Devices and Mac OS X version. VLC media player requires Mac OS X 10.7.5 or later. It runs on any 64bit Intel-based Mac. Previous devices are supported by older releases. Note that the first generation of Intel-based Macs equipped with Core Solo or Core Duo processors is no longer supported.
![]() ![]()
I've already downloaded and installed this and it is without a doubt one of the worse releases of a piece of software I've seen. In the past my copy of Media Player would at least run some of the videos that QuickTime wouldn't, now nothing. I've tried running every WMV file I could get my hands on and none of them play. It seems that Microsoft has chosen to go with less functionality, not more.It's an interesting move for Microsoft, especially after the release of iTunes for Windows. Apple is doing it's best to convert Microsoft users by offering them incredible software.
Microsoft is offering Mac users shitty knockoffs of Windows software.I'm guessing this is a gambit to make Mac users realize they can't have the cross-platform operability that OSX seemed to bring about, that if they want to use Windows files they should run Windows. Ultimately I think the frustration that people will feel towards the new Media Player will cause even more resentment towards Microsoft. Apple's attitude that you lure more flies with Aqua than you do with water is definately the winning strategy.If you don't already know (and chances are if you're reading Slashdot you do), you should be using videolan.org. It does everything this crappy Windows port does and more. For me, this version (9) plays audio on some movies that were previously silent, slashdot.org.The parent in this thread was asking about 6.3, available only for Classic. The installer left my Classic version of Windows Media Player 7 alone, so I can't imagine it effecting 6.3. Yes, after the install WiMP 7 for OS X disappeared, but that was the point wasn't it?
I never followed the debate about 6.3 having advantages over 7.1, so I can't comment there.As has been pointed out by others, the microsoft.com site. Apple is doing it's best to convert Microsoft users by offering them incredible software. Microsoft is offering Mac users shitty knockoffs of Windows software.Oh come on, even as a happy OS X user I have to say that this bit is slanted. ITunes for Windows doesn't follow any of the guidelines for Windows software - it is, to use (some of) your phraseology, a knockoff of Mac software. Not integrated into the Windows look and feel at all.So Microsoft made similar decisions for their media player under OS.
Actually I tend to agree with the previous poster.I've installed it and I cannot even seem to play an AVI. Ok, let's see. Integration with look and feel: iTunes for windows has ALL the functionality that the Mac version has. It is not a crippled product.WiMP for Mac on the other hand does not play the same files as WiMP for Windows. It does not have the visulisations, library support, options, enhancements (audio/video. Not UI), it's UI is sucky. All the things that make WiMP for Windows a killer app is not present in the Mac version!Argh!I love WiMP for Windows (Check out the Media Player Classic project on Sourceforge!) I love iTunes (even for Windows).
But as excited as I were about WiMP9 for Mac. A real disapointment!I do not think I'm biased. I love MS for Games/Video, Mac for Mail/Web/Music/Work and Linux for Programming. Windows does not have a free development environment. Windows does not have ease of use.
I really don't care if Windows have more software than Mac if I do not need that software.I basically use something if I have a need for it. I never owned a Mac until recently.
And I was quite impressed. As a person who has used AmigaOS/Linux/BSD/Windows/OS2 and many other OSes, I have no real loyalty.
Each one of the have their plusses and negatives. It just seems that OSX has more plusses these days.;). ITunes for windows has ALL the functionality that the Mac version has. It is not a crippled product.Almost true, but it's got the exactly the same problems as Quicktime for Windows, mainly that it doesn't behave like a normal win32 app.Firstly, it's got a shiny metal skinned interface which goes again the Windows interface guidelines. Pretty it may be, but it doesn't look like a normal app.More importantly, click on the maximise button and it.
Doesn't maximise. Double-click on the title bar. I do not really expect any products to hold to the interface design guidelines of the destination OS. It would be cool, but it's not ideal. The biggest thing that bugs me about iTunes for windows is that it does not minimize when I double click on the titlebar. (used to iTunes on OSX)Other than that it's just the tray icon which could have been done better.
They did not remove anything though.PS: CDex rocks. Been using it for ages. I just find that iTunes does exactly the same as CDex with a lot of co.
It's basically a killer-app version of MP 6.4 with plug-in support to play realmedia (with subtitles!) and quicktime. It's awesome.
Check it out!Thanks for that, will go take a look:)Only one problem with CDex: it doesn't do AAC encoding very well, requiring external encoders, and they're not that good apparently - the PsyTel one is the better of the two but not as good as the encoder that comes with Nero (which is by the guy that coded PsyTel), or the Quicktime/iTunes one (according to the posts. I haven't heard bad things about that, yet.Bad Thing:Crashes most every day that I use it. It's on my short list of software I plan on replacing.Another Bad Thing:Office X will be obsolete as soon as the DRM'd Office '03 files start making the rounds.
And since Office X was the last version of Office for Mac, there won't be any (legal?) way to read those new files without running a copy of Windows (either using MS Virtual PC, remotely logging into a Wintel box, or physically using a Wi. I think you misunderstood the point of the parent poster. He wasn't complaining that the new version didn't integrate with the Mac look-and-feel. In fact, that's Microsoft's selling point - that it features that nifty brushed-steel appearance.View the software on its merits.
It might still fail, but at least you'll have tried the correct approach.I'm not sure what you mean by trying the 'correct approach' here but if I'm judging a piece of software, I generally judge it by what it can do. Unless the p. I'm not sure what you mean by trying the 'correct approach' here but if I'm judging a piece of software, I generally judge it by what it can do.Which was my point, yes.
The parent poster dismisses WMP's ignoring of Mac interface standards with the comment that it is 'just a Windows knock-off' whilst simultaneously calling iTunes ignoring of Windows standards 'great software'. That's double standards, to me.Now a number of people replying to my post have talked about functionality - that's not the point.
|
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |