| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
New Xbox TV Site (Using Windows Media 9 & .NET) | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
I thought you might be interested in a sweet new site that just launched showcasing Windows Media 9 Series: Xbox.com’s, “Xbox TV.” All trailers are now in Windows Media 9 for better quality video, hosted on .Net servers for fast streaming for broadband users and more importantly, 3 NEW videos are up:
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 321 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:04:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/8/2003 3:39:33 AM |
|
1) Applications that are part of the operating system are parts of the operating system. They don't get uninstalled. I hope you weren't expecting Windows Media Player 9 to be ininstallable.
2) The release of Windows Media Player 9, Windows Movie Maker, and Plus! Digital Media Edition are more likely associated with the CES than a snub to MacWorld. 3) Um, ActiveMac should have MacWorld news. ActiveWin should have Windows news. 4) "Halo 2 – It’s a new Photo Story created with Plus! Digital Media Edition, based on new high-res images of the trailer and ends with some concept art previously only in limited release. " If Bob Stein is correct, then, no in answer to your question. |
| #2 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/8/2003 5:41:32 AM |
|
1) Since Win 3.1 IIRC Windows Media Player has shipped with the OS. At the very least with Windows XP Windows Media Player 8 was a non removable OS component. If a given OS component is non removable, I wouldn't expect an upgraded non removable OS component to be removable.
2) CES and the January MacWorld have competed against each other for quite a while. Both companies release new applications to coincide with the events. Microsoft releasing its offerings this week is no different from Apple release iSync last week. IMO. 3) Well, at the very least bitter discussion. :-) 4) I know. Happy New Year to you too! |
| #3 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/8/2003 9:58:41 AM |
|
#3
About question # 1: Windows XP Professional bundled Windows Media Player 8 which was not available in the Add/Remove Programs dialog box, but is available for removal via the Add/Remove Windows Components dialog box. So integrating Windows Media 9 into Windows XP without an uninstall feature comes as no surprise. At least Microsoft tells you this BEFORE you install it. |
| #4 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 1/8/2003 10:05:19 AM |
|
Was there anything at MacWorld worth mentioning? Those new laptops aren't particularly interesting. I mean the 17" model STARTS at $3300. Is this 1999 again? Because thats the last time I remember having the willingness to spend over $3K on a new computer. Jeez!
And so Apple announced a new browser. Am I in a time warp? Again, this feels like the mid to late 1990s. It appears that Apple is all-but-certain that MSFT is going to stop selling to the apple-ites. There's no other reasonable explanation for their building Safari. And didn't they try this before, calling it CyberDog? |
| #5 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/8/2003 10:45:00 AM |
|
I was just playin' with .NET Server 2003 RC2 and Windows Media Services and man, it's really cool. They've changed the whole admin interface around. It's very impressive.
I set up a live video encoding feed from my main computer & digital camera and had my server stream the feed. It took about 20 mouse clicks total. Two simple wizard interfaces. |
| #6 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/8/2003 2:01:04 PM |
|
I love that logic. WMP is part of the OS because you can't remove it. You can't remove WMP because it is part of the OS. :-) ?
Huh? Am I the only person here who looks forward to seeing the Mac World keynote? "most" likely, when you visit a WINDOWS (ActiveWin) site, that would be the Majority of reasoning. Microsoft's solution: tell people to use MSN8 and charge them $20 a month. Huh? You can do this in IE and have been able to for years. Learn how to set your security features. I have no popup blocker add on, and I still receive ZERO popups when using IE and setting my security settings properly. Apple JUST figured out how to block them? <sigh> Page loads are 40% faster using the new Apple browser. How is that? Hopefully this will encourage MS to optimize their renderer Well, IE renders better than any competing product on the market right now. So I would say probably not. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 4:31:55 PM |
|
First off, I agree that this site should focus on Microsoft and Windows, but I thought I would address a few things. (Wasn't this discussion about the XBox or something? I guess no one cares about that.)
Yes, the announcements are probably related to MacWorld--last MacWorld MS blitzed the media with tons of PRs, and the strategy at the time was known. Supposedly CES is supposed to be the big SPOT coming out party--has anyone heard a whimper about SPOT? I thought so. Does MS have any WM9 specific devices and is it their big push right now at CES? No. baarod, completely wrong, but we've been through this. As I said in the past, not only is there substantial work to be done to bring tech to the Mac and to integrate it, but Apple added substantial work to KHTML and KJS. See: http://lists.kde.org/?l=kfm-devel&m=104196912316326&w=2 Don't know your experience with KHTML, but Apple contributed substantial improvements to its rendering so it should be improved in short time--thank OS and Apple, for that development. I find a few sites with quirks using Safari, but I did a comparison and found Safari was much, much better than Konqueror at rendering the same pages. kevinmook, yes you are missing something. Yes, these are free apps, but they are new versions which provide greater integration (iTunes is the only app that was not updated--it's earlier release anticipated the integration.) So, there are improvements that integrate the apps together plus new features are added in each app, plus new .mac integration as well. Brian, page loads are faster because IE for the Mac is dead slow. That's how. Jobs was comparing the apps with Mac versions of browsers. Chimera is a great and highly optimized browser, but this development brings further speed. Despite IE's dominance in the Wintel world, the version of IE for OS X is the worst X app I have ever used. For the others, saying I won't use it--I presume so--it will ony be available on the Mac. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 5:47:58 PM |
|
For further reference on Safari standards compatibility, check this link out:
http://www.macedition.com/cb/resources/macbrowsercsssupport.html This is limited to CSS support, but shows that Safari is already kicking all the other browsers's @sses when it comes to CSS. |
| #9 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 1/8/2003 6:08:40 PM |
|
JWM, i agree the hardware is cool, but $3300 for starters? That means anything that you or I would likely buy would be in the $3600-$3700 range. No way. I pass. And my gut tells me that they aren't going to have a big audience for this.
