MS Releases New Media Player Firefox Plugin

SilentChris writes "Microsoft today released a new Media Player plugin for Firefox that resolves the problems users of the older version were experiencing. According to the company's Port 25 blog, it's backwards compatible with Windows Media Player 6.4. The plugin is for Windows XP and Vista only, but if you have to watch WMV video at least it's less likely to crash your browser."

Comments

Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[zappepcs]

I simply say NO to .wmv files... meh, no big loss so far as I can tell.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[@madeus]

I've tried saying 'NO, BAD FILE!' and 'BE AN MPEG!' but it doesn't seem to make them play.

Firefox on Windows seems pretty sketchy with it's media support, by default there seem to be some handlers for relevant mime types missing (works fine once they are added manually though).

I was mostly having problems with WMV files (though also with some MPEG's), hopefully this will make things better (my only Windows machine is for gaming, so I tend to be using it to look at game related info when I'm browsing - which is where a lot of the crappy WMV files come from).

The decision to use WMV is undoubtedly a stupid one borne of ignorance though. From experience, I know there are plenty of ways to do streaming video in a non proprietary way that work fine in WMP, QT and other native video players (without incurring the insane streaming server licensing costs charged by Real, Adobe and Microsoft).

Some idiot in our company bought some Windows Media Streaming services, because someone in senior management put their foot down (more fool them for not standing up to management though). People I work with think Adobe's streaming server is 'magically better' for some reason I've not yet fathomed either. I assume it's entirely because they imagine something that costs more must be better and so worth what the vendor is asking.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[Evil Adrian]

"I assume it's entirely because they imagine something that costs more must be better and so worth what the vendor is asking."

Know why proprietary stuff is better sometimes? It's called technical support.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[Anonymous Coward]

From experience, I know there are plenty of ways to do streaming video in a non proprietary way that work fine in WMP, QT and other native video players... Never install Quicktime player on a Windows PC since there's a better alternative.

(without incurring the insane streaming server licensing costs charged by Real, Adobe and Microsoft ...and Apple.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[dr.badass]

Never install Quicktime player on a Windows PC since there's a better alternative.

Downloading random-ass binaries off of somebody's ISP-provided homepage is rarely, if ever, a "better alternative". Also, the parent post mentioned nothing about installing QuickTime on a Windows PC. ...and Apple.

Darwin Streaming Server, which is what most people streaming QuickTime use, is free, open source, and doesn't require a license. It runs on Linux, BSD, Solaris, as well.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[kdemetter]

technical support is not available for much open source stuff too . and if the proprietary stuff would really be better , there would be less need for technical support . It basically how Microsoft works . they release stuff they know is buggy , so there is more need for technical support .And it has worked out very well for them .

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[@madeus]

Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. Darwin Streaming Server was the reason why I didn't mention Apple - there streaming costs (even if you buy a server with Mac OS X server) are tiny fraction of the cost of buying comparable hardware / software from other vendors.

If you want to create hinted files, a mere 30 USD for QuickTime Pro is obviously pocket change. Even setting up hinted videos on a regular HTTP server works just fine for most short videos (things like video game trailers) - many sites would have a much better service if they just did that (rather than having some proprietary service that doesn't work at all for some users, and that often can't hack it even when you are using compatible software).

A lot of people assume that the streaming software tools from Apple can only be viewed in Quick Time, even though it can also stream MPEG videos which work just fine over broadband in native clients (WMP on Windows, QT on Mac, and say VLC on Linux). Apple have shot themselves in the foot in that respect I think, by not making the distinction clear.

I think silly decisions like not providing full screen playback in the client unless your purchase the 'pro' edition have also soured the 'QuickTime' brand. I'm sure that gets them a few extra sales of Pro from some frustrated customers, but at a greater cost overall I would have thought.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[@madeus]

Know why proprietary stuff is better sometimes? It's called technical support. Good technical support doesn't make a worse product better.

It's only better if it is actually better at what it's supposed to do, otherwise it's still worse.

I already have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing, and it's pretty simple to determine the cause of any problem with software I mind find. I know how to debug third party software on Unix and Windows, identifying the fault usually isn't that hard. It's fair to say I'm probably better at diagnosing odd problems (the sort that actually prompt someone competent to contact the vendor) than some random joe technical support.

The technical support center will almost certainly make me want to jump through a large number of time wasting hoops to be sure I'm not a moron. Sometimes that process can take days, or even weeks - even when it's obviously their crummy software.

Past that, the problem is getting bugs fixed once you've found them and technical support can't help you with that (typically vendors don't really care about bugs unless they are easy to fix or effecting a large number of customers - otherwise it goes on to the bottom of the 'to do' list).

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[stunt_penguin]

The 'Quicktime alternative' does almost none of the really nifty functions that make Quicktime such a great piece of software- it doesn't do video or audio editing, image conversion or video re-encoding. It just plays Quicktime files.

Seems like a waste of time to me.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got to say that the EULAs in today's software are getting extreme.
From the plugin:

You may not:

• work around any technical limitations in the software;

Isn't this what 90% of IT is about?

I understand the boilerplate "you may not reverse engineer/disassemble...blah blah blah" but "work around...limitations" seems a bit over the top.

Why do the capchas always seem pertinent? this post was "kludge"...

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading random-ass binaries off of somebody's ISP-provided homepage is rarely, if ever, a "better alternative". Quicktime Alternative, in this case, is a much better (and well-known on Slashdot) alternative than that crapware Quicktime Player for Windows (QT Player is not nearly as bad on OS X). QT Player for Windows is bloated, slow, and ugly nagware that tries start background programs every time you boot your PC and hijack file/program preferences.

Since you've never heard of Final Builds (which gives 11 mirrors for Quicktime Alternative), here's some more links for Quicktime Alternative:

• VersionTracker
• CNET Download.com
• PC World
• codecs.com
• VideoHelp.com
• afterdawn.com

Also, the parent post mentioned nothing about installing QuickTime on a Windows PC. The parent post was bitching about problems on his/her Windows PC. This is what the parent said in the original post (emphasis mine):

Firefox on Windows seems pretty sketchy with it's media support, by default there seem to be some handlers for relevant mime types missing (works fine once they are added manually though).

I was mostly having problems with WMV files (though also with some MPEG's), hopefully this will make things better (my only Windows machine is for gaming, so I tend to be using it to look at game related info when I'm browsing - which is where a lot of the crappy WMV files come from).

The decision to use WMV is undoubtedly a stupid one borne of ignorance though. From experience, I know there are plenty of ways to do streaming video in a non proprietary way that work fine in WMP, QT and other native video players

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin Streaming Server was the reason why I didn't mention Apple Quicktime Streaming Server was the reason I mentioned Apple. If Darwin Streaming Server was the reason you didn't mention Apple, then why did you mention Real? The (Helix DNA Server) is an open source server for Real media files.

I think I know the reason why. You must really like Apple.

there streaming costs (even if you buy a server with Mac OS X server) are tiny fraction of the cost of buying comparable hardware / software from other vendors. Windows Media streaming costs (if you buy a server with Windows Server) are less than the cost of buying a "server with Mac OS X server." In fact, there are many more existing Windows servers out there than OS X servers, so Windows Media streaming cost are less for a heck of a lot more people if they want support from MS or Apple.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[Oktober Sunset]

I think you are confusing quicktime and quicktime pro.

Normal quicktime does none of those things either, it just plays quicktime files while simultaneously loading the most persistent and annoying background services know to man (or maybe a close second to Real Player). Quicktime alternative is just so you can watch those annoying quicktime videos that don't work in your usual media player of choice, without having quicktime infesting your startup list with pointless processes every time you look at a video. Quicktime alternative isn't better than quicktime, it's just less annoying.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[Anonymous Coward]

You call quicktime "ugly nagware that tries start background programs" but then mention afterdawn as a place to download an alternative from? Yes, I'd rather have tons of spyware installed rather than QT.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[PopeRatzo]

This will help me quite a bit. I create courses in Blackboard and using the wmv files, I can embed nice little videos without a streaming server. It's really easy, but it never worked properly in Firefox. It always autostarted the video no matter how I changed the code.

Now it works. THIS is how Microsoft should be spending its time. Giving me stuff I can use, you know?

While you're at it, MS, how about giving me a really clean version of Windows, sort of an updated XP without all the bullshit in Vista. And DX10. See, I'd actually pay for that.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[Anonymous Coward]

The Quicktime Alternative (free codec with optional free SourceForge-hosted Media Player Classic player) does almost none of the really nifty functions that make Quicktime PRO ($30) such a great piece of non-free software- it doesn't do video or audio editing, image conversion or video re-encoding for $30. There. I corrected your comment for you.

