Poll: Which Media Player would you Choose?

[Nic]

As many of you are already aware, the European Commission ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows without the Media Player to allow rival makers like RealNetworks Inc. a better shot at landing on consumers' desktops.

This poll is aimed at finding out what consumers really want, so feel free to vote and post any comments you may have regarding WMP (Windows Media Player) being supplied with Windows OS.

Please cast your votes...

Check out this thread for more info on the subject...

Microsoft ready to comply if appeal is lost

 

[Didou]

No media player for me. I'll put Media Player Classic (not the MS software, this one) + Winamp thank you very much.

& BTW, Media Player Classic can read RealPlayer & Quicktime formats.

 

[Nodsu]

Where is the option for "Other" media players? Or one for sevaral media players so I can choose one that I like without installing anything?

And the poll isn't impartial because one may get the impression that QuickTime and RealPlayer wouldn't be free.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by Nodsu
And the poll isn't impartial because one may get the impression that QuickTime and RealPlayer wouldn't be free.

Only the stripped down and basic versions of QuickTime and RealPlayer are free. WMP is a fully functional and fully complete media player and it is also free. It doesn't come with spyware/adware, unlike RealPlayer, and neither does it constantly pop up reminders asking users to upgrade to the 'Pro' version. WMP does exactly what most users want, and it does this without constantly interfering with users (unlike the other two players mentioned).

Other than FREE open-source alternatives, any other software vendor would be looking for a return on investment, so you can expect to be bombarded with special offers and other marketing nonsence if you had one of their media players installed. Alternatively, they may choose to sell their players to you, and so you can avoid getting adware/spyware supplied with them. However, you would face an upfront cost to purchase their players and an ongoing cost to upgrade to newer versions. Any takers?

 

[agissi]

what about all the generic families out there that dont know how to go get a new media player, or their own, or dont want to buy one?

if one wasnt included, more sh!t would hit the fan.

 

[Nodsu]

Originally posted by Nic
Only the stripped down and basic versions of QuickTime and RealPlayer are free. WMP is a fully functional and fully complete media player and it is also free. It doesn't come with spyware/adware, unlike RealPlayer, and neither does it constantly pop up reminders asking users to upgrade to the 'Pro' version. WMP does exactly what most users want, and it does this without constantly interfering with users (unlike the other two players mentioned).

Other than FREE open-source alternatives, any other software vendor would be looking for a return on investment, so you can expect to be bombarded with special offers and other marketing nonsence if you had one of their media players installed. Alternatively, they may choose to sell their players to you, and so you can avoid getting adware/spyware supplied with them. However, you would face an upfront cost to purchase their players and an ongoing cost to upgrade to newer versions. Any takers?

How do you know what kind of Real and QT versions would be supplied with the Euro XP? And there are players besides those mentioned.

Do you see any marketing BS or pro version ads with Mozilla?
And Winamp manages to do without any nagging either. And what is it with WMP kindly sending info about all my played content to god knows where unless i specifically turn it off?

 

[acidosmosis]

Allow RealPlayer a better shot... uh. To put it bluntly "the hell with that!". RealPlayer is the most annoying, intrusive software I can think of at the moment up there with popups. Except popups have no real use. RealPlayer is supposed to be useful but in my opinion it becomes more annoying than anything. I for one would be a bit pissed if RealPlayer got installed with Windows and I have NO problem with Media Player being installed with Windows. Doesn't bother me one bit, and besides you have the option of what you want to use. It's not like your forced to use MediaPlayer. Install a different player, let it change the associations, or change them yourself and you have no problem. Or just right click and Open With. Simple.

 

[Nic]

Nodsu> So how come you didn't vote to have RealPlayer or Quicktime in place of WMP?

Open-source projects are fine with me, because they are free and the developers don't look for a return on investment. They see themselves as contributing to the community and rely mainly on donations to fund their work. They don't care much about WMP being supplied with Windows since they don't make any money for supplying their players.

This anti-trust case is being driven by RealNetworks and Apple, who would like to make some money out of windows users if they can. They aren't going to place the user first, but will work out ways to maximise their return on any investment they make. They are the ones that are fighting to have WMP removed from windows. They can keep their players, thank you very much. I'll stick with WMP.

 

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Let's just all use whatever comes with Windows by default. That's the best for us. Let's not complicate things by having more than one option for applications. In fact, it would be much better for us if the computer decided for us where do we want to go today. Competition just hurts innovation. Resistance is futile. I'm tired of this.

 

[Nic]

Mict> A default media player has been supplied with windows for a very long time now, and it hasn't hurt innovation. It doesn't take away user choice either, because we can still go out and install other players. Didou has Winamp and Media Player Classic, I have Quicktime, MusicMatch, and PowerDVD. WMP hasn't changed a thing for us. It hasn't reduced choice in any way. Why don't we go all the way and supply windows as a set of modules, and let users build their own custom version?

Incidentaly, its not that we don't like alternatives, just that there would be a cost of some kind (purchase cost, spyware, adware, subsciption services, nags to upgrade, etc.) associated with them. This is something we don't get with WMP, so why would we want to change?

 

[MYOB]

I use VLC on all platforms. No DRM, no licence fees, no need for a CSS decoder.

 

[TS | Thomas]

Foobar

 

[young&wild]

Foobar2000

 

[smtkr]

I like Windows Media Player 6.4 (mplayer2.exe), but I don't like these new iterarions of WMP.

 

[Phantasm66]

Include it pre-installed, or give me the ability to select it for installation during OS install, also make it removable through Add/Remove programs.

But don't take it away - its a good media player! Version 10 is good I think.

 

[LNCPapa]

I love WMP 10 - no matter what anyone has to say about it. The program works very well for me. I do use other media players as well. I use iTunes for my MP3 file management and watch my DVDs with PowerDVD. I refuse to install anything from REAL and regret having to install Quicktime for newer quicktime format videos. I don't think WMPClassic can play version 6 quicktime files, but I may be wrong. All that is for the windows side...

On the Mac side I love Quicktime - course it would work well with their platform - they made the thing! I also use the integrated DVD player to watch movies. I use VLC to watch many other vidoes (VCD, SVCD, etc) on the Mac.

On linux I just really use Xine. It's not because I think it's perfect... it's because I don't have a lot of experience with many linux media players.

On Slowaris I don't watch videos or listen to audio. I don't even have speakers hooked up to either of my SUN boxes.

 

[me(who else?)]

Where's the option to burn the Windows CDs and assasinate Bill Gates? :evil: