Slashdot Mirror
Windows Media Player 9
captainclever writes "The Register has an interesting article about the posibilities for WMP Clients for Linux.
Would anyone want to use MS WMP in Linux?" See also a news.com story.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Just because so much stuff doesn't come in MPEG. And while we're at it, how about Quicktime?
"Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
After reading about the DeCSS case I finally decided to sit down and devote some time to getting DVD playback on my FreeBSD system. Xine seems to work pretty well. I'd prefer seing Xine and mplayer move forward rather than have WMP.
scott
Sounds like a double edged sword to me.. On one hand, we get support for all of Microsoft's formats, in a native client. On the other, it furthers Microsoft's reach with thier DRM technologies.
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
Microsoft not required.
mplayer actually supports more video formats that mediaplayer; I see no reason for me to use anything else. If only mplayer could get a definitive release and become a bit easier to install...
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Other open source alternatives have been paving away for multimedia in linux. Such projects like MPlayer and Xine make it easy to play almost any type of format especially with MPlayer's recent addition of Quicktime codecs as well as Windows Media 9 format. In addition to these, Xine and MPlayer also can support dvd playback, so moving from such an established open source software solutions to Windows Media Player just doesn't seem to be a logical move on the Linux platform. Especially since both projects (among many more I am sure, ogle comes to mind) have been putting there hearts into their releases and deserve the focus and attention of the community.
This may enter the Linux platform, some people will boo, some people will cheer, but the bottom line is that the hype will die down as quickly as it did when Real Player came to Unix.
tourettes
For playing media there are already many solutions for all intersting platforms, and the only reason for using WMP would be for the DRM stuff...which no-one honestly likes.
I think it's a Good Thing regardless of whether people use WMP simply because it demonstrates MSFT's acceptance of a widening world where they are currently looked down on.
I use Intervideo's stuff mostly and only use alternatives eitehr by accidental association or when I'm forced into it.
Personally, I'd avoid anything that restricted my use of media I own. I don't care who produces it.
...it's the fact that these are controlled standards. The internet is a free place, and standards should be as free as possible. MS may be releasing WMP 9 such that we'll see a client on Linux, but that doesn't mean that this is a good thing.
What we'll see is a proliferation of WMP DRM through our systems, as well as Real and QuickTime. What we really need is a single open standard that can be played back on anything without proprietary software. If it's secure, so much the better for the content creators - but I don't see why they can't settle for a simple copyright at the end, like they do for their web pages.
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
But I'm flying with GStreamer atm and couldnt be happier. Also Xine and MPlayer are top quality too. Especially when used on conjunction with interfaces like Totem, I really couldnt ask for much more! DVD playback is also coming on strong!
Off the top of my head I cant think of anything (apart from DRM) that WMPlayer can do that any of the above can't do anyway? [conspiracy]Maybe that's the point.. this is a cunning plan to get DRM onto Linux :)[/conspiracy] Anyway, by the time it's available the other Linux media players will have either caught up or be better I expect.
2003 will be the year for linux \o/
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Users don't want to have to learn the same thing eight or nine times. Windows doesn't do a whole lot that is fantastic, IMHO, but their interface offers the best compromise between range of operation and ease of use. On Linux, we've tilted the dial towards range of operation (well, except for Quicktime video...), but there's still the issues of compatibility and ease of use that have been largely disregarded.
The average user has an index of approximately 27 different motions that can be easily recalled. People generally start at the bottom of a surface such as the page of a book or the screen on their computer when they first look at it, but if they're going to be with it a while they begin looking at the top (when they turn the page or open an application). This is the type of research that you can see in Windows -- Start bar on bottom, menu options on top of the application.
So maybe duplication isn't such a bad thing... after all, even they just took the best parts from the innovators of the GUI (Apple) and improved on the rest.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Hey it is wishful thinking that WMP for Linux would solve many of your media playing wishes. However, from my experience useing WMP (current) for Mac OS X (10.2) not all media is playable. Nor does the WMP work nicely with browsers other than IE.
In one word MS doesn't fully support WMP on any platform other than Windows. I must admit some of the problems are due to third party hack up solutions. (read tuning in to your fav air wave station over the internet) Maybe MS would provide some plug-in architecture to improve its media playing abilities.
