Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Music

Windows Media Player 10 Beta Released 326

Posted by simoniker from the music-to-ears dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft today officially announced the public availability of Windows Media Player 10 Technical Beta. These screenshots reveal how Microsoft is integrating music service subscriptions such as Napster and video service subscription from CinemaNow. Is Microsoft trying to start competing with iTunes with this new music service integration?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Media Player 10 Beta Released More

Windows Media Player 10 Beta Released

Comments Filter:

  • This instead of MS Eula's... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Soulfarmer ( 607565 ) * on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:38AM (#9323007) Homepage Journal
    "Warning!
    This is a technical beta release. Before you decide whether to install this software, it is important to understand that the technical beta release does not have the stability of released Microsoft software..."

    MS should use that everywhere. And WHO needs MS mediaplayers anyhow...

    • Re:This instead of MS Eula's... (Score:5, Funny)

      by xsupergr0verx ( 758121 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:44AM (#9323028)
      that the technical beta release does not have the stability of released Microsoft software...

      That could swing either way. But I think they mean it in the bad way. Shame, I got excited for a minute.

    • Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by alphapartic1e ( 260735 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:56AM (#9323091)
      And WHO needs MS mediaplayers anyhow...

      Actually, with WM9, video quality seems to be consistently better than MPEG or DivX files of the same size. So, yeah, it's very reasonable for someone to use WM.
      • "Actually, with WM9, video quality seems to be consistently better than MPEG or DivX files of the same size. So, yeah, it's very reasonable for someone to use WM."

        On top of that, you can send a WM9 video file and just about anybody running Windows can play it. No format has better coverage except maybe MPEG1, but them's not so low-data-rate friendly.
    • Well it very clearly states that "A few changes to the GUI [...]the options haven't changed much though." which is a common MS practice.
    • And WHO needs MS mediaplayers anyhow...

      You can get a lot of people to upgrade if you make it worth their while. The only reason I upgraded windows media player to version 9 was because the Halo 2 teaser trailer would only work on version 9 so that was reason enough for me to upgrade.

      • Re:This instead of MS Eula's... (Score:5, Informative)

        by blowdart ( 31458 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @03:26AM (#9323389) Homepage

        only reason I upgraded windows media player to version 9 was because the Halo 2 teaser trailer would only work on version 9 so that was reason enough for me to upgrade.

        If you were running 7 you shouldn't have needed to upgrade. The WM9 codecs work within MP7 and would have automatically downloaded and installed the first time you played WM9 content.

    • >And WHO needs MS mediaplayers anyhow...
      Have any pointers to alternatives ?

      • Re:This instead of MS Eula's... (Score:5, Informative)

        by kaschei ( 701750 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @04:22AM (#9323629)
        Foobar 2000 [foobar2000.org] for all your audio needs.
        BSPlayer [bsplayer.org] for all your video needs.
        Koepi's codec pack [goe.net] for all your codec needs.
        • I agree with the parent on BSPlayer, fabulous piece of software, very configurable. Not heard of FooBar tho.

          However, I'd avoid codec packs if possible. They usually install outdated versions of codecs, as well as multiple handlers for different compression schemes. It becomes a nightmare to track and control which codec is used for whatever media.

          It's far simpler and more reliable to install the codecs you need. DivX, XviD and an AC3 audio filter cover most of the ones you don't get on a standard window

      • Re:This instead of MS Eula's... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday June 03, 2004 @04:40AM (#9323691)
        >And WHO needs MS mediaplayers anyhow...
        Have any pointers to alternatives ?

        Plenty of alternatives exist, it depends on what you want to do. I think the idea that anyone would use one "media player" for everything is just stupid - at least when it's a company out for its own interest releasing the player (as opposed to, say, an open-source free software project designed to collate as many formats as possible into one application).

        I would never use an MS media player to rip anything. I use EAC/LAME for that.

        I would never use an MS media player to play back mp3's. I use iTunes for that, and it works great - so well, in fact, that apart from needed performance tweaks I doubt Apple or anyone else will ever be able to release a better player for this purpose.

        I would never use an MS media player to play back QuickTime files - in fact you can't use it for this, as far as I know of. I use QuickTime to play its native format.

        I would never use an MS media player to play DVD's. I use WinDVD for that, and it has a lot more DVD playback options than WMP - it's not even close. There is absolutely nothing WMP offers over any of the standalone DVD player apps out there.

        In fact, really the *only* thing I would use WMP for is to play back Windows Media files. And I do use Windows Media whenever I do video capture, partly because the Windows Media 9 codec is a nice codec that supports ultra-high resolution as well as 5.1 surround sound, and also because MS gives away a very nice little free video capture and encoder utility called Windows Media Encoder. This is an example where MS is actually providing me something of value, and so I use it.

        So I'm not seeing WMP is useless, just that it can never be a jack-of-all-trades, especially with this "DRM 10" built into it (DRM 10? There have been 9 other versions of this?). There is no such thing as a "media player" as far as I'm concerned (I never got mplayer to play all the formats I wanted in Linux either!); there are only mp3 players, DVD players, "windows media" players, Real players, QuickTime players, etc. Each player with its own native format; it's own specialization that it does best, and that gives you the most freedom to use your media as you see fit. All of these companies want to monopolize your media, and you'd be stupid to give up that control to them.

        Oh, I also just find it really silly that everyone is now building "media players" to act as web browsers - but only to their online music store addresses! This isn't "integration", this is just a stupid web page rendered in the player window! I can navigate with my own damn browser, thank you - this is another function that media players just should not have.

        (yes, I've disabled the music store in iTunes - no way I'd pay 99 cents for a DRM-encrusted song anyway.)
        • Well, I would ideally use *one* player to play videos. I don't see why i should
          monkey around with one player for mpg files, one for .rm files, one for .mov files, one ...
          Having other apps for playing audio, ripping is another matter.
        • "Plenty of alternatives exist, it depends on what you want to do."

          Most people (hi mom!) want to view all photos, music and video without having to think about the program they're using. They don't want to download products supported by hackers or (gasp!) programs they'd have to pay extra for like WinDVD. They want to get a video from their grandkids, open it and have it play.

          Not to mention, Windows Media Player uses the exact same codec WinDVD does (try purchasing it from Intervideo). What's the point

        • I think the idea that anyone would use one "media player" for everything is just stupid

          But the average Win[95/98/Me/XP/2K] user doesn't say "I want to watch an AVI file" or "I want to watch an MPEG file", they say "I want to watch a movie". So having one player that handles multiple formats isn't such a bad idea after all.

          Kind of like mplayer for us Linux users.

    • Indeed. I have managed to steer clear of WMP for some time, preferring instead iTunes for MP3, and a collection of other apps for video. I do not use WMA format and do not intend to. So far, my audio experience has been license-free.

      It seems to me that the further the development of WMP goes, the more anti-privacy features are included (like the whole Media Rights Management thing), which is why I will be very cautiously examining version 10 when it leaves "beta".

  • I Wish (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Walker2323 ( 670050 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:42AM (#9323022)
    I wish Microsoft was spending a bit more time on toning down the bloat-ware aspect of this piece of software. I've got a nice fast Athlon XP processor and a gig of RAM etc... and WMP still takes 3 or 4 seconds to get going. Not a big deal, I guess, but come on. By 1998 standards I've got a freakin' supercomputer.

    • Re:I Wish (Score:3, Interesting)

      by toriver ( 11308 )
      I've found WMP9 to be far less resource-hungry and far better at "co-existing" with other applications than either of RealOne 10, WinAmp or iTunes.

  • Innovation opportunities in media players (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gsasha ( 550394 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:43AM (#9323025) Homepage
    But really, are there any significant innovations possible in media players except for infinitesimal interface polishing? (DRM doesn't count as a feature ;)
    I get a feeling they're almost there.