A media format that uses non-free tools to edit, convert, or re-encode is a crap format (there are free tools for h.264). Yes, Microsoft does provide free editing/encoding tools for Windows Media. Windows Media is a crap format for other reasons (e.g. insufficient cross-platform support).

Seems like a waste of time to me. Quicktime Pro is a waste of money. Other formats can be edited, converted, an re-encoded for free. The free Quicktime Player is a waste of time (nagware for the Pro version) and resources (background processes even when you aren't running the "player"). Quicktime Player is a waste since the Quicktime Alternative codec allows the use of better players for QT playback like Media Player Classic and Windows Media Player 11 (or QT embedded in web pages).

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[blacklint]

(without incurring the insane streaming server licensing costs charged by Real, Adobe and Microsoft ...and Apple. You would be right that Quicktime Streaming Server comes with Mac OS X Server, which does cost money (although not above and beyond the cost of the hardware or OS). It is supported and well integrated into the OS.

However, Apple also releases the Darwin Streaming Server for "alternative platforms such as Windows, Linux, and Solaris, or those developers who need to extend and/or modify the existing streaming server code to fit their needs". It is only missing some of the advanced administration tools, and is even released under a license recognized as free by the FSF.

Either bundled with the server OS or free is hardly an "insane cost", is it?

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[renegadesx]

I use the Xine plugin (with w32codecs), it works, doesn't crash on me.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[Anonymous Coward]

mention afterdawn as a place to download an alternative from? Yes, I'd rather have tons of spyware installed rather than QT. Who are you, the MPAA? I think you're confusing this Finnish digital video site with some other site.

Also, stop running Windows in Administrator mode all the time. Stop running Internet Explorer 6. Use decent apps that don't require Administrator access or learn to use the "Run as..." option.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[@madeus]

The (Helix DNA Server) is an open source server for Real media files. It only streams video in a proprietary format (requiring use of their player) and it can't convert between formats on the fly. It's great if you have lots of data around in .rv format (like that's useful). It's just a way to try and get people to buy the overpriced commercial Helix Server - which is comparable with other vendor solutions.

I've had plenty of problems getting Helix software too, just getting source and/or binaries for evaluation - several of the download links for software on the site do not work, and have not worked for over a year. If you ask them about it, you get punted to Real.com and 'would you like to get a commercial trial version of our Helix software?' After a couple of months of this and the web site being largely broken for weeks (due to some unending 'migration'), I'd had enough.

Windows Media streaming costs (if you buy a server with Windows Server) are less than the cost of buying a "server with Mac OS X server." In fact, there are many more existing Windows servers out there than OS X servers, so Windows Media streaming cost are less for a heck of a lot more people if they want support from MS or Apple. Companies doesn't just run solutions on whatever old Windows box they have lying around - unless you work for a very small privately owned company things are ordered on a per-project basis. As explained in another post, technical support with a product like this is meaningless. Your 'bedroom sysadmin' speculation is amusing though (particularly the part where you imagine the sort of companies (telco's/broadcaster's) who run commercial streaming services typically run their systems on Windows of all things, and that they'd have servers 'lying around' they'd just use).

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[@madeus]

I think everyone agrees that the free QuickTime player on Windows is just annoying. It's wrong to suggest that 'QuickTime Pro' is a waste of money though, it's very cheap and works well at converting a range of media formats and it doesn't just work with QT video as you imply. I never save anything as a QT .mov (yuck).

It's only 30 USD and the wide range of formats and options it supports (including thing like creating hinted videos for streaming) combined with it's no-brainier ease of use, the ability to chop and splice things together simply, and it's scriptability (which could do with being extended) make it worth while for anyone who has to work with videos intended for digital distribution from multiple sources. Media/Design agencies in particular, but it's also handy as a regular user if you want to convert video you have to work on other devices you have.

There are indeed free tools that offer the same features as Pro, but I've yet to see any BETTER free tools, from a holistic point of view. It's more like there are a bunch of other free tools that when used together give similar functionality, but in almost all instances require more faffing about than the saving of 30 USD really justifies.

Wow.

[P2PDaemon]

Wow. I'm actually pleasantly surprised. Did anyone see this coming?

Re:Wow.

[TopSpin]

Did anyone see this coming? Yes. Two reasons: a.) flash is dominating online video because it's lightweight and cross platform and b.) Firefox can no longer be ignored.

I know a is true because (probably) like you, I'm watching a lot of online video, and I'm much more likely to do so if it's flash. I know b is true because clients of the company I'm contracting for have just (yesterday) decided to shift priorities and get a port of an existing ActiveX control running in Firefox, rather than develop the next release of the IE software.

Microsoft doesn't want WMV to become irrelevant simply because it doesn't work without IE. It doesn't address the cross platform issue but at least Firefox+Windows users won't be hindered.

We just saw a story here about Firefox holding 25% of the European market. You can't walk away from that when Adobe is lunching on your market share. No way.

Re:Wow.

[cecil_turtle]

Good point. I used to hate flash and flash based sites, but for online video it's now my preferred format, especially now that Flash player 9 is out for Linux. Too bad the wmv plugin still only works on Windows. I think VLC has a Firefox plugin that works on Linux and now the new VLC supports WMV files better too, so videolan is doing MS's work for them on Linux.

Who needs Media Player?

[Seumas]

Thanks Microsoft, but I've already got VLC.

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[JohnnyBGod]

This is good news for Windows users, but actually, in Ubuntu, VLC's plugin is useless, for some reason I'm not really aware of. MPlayer's works... when it wants to.

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[JohnnyBGod]

Crap, I forgot to ask what I meant to: can anyone give me some suggestions for alternatives, or does anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong?

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kubuntu ships with KMPlayer plugin for Konqueror. So far it has worked very well for me, I use Konqueror whenever i have to view embedded videos. Just make sure all the necessary codec packages are installed.

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take Flip4Mac in the Mac environment.

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. format
2. install XP or Vista
3. enjoy a seamless user experience
4. remember to pretend to still be a Linux/Firecox user when posting on /.

/Linux user
//loves firefox

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[geekoid]

Did you use the method listed here to install:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ubuntu.html

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[JohnnyBGod]

Just did it. I was missing one of those packages. Video works ok, but I don't get any sound, though... Well, it's better than it was,at least.

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[JohnnyBGod]

Oh, and thanks for your help :). Gotta start previewing more :X.

mplayerplug-in

[Anonymous Coward]

eh.. so what's wrnog with mplayerplug-in?

Re:mplayerplug-in

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't support all types of streams.

Re:mplayerplug-in

[fnj]

eh.. so what's wrnog with mplayerplug-in?

You mean, besides the fact that it constantly crashes Firefox, and doesn't support all WMV formats?

Re:mplayerplug-in

[PWill]

It does for me. Install more codecs.
I have yet to encounter a video that mplayer can't handle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mplayer#Supported_med ia_formats

Re:mplayerplug-in

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than bashing it, submit a bug report... that would be more helpful

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

With most online videos using flash based video players, who really cares that they even released this plug-in?

Re:Who cares?

[MankyD]

With most online videos using flash based video players, who really cares that they even released this plug-in?

I would bet this is partly in response to that shift. For a little while at least, WMP was doing quite well on the web - it certainly beat out Real Player. Now that Flash has mature video capabilities and works/worked better in Firefox (and will in other browsers), many people have moved away from WMP.

Re:Who cares?

[VEGETA_GT]

Not me, I have moved to using winamp for a media player. I found with Microsoft's newest media player, 1/2 my files including videos I made myself all of a sudden will not play as they violate some copyright or some bs like that. Great they fixed the Mozilla link, joy I still an't using software that will not play my own videos I made myself.

Re:Who cares?

[MankyD]

I suppose I should specify that I was referring content providers relying on embedded WMP based content - can't use Winamp for that. I never used WMP for playing my media files either. Good call on Winamp.

Re:Who cares?

[just_another_sean]

Even though the post kept reading 'WMP' I'm pretty sure the GP is referring to the format chosen by content distributors, not the people listening to the content. In other words "WMV" files were being used by providers a lot until recently, now Flash seems to be the dominant format for distributing/hosting online video.

Re:Who cares?

[drinkypoo]

Winamp uses DirectShow (or was that DirectPlay? I always forget what's what) to display media on Windows. So basically you're using the same mechanism as WiMP with a different GUI. It's a better GUI in most ways, although I've found it's even slower to start up than WiMP 7 and below. I haven't really used any newer WiMP enough to say anything about them though.

Re:Who cares?

