Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) for Windows Pushes What Could Be Its Last Update (mpc-hc.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) for Windows Pushes What Could Be Its Last Update (mpc-hc.org)

Posted by msmash on Monday July 17, 2017 @03:26AM from the thanks-for-all-the-fish dept.

Popular open-source media player for Windows, Media Player Classic Home Cinema -- or MPC-HC, has issued what it says could be the last update the app ever receives. The team writes: v1.7.13, the latest, and probably the last release of our project... For quite a few months now, or even years, the number of active developers has been decreasing and has inevitably reached zero. This, unfortunately, means that the project is officially dead and this release would be the last one. ... Unless some people step up that is. So, if someone's willing to really contribute and has C/C++ experience, let me know on IRC or via e-mail. Otherwise, all things come to an end and life goes on. It's been a nice journey and I'm personally pretty overwhelmed having to write this post.

139 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:29 · Score: -1

The developer can decide to just end up not supporting it, with no option to pay for support. Open source is notorious for screwing over loyal users in this manner.
1. Re:This is why not to use open source by Opportunist · 2017-07-17 03:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because that never happened with closed source...
  With maybe the difference that in closed source, nobody can pick up the slack and continue if he feels the software is worth supporting. Closed source maker going under, software is dead in the water. Sucks to be you if you depended on it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:This is why not to use open source by ichthus · 2017-07-17 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  This is not unique to open source. This very thing happens to closed source, commercial products as well.
  
  I don't think you're trolling, I just think you're ignorant.
  
  --
  sig: sauer
3. Re:This is why not to use open source by Junta · 2017-07-17 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Good thing commercial vendors never cancel product lines or go out of business.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
4. Re:This is why not to use open source by DontBeAMoran · 2017-07-17 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  As opposed to what? Relying on Microsoft and Apple? Even if you're willing to pay, both companies have taken a general direction of not listening to their users.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
5. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  How is this problem unique to open source? I've had plenty of closed source software/hardware that has gone end-of-life before I wanted it to.
6. Re:This is why not to use open source by Geoffrey.landis · 2017-07-17 03:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The developer can decide to just end up not supporting it, with no option to pay for support. Open source is notorious for screwing over loyal users in this manner.
  Because that never happened with closed source...
  Yeah. I've been screwed over much worse with projects done using commercial software where my old project files are now unusable because the software either stopped being supported, or the vendor decided to "upgrade" in a way that was not back-compatable with old files.
  
  With maybe the difference that in closed source, nobody can pick up the slack and continue if he feels the software is worth supporting. Closed source maker going under, software is dead in the water. Sucks to be you if you depended on it.
  Yep.
  
  --
  http://www.geoffreylandis.com
7. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Did you sign a contract with them for support?
  Did you donate to them through the life of the project?
  If the project was profitable then they would either continue to do it themselves or easily find a developer to take over the project. Like most projects though they received a pittance from donations and work was completed out of their own interest / free time. If they can't continue the project (for whatever the reason) at least being open source you still have the option to continue their work or to pay somebody to continue it for you.
8. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  Difference between data and an anecdote.
9. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't MPC come about as response to closed source developers dropping a product?
10. Re:This is why not to use open source by Opportunist · 2017-07-17 03:53 · Score: 2
  
  Well, consider the time we're living in. It's more and more common that software gets altered in ways you do not like. A former for-license model getting changed to a subscription pay-by-month model, or some additional "enhancements" that make the software unusable or send your lifetime history to its maker to sell. And that's just what I come up with in the minute this took to write.
  In commercial software, your choice is to grin and bear it. For reference, see Windows in its latest incarnations.
  In OSS, you can at least remove the shitty bits that are detrimental to your interests. Or wait, you don't have to, because they don't get baked into the package because the maker of the software KNOWS you'd immediately remove that bullshit, so why bother waste resources on creating it?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
11. Re:This is why not to use open source by Holi · 2017-07-17 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like Windows Vista?
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
12. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Butthurt troll is butthurt
13. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Considering data overwhelmingly supports open source over closed source, I'd say you're right
14. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Like Systemd?
15. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  I think MPC came about way back in the day in response to windows media player becoming a bloated POS compared to the old Windows media player. It was designed at the time to mimic and look much like the old windows media player..
  This was back during the late Win98/WinME/Win2k era.
  Back when windows media player went from this
  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Player#/media/File:MediaPlayer601Info.png
  to this
  https://www.reddit.com/r/nostalgia/comments/66soci/windows_media_player_skins/
  http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/decoders_wmp7b.html
16. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:20 · Score: -1
  
  That's complete bullshit. Save a few, almost all FOSS projects are totally useless. The ones that are worth using, have a development budget that runs into the tens of millions, and sometimes hundreds of millions.
  Nobody is going to pickup _THAT_ slack. But yeah. keep deluding yourself.
17. Re:This is why not to use open source by silas_moeckel · 2017-07-17 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  You definitely have an option to pay for support, Throw the code at a dev and pay them to do whatever you need.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
18. Re:This is why not to use open source by thegarbz · 2017-07-17 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Screwing how? When an open source project dies it typically continues working. When a closed source project dies the company folds, the license servers get taken offline and you no longer have a working product.
  I just checked. I am running version 1.5.0 of MPC-HC. A quick look on project history shows that was released in November 2014. Still works 100% fine.
  I wish I could always feel this screwed.
19. Re:This is why not to use open source by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2017-07-17 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Because that never happened with closed source...
  With maybe the difference that in closed source, nobody can pick up the slack and continue if he feels the software is worth supporting. Closed source maker going under, software is dead in the water. Sucks to be you if you depended on it.
  Yep. As an example. a few years ago ArcSoft abandoned their media playing products, including the excellent Total Media Theater which I bought. I didn't use a warez copy, I paid for it. Still have it on my PC. Still use it at times. It was great because if you ripped a BluRay, it would play the rip without any questions. The only realistic commercial alternatives to TMT are WinDVD and PowerDVD and both refuse to pay rips. In fact, both are determined to do everything that the MPAA wants to make sure that their products are as barely useful as possible. I used MPC-HC some years ago but the only real advantage it had was for me over VLC was that it could "play" AviSynth scripts and you could see the output you would get from the script kind of in slow motion without having to run the script on the whole video (which could take hours depending on what you were doing) and then check the output. AviSynth is a scripting tool that lets you do rather complex operations on video and audio, mostly video, like if you need to re-encode something to different resolution.
20. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know what they were thinking back then, I guess that't what happens when you get GenXers who did too many drugs in the 80's and early 90's to develop a UI. Since the late 90's is when they would have been getting into development shortly after college
21. Re:This is why not to use open source by DuckDodgers · 2017-07-17 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  Is someone forcing you to use systemd? Is it part of your license agreement? A paid contract? A gun held to your head?
  
  Free software is free-as-in-freedom. Runit, SysV init, Upstart, and GNU Shepherd all have their own virtues. Support one.
22. Re:This is why not to use open source by mpercy · 2017-07-17 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  ", or the vendor decided to "upgrade" in a way that was not back-compatable with old files."
  Why does Intuit pop into my head at this reference?
23. Re:This is why not to use open source by I'm+just+joshin · 2017-07-17 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Do you realize the AC was trolling & you got caught in the trap?
24. Re:This is why not to use open source by I'm+just+joshin · 2017-07-17 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you think this? It's so blistering obvious that serious responses seem ridiculous.
25. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  MPC came about as basically a way to keep using the minimalized "windows media player" interface, no not that cluster-fucky-wants-to-be-the-player-for-everything windows media player 6.4+, but rather the earlier version that just had that one strip of tape-deck buttons.
  And that's why I've used it ever since. It's small, it works, and I never have to sit there and fight it for licenses. The only thing I could never get it to do was play bluerays. I prefer it over VLC (which is far more bloated, but works about the same.) VLC plays almost everything but MIDI's due to junk the underlying midi source links with and doesn't need (and therefor doesn't compile on Windows.) Excise that crap, or roll back to where the author didn't put their head up their butt, and midi will work just fine.
  People need to keep their political like or dislike of something out of programming otherwise this stuff keeps happening. The point of MPC-HC was that it would actually try to use the underlying hardware acceleration if it was available, where as VLC did everything possible to avoid it for the sake of portability. Midi support was lost in VLC for windows because the developer of the midi support library integrated a library that is only available on linux that didn't previously need it, and couldn't be arsed to do without it.
  This is why I tell developers to not jump onto these framework steaming piles of poo. If you don't absolutely need it, don't use it. Roll your own code, it's often smaller and you can fix things in it. If you depend on a library, you depend on it for life, and if the developer doesn't directly support your project goals, then you shouldn't use it.
  Right now the "dream team" library for just about every open source project on earth is:
  zlib
  libpng
  freetype
  opengl
  No sound library, no windowing/UI/widget library, hell, no input library. Throw SDL2 in there, and you cover all the other missing parts except music playback. To which, due to missing hardware acceleration on mobile targets, and patent issues on desktops and mobile devices, nobody is willing to commit to having a subset of libav as part of their base set. Because LibAV keeps changing shit with every version, nobody wants to commit to using libav either. FFMPEG, MPC-HC and VLC use libav. So at some point MPC-HC will stop working due to this.
26. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Nearly, if you use any linux disto it is in just about all of them. There's what, maybe 2 or 3 semi mainstream distros not using it now?
  And don't give me the BS about building it yourself. Yes that is an option, but not for everyone and if linux ever wants to hit the mainstream desktop, users aren't going to be compiling their own OS. If you ask any not necessarily techie, but having at least some tech knowledge friends to name a linux distro, my guess would be the response will probably be ubuntu since that is about the only one to make any significant impact in that space.
27. Re:This is why not to use open source by JackieBrown · 2017-07-17 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you are using linux as your desktop (versus server), chances are systemd is more than good enough and probably better than what logs you get with windows home edition.
28. Re:This is why not to use open source by ichthus · 2017-07-17 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Closed-source software companies go defunct, and file formats go unsupported. One of the many examples would be the Wingz spreadsheet. I used this in college in the 90s, and had quite a few .wkz files from my physics classes. But, Informix (the maker of Wingz) went out of business, and there's no way to open these files in a modern OS (with the exception of installing an older OS and Wingz in a VM).
  
  --
  sig: sauer
29. Re:This is why not to use open source by Rakarra · 2017-07-17 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think the GP's "Why would you think this?" question was really in response to your "I don't think you're trolling, I just think you're ignorant." GP thinks the OP was clearly trolling; I don't think the OP was ignorant at all, I think he was trolling either to be an ass, or to throw in FUD.
30. Re:This is why not to use open source by Rakarra · 2017-07-17 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, the "bad old days" of skins. "Hey, let's not make a good UI for our media player, we'll throw something trashy out there, I'm sure someone will make a great skin!"
31. Re:This is why not to use open source by ichthus · 2017-07-17 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ehh... you're probably right -- he was trolling. I must be feeling less cynical than normal today.
  
  --
  sig: sauer
32. Re: This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing of value was lost. Use PotPlayer, it's by far the best video player software in existence.
33. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  Back in the days of hey lets make our software look like an appliance. DVD playback software was notorious for this. Lets make an interface that looks like an actual set top DVD player. Also apps that Creative used to bundle with their sound cards.
  Thank god that era is behind us, they shipped crappy "skins" and the stuff that the 3rd party community made was usually even worse.
34. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  Funny, OpenGL. So OpenGL 1.0? Or 2.0? Or 3.0? Or maybe GLES? 1.0? That is actually dead. 2.0? Or maybe 3.0?
  And your writing around LibAV/libav/FFMPEG is very confused, I am not sure you even really know what they are...
  But anyway "nobody" for you includes companies like Valve and Google, amongst others.
  And "roll your own"? Well, see how well that worked for Google with Android's media server. How many security issues have they had now because they decided to roll their own? 20? Or is it up to 50 by now? So at least don't roll your own if you clearly lack the competence to do so.
35. Re:This is why not to use open source by danomac · 2017-07-17 09:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Good luck with that, considering more and more userspace applications have systemd as a hard dependency.
36. Re:This is why not to use open source by DuckDodgers · 2017-07-17 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Free-as-in-freedom is not the same as written-the-way-I-want. There is nothing stopping the open source community from making forks of existing projects or brand new projects to escape systemd.
  