    • Re:Innovation opportunities in media players (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thryllkill ( 52874 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:51AM (#9323064) Homepage Journal
      ...and that is usually how one feels right before someone comes out with something that blows any previously thought limits out of the water. No, I don't think Microsoft will do this, but someone will.
    • While I can't think of any particularly good innovations (I am after all NOT a media player developer), one needs only to use mplayer or media player classic to figure out exactly how far MS still has to go to catch up to the current playing field, let alone innovate.
    • But really, are there any significant innovations possible in media players except for infinitesimal interface polishing? (DRM doesn't count as a feature ;) I get a feeling they're almost there.

      Random ideas:
      * built-in encoders - eg I am watching DVD and it's recording it to xvid on the fly at the same time
      * plug-in winamp modules - eg use graphic equaliser on the audio, have visuals going with a dance video, ability to mix in mic so you can speak over documentary/home-vid to audience
      * externally controlle

  • So is WMP 9 for OS X new? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:43AM (#9323027)
    I noticed on the same page that I could get WMP 9 for OS X [microsoft.com]. I would have sworn that was not there before, as I wanted to view the Epson Print Acadamy and it needed WMP9, which I could not find at the time - now the sample video works just fine whereas before I could not get video. Epson had also mentioned to me via support email that Microsoft was going to release WMP9 sometime at the end of March.

    The wierd thing about that is that when you download WMP9 for OS X, the installer is dated October 27th, 2003. A suspicious person would speculate that Microsoft wants to make sure the Mac lags a version behind Windows for WMP support, and they would not release the final version of WMP9 for OS X until WMP10 was ready for beta test.

    Note that this WMP9 also claims to support the same DRM as Windows WMP9. I have no such protected files to test against so I don't know how well that works.
    • The WMP9 for Mac OS X exists for at least a couple of months now, probably indeed since October 2003.

      Dave
      • I wish Epson would have figured that out when I tried to use their site two months ago and contacted their support people! "WMP9 is not out yet for the Mac", they said... talk about being behind the times! Not that I'm any better.

        Thanks for the correction.
    • Or, it could have been there since November 7th, 2003 like they stated [macnn.com]. Mac OS has had WMP releases before WMP 9, and Mac OS X, as well.
    • "Mac lags a version behind Windows for WMP support"

      The mac version of 9 sucks so bad that you can't claim any kind of platform parity. All it is, is a way for OSX users to play *some* WM9 content. It doesn't work with all of it. But M$ can claim "crossplatform support, just like real and quicktime."

      Now will 10 have new codecs? That will leave the mac behind again, and I still don't even have WM9 codecs to compress video on mac.

    • Re:So is WMP 9 for OS X new? (Score:5, Informative)

      by wibs ( 696528 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:13AM (#9323154)
      Yup, WMP9 has been out for Macs for ages.

      There is a non-redundant part of this post, though. For those who don't want WMP anywhere near their mac, MPlayer [sourceforge.net] is an excellent open source alternative that handles all kinds of video formats, and is overall a great player. Its WMV support is kind of shaky, but most files still play.

      And because I'm on the subject, I might as well point out VLC [videolan.org], which in my opinion is the best all-around player for the Mac. It doesn't handle WMV files, though =-\.
    • Note that this WMP9 also claims to support the same DRM as Windows WMP9. I have no such protected files to test against so I don't know how well that works.

      No it doesn't. It says

      Plays secure content protected with Microsoft Windows Media Rights Manager version 1.3.

      That's not the same DRM as Windows WMP9, or even WMP7, it's the first version of DRM, which doesn't offer a lot of the features that music producers want, like expiry from first play and so on. Also the DRM SDK1 was, well, difficult to pla

  • torrent link (Score:5, Informative)

    by ender1598 ( 266355 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:44AM (#9323031)
    torrent link [66.90.75.92]
    • Right, because I'd feel awful taking Microsoft's bandwidth!