[VEGETA_GT]

Slower I will agree there, but unlike the DRM laden winamp that denies me my own content, Winamp just works. Winamp is like that old truck out back, it an't the best looking on the block, its not the fastest of toughest, but guess what, its still gets the job done while the newer toys are in the shop.

Re:Who cares?

[drinkypoo]

I used to be a winamp aficionado myself, and tend to still use it to play mp3 on windows, but since I moved over to Linuxland I've settled on Rhythmbox for my music player (like iTunes without the store or the suck) and VLC for video. At least the latter of these work on Windows but on the rare occasion that I am on Windows, I prefer to use WiMP, because VLC for Win32 is horribly unstable in a way that VLC for Linux is not.

That's what I said...

[Ayanami Rei]

Well that's interesting. It's useful if you want to be able to play DRM'd WMV10 video, which VLC can't play for obvious reasons.

Although I'd probably stick to the 3rd party WMV implementations for most of the other stuff if only because it'll all sit in one piece of media software.

Meh

[Jekler]

It smacks of desperation that Microsoft tries so hard to exclude Linux from any software they release. If they don't loosen up that strangle-hold, their company is going to choke to death.

It's sad that a company with so much money and talent is completely unwilling to adapt to the times. They're clinging to an age of computing that has long since passed. 10 years ago, web tools, platform interoperability and independence, and transparent company operations could have been classified as a trend, but those practices are now solidified.

It would just be nice if Microsoft made even a single genuine move towards cooperation instead of their current modus operandi of "exclusion at all cost".

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me, are they actively supporting Mono now or are they just sitting crossing their fingers and hopping java goes away?

Re:Meh

[mandelbr0t]

Microsoft desperate? I wish.

But they have decided that there are enough corporate Firefox deployments that they can't afford to lose those potential WMV viewers. Any other pressure just slides right past Microsoft; they don't pay, so they don't matter.

Re:Meh

[TheCRAIGGERS]

So.... you're expecting Microsoft to spend money to help out the competition?

Yes, usually format owners want their format to be usable on as many platforms as possible. However, in this case, they already have dominance. I don't see how supporting Linux is going to help them at all, and they probably see it the same way.

The flip side is there probably aren't too many Linux users out there that would use it anyway, especially when mplayer works just fine usually. I know I wouldn't use it.

Re:Meh

[hpavc]

Its something they can point to in court that will save them a lot more than it cost to develop it.

Wonder who will get blamed for the arbitrary code executions in the thing, Firefox or Microsoft. Every vulnerability/bug media player has will likely point to Firefox, instantly overnight Firefox's vulnerability/bug list will jump in size.

Re:Meh

[Tom]

It's sad that a company with so much money and talent is completely unwilling to adapt to the times. Actually, for this company it's natural. They only have their money because of their monopoly, and they only have the talent because of the money. If they lose their dominance, they'll be going down fast. There's enough material out there that elaborates how the MS stock is pumped up on expectations and how badly it could burst if they ever fail those by a wide margin. Lots of MS is based on their stock price, up to salaries. There really is no option for failure at MS, because the way Gates has maneuvered the company, its too options are staying on top or falling very deep. Catastrophe Theory has interesting things to say about breaks in continuity that we might yet enjoy to see happen to MS. It does meet most of the conditions.

Re:Meh

[Kelson]

Not unlike Quicktime and iTunes. Apple ported Quicktime to Windows to ensure dominance over video players. It didn't work, but they did the same with iTunes when it became clear that there was a market for iPods among Windows users. However, you'll note that after a decade, we still have no official Quicktime for Linux. And Apple shows no signs of interest in porting iTunes to Linux either.

(Personally, I can take or leave iTunes itself, but it would be nice to have a Linux client which could access iTunes collections over the network. Even if it can only access non-DRMed files, most of what we have is just ripped from our CD collection. I really don't feel like ripping them all again, or exporting the entire collection and trying to keep the copy in sync.)

Re:Meh

[Wesley Felter]

Exclusion at all costs?

Here's the legal Windows Media codec bundle for Linux & Solaris.

Re:Meh

[josephdrivein]

There are plenty of players that support the DAAP protocol. At least the pre-iTunes-v7.x version of the protocol.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

what does this have to do with linux or is this just another faggot attempt to scream "open source" from the rooftops while the people below scream "jump!"?

Re:Meh

[twenex27]

It smacks of desperation that Microsoft tries so hard to exclude Linux from any software they release. If they don't loosen up that strangle-hold, their company is going to choke to death.

+5 Insightful. (I have no mod points to give you, sorry). This seems to be the way most tech companies do business. It kills them in the end (Commodore, Atari), except the lucky ones, which either get too big (MS, Sony), or get bought out (DEC). The oddest thing is they never, ever learn: MS has lived through the heydays of Commodore's, Atari's, and DEC's proprietary technology and seen them all fail (not to mention UNIX, or Sony's BetaMAX and MiniDisc), and even built a business out of selling to IBM PC clone makers - and yet, in the face of Linux, it continues to believe both that it has a God-given right to proprietary technology and that the former is a good idea.

Imagine if we all had to pay Byblos, Inc. for the right to use paper. Geez.

It almost makes you want to quote a line from "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (guess which one). Maybe the name was given to the wrong OS project.

Re:Meh

[Short Circuit]

I don't see how supporting Linux is going to help them at all, and they probably see it the same way. That's because, being both an OS vendor and media format vendor, they're leveraging one product to push another. As a convicted monopolist in the OS area, that's illegal. But I'd like to see someone call them on that.

The real irony is that Firefox is derived from Mozilla, which is derived from the Netscape codebase they fought so hard to shove down. By making this plugin available for Firefox on Windows, they're limiting OS competition at the expense of increasing browser competition. That suggests they don't really care about their browser marketshare anymore.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

So.... you're expecting Microsoft to spend money to help out the competition?

So we shouldn't be releasing all of that OSS on Windows? It's helping out Microsoft? Well, yes, it does make Windows more usable, but it also entices users onto a fully OSS platform by showing them how the applications work. Oh wait, you're saying Microsoft has nothing to give users once they're enticed...

See, Microsoft SHOULD be making these things available on other platforms simply to interoperate and make their platform more attractive by integrating parts of it into other platforms that attract devs/users onto Windows, making Windows more ubiquitous and MS products a pleasure to use even on other platforms, but well, we see why there's no point to that, but it's not the reason you put forward to begin with.

The way I see it, MS is only going to lose market share if it doesn't actually give the user/dev some pleasure or benefit in using the MS platform. How long can you whip people until they just lose hope?

Re:Meh

[TheCRAIGGERS]

You're implying that people that are currently using Linux / OSX might switch to Microsoft because of how well Media Player works? I think this is incorrect. Most people that run Linux / OSX are doing it for a reason. They know what Windows is, and they either don't like it or need to use something else for compatibility reasons. Either way, trying to entice them off their platform probably isn't going to work. The people that don't fit in this category are probably people that have no idea what OS they are even running, like my parents.

The way I see it, MS is only going to lose market share if it doesn't actually give the user/dev some pleasure or benefit in using the MS platform. How long can you whip people until they just lose hope? I don't know, how long have they been around again? ;-) Seriously, I wish that quality of product was the only thing considered when choosing, but I'm afraid that just isn't so. The fact that 80% of the software (I just pulled the number out of my ass, but it sounds right) out there runs on Windows only is a big reason I think.

wmv files???

[simp]

/me looks around surprised. Everything is in flash players these days, isn't it? And if I want good quality video I download it from the newsgroups.

Damn, just broke the first rule of newsgroups.

Re:wmv files???

[drinkypoo]

Damn, just broke the first rule of newsgroups.

I don't think you have to worry too much. Almost nobody gets a decent newsfeed for free and the whole system is too problem-ridden for most people to cope with.

The majority of effort is expended picking the low-hanging fruit.

Also USENET has too many obvious non-infringing uses to destroy completely, and that would make the whole thing more difficult, so I'd guess they're saving it for last.

Re:wmv files???

[blowdart]

No he doesn't; he didn't break the first rule at all

Damn, just broke the first rule of newsgroups.

I don't think you have to worry too much.

Re:wmv files???

[blackmonday]

You know who's guilty of using crappy MS streaming media? None other than NPR.org. You have 2 choices - Windows Media or Real. How's that for crappy choices.

Re:wmv files???

[Abalamahalamatandra]

Just do what I do - decode the Javascript to find the actual location of the Real streams (I like the quality better than the WMV streams), then use command-line mplayer to stream it out and reencode it to MP3.

Now if Apple would just release tools or docs for creating enhanced podcast files for something other than a crappy command-line tool for OSX, I could make a rocking NPR podcast with skippable segments, but noooo...

