> On 15 Mar 2007, at 18:34, Steve Watkins wrote: > "So anyways Im interested in Ruperts opinions of the Windows Media > Center thang, why he thinks it is right. I havent tried it much but I > was under the impression it was mostly compatible with wmv,a nd > whatever microsofts format is for recording digital tv. So I assumed > media of other formats has to be converted to be watched, which is an > instant turnoff for me. Have I got this detail all wrong?"
Steve, MS doesn't provide support out of the box, because they're evil bastards, but Windows Media Player will play MP4 if you download a decoder pack. So it's a relatively small hack. This is from the Windows Media Player multimedia file formats support page: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316992#34 "Windows Media Player does not support the playback of the .mp4 file format. You can play back .mp4 media files in Windows Media Player when you install DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs. DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs include the Ligos LSX-MPEG Player and the EnvivioTV." http://www.ligos.com (http://www.ligos.com) http://www.envivio.com/products/ But no Quicktime, of course, under any circumstances, ever. Which is a drag. What's wrong with these people? Why can't they all just hold hands and be friends. If we all held hands, no one would be able to make a fist. I'm interested in my opinion, too :-) -- I haven't actually used WM Center yet, but the way I look at it, this is what the public will use if they use anything, so I'm intrigued... and I think Apple have shot themselves in the foot by not integrating TV and Hard disk recording. EyeTV is not integral to Front Row - you have to buy and install separately, and from the sound of the reviews of the latest version, it's a pain to use the remote to switch back between EyeTV and Front Row. Idiocy. Plus, WMC seems to make it easier to play one thing through your TV while using your PC as usual on your monitor. Whereas a Mac Mini or iMac solution is a dedicated media machine. Another attraction for the general non-techie public. As you say, comparing Apple TV and WMC is not like for like - but it was a golden opportunity for Apple. Who REALLY wants a box for hundreds of pounds that only lets them play their iTunes music and videos through their TV...? It's a gadget, not a utility. Comparing the Windows Media Center extender with the Apple TV, you seem to get almost full WMC functionality through the extender, even if it's an XBOX360 (which is useful in its own right). I don't know... I just don't *get* Apple TV - but I'm probably wrong. I have to say - I never thought I'd be advocating Microsoft in an online forum, particularly one devoted to media. Where did it all go wrong? I worked at MTV a few years ago, and the head of advertising had a poster of a blue-eyed blonde teenager on his wall, with a man in a suit standing on her shoulder and climbing into her ear. The caption was "The MTV Generation: Get Inside Their Heads". Dark days. But I think that's what I want to do - get inside the heads of those people who will be starting to use V.o.D. on their couches, and WMC is the way that I think it might go. I want to see if it's possible to set it up in a way that my wife will like using it, the way she loves Sky+. A funny kind of inverse early-adopting. Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/ On 15 Mar 2007, at 18:34, Steve Watkins wrote: So anyways Im interested in Ruperts opinions of the Windows Media Center thang, why he thinks it is right. I havent tried it much but I was under the impression it was mostly compatible with wmv,a nd whatever microsofts format is for recording digital tv. So I assumed media of other formats has to be converted to be watched, which is an instant turnoff for me. Have I got this detail all wrong? I dont think a comparison between a computer with windows media center on it, and Apple TV, is comparing like for like. The equivalent Apple thing would be a full mac computer (eg mac mini) with front-row on it, and the Apple TV is more like what Microsoft promote as 'windows media center extenders'. These are devices such as the Xbox360 that are connected to the TV and can play media that is stored on the Windows Media Center computer, via network. Although I think they need to stream it live, wheras the Apple TV has a hard drive? Still at the end of the day personally it comes back to how loud the hardware is, and what formats it can support. As I got on quite well with eyeTV for recording, id probably get a mac mini, use eye-tv, itunes & frontrow on it, and then use VLC to support more formats. Granted this is still too fiddley as only frontrow really has the right UI designed for distance TV use, but even if I went for a PC solution I think Id end up looking for 3rd party stuff I guess, to deal with format issues. Remote control is another issue, I think I prefer Apples simplistic approach, although it has limitations. Been experimenting with getting Wii remote to work with computers, seems more stable & flexible on PC than Mac at the moment unfortunately, but really enhances the possibilities of what interaction if feasible from a distance with a remote, great stuff, and makes a full-blown computer with net surfing etc as well as media playback, an attractive thing to connect to a tv. Its a shame the Wii itself doesnt handle a wider range of media and have some nice storage options, as its dead quiet, probably doesnt use too much power, is small and the remote rocks. The web browser for it is interesting and the news/weather aggregators are very nice ways to interact with & watch data from a distance. Youtube works on it (flash 7 in browser) but thats about the only commonly used vlog format I think I can watch on the Wii. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Randy, > I'm a Mac fan and have both PC & Macs (PowerPC G4 x2). One of my > many freelancing jobs is helping people sort out their computer > problems. I don't think the PC is a slowly dying dinosaur. PCs are > here to stay because people like what they know. You could look at > Mac's transition to Intel as a slow convergence towards a world of > oneness where both exist together in a compatible PC world. Macs > are now really just smart-looking high-spec PCs, with a slightly > different OS. Vista has learnt from and copied OS X in its > appearance and functionality. The next computer I'm going to buy > is not a Mac - I've had too many hard drive failures on my G4s and my > iPod to love Apple hardware any more. It's all about features. I > have all the design and editing software I need on Mac already, but > what I want from PC is Windows Media Center - integrated TV, HDR, > Video on demand, Podcasting, RSS, Music, blah blah blah. This is > traditional Mac territory, but Vista has done it better this time. > Apple TV is seriously short on features. > > Rupert > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org > http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/ > > > > > On 15 Mar 2007, at 17:39, humancloner1997 wrote: > > Daryl, you mention that you would also have "pc accessability" while > working with flash. Would the new Mac with the Intel chip that can > run Windows qualify as "pc accessability". > I'm planning on buying a second computer. I considered a good pc but > then decided the new Mac with the Intel chip would work just as > well. I edit with iMovie but like programs like Microsoft Word in > the PC. However, since switching to Mac, I view the PC as a slowly > dying dinosaur. > Is there any reason I should consider getting a top of the line pc > instead of a new Intel Mac? Money is not an important > consideration. I never worked with video on a PC because my old PC > didn't have the strength. > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Daryl Urig" <daryl@> wrote: > > > > Rupert, thanks for comments. > > > > With flash you can add navigation buttons if you want to have a > little more than a video, > > you can have an interactive video. Also, with flash you can save > out a quicktime and still > > have some of the navigation capabilaties. > > > > Coming from a flash perspective, as I am, what kind of file formats > would you make > > available on your vblog site to keep the most viewers happy? > > > > I am working on a mac so would probably use Imovie to to video > editing, and also have pc > > accessability. > > > > Daryl > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