If someone uses a nasty non-standard format then you don't want there content.
No DRM Enabled player makes boycotting easy.
OGG Yes, MP3 yes MPEG yes, non-standard formats no, it doesn't matter how good your format is, I wont use it unless you release it to a standards body.
What ever happened to FIF &co.... good formats, yep, standards based, nope.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'll stick to MPlayer. At least it doesn't send off your download statistics and crap. Plus, it already supports beta WM9 codecs anyways.
Yep, NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard. The whole reason I use Linux at all is to get away from The Machine. I don't want M$ branded crap bundled in with the next distro I pick up.
I'm gonna venture a guess here, and I'll probably get modded down to the 10th level of hell for it, but here goes. My guess is that, since M$ knows it can't directly attack Linux and the GPL, it figures it'll go along with it, then tear it apart from within. Get inside the game, then start picking it apart. Since they'll more than likely want the source of their apps closed, we won't really know what's going on with it while it's running.
If the current Media Player is any suggestion, it won't be good. Media Player theives all file associations, making you go back in and change them back to the way you had them before you installed it. And who knows to what extent this DRM crap will get to. Would they go so far as to disable anything they don't find "trustworthy" in the Palladium model? Knocking out XMMS, MPTV, and locating and disabling the open OGG format's plugins?
The real problem lies in the obvious. Noone but M$ knows. And you know what they say, Knowledge is Power. Right now, M$ is holding alot (but not all) of the cards. Honsestly, if this gets any worse, I'm more than willing to move outside of the country I love, just to get away from Micro$oft. Extreme, yes. But I enjoy my personal rights and freedoms too much to have them yanked away by the likes of M$, the RIAA and the MPAA...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Do a little simple thinking. Wine is GOOD because there are some apps that are indispensible to people that ONLY come in windoze versions (games, tax software, etc). They can avoid the lockin and overbearing control demanded by Gates while still using their software. As for look-alike GUIs...duh. First, there are only so many ways to make a GUI system on present systems. It would be quite hard to come up with a great new way of doing things when this aspect of computing is sooo mature. More importantly, people are used to a certain windowing environment. Radical change from that makes it less likely that people would switch - they don't want to have to learn whole new ways of doing things, they just want to get on and get going on "important" stuff right ASAP.
Tell me, do you honestly think that the Apple interface (which is the ultimate originator for the Windoze copy/interface) is really different than that of windoze? Arethere ANY widely used GUIs that are substantially different than that used by windoze? They are ALL very similar to the extent that with a little futzing, many people could get things going on these "alien" wm/guis. They are not copying windoze, rather they are all (M$ including) following a generally accepted GUI paradigm (ultimately copied from Apple who based theirs on the ideas of Xerox). Come up with a better GUI yourself that doesn't require a massive learning curve and be a hero. Not up to it? Of course you aren't.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Could you please do a favour to the community and pack the system into an RPM and make it available on the net? I just hate having to compile stuff and taking care of the depencies myself.
Xine RPMs are available from http://freshrpms.net/ with DVD menu support and all compiled in.
As for WMP for Linux, a year ago it would have been interesting. These days all relevant players do DivX 3-5, Quicktime (_including_ Sorenson codec), DVD playing etc. MPlayer is quite possibly the most advanced player ever, with more post processing and general purpose filters and features than you could possibly need. All WMP has is name recognition.
Listen this might be good. If WMP comes to linux then perhaps IE might follow and then Outlook Express. Think it is crazy? All the apps mentioned have Solaris versions so why not?
:->
Sure, I won't use them. But the corporate folks will love it.
Also, a lot of folks scream about how hard it is to set up some of the latest greatest video/audio apps but with apt and apt for rpm I have had an easy time of it. The only problem is that when you want the newest latest greatest features like Sorennson support in mplayer.
I am just waiting for a complete quicktime Sorrenson solution. Either it needs work or my setup is weird because it did not work for me. It has not been out that long so no worries. I will probably get a version working of this early code two days before the apt for rpm folks put rpms for it on freshrpms.