    • No offense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:16AM (#9323173)
      But that's kinda worthless. Microsoft has massive bandwidth themselves, and most of their downloads are hosted by Akamai who has even more bandwidth, not to mention cache engines at many ISPs. Torrents are cool if it is some small site that can't handle Slashdot, but for big sites like MS, Apple, etc it's pretty worthless. They can, and regularly do, deal with worse. A bunch of geeks, many of them running Linux and thus not intrested, are nothing compared to the millions of copies of Windows grabbing stuff on patch day.

  • This looks really good (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There are certainly lots of good ideas that we, as a community, can build into mplayer through our own innovations.

  • Forced upgrades for DRM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by noelo ( 661375 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:46AM (#9323037)
    I wonder if once its fully released if microsoft will say that there is a major flaw in previous version of media players and force people to upgrade to the newer version. With the latest computer viruses people are applying patches without really understanding the impacts of what functionality they introduce like the newer versions of DRM. Maybe this is how microsoft envisage migrating users to DRM.
    • wonder if once its fully released if microsoft will say that there is a major flaw in previous version of media players and force people to upgrade to the newer version.

      /me dons tinfoil hat

      Well, if there isn't one now, who's to say what future WMP9 updates will carry in their picnic basket?

    • I wonder if once its fully released if microsoft will say that there is a major flaw in previous version of media players and force people to upgrade to the newer version. With the latest computer viruses people are applying patches without really understanding the impacts of what functionality they introduce like the newer versions of DRM. Maybe this is how microsoft envisage migrating users to DRM.

      You know what? I think it's about time for a name change.

      Windows Media Player --> Windows Media Restr

    • I hate to tell you this, but every MS Media player after Mediaplayer 7.1 has integrated DRM.
      Which is why i'll never upgrade past 7.1, or Win2k for that matter; DRM/phone home/ etc is the birds, a INTEGRATED security weakness.
      I'm a MCSE, but i'll NEVER go along with this crap, i'm just glad I started techie life in the Unix community.

  • Cringe factor (Score:5, Funny)

    by x3ro ( 628101 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:47AM (#9323048) Homepage
    There's something about seeing a neutered, paid-for-only Napster window inside Windows Media Player that makes me cringe. That it should come to this. I'll be sticking to SoulSeek [slsknet.org].
  • Okay, it's asking for the obvious pseudo-insightful comment, so I have to make it... Microsoft is not trying to compete. They just want to cut everyone else's b@lls off.

    Anyway, anything from Microsoft has a catch. Music distribution is a minor target, and though they don't want to leave any crumbs on the table, that's not the place to look for interesting hooks. The place I'd look involves the next big target, Web searching. There are probably some interesting new hooks here for Microsoft to tie their sea

    • Re:"What, me compete?" asks Bill (rhetorically). (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xsupergr0verx ( 758121 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:57AM (#9323096)
      You know, you are absolutely right. When the next chimaera from Redmond is released with the WMP10 music store, it is going to get some serious use out of the average PC user. These technophobes are going to use the obviously inferior MS service just because it is already there and they are afraid of being sued by using anything else (even if they pay for it!).

      A testament to that is looking at your less savvy friends'/family members'/co-workers' computers and staring at IE. Even if you tell them of alternatives, they are terrified to install it. One even asked me if Firefox was legal to use, because it wasn't Microsoft!

      You have a long way to go folks.
    • How can ignorance be a cause of evil? Evil requires a motive.
      • > How can ignorance be a cause of evil? Evil requires a motive.

        You are confusing causation with motivation. Getting off topic, but two basic mechanisms.

        One is by providing the opportunity for someone else to commit evil, which is mostly related to the "selfish greed" of Cause 1. There are many crimes which would fail without an ignorant victim.

        The second is by doing something really bad because of ignorance of the consequences. To the victim, it doesn't matter whether there was any intention behind th
        • Naah bullshit.

          If I'm ignorant, I can do something with bad sonsequences, but it needs intent to be evil. Some one could also exploit my ignorance, but the ignorance does not cause the evil per se.

          Similarly, evilness might continue because people are lazy (ie. I prefer to bitch about things on /. or say nothing - rather than do something useful to fight the evil). Again, evil people might exploit my laziness.

          In none of these cases does laziness or ignorance cause the evil. Or, as an analogy, people who have

  • alternatives (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phrasebook ( 740834 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:51AM (#9323067)
    Taking a look at those screenshots and hearing the new features, I really don't think I'm going to be installing that s--t on my computer.

    Is there a plain-jane alternative? Something like foobar [foobar2000.org], but which can play video? I use foobar because of its standard looking interface.

    Sigh. I don't want storefronts in my software :-(

    • Re:alternatives (Score:3, Informative)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 )
      I use bsplayer [bsplayer.org]. It's lightweight (compared to WMP anyways), and it does the only thing I need a freaking media player to do, play videos.

    • Re:alternatives (Score:5, Informative)

      by miyako ( 632510 ) <miyako AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:03AM (#9323119) Homepage Journal
      Try MPlayer Here [mplayerhq.hu] It's mainly intended for video but will work with audio as well. I'm not sure how well the windows version works, but on Linux I've found that it works flawlessly, playing things that all other players will choke on, though it will on rare occasions choke on a wmv file (maybe no support for newer or DRMed windows media files? any other slashdotters out there know).
      I know there was a big deal awhile ago about some dvd player manufacturer using mplayer code in their software and not providing the source, and well my thinking is that if it's good enough for a video player manufacturer to steal than it should probably be good enough for the average geek ;)

    • Re:alternatives (Score:5, Informative)

      by andi75 ( 84413 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:04AM (#9323126) Homepage
      Media Player Classic [sourceforge.net] is quite lightweight (1.2 MB standalone exe), and seems to play just about anything, provided you have the necessary codecs installed.

      - Andreas

    • MPlayer, BSPlayer, Media Player Classic and VideoLAN are all very good. I'll chime in for Zoom Player, of which I'm very fond, mostly because of the insane level of customization and control.

      The website has great information as well on the different codecs, how and where to get them and the player itself can check and make sure all the most common codecs/formats are working - DivX, XviD, Ogg, Matroska, etc.

      http://www.inmatrix.com/

      It's not Open Source, but the standard version is free (as in beer) and th

  • And what about... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tuxedo Jack ( 648130 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:53AM (#9323071) Homepage
    Is it uninstallable? I mean, after seeing the _last_ foray of MS into the Media Player market, it had better be removable.
    • ... it's not an essential part of the OS core??? hey, I wonder how did all those Windows users live (still do, as a matter of fact) without the amazing multimedia experience that comes with WMP10 ... err ... will come .... nevermind.

      Oh well, you can bet they are building Longhorn around this baby as we speak, anyway - at least as far as the DOJ is concerned.
  • It doesn't leave enough room for the new clock!

  • Dialog... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:56AM (#9323089) Homepage
    Microsoft: All your rights are belong to us!
    Community: What you say!
    Microsoft: You have no chance to survive make your time!
    Community: For great justice!
    Microsoft: Ha Ha Ha Ha

  • Like a sloth on downers... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by domukun367 ( 681095 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:56AM (#9323090)
    ...is how I described the performance of Media Player 8 on my PII-400MHz, when it first came out. But Media Player 9 also runs sluggishly on my P4-3GHz. I hope that the Microsoft coders have actually followed the 80/20 rule and made some efficiency improvements in this release, because having to wait 2-3 seconds after double clicking a media file is not good enough. I guess that is why Winamp 2 is so popular - launch the media file and it instantly starts playing.

    • Re:Like a sloth on downers... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot@mo n k e l e c t r ic.com> on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:03AM (#9323121)
      having to wait 2-3 seconds after double clicking a media file is not good enough

      WMP 8 and 9 have an annoying habit of scanning EVERY file in a directory every time you open a video (I don't know why). So if WMP is slow for you, you should sort your porn into smaller directories.

    • WMP is so slow because, when you single-click (or hover, depending on your config), it opens another instance of WMP to open that damned irritating sidebar thing that plays video/audio in Windows Explorer. I got so irritated that I turned off the "show web content" thingy in Windows Explorer altogether, since it would end up taking ~4-6 secs. to open a simple MP3 file on my 850 MHz/256MB RAM Windows 2000 Pro box (highly tweaked for performance), even with a third-party app like Winamp configured as my defau
  • It seems that everything released nowadays is beta. "Beta" is the new trend just like using years for version numbers was the trend in the 90's. Just wait for this: Windows Media Player X - Beta 2004 Then it will be complete.

  • Just RTFA... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:02AM (#9323118) Homepage
    From the article:

    this technical beta lays the groundwork for the great end-to-end digital media experience coming with the final release for Windows XP

    I do believe I will be forced to struggle to contain my excitement...

  • Amazing! (Score:5, Funny)

    by obeythefist ( 719316 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:07AM (#9323138) Journal
    Has nobody noticed the great implications of this?

    Finally MS is leveraging the Windows Media Player monopoly! This fits in nicely with their ongoing world domination plans.

    iTunes is getting loads of publicity lately. And iTunes is being used on many Windows PC's! This is not what Bill Gates likes.

    But Bill knows that every Windows has his media player on it. Why not make it so that you can buy Bills media files online which will only play with Bills player than will only run on Bills O/S? And let's make it so that when you launch Bills OS it pops up Bills media player that connects instantly to Bills online music download service? Why not have the payments bundled with MSN which is bundled on the OS?

    This would be nice for Bill. Especially when he has about 90% of desktops in the wild.

  • CinemaNow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by david_reese ( 460043 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:08AM (#9323144)
    It seems to me that they are still bent on the HTPC idea, with the cinemanow (using mpeg4/WMV codec) offering...

    When will they learn? If people pay for a "service", they expect to own what they pay for. The obvious exceptions might be something like netflix where you have to return the physical media to get new ones... simple, elegant, or Tivo, where you're really paying for enhanced scheduling, and you can own it if you want.

    It's pretty clear that M$ is shooting in the dark, hoping to find some hit, while they make bank off their other products. They have time, they can wait pretty much forever.

  • Whoah. Deja vu. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Temporal ( 96070 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:10AM (#9323149) Journal
    1) Enter a section of the software market with a new Microsoft product.
    2) Include it free with Windows, thereby eliminating the competition's ability to compete because users are too lazy to download competing software.
    3) Profit.
    4) When the DoJ gets upset, pay them off by offering to donate massive amounts of Microsoft software to schools, thereby leading students to learn Microsoft software rather than competing products.
    5) Profit more.
    6) Repeat.

    • Re:Whoah. Deja vu. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blowdart ( 31458 )

      Already happening. The EU anti-trust investigation [microsoftmonitor.com] was around media player. However that seems driven mostly by Real's sour grapes ("People don't use real because WMP is on the desktop". No, people don't use real because it's been a bloated heap of spyware driven shit, with an awful set of codecs).

      • Yeah, it doesn't help that the people whining usually have inferior products. Sorry, but at the time of Netscape 4, IE was simply a better browser (portability issues aside). It wasn't until reletively recently that Mozilla pulled ahead in my mind.

        Apple might be able to make a better case because they actually have a quality product that people like. In Netscape or Real's case, you could shrug it off by saying "They only lost because their products sucked, not because Microsoft exploited its monopoly.".