  The hatred in the free software world for Canonical is pretty understandable - Mark Shuttleworth and others have occasionally issued inflammatory or dishonest statements (for example, the false claims about design flaws in Wayland) or included adware in their software releases (the Amazon shopping lens).
  
  The hatred for systemd baffles me - you're mad because volunteers are building something you don't want? Isn't that a ridiculous display of arrogance and entitlement? "This thing you're making and giving away has features I don't like, so you shouldn't create it!"
  
  In all seriousness I wish the developers and supporters of Devuan, Gentoo (which can run with or without systemd), Void Linux, GuixSD, and the other systemd-free Linux distributions all the success in the world. But frankly I don't care enough to contribute. For the people that do care, if they put 1% of the energy that went into the flame wars into contributing, Devuan would have conquered the world by now.
37. Re:This is why not to use open source by Opportunist · 2017-07-17 22:57 · Score: 2
  
  Got me a +4 insightful, why should I complain?
  I see it more as a symbiotic relationship.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
38. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-18 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  Linux is fundamentally not a desktop OS exactly because you can build it yourself. There is a development process that results in collections of free Unix software, and you can join that process if you want. Linux should probably be called the Universal Build-an-OS-kit, and if you're not keen on that you should probably not install it.
39. Re:This is why not to use open source by almitydave · 2017-07-18 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  You should check out AVIDemux if you haven't already - it can do various transforms on video. I don't know how complex your AviSynth scripts were, but something like changing resolution (or aspect ratio, or rotating, etc.) are simple enough that it can show you the output in real time before re-encoding the whole video.
  
  --
  my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
  I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
40. Re:This is why not to use open source by danomac · 2017-07-18 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  You implied there is a choice and I pointed out in many cases there simply isn't one. Yet you still insist there's a choice when there isn't.
  
  The hatred for systemd baffles me - you're mad because volunteers are building something you don't want?
  
  I use systemd on a couple computers. Out of five computers, it only truly works properly on one, half works on another, and doesn't work at all on three.
  Maybe the hatred has something to do with it being a piece of utter shite? Every other month there's news (not good news) about systemd, the last one being systemd-resolved - another halfass attempt at assimilating another system function that led to very serious vulnerabilities.
41. Re:This is why not to use open source by Rakarra · 2017-07-18 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the days of hey lets make our software look like an appliance. DVD playback software was notorious for this. Lets make an interface that looks like an actual set top DVD player. Also apps that Creative used to bundle with their sound cards.
  Thank god that era is behind us, they shipped crappy "skins" and the stuff that the 3rd party community made was usually even worse.
  It was also the age of "hey, this skin will look really awesome in a screenshot! That'll make people want to use it. Of course, no one actually stares at their media player while playing music or watching a movie, but let's make something that's more flashy than coherent or usable."
42. Re:This is why not to use open source by DuckDodgers · 2017-07-18 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  There is still choice. You can put FREEDOS on the computers. You can turn them into pieces of modern art. You can take them to the firing range.
  
  You can't demand other people write the software you want.
  
  I have systemd running on three machines at my house and fifty servers at work without problems.
43. Re:This is why not to use open source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-18 06:59 · Score: 0
  Yes, but why should we have to replace great logging with good enough logging? Good enough logging may be much better than Windows, but what we had was great.
  If you want to make your argument, you would do it like this:
  
  Has the ability to pick out specific daemons logs from the main log file, or mash them all together
  Has the ability to show the log stream in reversed mode
  Syntax highlighting (via plugins?)
  Active maintainers
  Of course, you'll have to be ready to defend any shortcomings, such as binary logs, log corruption, logs wiped at every boot by default (have they fixed this yet?), and logs sometimes not getting stored, perhaps with a combination of the second above.
  My only other complaint is with the verbosity of the command names. My fingers became too tired, and my tab key spring is now broken, so I've linked sc to systemctl, jc to journalctl, and so on. Yes, I'm aware there's a conflict naming machinectl to mc, so I just changed it to mcdo. Problem solved.
  
  I eagerly await PolypAudio/PulseAudio's absorbtion into the systemd project. I also hope that they absorb the Avahi project as well. That project doesn't seem to have a maintainer. Avahi keeps filling my system log with Invalid response packet from host blah . I've written a syslog script that drops that crud for now, but you'd think the developers of Avahi would at least give you a tunable parameter. Something refined and understated like "refrain_from_filling_my_log_file_with_senseless_crap=yes|no|sometimes".
  