Anyway, I would not use WMP or Outlook Express in Linux but there are plenty of corporate adopters that would. Not only that, I have to admit I would use IE every day in Linux, for about five minutes. Why? The corporate timesheet app online works only on IE.
ACK
Well, the complaints are usually targetted at specific apps, usually Windows. Microsoft make some truly great software, especially in the games dept (though it's arguable whether this is Microsoft producing them or not). I never cared much for Media Player, but a few of my friends prefer it to Winamp.
Wine is a great thing, critical for desktop success even. There are just way too many apps for Windows that don't have any Linux equivalent. I was talking last night to a guy on IRC who needed CATIA, an engineering app. Needs Windows. Unfortunately, it doesn't work on raw WineHQ (it might have worked had he used CrossOver...), but it is a good example.
(and they also like to have Windows-ish desktops, ala GNOME and KDE)
Well, the GNOME configuration I have isn't all that much like Windows, but it does have similarities. Like I said, Microsoft make some good stuff. There are good ideas in the Windows GUI, which KDE and GNOME rightfully nicked.
Nothing good can come of this. I for one don't want to see a Microsoft product on Linux.
I'd be OK with that if they weren't trying to use it to leverage their own proprietary platforms. If Microsoft started releasing games for linux, I might buy them. I might not of course, you could say you shouldn't by any products from MS ever again because of principle. But, I wouldn't have anything against it. The problem is that they only rarely release something that isn't tied to, or doesn't try and tie the users to their own platforms, usually Windows.
Maybe because it's a nasty, semi-legal hack using MS/Apple binaries.
You forgot to add "that works extremely well". I think it's better than WMP. It's much much much more stable (in my experience, can't speak for everyone) and supports about as many formats (more?).
I will not install proprietary binaries on my computer.
Then no soup for you!
So I assume you're talking about the codecs, anyway. Well guess what, if you don't like the fact that mplayer uses binary non-opensource codecs, then write your own. mplayer itself is opensource and they don't need to re-write every fucking codec themselves. Why don't you volunteer your support?
And if your'e not talking about the codecs, then check this (from the mplayer website): MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the OpenDivX project, which did not allow binary redistribution. This has been removed.
Anyway, I hope you're not thinking that MS would release WMP opensource, cause... umm...
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Would anyone want to use MS WMP in Linux?
I certainly would not.
Years ago, I knew people who wanted very badly for Microsoft to release an IE for Linux, because at the time we had no decent browsers. At the time, even I considered IE to be superior.
But, on my Linux boxes, I gave it time, and sure enough we have several better-than-IE browsers (Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, etc).
The same can be said about MS Office. We now have a few alternatives (though I *hate* that Open/StarOffice tries to mimic MS Office down to the last detail...)
Likewise, MPlayer for Linux is coming along quite nicely. Unlike WMP on my Windows box, MPlayer consistantly plays 98% of the video files I run across, where WMP likes to suddenly stop working for various reasons, or start refusing to play certain types of files (currently Divx 4 won't play, and MP3 audio is severely clipped).
Plus, I don't consider WMP to be a one-stop end-all solution even on Windows. For QuickTime I have to use Apple's player. Many Divx files need to be played in a Divx-specific application (I know WMP is *supposed* to work with various CODECS but in practice it gives meaningless error messages).
MPlayer on Linux, OTOH, is pretty good about playing the majority of file formats I wind up with. This is why my "media box" runs Linux/MPlayer (with no X; just using the vesa output gives nice results). At the moment, QuickTime with "compressed headers" won't play. All other files I have (300+ video files, various sources) play back nicely.
I personally don't want Microsoft invading my non-MS systems. I use Windows a lot, sure, but the oddities in IE/WMP/Office/etc are part of the reason I use Linux on other systems - the systems where I won't put up with odd, random behavior from software, like my media box.
And I won't even get started on the idea of having DRM on my Linux boxes...
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
... and just when everyone and their dog has switched - the cock will probably not crow today until you have all denied three times to ever start using WMP - then Microsoft will suddenly dump WMP support for Linux - or even better, WMP will cost money, as "the free days are over and Linux users should know that software costs money". Embrace and extend this is called. Been there, done that.
my other sig is a 500 page novel
Why exactly would I want a proprietary, closed-source spyware application when I have free software mplayer which plays everything from .mp3 to quicktime and can double not only as a DVD player but also as an encoder ?