And to tie it back to the the heading for this board (xbox)... Do you realize you can buy an XBox, and XBox LIVE account and SIXTY ONE games for the same price as the entry point for this laptop. Relevent? No. Interesting thought? Up to you. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 6:16:26 PM |
|
Not that it's relevent because we know how you feel, mooresa, but you are talking about $500 more than the previous top selling and wildly popular PowerBook and includes the larger monitor/larger rez, better graphics card, built-in 802.11g and network card, FireWire 800, Bluetooth, improved range for both wireless standards, better battery, smaller form factor (thickness), and the new glowing keyboard technology. This will do just fine!
This doesn't mention all of the features of the $2800 model of course... (i.e half a Gig of RAM, Gigabit Ethernet, SuperDrive, etc...) What else would you be adding that would bump it up another 3 or 4 hundred dollars, I wonder? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 at 18:41. |
| #11 By 37 (24.196.75.142) at 1/8/2003 6:49:05 PM |
|
"Brian, page loads are faster because IE for the Mac is dead slow. That's how. Jobs was comparing the apps with Mac versions of browsers. Chimera is a great and highly optimized browser, but this development brings further speed. Despite IE's dominance in the Wintel world, the version of IE for OS X is the worst X app I have ever used."
Soda, I know for a fact that the IE browser in Mac is NOT as fast or powerful as the Windows version. Having the browser bundled into Windows is an ace in the hole for MS. However, not having the ability to dig that deep into the Mac OS leaves a bit to be desired on the performance stand point of IE for MAC. However, we do have a Mac OS X at each of our print shops running IE of course, and I have not found it "dead" slow. It surely doesn't compare with my Windows platforms as you mentioned. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 7:00:26 PM |
|
Well, we'll have to disagree, Brian. IE is slower than Chimera, Mozilla, Opera, and now Safari on my machine. Not only that it is extremely buggy--frequently crashes, times out too easily, has poor page display--i.e. display bleeding when scrolling or not displaying the page until it has been scrolled and "scrubbed", and I could mention a host of other problems. Also, it doesn't implement text anti-aliasing properly and scrolling is horrendous. I run into the beachball with IE more often than any other application, nevermind browser.
I disagree with your rationale anyway--IE on Mac OS 9 was quite fast and stable--apparently MS had enough insight into the system under the previous OS to create a quality app. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 8:24:43 PM |
| JWM, I think we got a fair bit of Mac talk in, huh? And how 'bout that Yao, Mini-Me commercial? |
| #14 By 37 (24.196.75.142) at 1/9/2003 7:30:52 AM |
|
Sodajerk,
Well, of course you can "disagree" all you want, but that doesn't dispute the facts that I have found in my experiences as well as others. On my machine, I have found IE faster than Opera, Mozilla and Chimera. I have not yet touched Safari. I have found that Mozilla is substanially buggy and slow. Opera appears to be quite a bit less buggy than Mozilla, but it's still poor in performance and startup. IE doesn't give me crashes, time outs nor does it have a poor page display. Bleeding while scrolling or not displaying a page until it has been scrolled out can be an issue with the video driver, page coding properties or even a third party add on. Myself along with many others don't seem to experience the same problem you have developed. And that is the same for all versions of IE that I have used since IE 4 (in fact I still have a machine here connected to the internet with IE 3! that doesn't have that problem. As far as anti-aliasing, I found it superior to Mozilla in all accounts....with Opera keeping pretty close tabs to IE. IE on MAC OS 9 was buggy, slow to load, and many times failed to render a page without a refresh 3-4 times...including the google page! That is what encouraged me to upgrade my OS to X and run IE, which runs slower than my Windows branded, but it's been very stable. So like I said, you can "disagree" all you want, but that doesn't change my experiences as well as many others. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 12:48:57 PM |
|
Brian, I don't buy this at all now.
For one, there are reliable benchmarks (not from Apple) that show the speed differences between Chimera and IE to be significant. The bleeding is completely unrelated to video drivers, page coding, and third party add ons: how do I know--it only happens with IE and it happens on most sites. But most of all this nonsense about IE 3 and 4... Are you talking about the Mac? Because ou claim it was buggy on 9, but better on X? Are you kidding. Most web professionals agreed that IE 5 for OS 9 was superior to IE 5 on Windows. |
| #16 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/9/2003 2:17:23 PM |
|
ROFL...good thing I wasn't selling anything then!