  I wonder who the developer of Avahi was? Oh. Oh, and he still is. Well, that certainly is enlightening. I hope Mr P can find a group maintainers for his "actively maintained" software.
VLC Killed it? by ZiakII · 2017-07-17 03:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm guessing VLC killed it? I used to use it all the time but now I just use VLC.
1. Re:VLC Killed it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  Out of five machines running in my house only one still has Media Player Classic running, everything else is VLC and has been for a long time
  VLC+Plex is a winning combo pretty much.
2. Re:VLC Killed it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  VLC is almost as dead.
3. Re:VLC Killed it? by thegarbz · 2017-07-17 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  Killed it how? It said nothing about users and everything about developers. Whether you use VLC or MPC-HC is irrelevant to the developers working on the project.
  It is a feature complete media player which by all accounts has changed very little in the last 4 years. Maybe the fact that it works well killed it.
  Side note: Some parts of VLC infuriate me so I still use MPC-HC though I have both installed. I think maybe once ever 3-5 months I come across and old poorly encoded WMV that plays in VLC but not in MPC-HC which is why I keep it around.
4. Re:VLC Killed it? by ckatko · 2017-07-17 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  VLC has been half broken on Windows for a decade. And I say this as someone who uses it every day.
  I use both MPC-HC and VLC. They both excel at different areas.
5. Re:VLC Killed it? by PoopMonkey · 2017-07-17 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  I have both MPC and VLC. I primarily use VLC, but some files for some reason it chokes on, and MPC doesn't have that problem with them.
6. Re:VLC Killed it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  When users stop using a project, developers lose interest and walk away.
7. Re:VLC Killed it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  How do you cope with VLC's horrible UI? Anyway MPC-HC has many functions that VLC hasn't, e.g. subtitle synching. Potplayer is a decent alternative, but closed source.
8. Re:VLC Killed it? by Junta · 2017-07-17 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  I used to develop a little-known software project, and then another project really took off and I switched to using that, because it just made sense.
  MPC-HC did a good job of continuing to use the Windows Media framework as best it could, fixing the breakage of the progress of windows media player. However, it was still based on a pretty crappy framework not of their choosing. At the time to be fair the alternatives weren't sufficiently feature capable, and in certain cases still has benefit (iirc, smooth video only does the ms framework)
  VLC and similar just dispense with that broken stack entirely, and so it's much more straightforward to get right without goofy 'codec packs' and such.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
9. Re:VLC Killed it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  You say VLC is "half broken" but how? You go into zero detail, works fine for me so what is broken for you?
10. Re:VLC Killed it? by Rakarra · 2017-07-17 07:47 · Score: 2
  
  I can't believe I actually went back to mplayer over VLC. mplayer is just so much faster, and doesn't try to crap all over your GUI if it doesn't understand a media file format or thinks the contents are busted.
11. Re:VLC Killed it? by Rakarra · 2017-07-17 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Whether you use VLC or MPC-HC is irrelevant to the developers working on the project.
  Users need developers, and developers need users, and that's true even if one of those two groups doesn't acknowledge the importance of the other.
  Without developers, other projects will suck away the users as those projects improve.
  Without developers, developers have little reason to stick around. "I want to scratch this itch I have" only works for the most minor and trivial of projects. Major projects don't come around because one guy makes this big thing that no one else cares about.
12. Re:VLC Killed it? by Mad-Bassist · 2017-07-17 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  For me, VLC is my backup player for the occasional rare file type and also a handy media converter under Media > Convert / Save.
  For everything else, it's the last version of Winamp for audio and MPC-HC for video which I like because it looks and works like the last good version of WMP that came with Windows 98 with a subtle difference on the surface: an extra button for frame advance!
  
  --
  "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
13. Re:VLC Killed it? by thegarbz · 2017-07-17 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Is should have been more clear: The userbase itself is quite healthy. There's been 33000 downloads this month to date. While the general trend is declining, so are the rates of Windows 10 adoptions and OS installs. It doesn't seem like a jump the sinking ship kind of response.
14. Re:VLC Killed it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 20:05 · Score: 0
  
  I used smplayer once on Windows, it works well on very slow PCs (VIA C7 1.0GHz, which almost needs Windows 7 for video playback since you almost get a proper graphics driver this way)
  On something super fast like a Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz with video acceleration not working, VLC runs well enough.
15. Re:VLC Killed it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  ffdshow is (or used to be) the only "codec pack" you really need. Maybe WMV9 codec if you ran Windows 98.
  ffdshow was ffmpeg on ffdshow i.e. what's behind vlc and mplayer, but made available to most Windows applications just by being installed.
16. Re:VLC Killed it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 20:28 · Score: 0
  
  Also, MPC has scrollwheel support (I'm not kidding!) and a perhaps less known playlist feature, not the prettiest maybe but it served me to play manga (anime, whatever)
17. Re:VLC Killed it? by Rakarra · 2017-07-18 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I broke down when I needed to grab actual timecodes to set breakpoints in a video. The amount of time VLC takes to seek inside a video (especially a large one) is terrible, and that half-second delay really adds up when you're seeking back and forth frequently to find the right spot and/or have to set a number of them. VLC still also has no way of printing out sub-second timestamps or timestamps that use frames instead of seconds, which is unconscionable given how many people have asked for it. mplayer's timestamps work great, and you can seek back and forth a dozen times a second with no slowdown.
C/C++ experience needed to contribute? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:33 · Score: 3, Funny

So, if someone's willing to really contribute and has C/C++ experience
That's probably why "the number of active developers has been decreasing and has inevitably reached zero".
People who know C and C++ well are becoming rarer and rarer. The ones who are good are too busy making big bucks in industry, even if they're working on open source software like the Linux kernel (which is heavily corporate-developed these days).
If this project really wants to attract the next generation of developers to work on their project, they'll need to rewrite it in a fad language like Ruby, Go, or especially Rust.
1. Re:C/C++ experience needed to contribute? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  especially Rust? Rust strikes me as a more solid and serious language as Go. Go is more hip with the kids who love everything Google because Google is big and big is good.
2. Re:C/C++ experience needed to contribute? by DuckDodgers · 2017-07-17 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Love or hate Go, Typescript, Dart, C#, F#, Swift, etc... on their own merits or flaws, not on whether or not their corporate creators are assholes (hint: yes). They're all open source.
3. Re:C/C++ experience needed to contribute? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Rust seems like the definition of a fad language: ever-expanding moving-target chameleon API/ABI, changes daily, a one-size-fits all use cases mentality, Perl-like approach of having million ways to do it, but no best way, etc. The SystemD of progamming languages.
  Go inherets the mission discipline that C/Unix developers gave to C, making it a true successor. In a world of CIS fads this dooms it to failure, until it eventually wins, as C did.
  Disclaimer: not a particularly informed opinion, just trolling for a response :-)
4. Re:C/C++ experience needed to contribute? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  People who know C and C++ well are becoming rarer and rarer.
  Indeed. Many know only one of them but not both.
5. Re:C/C++ experience needed to contribute? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Reading your comment, for a moment I was unsure whether Love and Hate were new languages I hadn't heard of yet!
  Seems like every month or two we hear of a new language. Love and Hate wouldn't be entirely inappropriate or unexpected as new language names, given Erlang, Rust, Go, Swift, Ruby on Rails?? (What is that, a train-loving escort during the 19th century??).
6. Re:C/C++ experience needed to contribute? by DuckDodgers · 2017-07-17 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  I meant "love or hate" based on more than just the name. Though I suppose hate based on the name alone could work in a few cases: D, P, R - effective search queries based on those names must be a royal pain to write.
There is literally no alternative. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