Re:wmv files???

[Zantetsuken]

first off, maybe I'm not hardcore enough, but I'd consider that to be rather a bitch of a process to go through if you've got loads of that format to go through, and second off, I'm betting with good probability that redistributing somebody's media files without their consent (hard to get consent if you plan to do it in a format they'll never agree to - not to mention they wouldn't get paid for ads) is justifiably illegal in court...

Re:wmv files???

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, just broke the first rule of newsgroups.

The second rule too.

Re:wmv files???

[fm6]

One thinks of NPR as a sort of liberal-hippie haven (no flames, please, I've been listening to them every day for longer than many Slashdotters have been alive; I'm a serious radio new junkie), but that's just the people on the air. Their management has pretty much the same culture as the rest of the media industry. Which means they're paranoid about having their content "stolen". So like the rest of the media, they use closed streaming formats.

They're shooting themselves in the foot this way, at least with me. These days I listen to live radio less and less and to stuff I can download to my MP3 player more and more. There are NPR shows I don't listen to as much as I'd like to, because it's too much hassle to convert the streams to MP3. Much easier to download Australian and Canadian (and some independently-produced NPR) shows that are available on MP3.

(Yes, there are some NPR MP3 podcasts, but not a lot, and they don't archive them. And yes, ripping the stream is against the npr.org terms of use; I pay my member fees and don't pass on the MP3s, so fuck that.)

I'm sure I'm not alone — there are folks out there who only know NPR from their podcasts, and have never heard them from the radio! They need to remember how dependent they are on voluntary donations. If they put a tip-jar link next to each MP3 download link, I suspect they'd have more revenue than they get from the stations.

Re:wmv files???

[fm6]

I seem to be missing something here. If your preferences are set to "Real Player," the JavaScript just gives you a Real Player .rpm file (not to be confused with a Redhat Package Manager .rpm file) which contains nothing but a link to a server-side script such as this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/dmg_em.php?id=13& type=2&date=17-Apr-2007&au=1&pid=46461311&random=2 665330363&guid=0002F9E2C31E0623396AF95A61626364&up f=Win32&v1st=CC0B245D6500441D&mtype=RM&topicName=& subtopicName=&prgCode=FA&hubId=&thingId=

Feed that URL to mplayer and it chokes.

It would be very nice if I could use the Windows version of mplayer instead of Real's semi-spyware. So please educate me!

Re:wmv files???

[Abalamahalamatandra]

Who said redistributing? It's for my personal use and not redistributed in any way. And I pay my local affiliate to offset the use, despite the fact that they suck and only air NPR on a crappy AM station that I can't even get half the places I want to listen to it. I'm looking at you, Colorado Public Radio.

I didn't mean "podcast" in the sense of a publicly-posted one, I meant for me, hosted on my own Linux box and available in my house via Apache. My script grabs the playlist for the day's show, streams the Real Media files and converts them to MP3 on-the-fly, then puts them on my internal web server for download. My podcast client points there, and I can also access it remotely via an SSH tunnel when I want.

As for it being "a bitch of a process", the only bitch was writing the script, and it was a good learning exercise.

Unfortunately, I don't often do it as NPR doesn't post the files until after I leave for work. I'd gladly pay to get hold of a podcast of Morning Edition as it's being aired on the east coast, but they won't do it.

Sometimes I also use a script that records WNYC's real-time stream and makes that into a podcast, but that's annoying because I often want to skip stories, like the constantly-annoying "human interest" stories they air at about ten minutes before the hour.

Re:wmv files???

[Abalamahalamatandra]

Well, not to give too much up, and I won't post my script as that would be uncool to NPR, but...

I save off:

http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=M E&showDate=17-Apr-2007&segNum=&mediaPref=RM&getUnd erwriting=0

as a file with a .smil extension, which gives me a nice file to parse with segment titles, audio src tags and such.

The showcode you can see as the first JavaScript parameter on the webpage link to the audio, and if you leave the segnum parameter blank, you get all of it for that day's show.

Then I just iterate over those (my script starts parallel processes to do more than one at once for speed, NPR hosts on Speedera edge caching servers) and run:

mplayer -nocache -vc dummy -vo null -ao pcm:waveheader:file=out.wav (audio src url)

Then I do the same multiple-process thing with lame to convert the wav files to mp3.

This is script-based stuff for a Linux box, not for real-time browsing. But I would imagine that a GreaseMonkey script could easily piece together a URL like that from the JavaScript code linked to each story.

Re:wmv files???

[foniksonik]

Would this help?

Feeder

Feeder is a fully featured application for creating, editing and publishing RSS and iTunes podcast feeds. Here are just some of its many features:
Create, download and import RSS 2.0 and iTunes podcast feeds
Full support for the iTunes RSS podcasting extensions
Drag and drop enclosure files to create new items
Automatically tag audio and video files with artwork, artist, etc in all popular podcast formats including MP3s, M4As, M4Vs (iPod video) and QuickTime movies
Quick and easy feed editing with auto-complete, templates, HTML tags and previews
Customizable interface easily adapts to the task at hand
Validates feeds to the RSS and iTunes specifications
Upload artwork and enclosure files when publishing
Publish with FTP, SFTP, .Mac or to folders on disk
Ping online services after publishing to notify them of changes

If not I'm sure that someone somewhere has wrapped up that CLI tool in a nifty Cocoa GUI app..

Re:wmv files???

[foniksonik]

Replying to myself cause I just found the CLI GUI wrapper for you:

ChapterToolMe

ChapterToolMe is a nice interface for the Apple ChapterTool utility to make simply chaptered AAC file for your podcast. You can add pictures and link to your chapter in one click.

Re:wmv files???

[Abalamahalamatandra]

Thanks for the links! Both are very cool, unfortunately I'm looking for stuff that I can do from a Linux script - ideally a Perl module.

One thing I've started looking at is that there's a new ID3v2 frame type that does pretty much the same thing as the Apple enhanced podcast stuff - allows content and chapter marks to be put into MP3 files. It's still kind of in its infancy, but it's getting there. Pocket Player, which I use on my Windows Mobile phone with a Bluetooth stereo headset, has preliminary support for it.

I'd like to see the ID3v2 stuff get so widely supported that Apple has to support it on the Ipod and give up their proprietary stuff, but that'll take awhile, I'm sure.

Re:And

[Goaway]

Remember, if you can't find anything real to criticize Microsoft for, just make something up!

WMP for Linux?

[acroyear]

Yeah, but will they ever release the Windows Media Player for Linux they promised a great many years ago?

Re:WMP for Linux?

[diegocgteleline.es]

I perosnally don't want Microsoft to port WMP to Linux. I want open, unpatented WMP specs and a way to bypass the stupid DRM.

Re:WMP for Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they port WMV to Linux, well, we bide our time. We both know they cannot produce working DRM running on top of an open kernel that won't allow them direct access to the hardware.

Re:WMP for Linux?

[alissy]

No.

I for one welcome our new plug-in overlords

[WillAffleckUW]

oh, wait, it's our old overlords.

Now I'm really confused.

Guess I'll just go watch those music videos I've been wanting to watch in Firefox ever since I reported some of the earliest bugs for playing media years ago ... YEAH! BABY GOT VID!

Re:I for one welcome our new plug-in overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

http://ycoolthing.com/archives/230/and-id-just-got ten-used-to-video-20

Got your back. Can't say too much, except that MS as an organization is a big-ol punk while the individuals appear to be genuinely trying to do a good job. Check out the White+Nerdy video by weird al. Werd.

Re:I for one welcome our new plug-in overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

Meet the new overlords, same as the old overlords...

Re:And

[mandelbr0t]

No need to make anything up. The litany of Bill Gates' sins could take up an entire year if read out loud. Then we move on to Ballmer...

When you're on top of the world, people always try to pull you down. In most cases, the people are justified.

They didnt try

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

They made WMV work on windows. Thats a shocker. Its actually a difficult process to port an application from one platform to another. Sure, they might have tried very hard to prevent it from working on linux, but they really didn't have to.

Sort of like, how I don't have to issue a restraining order on Celine Dion. Sure, if she showed up at my house at 2:00 in the morning on an ongoing basis, I'd do what ever it took to keep her away. But, thankfully she has yet to show up despite the lack of any legal, or physical barriers I've created to prevent it from occurring.

In vino veritas. [In wine there is truth.]--Pliny

[DaveRexel]

Man did those ancient _G[R]eeks really predict the future, IN WINE VERITAS, running M$.crap in whatever will degrade your experience to future servitude to the abhorrent Dominatrix YMMV IMHO...