  • Let's see how many features I care about... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:11AM (#9323151) Journal
    - New skin (who cares? I play music and movies on it, not look at decorated borders)

    - Integrated online stores (I really think these should be on the web instead of in the player... anyway, I won't use them since they probably just offer WMA, being in Microsoft's player)

    - Enhanced device support (nice feature, but I don't have a NOMAD or Lyra [microsoft.com] player so no reason to use this for that either)

    - Improved All-in-One Smart Jukebox (not sure how much this would help me since other players already support media libraries... this feature alone would probably not make me switch anyway :-P)
    • Actually, you forgot one:

      - Jugalator doesn't like it (who cares?)
    • " - New skin (who cares? I play music and movies on it, not look at decorated borders)

      You may certainly not but you'd be a moron to think that the public doesn't want this. Seriously, I mean look at how popular skins are for Winamp. And you just use that to play music don't you?

      Skins are a popular new feature in just about everything because society is all about customization/personalizatino nowadays.

      • Yes, I know. It just doesn't matter to me. :-)

        When I play music, I have the player minimized, and when I play movies, I play in full screen. I never even see the skin.

        And yeah, I use Winamp for music and MPC for movies. But I didn't go for Winamp partially for its skinning support.

      • Unfortunately you have a point. The average Slashdotter is probably a "Function before Form" subscriber. Even with skinnable programs, so often I can't find anything better than the default skin or theme. So many look nice, but don't actually work as well.
        But Slashdotters aren't the target audience for these things. (Or, at least, "target" or not we often don't use something we don't have an actual preference for unless we have no choice)

        Ironically that's why I like Media Player Classic. The basic look i

  • still lacking ogg support. The 'new' GUI looks more bloated than before, and what's up with this sudden support for Napster?

    Also, why do companies think that making an app look like fruitella is better? So far the only reason why i ever installed WMP is because of the stick figure plugin/theme/whateverMScallsIt.

    No, if you want a decent media player for windows, then i recommend using media player classic, which has all the (important) features and none of the extras that you can live without.

  • Instead of bloated wmp (Score:3, Informative)

    by News for nerds ( 448130 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:22AM (#9323187) Homepage
    Use OSS Media Player Classic

  • I hate to sound cynical (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Gary Destruction ( 683101 ) * on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:22AM (#9323189) Journal
    I hate to sound cynical but the Microsoft Multimedia Transport Protocol (MTP) seems to be silently screaming the word "vulnerability." I know it's just to connect devices, but I have a feeling that somehow, some way, it's got some sort of security issues that are going to surface shortly after its released.

  • Integration is getting ridiculous... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:23AM (#9323190) Journal
    The level of integration is getting to ridiculous proportions.

    I hated having media files playing in my browser; the interface is terrible, and crippled. I hated opening PDFs in my browser; it's harder to read that way (less screen-space to read in) and they often hide important controls too. I hated Flash in my browser; I can disable GIF animations, but Flash gives me no control at all, plus the security problems, and added annoyance of all ads being massively animated, and having sound...

    Now, to add insult to injury, instead of integrating the applications inside the browser, they are putting the browser inside the programs. Good god man! You can't tell me that isn't going to be MASSIVELY annoying and cumbersome.

    Screw them all. All applications launched from my browser open in a seperate window of their own, and do whatever I tell them to do. All of my browsing is done outside of my unrelated applications, and that's the way it's going to stay.

    Screw you Microsoft guys, I'm going home.
    • Indeed. I believe Microsoft made a pretty big mistake with the WMP 7 interface, so my first thought when I saw a screenshot of this thing was 'what an ugly piece of shit'. Seriously, having something that bloated, rivalling RealOne, could at last push me to try and find other players for my media.

      Take a look at a comparison between what a lovely, no-nonsense interface WMP used to have [mp3-tech.org], and what it is going to have pretty soon [flexbeta.net]. Whilst I've never been a fan of the million-and-one ugly visualizations anywa
    • Sounds like you need flashblock [texturizer.net].