I can't believe I'm typing this, but... There is literally no alternative. I have never found ANY other media player that supports what should be the most basic possible feature: BOOKMARKS! How is this possible? I have no idea, but VLC certainly does NOT support it. They have some sort of "fake" bookmarks which disappear once you close it, which makes them completely pointless.
Since MPC-HC is the only program that does the most basic imaginable feature, I will have to keep running it even if they kill it. On the other hand, even "MPC-HC" is a "resurrection" from the original "MPC"...
1. Re:There is literally no alternative. by aliquis · 2017-07-17 03:39 · Score: 2
  
  https://wiki.videolan.org/VLC_... ?
  I was really seeing if it had support for "plugins" though.
2. Re:There is literally no alternative. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I have no idea what your point is. I'm not gonna perform a number of bizarre steps to do this.
3. Re:There is literally no alternative. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  PotPlayer has a favorites section.
4. Re:There is literally no alternative. by thegarbz · 2017-07-17 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  How is this possible?
  Because the vast majority of users have little to no use case for such an incredibly niche concept?
5. Re:There is literally no alternative. by OverlordQ · 2017-07-17 04:43 · Score: 2
  
  What?
  There's mpc-be.
  
  --
  Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
6. Re:There is literally no alternative. by MrWeelson · 2017-07-17 04:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I can't believe I'm typing this, but... There is literally no alternative. I have never found ANY other media player that supports what should be the most basic possible feature: BOOKMARKS! How is this possible? I have no idea, but VLC certainly does NOT support it. They have some sort of "fake" bookmarks which disappear once you close it, which makes them completely pointless.
  Since MPC-HC is the only program that does the most basic imaginable feature, I will have to keep running it even if they kill it. On the other hand, even "MPC-HC" is a "resurrection" from the original "MPC"...
  PotPlayer supports bookmarks and plays pretty much everything I throw at it.
7. Re:There is literally no alternative. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Well, then clearly bookmarks aren't that important to you.
8. Re:There is literally no alternative. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  How is this possible?
  Because the vast majority of users have little to no use case for such an incredibly niche concept?
  That was my thought as well. I'm am curious to know how you would use a bookmark in a video player, or more specifically, when is this useful?
9. Re:There is literally no alternative. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  You're supposed to ues Media Library if you want to keep the lists. Playists disappear after you quit VLCa
10. Re:There is literally no alternative. by Calydor · 2017-07-17 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  Since more and more things are recorded as video only, with no transcripts or the like, bookmarks for a video can become more and more necessary.
  Imagine you download a two hour lecture on some topic of interest to you. You watch it, take some notes, then stash it in a corner of your hard drive. Four months later you need some info, but your notes have gone missing. Do you watch the entire two hours again to find those ten seconds you need without complaint, or do you swear and curse over the tendency for information to be put in a format that isn't easily searchable?
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
11. Re:There is literally no alternative. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-18 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  At least you tried which is more than he deserved.
12. Re:There is literally no alternative. by aliquis · 2017-07-20 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  At least you tried which is more than he deserved.
  To be fair the AC comment wasn't from me (who posted the link about bookmarks, it was from someone else who stepped in and spoke his/her mind.)
  But I get your point! ;D
Maybe it's good enough? by foxalopex · 2017-07-17 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have to admit I've used MPC-HC for many many years now, in fact I'm using an old out of date version. I wonder if basically it's "good enough" that it doesn't need further development? There's products like "PuTTY" which essentially don't update for ages because the open source product fulfills it's function. Unless the product needs more fancy features which often risks breaking things. Time will tell I suppose.
1. Re:Maybe it's good enough? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I (total layman) have been under the impression that much of the development of the past several years surround integration of hardware acceleration APIs and fine-tuning the performance of newer codecs.
  So while it's "good enough" for *my* current uses, I imagine there may come a day where I have a good codec yet bad performance on playback.
  And I am *not* a fan of the UX of VLC.
2. Re:Maybe it's good enough? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't the point of MPC that it uses the system level codecs and is basically a UI skin to control the directshow layer in windows?
  So basically as long as directshow exists in windows any newer video codec should work with it. I don't really see how any bugs with updated or newer codecs would be the issue of MPC specifically, since directx handles all the decoding work.
3. Re:Maybe it's good enough? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't the point of MPC that it uses the system level codecs and is basically a UI skin to control the directshow layer in windows?
  No. MPC-HC had built in decoders for most common codecs, and in recent years it used an embedded version of LAV Filters. Using internal codecs is one of the reasons why it's so stable, as it's not at the mercy of broken system codecs from users installing iffy codec packs etc.
  However you can disable the internal codecs and use external ones, so as you say, it's certainly not the end of MPC-HC just because the application itself isn't getting updates.
4. Re:Maybe it's good enough? by CrashNBrn · 2017-07-17 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much, just update your codecs periodically. MPC in all of it flavours (MPC, MPC-HC, MPC-BE, etc) have been rock stable for over a decade of releases.
5. Re:Maybe it's good enough? by Calydor · 2017-07-17 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  Much the same as WinAMP, really. There comes a point in the development of a software product where you are either DONE, or you get into feature bloat territory. MPC and its incarnations have all been about being lightweight, so feature bloat would be brand destruction.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
6. Re:Maybe it's good enough? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-18 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty much this. The only thing that MPC-HC could use is a bit more polish on the user interface side. Note that I'm saying ‘more polish’, I'm not arguing that there needs to be a ton of new memory consuming features or whatever, but the organisation could be better and the full screen interface could be less obtrusive.
  And I've got the required C/C++ experience. So why am I not taking over the project? Because in my experience most other programmers and especially those in the open source world are borderline autistic or worse and I have no particular desire to wade into that morass. (Again.)
7. Re:Maybe it's good enough? by LinuxIsGarbage · 2017-07-19 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  I have to admit I've used MPC-HC for many many years now, in fact I'm using an old out of date version. I wonder if basically it's "good enough" that it doesn't need further development? There's products like "PuTTY" which essentially don't update for ages because the open source product fulfills it's function. Unless the product needs more fancy features which often risks breaking things. Time will tell I suppose.
  I certainly don't disagree. There's a lot of projects, some 5, 10, even 15 years since their last update that still do what they are supposed to, and do it well. You know the UNIX philosophy. While I get annoyed every time an Android app wants to update so it can change the icon, or replace menu key with a hamburger icon, or replace hamburger icon with three dots, or replace color icons with dark grey on light grey icons, or replace local access with required Facebook linked account, others get annoyed or call an app dead if it hasn't been updated in 3 weeks.
  Look at TeX, it asymptotically approaches Pi, with the idea that fewer and fewer changes should be required.
  On PuTTY: While new requirements for terminal emulator features aren't increasing, there are still some potential improvements, which are sometimes achieved in forks like ExtraPuTTY, KiTTY:
  -Ability to save and load sessions to file instead of registry
  -File Transfer (X/Y/Z Modem, Kermit,) like TeraTerm
  -Custom key mapping (make mapping identical to a DEC LK keyboard so an old VT520 can be replaced with PuTTY with no training required for the user.)
So long and thanks for all the fish by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:37 · Score: 0