Fly on the Wall

[Tom]

Damn, that would've been an interesting fight to watch - the we-must-keep-our-media-format-dominance department vs. the we-must-keep-our-browser-dominance department. :-)

Re:Fly on the Wall

[codemachine]

The we-must-keep-our-operating-system-dominance department was likely behind this more than anyone. This is the department that ultimately runs Microsoft.

And now they can claim that Windows Media is cross platform - works great in both IE on Windows and Firefox on Windows.

Those are the only platforms that really matter, right?

Re:Fly on the Wall

[Tom]

The we-must-keep-our-operating-system-dominance department probably killed IE on Mac and Solaris, and for good reason. I doubt that they'll allow things to work the other way around (other browsers on windos). Because once people are used to Firefox, the switch to OSX or Linux isn't as painful anymore.

I'm pretty sure this was a question of supporting .wmv even if it comes at the expense of IE (which is still strong, but has had a solid downwards trend for a long time). Plus it's easier to win a format war behind the scenes than a browser war with all spotlights on.

Re:Fly on the Wall

[codemachine]

I dunno, I see it more as a move to make FireFox more useful on Windows than it is on Linux, and to make it harder to move from Windows to Linux. Kind of like Visual J++ gave Java features in Windows that didn't exist on other platforms, until Sun stopped that.

Though the point about .wmv being more important than IE in the MS grand scheme is probably fair. They want .wmv and .wma to be able to compete with Adobe Flash and Apple's formats in the media space.

And of course this is a rather minor move anyhow, considering how many other options there are for playing .wmv, both inside and outside of the browser. Only people with DRM infested files are locked into the MS platform.

Zwha?

[eudaemon]

Nothing against Microsoft, per se, but half the security of my browsing experience
is that my Firefox has no Flash, MS, Acrobat, or Active-X plugins. If I really
want to see content because someone has a flash-only site or WMV content, it gets
downloaded and/or viewed on a UNIX machine. From a user account. On a machine I can afford
to reformat at any time.

WMV plugin? Why would I load that?

Re:Zwha?

[NDPTAL85]

Thats a bit paranoid don't you think?

Re:Zwha?

[dosius]

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." (r: "Spoken like a true paranoid.")

-uso.

Re:Zwha?

[eudaemon]

My UNIX machine is OpenBSD. Does that tell you anything?

Don't waste your time on the plugin like I did

[KnightMB]

I downloaded the plugin just to give it a try. Never had any problems with embedded video except at cnn.com I thought maybe the plugin would fix that problem. After installing and giving firefox a restart, it still won't work with the cnn.com and nothing else appears to be different. Not sure what the point of the plugin was, but don't waste your time with it like I did. It solved nothing from what it appears to me. Using Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP Pro SP2

Re:Don't waste your time on the plugin like I did

[michrech]

I downloaded the plugin just to give it a try. Never had any problems with embedded video except at cnn.com I thought maybe the plugin would fix that problem. After installing and giving firefox a restart, it still won't work with the cnn.com and nothing else appears to be different. Not sure what the point of the plugin was, but don't waste your time with it like I did. It solved nothing from what it appears to me. Using Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP Pro SP2

Worked perfectly for me in Vista Enterprise. I didn't even have to restart Firefox (2.0.0.3). I'll be testing an XP machine I just put together shortly.

For those wishing not to use this update, for whatever your reasons, you can take three .dll files from an XP/WMP10 install and have working embedded video in Firefox under Vista.

Those three files are : npdsplay.dll, npdrmv2.dll, and npwmsdrm.dll

The last two are most likely optional, but I copied them anyway. The only drawback (if you can really call it that) is that the lower part of the embedded window are cut off by a few pixels, but it works perfectly fine.

Luckily for me, I'm surrounded by roughly 1800-ish XP machines, so I had no problems finding the files. I'm sure you all have someone you know with an XP machine that you could grab a copy of these files from.

This information is also available at various web pages if you look in Google.

Re:Don't waste your time on the plugin like I did

[flatedecode]

I cleared my cookies and it worked for me ...

Re:Don't waste your time on the plugin like I did

[Zarel]

For those wishing not to use this update, for whatever your reasons, you can take three .dll files from an XP/WMP10 install and have working embedded video in Firefox under Vista.

Those three files are : npdsplay.dll, npdrmv2.dll, and npwmsdrm.dll

The last two are most likely optional, but I copied them anyway. The only drawback (if you can really call it that) is that the lower part of the embedded window are cut off by a few pixels, but it works perfectly fine. It depends on the video. On some videos, a large part of the actual video is cut off (compare screenshots of WMP10 dll hack with MS plugin taken from this post), and in others, the embedded video is much smaller than it should be with no way to resize it (other than full-screen).

Re:Don't waste your time on the plugin like I did

[Sam Ramji]

The reason the new plugin is better than just installing the three older files (which are the NPAPI compatibility libraries shipped with WMP 6.4 and previous) is that it expands the programmatic access to the WMP component - it's now fully scriptable from Firefox, with forward/back/pause features etc.

So use whichever one you like, but I am personally a Firefox user and prefer the experience with the new WMP 11 plugin. YMMV.

Also, in case you were wondering why it's a .exe instead of a .xpi, after talking with the guys at Mozilla we realized that the user experience for installing a .exe was better and additionally fit the Firefox model better. It's a plugin, not an extension; if you review the Adobe plugins they are also delivered as .exes.

Sam Ramji
Director, Open Source Software Lab
Microsoft Corporation

Re:Don't waste your time on the plugin like I did

[Anonymous Coward]

> Luckily for me, I'm surrounded by roughly 1800-ish XP machines

wow, you must be running one helluva folding@home farm :)

But does it run ON Linux?

[sygin]

Yes even the great MS overlords now realise that Firefox has gained enough traction to force their hand. They want WMV to reign supreme and this means Firefox support.

What would really surprise me is if it supported the Linux version of Firefox.

Re:But does it run ON Linux?

[Rukie]

Firefox is gaining a strong hand, but I do NOT see M$ releasing ANY linux products. If they released a Linux product, I would probably have a heart attack. At that point, I'd have to move to another distribution unknown to the masses.

Re:But does it run ON Linux?

[Faylone]

Oh come on, at least read the summary...

The plugin is for Windows XP and Vista only, but if you have to watch WMV video at least it's less likely to crash your browser."

Re:But does it run ON Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would really surprise me is if it supported the Linux version of Firefox

That's only PART of my gripe.

I have my machine dual-boot between Mandriva and XP. XP's actually only still on there because I have two drives. Drive 0 (C: and HDa) is a 20 gig drive that holds Linux and Windows (and Windows programs), and drive 1 (D: and HDb) is an 80 gig drive that holds data. Large data; music, movies, backups of old installs, etc.

When it was Windows only, Windows fuX0red its D: drive somehow, Linux sees mnt/windows1's subdirectories as files.

After the latest Windows melt down from some damned virus I physically unplugged drive 1 just in case I fucked up (it's my data drive and I could see myself screaming "AAAAAGH! I reformated the wrong drive!), reformatted drive 0 in two partitions, reinstalled Windows in one and Linux in the other.

With the modem unplugged. Then I booted into Windows and disabled networking. No more viruses, no more spyware, no more Windows firewalls, no more Windows antivirus. Now, I'm not going to kid myself into thinking it's crackroof; hell, half of slashdot's regulars could probably root me if they really wanted to. But there are no Linux viruses and no Linux spyware, I'm relatively safe.

So the machine defaults to Windows for its music (and sometimes moviies, another reason to still have Windows, since my ATI video card with its S-Video out won't play on the big 42 inch TV in Linux, damned ATI) and when I want on the internet, I boot into Linux.

Well, the cat unplugged the compter as it was booting. Damned cat! Anyway, somehow both Windows and Linux got corrupted. I was able to get Linux fixed but I couldn't even get Windows to boot into DOS safe mode.

So after reinstalling Windows AGAIN (with its damned product key I have to type in, and I'll have to call Redmond to get it authenticated AGAIN damn their evil souls) I have to install all its apps.

Winamp wants you to be on the internet to install it. God damn it, I set Windows up so it CAN'T get on the internet! And my MP3s are completely unreachable from XMMS!

I've found some Winamp installers, but not on any site I know. Can't trust an unknown source for an executable, now can I?

As Zaphod said to Eddie, "Give me a pencil, I'll work it out on paper!"

-mcgrew

Re:But does it run ON Linux?

[Myen]

Wine + ies4linux + Firefox/win32 + WMP9 = yes it runs. Not exactly performant, of course...