That's like running IE when you can run Mozilla, isn't it?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
... are we that desperate for "world domination" that we want WMP ported to linux? If you care so much about Microsoft applications, why bother switching to linux in the first place? At least for me, the whole point behind using linux is the freedom that comes with the GPL/BSD licenses and that warm, friendly atmosphere between developers and users in the mailing lists. From that viewpoint, whatever Microsoft-related is just irrelevant.
An interesting thought occurrs: if Microsoft got out of the business of pushing their Operating System (not necessarily stopping production, just playing nice), and got more into the applications-development side of things, what would we then think about Microsoft?
;p
For example, they release Linux, Solaris and *BSD versions of Office, WMP, IE, and other software, all fully functional and roughly equal to (say) the Mac versions. Likewise, they no longer resort to monopolistic tactics to push their OS monopoly, realizing that they can do better selling applications, and not worrying about which OS you use. Perhaps they even focus more on security in their software products (ignoring the OS for now).
Would most of us reconsider how we think of Microsoft? If they slowly did away with the things we tend to hate the most, and focused on quality software, would they then be just another vendor (albeit extremely huge)?
I posted earlier answering "Not me" on the WMP issue, but it really isn't too late for Microsoft to wisen up. I believe they make more money from Office sales than OS sales, but the OS monopoly helped with that. Perhaps they realize they are losing/will lose the OS monopoly, and need to focus on quality cross-platform applications to stay in business. Maybe the free-as-in-beer WMP is a first step toward this, or a test project, or...
Or maybe I didn't get enough sleep and am still dreaming... Just random thoughts spewing out here. Resume normal discussion at this time
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
I have nothing to gain from them monitoring me, and they didn't even bother to ask for my permission, so as far as I am concerning there is no justification for it. Kind of puts thing in a different perspective now, doesn't it, Anonymous Coward?
Another way to look at it is imagine someone walking into your house and just sitting next to our computer and writing down everything you watch on your media player program. Still don't see my point? Reread the first paragraph and think about it.
On the same side of the coin, I don't see a reason to switch to a invasive media player application when there are non-invasive open source solutions that do MORE that Microsoft's application already out available. No, M$ can keep their crappy spyware on their own OS, IMHO.
I can't afford a sig!
We've got MPlayer, after all.
Besides, when I installed WiMP 9, it broke some of my codecs, so I can't play some DVD-compliant MPG files I was arranging for an upcoming DVD burn. Since I can't even uninstall WiMP 9, I find that very tacky, indeed, because now I need to reinstall the OS on that machine.
(but wait! I can't, yet!)
Get off my launchpad!
The engineer definition of standard is different from the business/joe user idea of standard. To an engineer, a standard specifies everything that is needed to implement the widget in question. To business/joe user, standard just means "what everybody uses". Well, 12 years ago the standard in office documents by that definition was WordPerfect. Reading those documents could be difficult since there wasn't an engineer's standard to go along with the vernacular standard. It can be reverse engineered but the devil is in the details. Anything can happen and it is possible that Office could become what WordPerfect is today. Since there is no engineer's standard for Office, that data will decay faster than newsprint in a compost heap.
To us, it just isn't a standard unless we can implement it. The fact that enough clueless people use it to make it a defacto standard of sorts is absolutely of no help when trying to archive data or communicate with someone.
Needless to say, we also don't like it when someone takes an engineer's standard like an RFC and Embrace 'n' Extends it into a hairball non-engineer's standard. Defacto standards shift like quicksand. There is a reason why say weights and measures are defined precisely and reproducibly. You can never tell when you may implement them on your own and same applies to data interchange and communication.
is not whether you will use WM9, but whether or not the content providers use will it? And that answer, unfortunately, is yes, the content providers will be swayed by the monopoly and use the largest installed base media player. In fact, they already are.