... some great work there!
I've moved on... by QuietLagoon · 2017-07-17 03:40 · Score: 1

I started with Media Player, and then I moved to Apple's AppleTV for a while. The last iteration of AppleTV was a bust for me, as it seemed to prefer Apple's store over my own media, and the touch remote was pretty useless. So I wound up with JRiver Media Center. I have it running on Debian Liunx. So far, JRiver Media Center is looking very good.
1. Re:I've moved on... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  "as it seemed to prefer Apple's store over my own media"
  Really? Are you as shocked as I am? I cannot imagine Apple being unfriendly to someone who isn't buying exclusively from them... shocked.
2. Re:I've moved on... by QuietLagoon · 2017-07-17 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  ...Are you as shocked as I am?...
  Initially, I was, then I took a step back and realized I was inside Apple's Walled Garden. But from a pure usability standpoint, if I search for an artist's song to play, and I have most, if not all, of that artist's songs in the database that AppleTV/iTunes manages, then why doesn't it show me the songs I already own, instead of ignoring them?
  .
  But yup, the infamous, notorious Apple Walled garden, where you are encouraged to buy songs you already own. Gotta keep that revenue flowing in.
3. Re:I've moved on... by QuietLagoon · 2017-07-18 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like an Apple fanboi didn't like a comment about the restrictions of Apple's Walled Garden....
Great program much thanks to the devs by Crashmarik · 2017-07-17 03:50 · Score: 1

There hasn't been much in the way of software that just does what you want it to, in a small clean package. Much thanks to the developers that kept this going as an alternative to Microsoft's pointless stupidity.
MPC-BE by Metabolife · 2017-07-17 03:56 · Score: 1

The real question now is how this affects the offshoot MPC-BE.
1. Re:MPC-BE by jbridges · 2017-07-17 04:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  MPC-BE is still under active development, you can see some minor updates from 15 hours ago (new version of libpng)
  https://sourceforge.net/p/mpcb...
  The Doom9 support thread is still active
  https://forum.doom9.org/showth...
  V0lt is still active on the MPC-BE support forum (need google translate unless you can read Russian):
  http://mpc-be.org/forum/index....
Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:56 · Score: 0

Before I ventured from Windows to Linux MPC was my de-facto media player.
Thank you for all the developers. People like you has made the Open Source what it is today.
LOL!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:57 · Score: 0

HAHAHAHAHAHA what the fuck?? :-D
If it works by ArchieBunker · 2017-07-17 04:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why keep working on something that works as intended?

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
1. Re:If it works by Guspaz · 2017-07-17 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Because the software still has shortcomings and bugs. Crashes aren't all that uncommon.
2. Re:If it works by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortuanately, the 'ol adage "If it ain't broke don't fix it" has been replaced with "New, shiny, and constantly figgited with & updated = best".
  Which of course is the death knell of practical working products.
3. Re:If it works by ArchieBunker · 2017-07-17 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  At some point you reach the final evolution of something. Software people can't understand that. The design for a hammer hasn't changed in centuries.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
4. Re:If it works by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Software is not a hammer. If it is, it's a hammer made out of thousands of lego bricks and people keep complaining that the handle is bumpy.
5. Re: If it works by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  Mine never crashes and i use it daily on avi mp4 mastroka videos. Even plays h.265 videos without a skip.
6. Re: If it works by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  Forgot flv too. That covers every video format worth bothering about.
  What shortcomings? It plays the most common video formats without a skip. That's all it needs to do. Don't see any bugs you re referring to and I've been using cccp (which has mpc) for well over 10years.
7. Re: If it works by Guspaz · 2017-07-17 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that most of the updates include crash fixes in the changelog, it's safe to say that just because you aren't experiencing crashes doesn't mean there aren't such issues.
Thank you! by hyades1 · 2017-07-17 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

The people who created and updated this software deserve a huge "Thank You" from people who used it for years, including me. I mostly use VideoLAN now, but still have MPC on my computers, where it has lived happily since Day 1 (and will continue). It has always done exactly what it promised without gobbling a lot of resources and without trying to make itself the star of the show. The best thing about it is that the developers never fell into the "bloatware" trap.
So whatever happens, thank you Kacper Michajlow, XhmikosR, Goran Dzaferi and JellyFrog (still listed as "Active People"), and many now listed as inactive who contributed in the past.
People forget that when Media Player Classic came along, it was at a time when Microsoft seemed determined to force non-tech users to use Media Player, which was becoming more bloated, invasive and greedy with every update. MPC was a breath of fresh air.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
1. Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, agreed. Thank you. Been using it for years. Its been great.
2. Re:Thank you! by Godwin+O'Hitler · 2017-07-19 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  I second every single word of that. If ever there was an app that hits the nail right on the head, it's MPC.
  
