As long as you can install and use these codecs in Windows, it makes no difference to me. I haven't used WMP since 6.3. I just need it to work in Media Player Classic, VirtualDub, and XviD4PSP mainly.
But if I can't use ffdshow in those in Win 7... forget it. It's no longer useful as an OS to me.
Microsoft wouldn't be so stupid as to actually block codecs. Blocking third-party formats would be a big Fuck-You to users overall. I think (and hope) that this is just a niggle in the beta build, not something that will reflect on the final product.
If this turns out to be some method of protecting users from potentially hazardous codecs, I say forget it. There's no need to nanny people in such a fashion.
I don't know what the reasoning behind this is but I wonder how much this actually impacts anyone or how much it's media-FUD.
Boohoo, when I play a video back it uses a built in codec that works and I can't alternately choose to render it with a third party codec that does exactly the same thing...? Can someone explain to me why I should care? What compelling reason is there for me to say "I want to view h.264s with a third party codec that I install instead of the built in one"?
This isn't forcing a user to use IE over Firefox, where there may be a clear user preference or reason to provide options.
I have no knowledge or information about this, but I wonder if baking certain codecs right in is part of a performance movement... If it were a requirement to be able to decode h.264 video on a low end netbook I could see all corners being cut to boost performance, even at the cost of some flexibility.
@closhedbb: Except Mac doesn't behave this way. It doesn't come with every codec under the sun, but I can install plugins to get .flvs to play on Quicktime, and I can play .avi video from Front Row.
Think of all of the people employed to make all of these incompatible products. In an economy like we have today, we really should be embracing the chaos that is modern copy protection.
You forgot to mention how to break the DRM, if this explaination included "EVERYTHING" you wanted to know. I want to know how to break Fairplay DRM specifically.
"but then again, it's not as easy to rip a stream for Joe Blow as it is to share a file over Limewire"
Remember, though - all it takes is one clued in guy to rip the stream and Joe Blow can download it over Limewire forever. This is why DRM really doesn't work.
@jackjumper: I think that's why Hollywood is glad that, for now, streaming video looks like ass. Can you imagine a super-clean non-hiccupy HD Hulu stream? I don't think NBC or Fox can either!
03/26/09
But if I can't use ffdshow in those in Win 7... forget it. It's no longer useful as an OS to me.
03/26/09
If this turns out to be some method of protecting users from potentially hazardous codecs, I say forget it. There's no need to nanny people in such a fashion.
03/26/09
Boohoo, when I play a video back it uses a built in codec that works and I can't alternately choose to render it with a third party codec that does exactly the same thing...? Can someone explain to me why I should care? What compelling reason is there for me to say "I want to view h.264s with a third party codec that I install instead of the built in one"?
This isn't forcing a user to use IE over Firefox, where there may be a clear user preference or reason to provide options.
I have no knowledge or information about this, but I wonder if baking certain codecs right in is part of a performance movement... If it were a requirement to be able to decode h.264 video on a low end netbook I could see all corners being cut to boost performance, even at the cost of some flexibility.
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
RTFA fail. on myself. ouch.
12/19/08
12/19/08
12/19/08
12/19/08
12/19/08
12/19/08
12/19/08
Remember, though - all it takes is one clued in guy to rip the stream and Joe Blow can download it over Limewire forever. This is why DRM really doesn't work.
12/19/08
12/19/08
12/19/08