      You are running, FireFox, right? :)

      cLive ;-)

      • I did notice that when looking through firefox extensions. I thought it was quite an interesting plug-in, then I realized that I have absolutely no use for it at all because I refuse to install the Flash plugin at all.

        Security, privacy, annoyance, bad web design. All reasons to refrain from installing the plug-in at all.

  • When will Microsoft learn (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rustla ( 590845 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:37AM (#9323231)
    A lot of people out there want to organise their music better. Why would you have such a bulky looking program as WMP 10, which doesn't organise your music. Sure, iTunes is bulky, but it is truly intuitive. I made the switch from Winamp 3 to iTunes just before I bought my iPod, and havent looked back. WMP 8 has been collecting dust for ages. There needs to be a decent reason to warrant downloading this update, I just see it as a waste of time, not just to clutter your screen with more ads. Sure, Microsoft may be planning on organising data better in Longhorn, but how many years away is that now?

  • Shape (Score:3, Funny)

    by paul248 ( 536459 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:49AM (#9323268) Homepage
    It's good to see that they've moved it back into a more-or-less rectangular window, instead of that horrible amorphous blob from the last 3 versions. On the downside, now they'll probably patent the use of right angles in a user interface.

  • MS Warning... (Score:3, Funny)

    by howman ( 170527 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @03:14AM (#9323344)
    that the technical beta release does not have the stability of released Microsoft software...

    Released Microsoft software doesn't have stability either so what is the big deal?

  • AutoSync (Score:3, Funny)

    by Espen ( 96293 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @03:27AM (#9323395)
    "The Auto Sync feature was developed to enable users to quickly and easily take the content they want, wherever they want."

    except wherever and whenever DRM won't allow it of course.

    Someone could be in for a rude shock!
  • If anyone is interested in WMP10 and other betas of Microsoft software, you may be interested in www.betaone.net

    We will also be releasing a repackaged installer allowing WMP10 to run on Windows Longhorn and Win2k3 systems, within the next hour.

  • Bad Visual Design (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nfotxn ( 519715 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @03:34AM (#9323422) Journal
    I think graphically WMP is still really weak. It looks like the design is shy of semiotics and relies on a lot of text. And what's with opting out of viewing the toolbar still? I know MSN Messenger 6 does that at well. I still don't see the practical benefit. There is seriously too much gloss as well. To the point that it impedes on the contrast where text is. That's just impractical

    Also, the obsession with hierarchical tree lists? Is it really necessary to know that my music resides under the "All Music" node? This creates so much dead (not negative, that would mean it's useful) space and nasty horizontal scrollbars. Interface wise the Windows and Office teams at Microsoft have come leaps and bounds with XP and Office 2003, respectively. But the Windows Media Div. seems to be really hung up on the technical bits and providing a shitty user experience. I hope they redesign for the final release. I was really hoping that they'd shape up WMP interface wise with this version. It's the place the player is lacking most. WMP continues to be all geewhiz skinning with absolutely no design discipline. Save that crap for the hobbyists at Deviant Art [deviantart.com].

  • "Is Microsoft trying to start competing with iTunes with this new music service integration?"

    - Competitor has great idea/product/service
    - Copy idea/product/service
    - 'Extend' it to the point that it ruins everybody's freedom and/or enjoyment
    - throw some money in to hide that
    profit

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @05:12AM (#9323793)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Can't turn off update checking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @07:15AM (#9324186)
    Anyone notice that WMP10 follows it's close predecessors in giving you the ability to not turn off the automatic checking for new updates? Instead you get "once a day," "once a week," and "once a month." (see flexbeta screenshots in parent article.)

    I wonder if XP SP2's on-by-default firewall will automatically not block this update checking traffic? (sarcasm)

    This post is not meant to Troll, but can't Microsoft release a post-WMP6.4-era media player that's not constantly calling home?

    I mean, at least iTunes lets you turn off update checking and iTunes Internet usage in general...

Slashdot Top Deals

The wages of sin are unreported.

Close