  --
  No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Why does software have to keep "evolving"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:18 · Score: 0

Maybe it has reached its design goals, and is largely bug-free and tested.
What's the fuss? Enjoy it!
1. Re:Why does software have to keep "evolving"? by dahem0n · 2017-07-17 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Compatibility, security patches, new technologies comes to mind.
2. Re:Why does software have to keep "evolving"? by Rakarra · 2017-07-17 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it has reached its design goals, and is largely bug-free and tested.
  What's the fuss? Enjoy it!
  Because everything else around it evolves. I understand your point, that there's no need to rewrite the whole thing, etcetc.
  But software products DO need some type of maintenance. Your 10-year-old media isn't much use if it can only play 10-year-old files. Even if the OS changes, the application that ran just fine under the old OS might not start or just crash if it makes false assumptions about the newer OS.
  If it doesn't understand or handles in a poor way new file formats, new video card output tricks, larger formats like 4k, new methods of file storage (IE, cloud storage if you're going that way, or web playback), you'll find that media player to not be a lot of use.
IRC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:18 · Score: 0

> let me know through IRC
> wonders why project is DEAD
MPV: none of the bloat of VLC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:27 · Score: 0

"I second MPV. All you need for watching video, with none of the bloat of VLC." - https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
I'm not surprised by thegarbz · 2017-07-17 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

MPC-HC has been incredibly feature complete for a long time. I mean the list of fixes, changes, and features look impressive with each release but frankly I'm running a 3 year out of date version on my desktop and compared to my laptop running something very recent ... errr.... the buttons look a bit different...?
For the longest time it has truly excelled at it's core feature: The ability to play videos via a small footprint media player.
Oh behalf of the many users: Thanks for your hard efforts over the years, and thanks for not turning it into a steaming turd as much of the rest of the world seems to embrace change for changes sake. I see the abandoning of this project after its long stability in design and core purpose as part of its success story.
1. Re:I'm not surprised by Kjella · 2017-07-17 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  MPC-HC has been incredibly feature complete for a long time. I mean the list of fixes, changes, and features look impressive with each release but frankly I'm running a 3 year out of date version on my desktop and compared to my laptop running something very recent ... errr.... the buttons look a bit different...?
  Same here, there's not a single feature that I miss. The only thing that concerns me is if there should be some kind of security-related parsing/codec bug, even though they're extremely rare these days. I was hoping it would stay supported-ish until Win7 is EOL'd in 2020, after that I'm actually not sure what the plan is. Probably Linux and a Wintendo for games, don't care if Microsoft spies on my Steam install.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
2. Re:I'm not surprised by Falos · 2017-07-17 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's lightweight and simple on first-glance, with a whole field of gears and levers under the hood, so while slim it's capable.
  I like quick yet swissarmyknife. Irfanview opens instantly, hotkeys easily, but has a pile of functionality if I want it. They're not always wieldly, but they were added by request of a geek user or outright authored by one. Same for old winamp. Same for... old firefox? Palemoon I guess. And same for MPC.
  Just yesterday, yesterday, I was playing a show episode with audio that was ~600ms off sync. I knew I could find an option for it, even if poking around the menus was awkward and unintuitive, the feature itself would be simple and potent. And eventually, yes, a simple box that says "Audio delay (in ms): __"
  So have your itunes, have your VLC, your chrome, I want something built by users for users, even if it's ugly.
3. Re:I'm not surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  Just press + and - to adjust audio delay (iirc)
4. Re:I'm not surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  VLC has "J" and "K" for audio delay, although I don't see this exposed in the GUI (!). You discover it when hitting the keys by accident.
That sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:50 · Score: 0

It's the only media player I use on windows.
Really not looking forward to using VLC.
I might have to get off my ass and help with this thing.
Frist psoT by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 05:00 · Score: -1

already aware, *BSD Irc.easynews.coM fucking percent of
1. Re:Frist psoT by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Dying Columbine *BSD Blood Katz Rivers Theo Dead Grief Neil Cowboy Cmdr Netcraft
Let's not call it DEAD by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 05:54 · Score: 0

I prefer to use the better term STABLE, or ROCK-STABLE. And terms like no longer being developed, dead, defunct, etc are misleading. Thank you, MPC devs for making MPC! You have done extremely well; I salute you and your coding skillz.
Those in the media server space simply moved on by mrun4982 · 2017-07-17 06:39 · Score: 1

Sure, lots of us used MPC-HC for years and it was always, IMO, one of the best options for a Windows based media server but times have changed. Most folks have moved onto all-in-one packages like Plex or simple streaming devices like Apple TVs and Rokus. These days I use Plex and Rokus. I don't miss the days of having a full-blown Windows PC under my TV, fiddling with CODECs, etc.
Depends HOW you look @ it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 07:17 · Score: 0