Just to see where these things were going, last weekend I watched a few movies from movielink and cinema(something) and they had a 'few' requirements:
1. Windows
2. Either Real or WM
Regardless if we choose to use either of those, the content providers definitely will not, so we'll all be relegated to watching Quicktime trailers and definitely not DRM stuff, which both Movielink and the Cinema(something) site had.
Personally, I'd much rather log onto a site and watch a movie that way instead of going to the video store. And either of the sites will let you download the movie and watch it. I think they both last for 24hrs.
One thing about the 'service' tho that I thought sucked was that I paid $10 for a month of 'premium' access, but all the new movies were 'pay-per-view' which has an additional $3.95. That was pretty inconvenient. Actually kinda pissed me off. In that case, I'm better off going to the video store and freeing up my bandwidth.
Anyway, back to the players; remember they're just the client and are the keys to the really bigger things: the content on the back end. Unfortunately, 95% of the computing world runs Windoze and their path of least resistance, monopoly pushed apps. These are always gonna be the people that the content providers will cater to. So I don't know what there is to do about that since it won't matter to the providers one bit if the Linux folks can't watch their movies.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Real Helix stuff or even Quicktime pick up some steam. Apple has stated that they think that DRM as it exists for content now is not the way to go. So maybe they can use our support too.
One other note, the only way I see the content providers backing away from WM9 is if it is found as insecure as IE. This could persuade them to go for something else. But then again, once you have a big catalog of digital flix that you have to re-encode for another platform, that decision to just ship, even in the wake of security concerns, seems highly unlikely. Or maybe not..
DRM or not, any application has to talk to the hardware at some level. Unless microsoft ship binary only sound/video drivers that can't be hacked to write video/audio data out through network or unix domain sockets, or /proc devices, then anyone can access protected content digitally, before it gets to the output device.
We already know that the SB Audigy turns off it's digital outputs when playing DRM-enabled content under windows. I doubt very much that open source drivers would bother to implement such a feature.
If Microsoft do ship binary only sound/video drivers, they won't work for long, as the kernel interfaces will probably change, again. Besides, there are just too many cards out there. By careful manipulation of the VM subsystem, all driver I/O can be redirected in interesting ways anyway.
Question is then, does this make the linux kernel a 'circumvention device' in the context of the DMCA? Perhaps this is the goal?
Here is the list of codecs their website has listed:
# The most important video codecs: MPEG1 (VCD) and MPEG2 (SVCD/DVD/DVB) video
# MPEG4, DivX
# Windows Media Video v7 (WMV1), v8 (WMV2) and v9 (WMV3) used in
# RealVideo 1.0, 2.0 (G2), 3.0 (RP8), 4.0 (RP9)
# Sorenson v1/v3 (SVQ1/SVQ3), Cinepak, RPZA and other common QuickTime codecs
# Intel Indeo codecs (3.x,4.1,5.0)
# VIVO v1, v2
# MJPEG variants, HuffYUV, ZLIB/MSZH, ASV2 and other capture/hardware formats
# FLI, RoQ and other old/rare animation formats
# The most important audio codecs: MPEG layer 1, 2 and 3 (MP3) audio
# AC3/A52 (dolby digital) audio (software or SP/DIF)
# WMA (DivX Audio) v1, v2 (native codec)
# WMA 9 (WMAv3), Voxware audio, ACELP.net etc (using x86 DLLs)
# RealAudio: COOK, SIPRO, ATRAC3, DNET (using RP's plugins)
# QuickTime: Qclp, Q-Design QDMC/QDM2, MACE 3/6 (using QT's DLLs)
# Ogg Vorbis audio codec
# VIVO audio (g723, Vivo Siren) using x86 DLL
# alaw/ulaw, (ms)gsm, pcm, *adpcm and other simple old audio formats
Now...why would you want to run WMP9 when it doesn't support any where near that many codecs? Oh...you want more you say? What about these output options:
# General: x11:X11 with SHM extension
# xv:X11 using overlays with the Xvideo extension (hardware YUV & scaling)
# gl:OpenGL renderer
# gl2:Alternative OpenGL renderer (with multiple textures)
# dga:X11 DGA extension (both v1.0 and v2.0)
# fbdev:Output to general framebuffers
# svga:Output to SVGAlib
# sdl:SDL >= v1.1.7 driver (supports software scaling, and versions >=1.1.8 even support Xvideo, thus hardware rendering)