Oh, and the DRM stuff won't install in WMP9 ;)

Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[VE3OGG]

Use VLC. Short of protected media (and really, I don't know too many people who use protected WMV), it seems to work wonderfully, and isn't dependent on a only two operating systems. If you want something more integrated, there is of course M-Player as well...

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[denis-The-menace]

I don't know too many people who use protected WMV
That's easy: Trojan writers.
There's this "feature" to install licenses for WMA/WMV files that permit the covert installation of Trojans, backdoors and other malware.

Stay away from .WMA/.MWV files like the plague they are!!!

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[fermion]

I now use VLC as a substitute for everything, even as a DVD player. All commercial players, WMP, Quicktime, Realplayer are suspect. They all have the ability to take over the computer and launch other apps, at least the browser. I know the integration can be helpful, but we are not in the 1980's. I do know how to open an application on my own.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Darkforge]

Link?

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Kalriath]

Actually, if Microsoft catches people installing trojans via the Licensing system, they revoke their license server. In case you weren't aware of what goes into getting the software to create protected WM* content:

1. Obtain Code Signing certificate from Certification Authority (Verisign, Thawte, or Geotrust only), which entails;
    a. Providing CA with registered company name, phone number and physical address
    b. Providing CA with copy of phone bill to allow them to call technical owner of said registered company
    c. Paying through the arse (about $500 USD) for certificate to be generated
2. Submit application to Microsoft. This is reviewed, then...
3. Microsoft sends a blank OCX file, which you then sign with your code signing certficate and return
4. Post back two copies of a signed contract which has your real name, registered company name, phone number, and physical address
    a. This contract says that you're dead meat if you distribute the software to ANYONE
5. Wait for MS legal to verify details and countersign agreement
6. Software is delivered to you via special extranet site which you probably didn't know existed
7. Software requires certificate to issue licenses which is generated by visiting a certain URL on WindowsMedia.com
8. Software can have its ability to issue licenses revoked at any time by revoking this certificate

As you can see, there's an assload of safeguards against what you say happens all the time, and Microsoft do revoke WMRM certificates for using them to install spyware or trojans. The contract then allows them to sue the person misusing the license manager SDK into oblivion as well, but I don't know whether they ever have or not.

If you're going to make a statement, make sure to back it up with real experiences or knowledge. Yes, I do happen to know how this process works. A company I work with had to go through it recently.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Breakfast Pants]

I'll just chime in with 'it happened to me'.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Kalriath]

And the bastard who did it had their license revoked, without a doubt. People don't pay Microsoft for access to the WMRM software, so there is no benefit in them allowing partners with access to it to damage it's (admittedly already quite bad simply because of what it IS) reputation with no gain for them OR anyone else. Microsoft once issued a press release about this after someone was caught doing it, saying they fully intended to both revoke the offender's license and prosecute. Sure, I realise that it doesn't help you much, but hell - at least they did what they could (including fixing the bug that allowed WMP to open license aquisition pages in the LOCAL COMPUTER zone in the first place). If someone's going to bash MS, the least they can do is pick one of the many REAL issues to get them for, there's no need to invent something.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[hxnwix]

Right out of the gate, I have to ask why Microsoft decided that producers of DRMed content should be allowed to execute arbitrary code. I know, I know, MS would probably say something along the lines of:

It doesn't matter that they are perfectly capable of doing bad things with that code, and that a great many are strongly inclined to do exactly that. We'll eventually here about it (on the next business day or whenever) and submit a form 2731-43b to Verisign who will get around to adding the bad guy's cert to a CRL which you will probably download at some point. Once you have that CRL downloaded and installed, you'll be good to go - unless the spyware that we allowed onto your system mucks with CRL checking.

But anyway, look. Sure, we authorized Rapetech DickShove LLC and they totally screwed your system before we could stop them. But, I mean, is there any way we could have seen this thing coming? Certainly not unless we watch porn, which we don't.

OK, that wasn't very fair of us. Let me explain. Rapetech DickShove LLC's business PO Box checked out and someone answered the phone! Our lawyers thought they sounded nice enough!! What more could we have possibly done?! You clicked ok to the vista warning! Furthermore, spyware creators are just as capable of filling out stacks of forms and paying $500. And they'll get plenty of practice. Who is this masturbatory program meant to benefit? It doesn't even benefit masturbators!

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Kalriath]

First off, you cannot use a PO Box, we had our application suspended until we supplied a real, physical, address. Also, the certificate from Verisign or whatever is not ever seen by you and is not relevant.

What happens when they revoke a dodgy guy's license server is that they invalidate the certificate ISSUED by a Microsoft CA (in realtime) TO their license server and their license server will fail its next check (which I understand occurs extremely frequently) and stop issuing licenses (or wrapping content, which stops their media from being distributed at all).

Also, it was a bug that allowed dodgy folks to execute arbitrary code in the context of the Local Computer zone. If you read what I said, you'd see that they fixed that. It's no longer possible to execute code unless you've stupidly allowed the Internet zone to do so.

And you'd be paying a bit more than $500 if you get caught... there's no money to be made in allowing people to use the WMRM SDK for dodgy purposes, but there's money to be made in prosecuting those that do.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[hxnwix]

First off, you cannot use a PO Box, we had our application suspended until we supplied a real, physical, address. Say no more!

j/k. I was more going for comic relief than an airing of my issues with Microsoft's Windows Media Digital Rape Machine. It's nice that they do CRL checking for you. It's obviously more than I expected from them. My issues with Microsoft code signing originally stem from my experience with Windows Mobile, where it is just about as useless. Except to Verisign, who you ought to know issues you your signing cert and a set # of signing "events," for which you pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay. You pay each and every time you release a binary and don't want users to call you, worried over big nasty warning prompts. This detail is in-ex-fucking-scusable, I think. Profit motive aside, why force you to pay per signature, when all signatures are against the same cert? As far as I can divine, there isn't another reason. And, I think, that's really what this is all about - you pay per cert, per signature, per tech support call when their sig system fucks up, per breath of your software company. But I'm glad you like it. Anything to make the customer happy...

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[suv4x4]

As you can see, there's an assload of safeguards against what you say happens all the time, and Microsoft do revoke WMRM certificates for using them to install spyware or trojans.

There's lots of safeguards to obtain a proper license, but ironically if you don't care to obtain a proper license, but just a backdoor, your options are far more. It's the irony of DRM implementation but from the other side (makes it hard for legal users, easy for illegal users).

And there's this other burning question: why allow trojans to be installed via the media player at all, even after a myriad of hoops? There's no need to run downloadable executables on the client OS to implement DRM certificates, is there.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess that means that Sony have got one then?

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Kalriath]

Who said I liked it? I just don't like seeing wrong information. Yeah, it's a failing. It's actually, to me, a very surprisingly robust and secure process to get hold of software like this. I'm sure there's ulterior motives (what would an open source dev with a DRM hate do with access to the binaries that DRM a file?) but for the most part they seem dedicated to protecting people from bad guys with access to it (even if it is only to protect what reputation it has left). Thankfully, when they do issue a certificate to your server to activate it, you (for that purpose) ever need to use the Verisign cert again - even when you are forced to renew at the end of the year.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Kalriath]

See, there you go again. So far, every instance of trojans being installed via DRM has resulted because some ass managed to get through the WMRM software approval process. It has NEVER been because someone has found a way to pretend to be a rights manager server. And in all cases, this has resulted in their license being terminated (possibly prosecution, but there's no publicity when actions like this is taken). There are no backdoors to fake a WMRM server. Don't talk shit. And trojans can't be installed via media player. About 4 years ago when this issue came up, MS changed media player's security component to run in the Internet zone, not Local Computer (one hell of a bug if you ask me). Now, Media Player can only install stuff after prompting (it's sandboxed better than Internet Explorer itself).

Imagine what they **could** do

[EmbeddedJanitor]

They don't even have to cooperate, they just should give up putting effort into competing. The big mantra of any organisation should be "customer focus", but most seem to be "comptetition focused".

If MS put their efforts into great software, rather than trying to stomp competition, they could be something greter than they are.

If they put their resources into assisting the entire industry they could be even greater.

Watching .wmv files is like getting a vasectomy

[rwwyatt]

Once you install the software, it's done, There is no going back. You will never get back what you lost. (It is freedom in both cases)

Re:Watching .wmv files is like getting a vasectomy

[93,000]

Actually, with the vasectomy you gain freedom. Though you're right about wmv . . .

Re:Watching .wmv files is like getting a vasectomy

[geekoid]

Vasextomies can be reversible, and they do fail from time to time. hence the 8 mo. waiting period.

Re:Watching .wmv files is like getting a vasectomy

[saskboy]

My goodness, it's just like reverse pregnancy - the pain comes at the beginning, and ends with sex!

Same with the MS plugin, the pain starts right away, and ends with you getting screwed out of your freedom.

Re:Watching .wmv files is like getting a vasectomy

[Xiph]

once a successful vasectomy has been in place for a while, you will start creating anti-bodies against your own sperm, from that point on, you're permanently sterile.
if you've had one within the last couple of years, and you want kids in the future, i strongly suggest that you get it reversed. Even though it's probably too late.

Happy Experimental Medicine

Why now?

[MadJo]

Why would you need this plugin, when you have all sorts of different extensions dealing with this situation.
Like for instance: mediaplayerconnectivity.
Look you can use any player you like, and you don't need to have the browser open anymore, while playing the video.

I'm sorry Microsoft, but you are too little too late.

Re:Why now?

[WillAffleckUW]

Good point, I will try out the mediaplayerconnectivity plugin and see if it works for My Radio Station on My Yahoo.

If so, this sounds like a good plugin.

Useless

[Werrismys]

Totally useless. Cannot use it on any of my portable devices or my work PC. Microsoft's "cross platform" is XP _or_ Vista.

Does this still store history in IE history?

[LiquidCoooled]

I remember playing WMV files using proper media player ends up storing traces in Internet Explorers history list.
Strange considering I was using firefox.

Does the new one still have the same problem?

Re:Does this still store history in IE history?

[drinkypoo]

I remember playing WMV files using proper media player ends up storing traces in Internet Explorers history list.

I don't know how it looks in more recent versions of WiMP, but on the latest ver on Windows 2000, you can go into options, click the "privacy" tab, and uncheck "Save File and URL history in the player" (this checkbox is also presented to you at install time so you can turn it off, along with several other privacy-related options.)

Does that accomplish what you want?

Re:Does this still store history in IE history?

[geekoid]

It used to keep information anyways.
I have no idea if this has been fixed since I dn't use windows multimedia player.

I do use W2K, but I just refuse to update the media player.

Re:Does this still store history in IE history?

[Anonymous Coward]

If its based off WMP11, that doesnt really matter... just watch your network traffic with every "Contact MS for ____" option disabled... not sure why they bothered with those privacy settings since they apparently dont work.

Re:Does this still store history in IE history?

[Myen]

Well, the release notes (the text file) mentioned that Firefox proxy settings won't take effect, you need to adjust the IE proxy settings for the plugin to see it...

WOW!

[zappepcs]

I've got some servers that your management might be interested in, they're very expensive, but worth every penny, I promise!

Re:WOW!

[Zantetsuken]

Hrmm... only if its an old 8086 with loads of those "Core 2 Duo" and "Intel Inside" stickers on it that magically improve clockspeed by 2 or 3GHz per sticker...

Re:And

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, curse the man for giving away more of his personal wealth to those less fortunate than any rich person or foundation ever has. You get the pitchforks, I'll get the angry mob.

Re:insightful??

[zappepcs]

I'll give it a go

1 - I didn't mod the comment up
2 - I'm not a tool
3 - I didn't bash MS, I simply said I don't roll that way. I figure if someone can't put their content out in at least two formats they didn't really want anyone to see it anyway. You see, HTML and your web browsing experience is protected by a general compliance with standards. With video content there are too many standards. I think that MPEG is a good standard, consequently I ignore those pesky .wmv and most of the .mov files too. Its nice that people can make up their own formats for stuff, but I'm also happy to not view it if I have to load their special player... oh well.

There! Feel better? I didn't even mention Mi^H^H those people from Redmond.

Now, if you want a bit more thought, do you get this angry when someone says they don't like Bridgestone tires?

Re:And

[marcello_dl]

>Remember, if you can't find anything real to criticize Microsoft for... ...you are in the wrong universe.

Re:And

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Remember, if you can't find anything real to criticize Microsoft for, just make something up!

Dude, if you want to construct a joke using real and WMP, please make it easy for the mods to spot it. Like bold facing it or something.

Re:insightful??

[geekoid]

It is insightfull because it points out that you don't need wmv files for most things.
I don't view wmv and I ahve yet to be a problem. Any sight that demands it has competitors, so I just go there for my po^H^H data.

Re:In vino veritas. [In wine there is truth.]--Pli

[A Name Similar to Di]

Roman, not Greek. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder) Just had to mention that.

Re:insightful??

[Anonymous Coward]

What may have escaped you is two fold. 1. This seems like an odd idea until you realize that old WMV and VC-1 standard support instantly makes a tremendous amount of video available to everyone. It's one of those build it and they will deliver content things. 2. Microsoft was looking at making this available for linux too. Yeah. Try to have a problem with that.

Re:And

[mandelbr0t]

Jesus had something to say about rich people publicly giving away wealth. While I don't often quote him, I think it's particularly relevant here.

Crap Cake

[MadnessASAP]

Great now I can have my crap and eat it too. But really I barely ever see WMVs online and the ones I do see I'm not interested in watching.

Re:insightful??

[popejeremy]

Just so you know, the moderator can't respond to your comment. In moderating a comment on a story, the moderator is stopped from being able to comment anywhere about that story. This is to stop people from unfairly manipulating a conversation by using the comment moderation system.

WTF? You WANT WMP on a linux box?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Frankly, one of the reasons I absolutely detest windows is because everytime I am forced to use it, I also sooner or later run into having to replace that shitty piece of shit with something and it ALWAYS trying to come back in one form or another.

I suppose I am alone in this but I absolutly HATE that even to get it running you have to agree to an EULA that has been proven to take extreme liberties with your rights, despite the fact that you already had to agree to a EULA when windows was installed.

Then there is the fact that it doesn't even follow MS own interface style, that it for some reason seems to think that a Mp3 player needs to take up a quarter of the screen. That it is slow, that it is buggy, and that it is just plain ugly and riddled with sales pitches.

And you WANT this on linux?

No, my dear friend, the proper response to "MS doesn't release Windows Media Player for Linux" is "Thank you kind and mercifull god, we are not worthy of your generous nature".

Now get down on your knees and show proper gratitude. Sore knees? You got it good. Windows users also got to bend over, but it ain't just their knees that are sore.

Re:WTF? You WANT WMP on a linux box?

[pchoppin]

Now get down on your knees and show proper gratitude. Sore knees? You got it good. Windows users also got to bend over, but it ain't just their knees that are sore.
You could not have said it better. I whole heartedly agree.

Re:WTF? You WANT WMP on a linux box?

[Jekler]

No, I don't want Windows Media Player for Linux with Microsoft's current disposition. What I would like is for Microsoft to convert their business practices. It can happen, some years ago IBM was practically the same enemy Microsoft is today, but now they're all about open source support.

It would be nice if Microsoft expended fewer resources trying to secure a dominance over Google, Linux, Mozilla, and Sun. The vast amount of money and manpower that Microsoft has could be used to do good things, but they're dead-set on making sure anything they release evades Linux.

Re:And

[Anonymous Coward]

The one about little annoying dogs yapping at the feet of giants also comes to mind here, but for different reasons.

Re:insightful??

[jonbryce]

Not quite true. Moderators can still comment, but if they do, their moderations are reversed, and they don't get their mod points back.

I wonder if...

[Whuffo]

Do you suppose this special version of Media Player has a benefit to Microsoft? Of course it does; why waste programmers otherwise.

So what does Microsoft get from this - besides that ephemeral "protect WMV market share" stuff?

How about usage data? Media Player has been sending information back to MS for years; OS version, GUID, etc. Now they can also collect data about Firefox installs. I suspect that data has value to MS - and very well may be the reason for this unexpected release.

It's not as though Firefox users haven't been able to view WMV files, is it?

Re:I wonder if...

[Zarel]

It's not as though Firefox users haven't been able to view WMV files, is it? Actually, yes it is, Firefox users on Vista haven't been able to view WMV files without hacks. Even with hacks, videos inevitably have problems, as mentioned in this post. It's really too bad the download link is down, I really needed it.

Re:I wonder if...

[3choTh1s]

It's not a "special version" of Media Player. It's just a plugin that hooks into your current version of WMP so that you can play content. Having more available people to look through your stuff is always good for the company, there is no real evil motives going on here.

It's not that users couldn't watch WMV files using Firefox before. It's that some users who were doing it had firefox crash on them everytime they tried. It's not a common epidemic but it's out there and this fixes it. Not big news in any sense but helpful.

Yes! [Re:Why now?]