See subject: For Media Player Classic to do as good a job as VLC you need to install codec packs (3rd party) - VLC has them built-in already & iirc (correct me IF I am off/wrong - feel free on this note) they are installed LOCAL to the folder/subfolder structure VLC has (not in a public folder like %WinDir%\system32 for example - which IS iirc, what codecpacks do).
* You "bloat" MPC's installation right there by adding more libs/dlls for it to work as well as VLC does (has libs in its distro already).
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - I like them both - both decent programs (coming from another freeware dev in myself no less) BUT this is WHY I prefer VLC (no need to install 3rd party codec packs)... apk
1. Re:Depends HOW you look @ it... apk by LinuxIsGarbage · 2017-07-19 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  See subject: For Media Player Classic to do as good a job as VLC you need to install codec packs (3rd party) - VLC has them built-in already & iirc (correct me IF I am off/wrong - feel free on this note) they are installed LOCAL to the folder/subfolder structure VLC has (not in a public folder like %WinDir%\system32 for example - which IS iirc, what codecpacks do).
  * You "bloat" MPC's installation right there by adding more libs/dlls for it to work as well as VLC does (has libs in its distro already).
  APK
  P.S.=> Lastly - I like them both - both decent programs (coming from another freeware dev in myself no less) BUT this is WHY I prefer VLC (no need to install 3rd party codec packs)... apk
  You're wrong. MPC (Media player Classic) relies on installed codec packs. MPC-HC (Home Cinema) takes the same player, can link to the codecs in the Windows Framework, but also include most required codecs to make it work "Out of the box".
Huge thanks... by XSportSeeker · 2017-07-17 09:17 · Score: 1

I use both MPC-HC and VLC, and MPC-HC is pretty feature complete. In fact, I often times skip updates for it because it just works well as is.
I think I encountered a few times where MPC-HC worked better because it was lighter, and I like the simpler interface I guess.
So there you are, thanks for all the development, I hope it can keep going with this final release for a long time.
well by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 09:27 · Score: 0

crap, windoze only software... but it's sad to see an FLOSS project go...
Great Project. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 11:04 · Score: 0

Thank you to all of the MPC people over the years, a staple. Sad to see you guys go.
Memories:
-ffdshow with MPC running Divx,Xvid,Mp4 content at full speed on slow computers AMD K6-2
-my first 1080p content from nvidia running on my athlonXP
Better than VLC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 11:33 · Score: 0

I guess VLC won the media war but
MPC-HC's codecs are much much more efficient than VLCs. 1080p and even some 720p Videos VLC stutters and struggles on MPC-HC plays beautifully on all PCs. For VLC you need a high-end PC for these.

My only criticism of MPC-HC: It uses a different keymapping from VLC which must frustrate people who consider switching to it. Example is Ctrl-up/down is volume on VLC, but Ctrl-up/down speeds up the frame rate on MPC-HC which is very difficult to get back to normal. That might have hurt it more than anything else.
But yes: Thanks for an excellent piece of software. So long as the codecs work I'll keep using it. I hope it stays around.
Relying on Microsoft is huge mistake for you by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 13:19 · Score: 0

... chickens just haven't come home to roost.
Their video APIs will enforce DRM, whereas stuff like VLC is built to ignore/bypass all that stupid "revenue protection" bullshit. People go "OH BUT THE COMPANY WILL GO BROKE IF THAY CANT DRAIN UR MONEY EACH VIEW/MONTH"
Good.
I hope every company that thinks charging people extra for a piece of shit that only works on their EZ-noobtouch-device, not only goes broke -- but also that their stupid H-1B Indians get killed along with their familes, for perpetuating greedy jew DRM schemes.
K-Lite? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 14:23 · Score: 0

They claim to have different builds of MPC-HC so their codec pack won't be dropping out along upstream.
Anyway I hope there could be a similar idiot-proof solution but using mpv or something.
Lectures? by Tenebrousedge · 2017-07-18 02:20 · Score: 1

I actually can't imagine downloading a two-hour lecture and needing data from it. It sounds like a poor way to transmit data. And frankly I don't know who is even making two hour lectures these days; if it won't fit into the YouTube attention span, why bother? And in no case would you be required to watch the entire two hours.
I think you should let someone who actually does use this feature explain why rather than trying to invent something out of whole cloth.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
1. Re:Lectures? by Calydor · 2017-07-18 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Alright, let me use an example I run into all the time.
  Games.
  Usually when stuck in a game back in the late 90s and all of the 2000s, I would look up the game on GameFAQs, search a walkthrough for a keyword of where I am or what I'm having trouble with, and usually get a solution.
  Now, walkthroughs are recorded as gameplay videos. If the uploader doesn't think the way you do and put very specific keywords in the video title or summary, you're screwed. You can watch hours of gameplay footage trying to find a solution to what you're looking for, and good luck ignoring everything else to avoid spoiling other parts of the game.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Not wrong @ all... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 15:37 · Score: 0

See subject: I'm not wrong & you said it yourself: EXISTING codecpacks. IF they're not installed, they don't exist yet. You install them as I said then (IF you already have, then fine, you have them BUT Media Player Classic doesn't ship WITH THEM already (VLC does, but iirc, it built those libs themselves (or licensed them)).
APK
P.S.=> You have to get used to 1 thing w/ me - I'm NEVER wrong (well, rarely perhaps, but this isn't one of those times)... apk
1. Re:Not wrong @ all... apk by LinuxIsGarbage · 2017-07-19 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Is my post being truncated? Is the summary being truncated? We're talking about MPC-HC, which comes with codecs built in, but aren't installed into the Windows framework. No additional steps required. As an option it can tap into the Windows' codecs.
  Here's their website:
  https://mpc-hc.org/
  Now take an MKV file on a clean Windows 7 machine (no aftermarket codecs). Install MPC-HC. Try to play it with Windows Media Player, watch it fail.
  Take the video and play it in MPC-HC, watch it work with the built-in codecs.
  Try a FLAC file, watch it fail in media player, but work in MPC-HC.
  In MPC-HC go View-Options-Internal Filters. These are the internal codecs availible.
  Go start-run-msinfo32
  Components-multimedia-video codecs. Notice Windows still only has the built in codecs.
I know the results of those tests... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 01:10 · Score: 0

See subject: It's WHY I noted what I did. I've gone thru that very thing (most of us probably have).
Windows OWN media player fails minus codecs as you said but so would media player classic (not 'home cinema' version which ships w/ libs already) as it doesn't ship w/ codec packs/libs/dlls in place.
APK
P.S.=> We had some 'wires crossed' on the Home Cinema/HC model (ships w/ libs/dlls/codecs) vs. "normal" Media Player Classic (doesn't ship w/ libs/dlls/codecpacks)... apk