Wow, and to think I actually thought you 'might' have known what you were talking about. For one, there are reliable benchmarks (not from Micrsosoft) that show the speed differences between Chimera and IE to be significant...in IE's advantage (most benchmarks however compare Opera and Mozilla to IE with IE in the lead). The bleeding is 100% related to video drivers, page coding or third party addons. How do I know---I have been using IE for years and years and I have never experienced this. Not to mention hundreds of people I know personally that have not experienced your claim. IE 3 and 4 for Windows...um, you better do some research on IE 3 for the MAC...lol! *most web professionals? Fabrication is not your strong suit. Don't quit your day job. IE 5 for OS 9 was essentially a flop. Most web professionals agree that IE for Windows is superior to Macs. I get the sneaking suspicion that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your flippant attitude without proof in the pudding is not very flattering to say the least. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 2:38:53 PM |
|
Brian, I hardly beleive you use a Mac. Video drivers? I'm talking about using IE for X on PowerMacs, iMacs, POwerBooks, and iBooks, dumb ass. I've seen it happen on all of them.
You've got one Mac in your print shop, but you know hundreds of friends running OS X? Not only that you have either used their machines or askied them this question? Uh, huh--I don't beleive you. You are suggesting that IE 3 is better than IE 5 (and you are still using that old piece of crap--you sure the Mac isn't running OS 8?) IE 5 a flop? It was the most standards compliant browser in the field. The MacBU touted its superior standards over the WIndows version. IE the best performing browser on an OS X Mac? Please--have you even been to a Mac discussion site. I know about 30 active OS X users that I speak with on a frequent basis... I think about 4 of them are running IE as their main browser, the rest of us hate it. |
| #18 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/9/2003 2:58:31 PM |
|
Ok SJ, I better slooooooooooooooooowwwww D O W N for you.
1. You can believe or NOT believe all you want. Sure won't hurt my feelings. Nor will it negate the fact that we have a Mac at each of our printshops that we own. Even YOU should be smart enough to understand that having a printshop WITHOUT a Mac is a gimme for closing your doors. But, I will chalk that up to you just not paying a whole lot of attention to these posts. 2. Dumbass? Is that more of your intellect? Do you kiss your mom with that mouth? I too am talking about iBooks, Powerbooks, Powermacs, iMacs as well as Windows. What page are you on? Hint, we are on chapter 2 page 3. HTH 3. Um, I never once said IE 3 was any good at all! I see that you are mincing words. That means again, you need to slow down, take a deep breath, and think before you post. Are you even READING what you write? 4. Yes, IE 5 on the Mac OS9 was a flop. However, I can't argue about it being the most standards compliant browser at the time! However, acknowledging that **MacBU** gave it a better rating than Windows would come as no surprise. Did you know that Slashdot.org says that the Linux Kernel is superior to Windows? ROFL! 5. Have I been to a Mac Disscussion site? You mean the 12 or so that I have bookmarked in my favorites folder? Nahhhhhhhh. 6. I never said I had hundreds of "FRIENDS" that run Mac OS X. I said I know of hundreds of "people" personally, most of which are in the printing industry...in the US and outside of the US. It would behoove you to NOT lie. 7. The "rest of us" hate it? Do you have a link? One more time....sit down...relax your legs...your arms...take a deep breath....s l o w... |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 3:08:08 PM |
|
"I never said I had hundreds of "FRIENDS" that run Mac OS X"
My claim about IE is for IE on OS X, Brian. You said: "Not to mention hundreds of people I know personally that have not experienced your claim." "The "rest of us" hate it? Do you have a link?" A link to my friends and their opinions? No, we talk to each other, not post our opinions on a page. |
| #20 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/9/2003 3:17:07 PM |
|
Finally SJ, you are catching on.
We talk to each other. So now that we both have opposite stories based on personal LIVE feedback not from a PAGE, what have we accomplished? Other than learning from each other, the only thing I noticed is that you like to call people names to make you feel better about yourself. Do you think it's necessary to call people morons and dumbass'? I would bet the clothes on my back that if you were face to face with these people, you would NOT call them such names. You hide behind a fake screen name calling people names. How is it that you feel superior to others by calling them names? Please do fill me in. |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 4:29:01 PM |
|
I'm catching on? I told you that I am in close communication with about 30 X users and only a few use IE. You said you know hundreds of people who have never experienced this problem before even though you still don't understand that I'm talking about the X version.
Trust me, I'd call you a dumb@ss to your face. |
| #22 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 5:25:01 PM |
| Great, Jagged, you know how much your opinion matters to me. And you're the only one I know here living at home with Mom. Which reminds me, say hello for me. |
| #23 By 37 (24.196.75.142) at 1/9/2003 6:35:45 PM |
|
LOL @ SJ!
You can't be serious? 1759 posts later and this is the best you can do? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 321 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:04:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
