many iterations of "play" ans "stop" can there possibly be?

Does it work well with Opera & FF ? (1)

giriz (966704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653381)

I want to know if the browser plugin will work well with Opera/FF. Any one tried yet ?

WMP (2, Interesting)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653405)

Why is it microsoft can't make a gui that doesn't take more screen space than the actual content?

5 minute overview (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653487)

The interface is considerably improved but still remains a gray mess. An improvement over the blue mess. It is now immediately clear where your music is and where the play button is.

The integrated store is a trainwreck. I got IE script errors on first visit, while I am immediately bombarded with EULA and "Install URGE" pop-ups. After installing the binary, it takes me to a cluttered black webpage. Search is a visual mess, and I receive a "SUBSCRIBE NOW!" interstitial while traveling to an album from Search view.

No thanks. Better luck with 12.

Still nothing comparable to MPEG-1? (1)

BiggerBoat (690886) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653503)

I keep hoping that we're going to see a true cross-platform video format that will just work "out of the box" with the major OSes the way MPEG-1 did. With all the recent advancements in codecs, I sure would like to see something considered a standard that would just work for everyone without needing to download some other player or codec. I was hoping .mp4 might be it, but it looks like Media Player 11 doesn't support it.

Is there really no modern video format that works "out of the box" for all the major OS players?

Re:Still nothing comparable to MPEG-1? (2, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16653567)

MPEG-4 is just as standard and cross-platform as MPEG-1 was. Blame Microsoft for not supporting it because they want you to use the hilarious "WMV" format for everything.

LOL guess they (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16653523)

finally fixed their DRM.

Personally I wont watch anything that REQUIRES a license, whether it be on Windows or *nix.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...