# ggi:similar to SDL
# aalib:Textmode rendering
# vesa:display through the VESA BIOS (also needed for Radeon TV-out)
# directfb:DirectFB support
# Card specific: vidix:VIDeo Interface for *niX
# xvidix:VIDIX in X window
# mga:Matrox G200/G400 hardware YUV overlay via the mga_vid device
# xmga:Matrox G200/G400 overlay (mga_vid) in X11 window (Xv emulation on X 3.3.x !)
# syncfb:Matrox G400 YUV support on framebuffer (not tested, maybe broken)
# 3dfx:Voodoo 3/Banshee hardware YUV support (/dev/3dfx) (not yet tested, maybe broken)
# tdfxfb:Voodoo 3/Banshee hardware YUV support on tdfx framebuffer (works!)
# Special: png:PNG files output (use -z switch to set compression)
# jpeg:JPEG files output
# gif89a:Animated GIF files output
# yuv4mpeg:yuv4mpeg output for mjpegtools
# pgm:PGM files output (for testing purposes)
# md5:MD5sum output (for mpeg conformance tests)
# null:Null output (for speed tests/benchmarking)
I love Mplayer...it loves you...why use something from MS when you don't have to?
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
We just had a vendor in here the other day installing a system a client wants us to use for sharing/previewing TV spots. They are switching their preferred formats to WM9 and MPEG2. MPEG2 is supported because of its use as a broadcast format.
The engineer who did the equipment installation said that WM9 is preferred because of its extremely high quality at low bitrates and the bonus of ubiquitous support in Windows environments.
While they still support (and will support) Quicktime, it is no longer their preferred format.
I thought this was rather surprising, as I was unaware of "pro" tools for WM9 encoding or the availability of the codecs out outside of a Windows environment. But clearly for this application they felt that it was at the very least a superior codec.
You make some great points, but fortunately there are some answers coming to your questions.
:)
.ASF/.WMV/QT streaming support ?
Where are the good GUIs for the video players (yes, GUIs, not skins) ?
Nice that you made the distinction.
For a totally sweet Xine GUI, check out Totem! It's a really slick, super-easy to use GNOME 2 app for video and DVD. Good stuff, very nice attention to usability.
Where is high quality Real Media playback ?
Real Player 8 works fine on my box! Plus, with Helix going all OSS/Hippy on us, we'll have a (mostly) OSS and completely legal Real Player for Linux this year.
Where is high quality Quicktime playback ?
Shoved up Apple's ass... stupid, politicking bastards.... *mutter*
But really... Totem can do Quicktime, if you get the proper codecs installed for Xine.
Where is
Still not the greatest solution, but Crossover Office and Crossover Plugin do a great job of running WMP and QT right on your desktop.
Yeah, these aren't perfect, but there's obviously some serious progress being made in these directions.
The Free desktop that Just Works
Notice how everyone "copied" from Apple but Apple "based their ideas on" Xerox.
Well, the last news I saw said that Linux on the desktop was growing.
It should be for the content providers to reach their audience, not for the consumers to 'fit into' whatever niche the content providers want.
If Linux gets say 5% of the desktop then that's quite a big market, especially if that market is in developing economies.
The content should come to us, we shouldn't come to the content. That's the battle I'm fighting, what's yours.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I wouldn't want to use WMP in Linux. The whole point of using Linux in my opinion is to extricate myself from proprietary systems. Anyone who makes media in only WMP format obviously is not sympathetic to that goal. Perhaps I'm too weak to resist it once in a while, and I'll have to boot into Windows to view a trailer or to play a game, but I want to make that explicit. This is a compromise. I'm willing to do it but I'm trying to fix it.
I noticed the other day that installing WMP 7.1 (which I despise for reasons that are my own), and then uninstalling it leaves behind the codecs to decode the more wacky Windows formats that WMP 6.4 can't do. Hence, once you uninstall it and go back to 6.4, you've got all the codecs you need to view movies made in silly MS formats. YMMV of course.
People shape laws. Not the other way around.