[corychristison]

I love MediaPlayerConnectivity! It has the option to only play when you click on the button, which I really like! No more annoying songs playing without my knowledge. Occasionally I leave the volume up and forget to turn it down... which is not a pleasant sound. Especially if the music sucks.

There is only one problem in avoing WMVs...

[rmezzari]

...is that too many quality porn is been distributed in this format!

not the coward

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

But seriously the complaint was that it was modded insightful.

Its like some dude next to you says " I don't like Bridgestone". You wouldn't turn to him and say

"Gee, I never thought of that before, could you share more of your brilliance with me? "

You'd probably just walk away from him, or maybe your phone was on vibrate and make up a conversation to avoid acknowledging their presence. You wouldn't repeat the comment to your brother in law next sunday at the family get together. Because, like or dislike of a product, is not insightful. Now, if there was an accompanying engineering breakdown of why a product is good or bad that involves original thought, that would be insightful.

But as it is, it seems Slashdot mods have done the correct thing here and modded it down.

correction

[kdemetter]

correction of previous post : technical support IS available for much open source stuff too

IE vs. WMP

[BRUTICUS]

could this imply that MS considers Media Player more important than Internet Explorer now? I mean I couldn't really see MS providing apple with a plugin for Quicktime. Is MS getting serious about the media player war...and MP3 players?

Zune 2.0

Re:And

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nlcnet.org/campaigns/archive/chinarepor t/walmart.shtml

Yes because any famous person who uses some type of charity for publicity is a saint

Re:insightful??

[Zantetsuken]

while thats all true and good and all, I find it easier to just install VLC or MPlayer - thus saying the hell with it all and be able to play pretty much whatever gets thrown at me...

What about midi files?

[Spy der Mann]

how to embed them so I can have that nice little player on my webpage? Has anyone tried with this new MS plugin?

Re:What about midi files?

[Myen]

application/x-mplayer2 is both the old WMP64 and the new WMP9 plugin; mplayerplug-in (Linux) also supports that content type. If you want to force the new plugin only, application/x-ms-wmp. There's no need though, of course.

Hey, let's be at least a little fair with MS...

[Spy der Mann]

For letting MS write this plugin, Bill Gates gets a 1-month indulgence from purgatory :)

Media Player 11 is required

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a method to this, you need to install media player 11...

Its a nice jester disguised as shoving a more DRM friendly media player down our throats....

Re:Media Player 11 is required

[Myen]

Actually, the plugin itself (np-mswmp.dll) works just fine with WMP9. (WinXP SP2 machine here.) Of course, I don't like installers and extracted the file manually (7zip+WiX)... So I don't even know if the installer does any checking.

Works for me :)

[mrk1283]

Before:
http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/temp/wmpplugin_no.JPG

After:
http://robbiekhan.co.uk/temp/wmpplugin_yes.JPG

Been waiting for this for AGES!

not working for me: 404 not found

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I bit. I went to the port 25 site and tried to download it. You guys are all just messing with me, right? There isn't really a plugin, who would use it?

look at those DLL names

[r00t]

npdsplay.dll, npdrmv2.dll, and npwmsdrm.dll

All in 8.3 format. Filesystem problems? I guess Apple's "C:ngrtltns.w95" ad was a bit premature.

Re:look at those DLL names

[VGPowerlord]

Most Netscape plugins seem to have fairly short names. For example: npnul32.dll (The Default plugin), npswf32.dll (Flash), nppl3260.dll (RealPlayer)...

The exception is quicktime, which uses npqtplugin7.dll (and other plugins with differences in the number).

Did I mention that all these are filenames from the about:plugins box on Firefox 2.0.0.3?

They took it down, does it replace Quicktime?

[assassinator42]

As the download link now gives a 404 error, I can't test it out. Can you use it to play embedded MP3 and WAV files in FireFox? Is there any to to have it play Quicktime movies? I can't stand Quicktime and I can't stand its Firefox plugin. It makes MP3 files I want to download appear embedded instead and I believe it has problems with some MP3 files. I have QuickTimeAlternative installed, so I should be able to play Quicktime files in WMP. As least I can play them fullscreen that way, unlike with Quicktime.

Re:They took it down, does it replace Quicktime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why don't you change the settings? In Firefox, Tools -> Options -> Content -> File Types -> Manage, you can change how Firefox reacts to files and MIME-types. And even if you don't, QuickTime does not impair your ability to right-click links and choose Save Link As, nor does it prevent you from clicking File and choosing Save Page As while the QuickTime plug-in is playing the file. Additionally, there are probably options within QuickTime for changing which file types it should register itself to.

And no, I am not an Apple employee, I just wish people would open their eyes and configure their applications.

Link is dead

[gelfling]

Now that's a special kind of irony.

Re:Link is dead

[quick2think]

The most secure MS product yet. Doesn't even let you download it to install it, now that's progress and efficiency.

that punishment won't be effective

[r00t]

Criminals can get way more than $500 with that certificate. Criminals have been known to do identity theft on whole corporations.

So, by the economics of it all, this is a crime that pays quite well.

Re:that punishment won't be effective

[Kalriath]

This is not an easy task. You would have to have your phone number changed to a large company's, you would have to get their telecom company to change their billing details to you (and then wait for the telecom company to mail a bill to you) and then you'd have to get the CA to issue a certificate using those details.

CAs are not slack on the requirements of this sort of thing, not since that one time some idiot at Verisign allowed some hacker to get a certificate signed as "Microsoft Corporation".

So no, I don't believe what you're saying in the slightest.

Re:that punishment won't be effective

[r00t]

"large company"???

You didn't list that as a requirement.

Instead, consider something like "CSPI, Inc.".

Forging a telephone bill is trivial, even if one sticks to the United States.

Identity theft of a corporation has made Slashdot before; search and you might find the article.

Re:that punishment won't be effective

[Kalriath]

You're right on one point, it was a mistake to say small company.

A forged Telephone Bill wont work, they check your number with directory assistance too.

I do not think this situation is anywhere near as common as you claim it is. In fact, I call bullshit. One or two cases of social engineering (difficult to impossible when dealing with a paranoid certification authority) do not identity theft make.

its not about linux

[mithras invictus]

Agreed, they usually try to screw linux, other OSS and standards every chance they get, but this move is to gain market share in DRM crippled online media.
They're trying to compete with adobe and are desperate enough to support even Firefox to get it. (i'm sure they'll screw FF support as soon as market domination is ensured, though)
Since most linux users are smart enough to stay away from these crippled formats there won't be enough convertable users to warrant the effort.

Re:insightful??

[cecil_turtle]

2. Microsoft was looking at making this available for linux too.

The way you worded that doesn't sound very convincing - "was" and "looking at" aren't a strong sell. Plus VLC 0.8.6 supports WMV pretty well on Linux right now.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:insightful??

[VGPowerlord]

There! Feel better? I didn't even mention those people from Redmond.

What does Nintendo of America have to do with this?

Clever strategy

[vga_init]

Microsoft has a clever strategy (they usually do).

What it boils down to is fighting Linux. I'm a regular Linux user myself, and I'm in the habit of recommending certain cross platform applications for my friends and family to use. Browsing the web? Get Firefox. Chatting online? Get Gaim. Writing a paper? Get OpenOffice.

These programs aren't right for everyone, naturally, but a lot of people actually do end up loving them. They can install them on Windows, try them out, and get comfortable with them. Later, when they are experiencing OS related issues, I can say "Oh, well why don't you install Linux?" Once they find out that Linux runs all the programs they use every day, they don't freak out or anything. It makes the migration completely natural.

Plugins like this are sneaky because Microsoft is saying, "OK, you're going to use Firefox... I see how it is. Let's tie it to our platform to make sure you stick with our other software."

Re:And

[weicco]

Yes and look what happened to him. A fricking crucifixion!

ALT URL

[mrk1283]

ALT DOWNLOAD URL HERE >>> http://www.majorgeeks.com/Microsoft_Windows_Media_ Player_Firefox_Plugin_d5606.html

VLC can play Quicktime too

[Keeper Of Keys]

It's great that there's a QT alternative; I have been using the Real Alternative for years for obvious reasons. But I find VLC plays QT files just fine; better, in fact, than Apple's player. An old PC of mine used to struggle to play a .mov file fullscreen, but VLC made light work of it.

Re:insightful??

[EvilRyry]

Unfortunately many people assume that Windows XP is the only operating system in the world. Many pages will complain if you don't have 'Windows Media Player' regardless of the ability of the users default player.

New Plugin HOWTO

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked up a quick HOWTO, on how to use this new plugin in Firefox.

You can view it here:
http://www.therossman.org/experiments/wmp_play.htm l

Cheers,
Rossman